Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Stop it, stop saying Social Security needs reform, you are a Democrat, right? [View all]HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)196. no problem.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
211 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Stop it, stop saying Social Security needs reform, you are a Democrat, right? [View all]
FogerRox
Mar 2013
OP
Alas, I am not on Twitter. But there are other ways to contact the people involved.
CaliforniaPeggy
Mar 2013
#10
We want to blow up twitter and Facebook with these graphics and #HandsOffSocialSecurity #noSScuts SS
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#12
Raising the income cap is a no-brainer. It's so frustrating that we can't even get this simple
Flatulo
Mar 2013
#67
The SS Trust Fund is not part of the General fund. It never was Since it was set up Jan 1 1940
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#34
No. From the beginning of Social Security, any excess SS taxes were borrowed by the federal
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#85
I think that's why he did it too. And not him, really -- Greenspan and his allies. And also to
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#89
that's always been my feeling about the reagan-era changes. there was no reason to jack
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#106
I've posted it here before, without much interest, but I'll look for the post and try again.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#138
i kicked it again and it didn't show up either. weird. i have another op that the same thing
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#194
it's you who's misunderstanding. nothing changed under johnson in the disposition of SS funds.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#84
"how to win an election then abandon the reasons you won - coming soon to amazon nt
msongs
Mar 2013
#5
no. that's not a problem. it's being sold to you as a problem, but it's not.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#92
Currently Ave male 18k, average female 13k, max benefit 30k, I know the numbers by heart
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#64
The people who created the program knew what they were doing. Lifting the cap means
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#93
1937? The Trust Fund was started in 1940. 2037 is total bullshit, an unrealistic prediction
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#27
It's best to study the SS Trustees' reports for oneself, instead of relying on what politicians say.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#96
Actually, it wasn't until around 1985 that the tax was raised to create a cushion
JDPriestly
Mar 2013
#177
Did you make up the 1937 date? Original Law 1935, SS ammedments wet into effect in Jan 1, 1940
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#49
Since there's $3 trillion owed to SS, why do you want to raise the cap and collect even*more* money
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#94
Raise income taxes on capital and let them PAY BACK THE MONEY THEY BORROWED FIRST.
reteachinwi
Mar 2013
#139
create jobs and raise min wage SS is good thru 2090 according to the Trustees 2012 low cost scenario
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#36
A few years ago it was 10 years. I got a flyer in the mail from the Soc Sec Admin.
Honeycombe8
Mar 2013
#188
The ratio of FICA that goes into the 2 funds, (OAS & DI) has been changed in the past.
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#77
The SS Trustees, in their middle forecast, say it will go into the red in 21 years. That's the
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#99
It makes sense that current forecasts would be depressed because of the recession.
Honeycombe8
Mar 2013
#190
yes indeed. one reason why the numbers should be taken with a big grain of salt. as should
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#100
Because in fact, the low-cost forecast has been the most accurate over time. And because
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#101
I think anyone who claims to be able to guess what long-term unemployment will be from 2030 to
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#134
He did it by creating a real estate bubble that almost caused a systemic collapse.
dkf
Mar 2013
#160
" The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate for the future behavior "
dkf
Mar 2013
#51
The pessimistic projections are used by people like you to advocate for SS abolition
duffyduff
Mar 2013
#88
The same is true of investments in the stock market and for the same reason.
JDPriestly
Mar 2013
#63
"We have to raise the minimum wage and the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes."
ProSense
Mar 2013
#105
I'm actually not surprised at your attempt to blur the distinction between LABOR INCOME &
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#109
The cap on income is raised every year. There's a good reason for having a cap, it's the
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#108
this year's cap is $113.7 K. Only wage income has SS taxes taken out, not capital income.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#117
I believe the people who set up SS were wiser than you. The cap exists for a reason, and that
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#122
yes, raising the cap to keep it around 90% is fine by me. I read different accounts in the media
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#128
link? it's a bit unbelievable to me that $215K = 90% of covered income when $250K = top 2%.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#176
The question is, *why* did my hypothetical high earner receive an income tax cut, while
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#123
I don't think we're following each other. At least, i have no idea what you're talking about.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#129
I agree that the Social Security tax should be imposed on all income including
JDPriestly
Mar 2013
#198
I would impose the Social Security tax on all income regardless of the source.
JDPriestly
Mar 2013
#197
IT'll be better after creating 20 million jobs, I think Sir, you bypassed that little tid bit.
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#74
When did anyone other than you, and then as a strawman, say "everything is better the way it is"?
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#90
If people are not working, they sure as hell are not paying in, and Richie Rich knows that. Why do
lonestarnot
Mar 2013
#68
Amen HiPointDem, good to see you in the House. SKinner said yes to my request for
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#81
I'm not on facebook or twitter but if you want me to do something here i'll be happy to.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#111
Bill Gates doesn't pay social security taxes. david rockefeller doesn't pay social security taxes.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#119
I want to know what we are prepared to about it when they come out with their "compromise"?
Egalitarian Thug
Mar 2013
#110
JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#133
If you don't like Iraq, blame Ralph Nader and Ron and Rand Paul.They got the Bush's elected
graham4anything
Mar 2013
#202
2 ways, you can click the facebook logo that says like, found at the bottom of the OP
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#143
Rasie the cap? Hom much- just enough for a COLA, Ok sure. Increasing benefits
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#152
Eliminate the cap completely. There is no logical or moral justification for it.
Romulox
Mar 2013
#156
:~) well okay, Social Security isnt about progressive taxation, its wage insurance.
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#161
Nonsense. If Social Security is "welfare", then the entire government is "welfare".
Romulox
Mar 2013
#165
Onnce more. IF we remove the cap, and then cap benefits, we are means testing SS, yes or no?
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#167
Of course. It's your framing of "welfare" I reject, not the mathematics of the thing.
Romulox
Mar 2013
#172
I appreciate you making shit up, its indicative of your character. Pleasant dreams.
FogerRox
Mar 2013
#169