Skip to main content

View Diary: House Dems to Obama: No Social Security cuts (265 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That problem is distinct from SS as a whole. (0+ / 0-)

    More and more people relying on Social Security just means more and more people are facing hardships.

    Remember, no one is seriously arguing for expansion of Social Security and paying out more money to those retiring.

    We simply couldn't afford that.

    This idea that social security is adequate is a myth. It isn't.

    If people haven't invested, saved, and planned, then they are in a seriously dire situation, as you know.

    Social Security will do little to alleviate that situation one way or another.

    Thus, the well being of retirees does not hinge on the existence of Social Security as it stands.

    "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

    by Common Cents on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:35:37 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's BS. There is a HUGE difference between (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IM, 3goldens, melpomene1

      NO money coming in the door, and some money coming in the door.

      Even if it means that while you have to live with a child because you can't afford to live on your own, that you can pay for your room, or your share of food, utilities, etc.

      I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Thomas Jefferson

      by Lucy2009 on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:52:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sure can't afford it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melpomene1

      We simply couldn't afford that.

      Not and have 15% tax rates for the top 2% and nine digit bonuses for failed managers.

    •  we CAN afford that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IM, melpomene1

      Remember, no one is seriously arguing for expansion of Social Security and paying out more money to those retiring.

      We simply couldn't afford that.

      The total cost would be less than a squadron of unneeded and unnecessary F-35 fighters. Or of maintaining active US military bases in half the countries of the world, to fight . . .  nobody.

      The Cold War has been over for two decades now.  Why in hell are we still wasting trillions of dollars fighting it?

    •  Again, live in reality. This is reality for most. (0+ / 0-)
      •  For most? (0+ / 0-)

        You said half before. Now half isn't most.

        But the issue is trying to find ways to lower the number depending on it rather than saving an inadequate system that allows people to only subsist.

        The question should not be about saving social security. It should be about improving it or scrapping it for a new way to help those retiring.

        This business about saving an outdated and flawed system is a shell game to confuse people, IMO.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:38:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  But the way things are now (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IM, melpomene1

      it's virtually impossible for people to "invest" (in what?) or "save" (what, after it's taken 10 year to pay off student loans and health-care premiums suck up a quarter of your income and your home value plummets?) Pensions are history. So basically, you're saying almost everyone is doomed to being in a "dire situation." I don't accept that. It's morally wrong.

      De-orangify Congress: Justin Coussoule for Oh-08 http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/

      by anastasia p on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:27:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Acceptance is not optional. (0+ / 0-)

        You don't have to like it, but facts are facts. Social Security is not going to be expanded nor can it be.

        The basis of the whole system is outdated. It's based on people getting back what they pay in, but people don't pay in enough to get any kind of return adequate to live off of.

        If people want to "save" Social Security they are saving a system that simply is inadequate.

        No politician or party is pushing to do something more substantial like suggest people should get much more than they pay in.

        Thus this idea that Social Security is saving people is not true. It is simply letting people subsist.

        Spending much political capital to help people subsist doesn't seem very exciting.

        And trying to expand social security to pay more out than it takes in from individuals is hopeless in the political scheme of things.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:33:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am five years away. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melpomene1

      I have worked all my adult life and paid in, including the Boomer 'extra'. It's all my hubby and I will have, beyond what little I may still be able to make on organic and forest grown medicinals, some salsas and sauces, etc.

      We will still grow much of our own food, we will still drive the ratty used cars we always drive, we are now investing in weatherproofing (tax break!) and diverting the creek to produce electricity. The place is paid for in 3 more years, taxes are less than a thou a year. Plus, we could always charge rent to the grandkids (we're putting two through college as I speak).

      We chose to live where we live on purpose. Low costs, but equally low pay and jobs don't tend to last. We do whatever we have to do in order to stay, that means $8-$10 an hour with no benefits, when you can find that much. If we'd wanted to be rich we'd have arranged our lives differently, though you'd have a hard time convincing us we aren't rich in all the things that do matter.

      We'll be okay (until we're not). The place will remain in the family unless they all sign it over when we're gone, in which case it reverts to the conservancy to become protected National Forest, which would be fine with us. Hell, we'd probably be okay for whatever years we have left even without SS, but we'd be darned pissed if it's stolen from us. At that point we have no government (it defaulted on its "full faith and credit") and I'd be willing to help invent a new one.

      Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

      by Joieau on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:36:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obviously those invested in should be paid. (0+ / 0-)

        But this business of "saving" it and forcing the youth to pay in for the inadequate system is wrong and foolish.

        This system, as it stands, can't work and won't work to help people.

        We need to either expand this system or scrap it and start over in discovering a new way forward.

        "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

        by Common Cents on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:41:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ??? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IM, melpomene1

          The system works just fine. Nothing wrong with it that FICA taxes on $150K and up won't fix. What's wrong is that the surplus - more than $3 trillion - was borrowed to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. Now they need to pay it back, and I don't feel the least bit sorry for a single one of 'em.

          Let me guess... you're big on letting Wall Street have it, right?

          Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

          by Joieau on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:02:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It isn't adequate. (0+ / 0-)

            No one can retire on Social Security. It is at best a supplement. The myth is that people can pay in and have a retirement plan vouchesafed.

            If the goal is providing a retirement safety net, then Social Security as it is fails.

            "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."-Jessica Rabbbit

            by Common Cents on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 04:30:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My hubby and I can retire (0+ / 0-)

              on SS, as we've arranged our life in such a way as to do that. SS is there to ensure that our parents and grandparents aren't destitute after a lifetime of work, don't have to live with the kids until they die, and/or aren't dying on the streets or living on cat food.

              People who have spent their lives amassing money will have extra retirement income (if it wasn't stolen by Wall Street) so they'll have lots of 'mad money' in their old age. They'll have SS too as the bottom-line buffer just as it is for everyone else. What's wrong with that?

              Until and unless this country starts taking seriously its social obligations - and that is never going to happen in my lifetime - then SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC and other such minimalist programs that keep us from tripping over dead bodies on the way to work every day are all we've got. It's okay to say it's not good enough, but there's absolutely NO EXCUSE to gut any of those programs now in hopes of something better in somebody else's future.

              Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

              by Joieau on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 07:13:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site