Social security by the numbers

[Bonasababy]

It's the President who provides leadership and signs off on anything that comes out of Congress. The Oval Office has final responsibility for what does or does not get enacted.

Congress can overide a veto. But Presidents cant do anything until congress hands them a bill to sign. Saying presidents are responsible isnt based on reality. Certainly they can encourage action but have no direct power to change until they are handed a bill.

 

[406dn]

The Senate filibuster pretty much guarantees that nothing gets enacted, absent a broad bipartisan bill. Each party has much different solutions for the problem, so getting a bipartisan bill is not easy.

At the extremes, the left would like to raise taxes on the wealthy enough to sustain SS, and make it more generous. The right would be fine if it was privatized, and Uncle Sam could be off the hook, entirely.

I think there will be some sort of solution, but it won't happen until the eleventh hour, maybe even just after midnight.

 

[SAJ-99]

Come on, you're better than that. Clinton had 8 yrs to do something as did Obama. Biden had 4 yrs. 20 yrs out of the last 30 have been controlled by Dems in the White House. Bush had 8 years, Trump 1st term 4 yrs. Now Trump is halfway through his second. Fixing SS has been punted by both parties.

Maybe, but "punting" isn't a great word for it. Clinton only had Dem control in the first two years and we were in the middle of a recession. He finally got around to it in 1999 but the idea never went anywhere (see link- i'm not sure it's a great solution but it was never really debated). A similar idea was picked up by Bush, but it died too (funny because he had Rep Congress from 2003 to 2007). Obama had Dem control of Congress in first term but we were in the middle of the Great Recession and his priority was Healthcare, which was eventually passed. Biden had the COVID problem and a horrible economy (see the trend here?) but he signed the Social Security Fairness Act into law and with it the Government Pension Offset. So "punting" isn't exactly the word to describe it, but I agree no one has addressed the core problems of funding shortfall. That is probably because the solution is clear. See post #335. No one wants that on their record because every American gets a little pain from it. Trump's tax policies made the problem worse. Right now the government has a revenue problem, and I lay that on the Republicans (and American voters for allowing it). It's become a game of chicken for us all (except the billionaires).

https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_fixsocsec/

 

[Nunjagottam]

We are all debt slaves. Fiscal policy is farcical anywhere past the County level. Every office of consequence is controlled by the two sided uni-party. Unfortunately, the value of our dollar is dependent upon the might of our military and its ability to force the use of our currency as the international medium of exchange (which facilitates the purchase of our gov's bonds). Everything runs on debt which is dependent upon everyone's savings, all assets and commodities being priced, and all transactions being settled in US DOLLARS. When the music stops the whole thing collapses. So more war is our only path forward. Enjoy your freedum, back the blue thugs who will kick your door in to save their own pensions and of coarse thank our volunteer international mercenary forces for their service.

 

[Nick87]

Enjoy your freedum, back the blue thugs who will kick your door in to save their own pensions and of coarse thank our volunteer international mercenary forces for their service.

I'm sorry, you want to run that past me again...

 

[Alpine01]

Congress can overide a veto. But Presidents cant do anything until congress hands them a bill to sign. Saying presidents are responsible isnt based on reality. Certainly they can encourage action but have no direct power to change until they are handed a bill.

You're awfully naive aren't you. Or just disingenuous.

 

[Alpine01]

Maybe, but "punting" isn't a great word for it. Clinton only had Dem control in the first two years and we were in the middle of a recession. He finally got around to it in 1999 but the idea never went anywhere (see link- i'm not sure it's a great solution but it was never really debated). A similar idea was picked up by Bush, but it died too (funny because he had Rep Congress from 2003 to 2007). Obama had Dem control of Congress in first term but we were in the middle of the Great Recession and his priority was Healthcare, which was eventually passed. Biden had the COVID problem and a horrible economy (see the trend here?) but he signed the Social Security Fairness Act into law and with it the Government Pension Offset. So "punting" isn't exactly the word to describe it, but I agree no one has addressed the core problems of funding shortfall. That is probably because the solution is clear. See post #335. No one wants that on their record because every American gets a little pain from it. Trump's tax policies made the problem worse. Right now the government has a revenue problem, and I lay that on the Republicans (and American voters for allowing it). It's become a game of chicken for us all (except the billionaires).

https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_fixsocsec/

Better go back and check your facts.

Clinton never had a recession. The recession of 1990-1991 (-1.4%) lasted 8 months (started in July) and was a result of the S&L crisis aftermath and Gulf War oil spike. Cost Bush I re-election. The next recession occurred in 2001 (March) when Bush II had been in office for 2 months at best and also lasted 8 months (-0.3% so just barely made the definition) due to the dot-com bust and 9/11. So by your logic, that was a mess left by Clinton.

The great recession (-5.1%) of 2008-2009 (technically started in December of 2007) lasted for 18 months and was a result of the subprime mortgage crisis fueled by Congress' push to promote home ownership and expanding financial credit to subprime borrowers through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Note the Democrat party controlled Congress from 2007-2009 and from 2009-2011 under Obama and according to Bonasababy, Presidents don't have any responsibility as Congress passes all the laws so the Great Recession must certainly fall at the feet of the Dems. But yes, Obama did have to deal with the last 1/3 of the recession. But you give him a pass for the other 7.5 yrs he was in office. Nice cherry picking there.

And as far as Biden is concerned, yeah, he had the COVID recession that lasted all of 2 months and is the shortest recession ever on record. I don't blame Trump or Biden for the initial COVID shutdown. That was a world-wide response and 20/20 hindsight has shown that shutting down the US (or any other country doing the same) was a gross over-reaction. But in the heat of the moment, Governments had to do something to at least give the impression they could get a handle on things. The longer-term reaction to COVID is all on Biden (forced vaccination, shutting down schools and businesses, etc.) and is being shown to have had far-reaching negative impacts throughout our greater society. But you give him a pass on that relative to addressing SS when Dems had all three branches during his first 2 yrs and yet they did nothing.

 

[BrentD]

The Senate filibuster pretty much guarantees that nothing gets enacted, absent a broad bipartisan bill. Each party has much different solutions for the problem, so getting a bipartisan bill is not easy.

At the extremes, the left would like to raise taxes on the wealthy enough to sustain SS, and make it more generous. The right would be fine if it was privatized, and Uncle Sam could be off the hook, entirely.

I think there will be some sort of solution, but it won't happen until the eleventh hour, maybe even just after midnight.

It does appear that Elon could fix it if he. wanted. Maybe we should just privatize the entire .gov

 

[Islander]

You only get so much a month, no matter how much income you have in your life. Paying with no cap would not be fair.

 

[SAJ-99]

Better go back and check your facts.

I’m not going to relitigate economic history. The simple summary is no President has addressed the problem during their first term because they want a second. Same with Congress. Those senators elected this November will be in office for the cuts. Your avoidance of admitting the Repubs want it to go away completely demonstrates how partisan it has become and how disengaged the public is.

The problem is boomers didn’t pay in enough and income of new workers isn’t high enough to support them. The solution is simple- pay out less, take in more. Dems want to pay out more, Repubs want to take in less. It is probably too late for privatization without creating a huge divide between the old and the young.

 

[BuzzH]

You only get so much a month, no matter how much income you have in your life. Paying with no cap would not be fair.

Fair has nothing to do with anything anymore.

Removing the cap makes sense.

 

[406dn]

Fair has nothing to do with anything anymore.

Removing the cap makes sense.

While removing the cap is fair, it would be another instance where earned income is taxed more heavily than unearned income. Perhaps capital gains should have a SS tax levied on them, medicare tax also.

 

[TN2shot07]

Fair has nothing to do with anything anymore.

Removing the cap makes sense.

Eventually taxing the hell out of successful people isn’t the answer. There has to be a level of accountability by people for their own future.

I’m ok with finding ways to tax forms of income that uber successful people use to avoid taxes (stock options, loans against those holdings, etc.) but since those are the people that support the criminals that pass for politicians it’ll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

 

[BuzzH]

Eventually taxing the hell out of successful people isn’t the answer. There has to be a level of accountability by people for their own future.

I’m ok with finding ways to tax forms of income that uber successful people use to avoid taxes (stock options, loans against those holdings, etc.) but since those are the people that support the criminals that pass for politicians it’ll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

If there was a level playing field, I agree with the bolded part.

Your second paragraph explains why that playing field is anything but level.

 

[406dn]

One of the beauties of SS is that a person can't screw it up. If you work enough to get it, it's there, no matter how badly you handle the rest of your finances.

One of my chief concerns about privatizing SS is that there will be a percentage of people that find a way to mess it up. Then society will have a group of seniors living in abject poverty . That is the primary reason SS was created initially.

 

[Islander]

Fair has nothing to do with anything anymore.

Removing the cap makes sense.

You are entitled to your opinion. In my calculus if the citizen will never draw more than the Fed-capped MAX, then it's "fair" to cap how much you have to pay in and it's unfair to ask for more. SS is the responsibility of each citizen. It's not a gift from rich to poor. I know borders are shaded on this, but essentially everybody pays, and you get back proportional to what you pay. That is fair to me.

 

[406dn]

You are entitled to your opinion. In my calculus if the citizen will never draw more than the Fed-capped MAX, then it's "fair" to cap how much you have to pay in and it's unfair to ask for more. SS is the responsibility of each citizen. It's not a gift from rich to poor. I know borders are shaded on this, but essentially everybody pays, and you get back proportional to what you pay. That is fair to me.

I would agree that if the income cap is removed, then the benefit cap at the upper end needs to be modified.

Another solution that gets offered is means testing. I have long thought that this would be the beginning of the end for SS, for the reason you state. It is fundamentally unfair to deny benefits to a person who has paid the maximum, or close to it, in SS taxes.

 

[BuzzH]

You are entitled to your opinion. In my calculus if the citizen will never draw more than the Fed-capped MAX, then it's "fair" to cap how much you have to pay in and it's unfair to ask for more. SS is the responsibility of each citizen. It's not a gift from rich to poor. I know borders are shaded on this, but essentially everybody pays, and you get back proportional to what you pay. That is fair to me.

Is it "fair" to ask people with no kids to pay taxes to fund public schools? Or continue to pay taxes for public schools once your kids are out of school and no longer using them?

These types of questions can go on and on.

Here is how I look at it. We either find a way to fund SS as many only have that for any chance at retiring, or we pay some other way.

As a society, we arent going to support tossing 75 year olds out on the streets or watch them starve when their SS doesnt cover the basics.

You'll pay either way with taxes.

 

[Bonasababy]

It does appear that Elon could fix it if he. wanted. Maybe we should just privatize the entire .gov

Think he's more focused on getting all those poor persecuted white south africans into the US.

 

[Islander]

Is it "fair" to ask people with no kids to pay taxes to fund public schools? Or continue to pay taxes for public schools once your kids are out of school and no longer using them?

These types of questions can go on and on.

Here is how I look at it. We either find a way to fund SS as many only have that for any chance at retiring, or we pay some other way.

As a society, we arent going to support tossing 75 year olds out on the streets or watch them starve when their SS doesnt cover the basics.

You'll pay either way with taxes.

You can dwell on the exceptions. What I said stands for the vast majority of us.