Skip to main content

View Diary: "Social Security Won't Be There" - The GOP's Desperate Big Lie (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As I have stated before (0+ / 0-)

    whenever this debate heats up and smoke fills the room:

    To keep the corporatists and other "concerned" and "better-informed-than-thee" participants from framing SS as a welfare program:

    Lift the cap; don't eliminate it. Progressively index benefits increases such that ALL beneficiaries have skin in the game.

    It's pretty straightforward.

    The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

    by ozsea1 on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 04:40:16 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  oz - basically I agree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BvueDem

      The cap needs to be raised, maybe doubled, and the progressive feature of the program needs to be enhanced.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 06:59:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Respectfully, if you've got in mind the Bowles- (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      Simpson recommendations for progressive price indexing--good luck trying to sell that to seniors, or young people, for that matter, LOL!

      Here's what IL Rep Jan Schakowsky has to say about their proposal in her Reuters Op-Ed entitled "The Sham Of Simpson-Bowles."

      snip

      Have Simpson-Bowles’ champions read it?

      Given any real scrutiny, this plan falls far short of being a serious, workable or reasonable proposal – from either an economic or political analysis.

      Under Simpson-Bowles, long-term solvency for Social Security is achieved mostly by cutting benefits. Seventy-five years out, the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases is 4 to 1.

      They propose raising the age of full Social Security benefits to 69 – claiming that everyone is living longer.

      But a sizable percentage of Americans, mostly lower-income workers, especially women, are actually living shorter lives, and a large chunk of other Americans just can’t work that long – even if they can find a job.

      Their plan cuts benefits for current and future retirees by reducing the cost-of-living adjustment.

      For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent  
      snip

      If progressives want to put a stop to so-called entitlement reform, all they need to do is run ads with several lines of her piece, and they rest would take care of itself.

      Bolstering the program could happen without draconian cuts to it, including progressive price indexing.  Only VERY limited indexing of benefits, at the top quintile of income should be considered, and only as a last resort.

      Just raise the cap on taxable wages, and implement a small payroll tax increase.

      Better yet, the US should get out of the business of empire building, and we wouldn't have a so-called fiscal crisis. :-)

      Mollie

      "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

      hiddennplainsight

      by musiccitymollie on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 09:58:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site