The Democrat Thread

[lostfan]

There will be a time within the next two or three decades where the program pays out more than it's taking in through taxes. That is NOT the same thing as insolvency. But of all things to fix this has got to be the easiest. It'd take a couple of senators 20 minutes to write a bill.

[Balta1701]

There will be a time within the next two or three decades where the program pays out more than it's taking in through taxes. But of all things to fix this has got to be the easiest. It'd take a couple of senators 20 minutes to write a bill.

That already happened for a couple years around the peak of the collapse. I'm not sure if it's recovered on the positive side or not, but it's supposed to start drawing on the trust fund later this decade.

 

That, of course, is exactly what the trust fund was created to do; have the baby boom pay extra early so that there was a trust fund in existence when their retirement came along.

[StrangeSox]

There will be a time within the next two or three decades where the program pays out more than it's taking in through taxes. That is NOT the same thing as insolvency. But of all things to fix this has got to be the easiest. It'd take a couple of senators 20 minutes to write a bill.

 

I think we're at that point now or we'll hit it in the near future, but that was planned as part of the 80's reform. Taxes for higher earners were lowered while regressive payroll taxes were raised to build up the trust fund. Now that they've enjoyed decades of lower taxes, they want to renege on the deal, keeping their taxes low and cutting social security.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/deal

 

 

In 1983, when we last reformed Social Security, we made an implicit deal between two groups of American taxpayers. Call them Groups A and B. For about 30 years, Group A would pay higher taxes than necessary, thus allowing Group B to reduce their tax rates. Then, for about 30 years after that, Group A would pay lower taxes than necessary and Group B would make up for this with higher tax rates.

 

This might have been a squirrelly deal to make. But it doesn't matter. It's the deal we made. And it's obviously unfair to change it halfway through.

 

So who is Group A? It's people who pay Social Security payroll taxes, which mostly means working and middle class taxpayers. And who is Group B? It's people who pay federal income taxes, which mostly means the well-off and the rich. For nearly 30 years, Group A has been overpaying payroll taxes, and that's allowed the government to lower income tax rates. The implicit promise of the 1983 deal is that sometime in the next few years, this is going to flip. Group A will begin underpaying payroll taxes, and the rich, who have reaped the benefits of their overpayment for 30 years, will make good on their half of the deal by paying higher income tax rates to make up the difference.

 

The physical embodiment of this deal is the Social Security trust fund. Group A overpaid and built up a pile of bonds in the trust fund. Those bonds are a promise by Group B to repay the money. That promise is going to start coming due in a few years, and it's hardly surprising that Group B isn't as excited about the deal now as it was in 1983. It's never as much fun paying off a loan as it is to spend the money in the first place.

 

But pay it off they must. The rich have been getting a loan from the middle class for decades, and the loan papers are the Social Security trust fund bonds that George W. Bush is admiring in the photograph above. Anybody who claims the trust fund is a myth is basically saying it's OK for the rich to renege on that loan.

 

But surely no one would ever say such a thing. Right?

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/08/deal

[Jake]

 

More facebook fun posted above. I KNOW not all conservatives are like this, but damn some of the hot garbage that my conservative friends and relatives post on facebook makes me fearful for what is happening out there. I'm convinced that whatever liberal garbage that exists is not as bad as this.

 

There are a lot of misconceptions about Social Security out there, and repeated enough over time, they've become accepted facts. And they'll bang this drum until they convince every last young voter that Social Security will be gone before they're eligible for it. It won't be long now, as soon as the boomers step aside, they'll have convinced every young idiot out there that social security needs drastic reforms, and that you should trust them with these reforms since the alternative is never collecting anyway. And that's how they'll get their hands on that money. It's not insolvent, and won't be for many many years, over which that insolvency can be fixed quite easily. The problem is, they don't want to fix it, because they want to be able to invest that money the same way they "invested" the pensions.

 

I know, I'm crazy.

 

An academic I really respect was telling me all this doom and gloom stuff about SS and Medicare and I took it at face value for a while. Obviously, there is some doom and gloom to Medicare I suppose -- at least there is an argument. I just remember the first time I decided to go look at exactly how SS works and why it is that someone might say it is increasing the deficit or might disappear and I was really just flabbergasted that somebody would come to that conclusion.

 

You might say you don't like the government providing that service, but you can't say it harms the deficit or that it should go insolvent in the near future or ever.

[Y2HH]

 

More facebook fun posted above. I KNOW not all conservatives are like this, but damn some of the hot garbage that my conservative friends and relatives post on facebook makes me fearful for what is happening out there. I'm convinced that whatever liberal garbage that exists is not as bad as this.

 

 

 

An academic I really respect was telling me all this doom and gloom stuff about SS and Medicare and I took it at face value for a while. Obviously, there is some doom and gloom to Medicare I suppose -- at least there is an argument. I just remember the first time I decided to go look at exactly how SS works and why it is that someone might say it is increasing the deficit or might disappear and I was really just flabbergasted that somebody would come to that conclusion.

 

You might say you don't like the government providing that service, but you can't say it harms the deficit or that it should go insolvent in the near future or ever.

 

This pretty much captures my thinking when it comes to pensions, social security, and/or other benefits.

 

Edited April 5, 2013 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Ugh, I have little doubt that Obama whole-heartily embraces the idea of cutting entitlements, harming those with the least among us, as part of a 'Grand Bargain,' not that he's doing so reluctantly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/socia...witter&_r=0

"If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes."

Boehner. .

[StrangeSox]

totally predictable.

[lostfan]

Boehner is in the most awkward position of anyone in government. Half the things he says, he doesn't really mean or believe, but he says them because he needs to.

[Balta1701]

Boehner is in the most awkward position of anyone in government. Half the things he says, he doesn't really mean or believe, but he says them because he needs to.

I for one can't wait until he leads them to 10 extra house seats in 2014 under the banner of stopping Obama's cuts to Social Security.

 

And there is zero sarcasm in this post.

[lostfan]

I for one can't wait until he leads them to 10 extra house seats in 2014 under the banner of stopping Obama's cuts to Social Security.

 

And there is zero sarcasm in this post.

Irony of course being, a Romney administration pushing the Ryan budget and with a GOP-controlled Senate (or one with a significantly weakened Dem majority) would've done much more than that... not that they would even realize that when they're voting

[pettie4sox]

Irony of course being, a Romney administration pushing the Ryan budget and with a GOP-controlled Senate (or one with a significantly weakened Dem majority) would've done much more than that... not that they would even realize that when they're voting

 

Part of me would have enjoyed seeing all of the idiots who voted for Romney getting fleeced. Most of his of his plans would benefit his rich buddies and screw them. My god are people so partisan that they are practically brain dead.

 

Sad world.

Edited April 5, 2013 by pettie4sox

[Jenksismyhero]

Part of me would have enjoyed seeing all of the idiots who voted for Romney getting fleeced when all of his plans would benefit his rich buddies and screw them. My god are people so partisan that they are practically brain dead.

 

Because the Democrats in power the last 20 years have been so different.

[StrangeSox]

I for one can't wait until he leads them to 10 extra house seats in 2014 under the banner of stopping Obama's cuts to Social Security.

 

And there is zero sarcasm in this post.

 

Obama is the dumbest man in the country right now for taking up their cause. I guess he doesn't remember all the way back to last year when they kept attacking him for cutting Medicare (even though they had identical cuts in their proposals and wanted more). At least in that case, it didn't work, but things are different in off-year elections.

 

Speaking of which, don't forget to vote in local elections this coming Tuesday.

[pettie4sox]

Because the Democrats in power the last 20 years have been so different.

 

They have been just as s***ty. Republicans are just not subtle about it.

[lostfan]

I f***ing hate the false equivalency game

[pettie4sox]

I f***ing hate the false equivalency game

 

Elaborate.

[StrangeSox]

Compare Paul Ryan's budget to anything put out by the Democrats and tell me that they're equally bad/nonsensical.

[lostfan]

Elaborate.

"But Democrats do it too"

"They're all the same"

 

They're not, though... there are fiscally or socially conservative Democrats, and there are weak, cowardly, and/or s***ty Democrats, but they aren't the same thing as Republicans, and for every action Congress takes, Dems aren't equally responsible for something that does or does not happen. Like when people acted like Dems were also at fault for the whole debt ceiling debacle/hostage situation - no, that was wholly cooked up by the Republicans.

[lostfan]

Compare Paul Ryan's budget to anything put out by the Democrats and tell me that they're equally bad/nonsensical.

Bringing me to another point - "Obama doesn't have a budget"

 

Um... this is really dumb for so many reasons, but let's just start with googling "white house budget" to disprove that. But when people say that they mean "Obama doesn't have a budget that I like, the one he has is politically toxic to Republicans for not being exactly like theirs so it doesn't count"

[pettie4sox]

I should elaborate. I know there are differences between Republicans and Democrats but the one thing they have in common is they are friggin' politicians. Of course they have different social and economic views but all in all they are all cut from the same cloth. This is just my opinion. I cannot stand blind partisanship from either aisle. I do believe that most people use their brain and think for themselves but anyone who is a partisan bot just loses all credibitility.

[lostfan]

I should elaborate. I know there are differences between Republicans and Democrats but the one thing they have in common is they are friggin' politicians. Of course they have different social and economic views but all in all they are all cut from the same cloth. This is just my opinion. I cannot stand blind partisanship from either aisle. I do believe that most people use their brain and think for themselves but anyone who is a partisan bot just loses all credibitility.

In that they are all douchebags, yes I agree.

 

This is because of the money in politics, though. If that swamp is not drained it won't ever be any different regardless of who you replace within your party.

 

Dems, at least, pay lip service to this idea (Obama proposed a constitutional amendment, even) and Republicans openly and vehemently oppose it. That right there is as good a reason as any others I have why I'd never support the GOP, as currently constructed.

[Balta1701]

Bringing me to another point - "Obama doesn't have a budget"

 

Um... this is really dumb for so many reasons, but let's just start with googling "white house budget" to disprove that. But when people say that they mean "Obama doesn't have a budget that I like, the one he has is politically toxic to Republicans for not being exactly like theirs so it doesn't count"

Technically his budget for the year hasn't been released though, correct? This set of OASDI cuts is in the budget slated to be released next week.

 

That budget is about 2 months behind schedule. Of course, with the sequestration debacle happening it actually is reasonable to wait to see what Congress does about this year's spending before releasing next year's, but it is actually technically accurate that the White House has yet to release a 2014 budget.

[StrangeSox]

People have been whining about "Obama doesn't have a budget!" and "the Senate hasn't passed a budget in years!" since 2009, though.

[lostfan]

Technically his budget for the year hasn't been released though, correct? This set of OASDI cuts is in the budget slated to be released next week.

 

That budget is about 2 months behind schedule. Of course, with the sequestration debacle happening it actually is reasonable to wait to see what Congress does about this year's spending before releasing next year's, but it is actually technically accurate that the White House has yet to release a 2014 budget.

Which budget, you mean the new FY2014 one? i was referring to every other one up to now

[Balta1701]

Which budget, you mean the new FY2014 one? i was referring to every other one up to now

Yes. Technically his FY 2014 budget was due in February and will be delivered next week, so it has been true for the last 2 months that they have not presented the required budget.

 

I'll buy the "Congress has f***ed everything up and we couldn't put one out until they gave us a CR covering 2013" excuse, but it remains factually true nonetheless.