Skip to main content

View Diary: Why is "touching Social Security" in any manner a bad thing? (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you're right... (0+ / 0-)

    ...many people are assuming that any changes to Social Security will be bad (probably because most of the proposed changes to Social Security over the past ten years or so have been not only bad, but atrociously bad).

    There are even folks on this site who deny that changes to Social Security are even necessary.

    Social Security, according to most experts, is solvent for quiet a while.

    The best thing we progressives could do would be to come to an agreement as to what changes are acceptable when changes are necessary to ensure the solvency of the program.

    To my way of thinking, there are two changes that we should be fighting for, neither of which harm those who rely on Social Security income for their very survival:
    a) Raise the cap on income that Social Security's taken out on (or, better yet, eliminate that cap altogether; currently, if memory serves correctly, it's about $106,000(?)). That means that all money earned by an individual above not paying into the system.
    b) Means test the program even further (reduce benefits for those earning more than a million dollars of income per year, for instance).

    Those two changes alone would make the program solvent well into the next century, without harming benefits for those who rely on it the most.

    •  NO MEANS TESTING (6+ / 0-)

      SS isn't welfare it's insurance -- everybody pays their premiums, everybody collects their benefits. If you means test, you turn it into welfare, and if you think the Republicans are trying to destroy it now, they'll succeed eventually if means testing is allowed.

      •  that's the argument that (0+ / 0-)

        people have made since its inception. It seems like a specious argument to me. Social Security would still be an insurance policy, but with benefits reduced for those earning more than $1 million a year, which sounds very reasonable and fair. Everyone who has contributed into the program will still be benefiting.

        Republicans will not be able to get away with calling Social Security when the overwhelming majority of people receiving it will have...paid for those benefits themselves.

      •  Quite a number of Dems support (0+ / 0-)

        means-testing Social Security and/or Medicare.

        Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (SC) is one.  I'll post a video of him doing so, at a later date.  [Don't have time to locate it, tonight.]

        Now, I don't support any of the three major cuts proposed by the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission.  

        My guess (and concern) is that the Administration will implement:  1) Chained CPI, 2) Means-Testing, and probably 3) Raise the FRA (Full Retirement Age) before the next presidential election rolls around.  And probably pass the legislation, before the mid-term elections.

        Bear in mind, the Administration, via President Obama's Chief-of-Staff, Jack Lew, has endorsed "the six pillars" of the Fiscal Commission's proposal, entitled The Moment Of Truth.

        Here's the link to The Moment Of Truth.  Please read it.

        [I no longer have access to the Financial Times video with Jack Lew and a reporter, since my subscription has lapsed.]

        Anyway, those of us who don't want to see draconian cuts to the social insurance programs, 'have our work cut out for us.'

        We need to keep the phone lines to the White House and Capitol Hill lit up for the next several months.  Don't you think?


        “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

        by musiccitymollie on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 07:24:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site