Skip to main content

View Diary: Social Security Benefits will be Cut by 23% for 88 Million Americans: This Should be a Huge Issue (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  this is a joke diary? (5+ / 0-)

    money is fungible, and it isn't in anyone's economic interest to create a new class of poor seniors.  We need a bigger deficit, not a smaller one. We need to get men and women working in the trades, on infrastructure, and then they'll have better paying jobs and will pay more into social security.  Save the middle class and create wealth?  

    •  Not a joke... (6+ / 0-)

      Did you read it? It's a diary on how to preserve the funding for SS. It doesn't even address the size of the total deficit.

      And an important point: Legislatively the money for SS and the money in the general fund are not fungible. SS has no borrowing authority so once it's trust funds are empty it must go to zero-net-cash-flow.

      Sure that could be fixed, but the whole point of this diary was that we should be trying to get that fixed in some way, not just assuming it will be and ignoring the problem.

      •  so is this a new debt ceiling situation? (0+ / 0-)

        it seems to me that the Republicans can't stop that when push comes to shove, it's their own constituents favorite entitlement.  

      •  Large scale job creation isnt mentioned (7+ / 0-)

        roughly put spending about 900 billion on infrastructure would create about 21 million jobs. 20 million jobs added @ 36k means 89.2 billion in additional FICA. This is about .6% of GDP, just about what the CBO quoted in 2011 as the size of the gap in the intermediate scenario.

        Isn't job creation the least painful of any scenario?

        Infrastructure deficit=jobs deficit=SS deficit.

        Anyway I think there is an easy 10 years before we have to do something, and how much we do depends on not just job creation, wage growth - inflation- and Workforce growth all have a skin in this calculation.

        .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 02:58:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bruce Sloganizes Roger (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HeyMikey, whaddaya, Roger Fox

          "More Jobs. At Better Wages."

          There is almost nothing on the Progressive agenda from top to bottom that wouldn't get a huge boost from a program based on those Five Words.

          Social Security's 75 year actuarial gap vanishes almost overnight. The other items on the agenda from universal education and health care to rewarding efforts and inputs not limited to your access to capital would take more time.

          But in a world actually ruled by rationality and attention to data Rpger (and smaller luminaries like Krugthulu) have the right idea: put people to work doing useful things and pay them in a way that rewards their efforts. Their real efforts and not some bullshit scheme that simply assumes that labor compensation is magically set by 'marginal productivity' and that their is no power equation involved in dividing gains from productivity (in ways that advantage capital inputs over labor).

          We don't have to go all Vulgar Marxism 'Labor Theory of Value' to understand that its converse 'Magical Setting of Wages Exactly at Marginal Labor Productivity' is equal and even more egregious bullshit. That is why I am a New Dealer. The New Deal was not workers offering capital a socialistic "Suck on This", it was an understanding that private power over distribution of gains on productivity had to be balanced by a combination of worker power and government action to address the fundamental imbalance (i.e. Capital signs the paychecks). This didn't and arguably shouldn't have taken the form of Public Ownership of the Means of Production, just that an economic and legal structure that set the fiduciary responsibilities of management towards Capital and intrinsicly against Labor would never adequately measure the relative inputs to productivity, the bias would always be to Capital.

          That is the fundamental principle of the New Deal was NOT 'redistribution' but instead an understanding that the intial distribution was done with thumbs on the scale that favored capital. A fact that wage laws and safety regulations and a degree of progressive taxation could CORRECT. And not as in Classical Chicago 'Liberalism' and 'Centrist' Neo-Liberalism simply COMPENSATE for via charity driven 'redistribution'.

          Gosh who knew that in economic history like its older counterparts Diplomatic, Military, Political and Religious history that Power mattered? But it always does. Or maybe 'Duhs!!!!'

          SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

          by Bruce Webb on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:45:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not redistributation but stability? (0+ / 0-)

            For me the best part of the New Deal was economic stability seen by working people and the uber rich.
            Recessions were of less depth & breadth. Working families got to keep what they earned.

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:13:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The trust fund (0+ / 0-)

        was created by Ronald Reagan to help defray the cost of the baby boom generation on the system. The Baby Boomers are the first ones to pay for their own social security and their parents.

        The trust fund was set up to sunset at a certain point when the majority of the baby boomers will have died off.

        Prior to this there was no trust fund, one generation paid for the one before. It was meant to make it possible for old folks to live independently and not have to move in with their children when they got to old to work.

        During the depression this became a huge burden on families who often were unable to support themselves. My grandfather said that social security came about because our nation at that time was appalled by seeing old people rummaging through trash cans looking for scraps of food and dying in great number of starvation.

        It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

        by PSWaterspirit on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 04:17:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reagan created the trust fund in 1939- Or at least (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bruce Webb

          somebody created it in 1939.

          The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year.

          The trust fund was set up to sunset at a certain point when the majority of the baby boomers will have died off.
          Its far more likely to slowly grow after most Boomers are dead in 1947. Then grow faster in the 2060's.

          .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 04:35:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Roger you need some edits (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roger Fox

            For one thing '2047' for '1947'. And by using Blockquotes for both your source and to quote what you are rebutting you make it look like SSA says the fund was supposed to sunset instead of the commenter.

            SocSec dot.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders Group

            by Bruce Webb on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 04:41:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  False (0+ / 0-)

        There is a reason they call Security OASI and Disability insurance entitlements, if the government doesn't pay them and defaults on its insurance of seniors, then it ceases to be a first world nation.

        All workers paying FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) and SECA (Self Employed Contributions Act) taxes for forty quarters of credit (QC) or more on a specified minimum income or more are "fully insured" and eligible to retire at age 62 with reduced benefits and higher benefits at full retirement ages of 65, 66 or 67 depending on birth date.[18] Retirement benefits depend upon the "adjusted" average wage you or your spouse have earned in the last 35 years and your respective ages. Wages of earlier years are "adjusted" before averaging by multiplying each annual salary by an annual adjusted wage index factor, AWI, for earlier salaries (see:[19]). Adjusted wages for 35 years are always used to compute the 35 year "average" indexed monthly salary. Only wages lower than the "ceiling" income are considered in calculating the adjusted average wage. If the worker has fewer than 35 years of covered earnings these non-contributory years are years are assigned zero earnings. If there are more than 35 years of covered earnings only the highest 35 are considered. The sum of the 35 adjusted salaries (or less if worker has less than 35 years of covered income) times its inflation index, AWI divided by 420 (35 yrs x 12 months/yr) gives the 35 year covered Average Indexed Monthly salary, AIME.[19]
        In order to avoid any issues with social security in the future its likely that between now and 2033 we will come to terms with the necessity of purging all the Republicans and DINO's who would even suggest they are thinking about cutting Social Security

        Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

        by rktect on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 04:25:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I favor raising the cap to $200,000 but not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        eliminating it. I wrote a diary about it for Social Security Defenders. You can find it here:

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 06:43:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site