Skip to main content

View Diary: Making people suffer is bad, whether in shutdown or via entitlement 'cuts' (150 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  At some point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gentle Giant

    these major entitlement programs are going to be overhauled and reformed, it's not a matter of if, just when. The ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking, people are living longer, we can't just pretend these issues away. If we do we cede the issue to the right someday, maybe with a majority in both houses and  the presidency, they will use the opportunity to destroy it. So the question becomes who do you trust to do that? I would trust Hillary more than BHO, actually, but there is no guarantee she gets elected. Once they are overhauled, they should be off the table for 40 years or more, so the right loses this issue which they push in every election. I say do it now, make smart changes that don't hurt poorer Americans, include revenue, and some means testing at the highest income tier.

    •  Been there, done that (13+ / 0-)

      They already did the deal that significantly cut Boomer benefits during the Reagan administration.  Now they want to do it again before we even collect benefits.  

      I started paying in for my grandfather who was born in the 1880's.  Social Security wasn't passed till the '30s and Medicare till the '60s but I paid so his generation and my parent's generation could receive benefits.

      Now you want to cut mine again at a time when the distribution of wealth hasn't been so extreme in 100 years.  And who is leading the charge for this? Extraordinarily wealthy people like Mark Warner.  They don't want their own wealth restricted.  They don't want the defense industry brought back to a scale that is sustainable.  

      Neither party is approaching this with good faith.  They cannot corrupt Social Security.  The money just goes from the Treasury to your bank.  No lobbyists in between.  No one to buy off.  No one to bribe.  Nothing to corrupt.  So it must be slashed.

      •  Great Point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, laurel g 15942

        I never thought of it that way . . . it goes right from the Treasury to your bank, without any lobbyists able to touch it.

        Wow . . . Follow the Money has never been more true!!!

      •  Exactly right. (0+ / 0-)

        And as I recall, they sold that 1983 deal as a solution to the flood of Boomer retirements.  I've been paying that higher rate for almost my entire working life, plus my retirement age has already been raised.

        I won't be eligible for full benefits now for another 14 years, yet I'm expected to take yet another hit so the Pentagon can get more massive funding?  Any politicians who try to push this through will find their careers ended at the ballot box.  Enough is enough.

        you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

        by Dem Beans on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 11:15:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Raise the cap. That is all. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zbob, xanthippe2, smiley7

      Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

      by Gentle Giant on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 08:01:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Someone Please Run Some Numbers for Me (0+ / 0-)

        It's my hunch that we could lower the SS withholding by 1/2 a point, thereby giving some money to the middle class and poor, while raising the cap to infinity and still bring in more revenue.

        •  We could drop it by a whole percentage (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gentle Giant

          point if the income cap is lifted completely and some investment income is included (over a certain amount so little investors don't get bitten).

          It helps to redistribute some of the obscene wealth hoarded at the top, and it would help small businesses too by cutting the percentage they have to kick in.

          But, you see, it would work, leaving the shitheads in the Capitol with not much else to do :-)

          Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

          by PsychoSavannah on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 09:44:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The constant lie about living longer. (10+ / 0-)

      Sure, 100 years ago the life expectancy was much shorter, but that factored in infant death, childhood disease and a whole bunch of stuff that stopped people from even hitting 65. The life expectancy of a 65 year old is only a few years more than it was under FDR, and a lot of those gains are concentrated in the wealthier 20% of the population. The poor manual laborer who retires after 40 back-breakiing years is much less likely to hit 90 than the white collar professional.

    •  The poor aren't living longer. For some groups (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, laurel g 15942, Dem Beans

      of poor people life expectancy is falling.

      The ratio of workers to retirees is irrelevant.  Wages are what matters.  10 people making 110k obviously support more people on SS than 20 people making 10k.

      Instead of paying wages subject to SS, corporations are paying huge CEO salaries and dividends to share holders.

      That's what's "wrong" with our current Social Security model - it was designed for a moderately exploitive economic system rather than the full blow psychopathic hell hole we're living in.

      "But the traitors will pretend / that it's gettin' near the end / when it's beginning" P. Ochs

      by JesseCW on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 08:44:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site