Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gang of Six More Concerned with Social Security Cuts than Deficit Reduction

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
jtown1123 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:13 PM
Original message
Gang of Six More Concerned with Social Security Cuts than Deficit Reduction
Benefits Cuts for Middle-Class America + More Tax Cuts for the Wealthy…Sound Fair and Balanced to You?
Entitled to Know Blog

You have to ask yourself…if deficit reduction really is Congress’ true goal then why in the world would lawmakers agree to throw out any future Deficit Reduction package passed by 60 votes (which would be an incredibly hard-fought piece of legislation, especially given this current climate) if a second piece of legislation mandating Social Security reforms does not also pass? In short, the Gang of Six has made cutting Social Security benefits more important than deficit reduction by legislating that any deficit bill will be held hostage for Social Security cuts. So much for the claims made in its executive summary that this proposal will:


“Reform Social Security on a separate track, isolated from deficit reduction”.

Beyond this mandatory Social Security legislation required by the Gang of Six, their plan also calls for immediate cuts in Social Security benefits by changing to a COLA formula designed to cut benefits.

“The plan also includes cuts to Social Security that would be felt in less than six months, and the proposed cuts to Social Security are cumulative. This means that after ten years, a beneficiary in her 70s will see a cut of close to 3 percent. After 20 years, the cuts for beneficiaries in their 80s will be close to 6 percent, while the reduction in annual benefits will be close to 9 percent by the time beneficiaries are in their 90s. For a beneficiary in her 90s living on a Social Security income of $15,000, this means a loss of more $1,200 a year in benefits.” Dean Baker, CEPR

The REST: http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1845
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. Absolutely, Ma'am
The aim of this is simple. The governing elite, whether in office or in the board-room, wants to welsh on its markers. It is getting to the point where the Treasury bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund will need to be redeemed in cash. To do so, there will need to be either some reduction in spending on other items, or some increase in taxes. Neither politicians nor those who purchase politicians in wholesale lots want to do either thing. What they do want to do is continue to use the regressive pay-roll tax as a principal source of general revenue, as they have in effect been doing with the amounts collected by this levy in excess of immediate pay-outs for many decades. The F.I.C.A. tax already amounts to over a third of taxes collected against income by the Federal government. Keep the F.I.C.A. rates going up, as rates on income and capital gains are cut further for the wealthy, and as benefits for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are reduced, and this proportion will only increase. The aim is to produce a Federal tax system sufficiently regressive as to shock even a medieval cleric.

Any serious plan for putting Federal spending in better balance would focus on raising taxes from the wealthy and reducing war spending. No proposal which does focus on this is a serious proposal for deficit reduction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtown1123 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Its really hard to ask
A pro war President to reduce war spending......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Nothing To Do With Pro-War Or Anti-War, Sir: War Is Simply a Luxury Item We Can No Longer Afford
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Great to see haunting this joint again, my friend.
Your presence is missed and needed.

Please pass on my greetings to SWMBO. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Thank You, Sir
Glad to see you well on the mend and active as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Let's face it
Obama is going to sell us out...he got his, the rest of us don't matter!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. That seems to be his goal, yes.
If he's doing this much harm to us in his first term, imagine what he would do in a second when he has nothing to lose?? :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. But he could lose his come November 2012.
And if this passes, he deserves to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Yup... the Truth is Out... there never was a need to touch SS
just shows what frauds we having running things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. Monstrous and inhuman
Guillotines. We need some. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, jtown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-11 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R
Now all we need is more war and less health care! This is complete bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC