Reply With Quote
I agree with raising social security and medicare to 70.
Programs like Social Security and Medicare are gutted while tax cuts are made permanent in plan
An ultraconservative Republican House caucus on Wednesday put forth its spending plan that represents a draconian wishlist of attacks on the social safety net and consumer and environmental protections while including a plan to further enrich the wealthy by making making permanent parts of the GOP tax plan.
The budget blueprint from the Republican Study Committee (RSC)—and led A Framework of Unified Conservatism—says it "would take unprecedented steps to begin the deconstruction of the administrative state" and would cut $12.4 trillion over the next decade from federal spending.
represents the wholesale evisceration of public services and government programs designed to bolster the economy and serve the less fortunate.
Among the plan's numerous goals are
the repeal of Obamacare and
raising the eligibility age of Medicare and Social Security benefits to age 70.
It also seeks to weaken cost-of-living adjustments and
increase premiums.
It also calls for
work requirements for "all federal benefit programs."
The "reform" of safety net programs also includes
capping federal funds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and
weakening school lunch subsidies.
The CFPB, the plan says, should be eliminated and
the CHOICE Act, which critics warn would "eviscerate" consumer protections, should be passed.
The Clean Power Plan and Ozone rule should be blocked,
the blueprint urges, and the
federal government should be prevented from putting forth fracking regulations.
At the same time, the plan calls for
allowing the extraction of fossil fuels on any federal land within a state's borders.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ack-safety-net
I agree with raising social security and medicare to 70.
Yeah keep that carrot moving along. No reason for most people to ever see a dime of the money they put into the system.
It was set at 65 when people died at like 50.
All that money has already been spent anyway.
me too but then old people vote more than young people
DMC mocked me for saying that politics is always a balance between principle and self interest... but when people age, self interest = muh social security safety net
Why do you call it a safety net? It's my money. I'd be fine with just getting back what I paid in. For some reason that concept evaded you. I'd guess you've not paid much in, if any.
Might as well raise it to 95 just to be on the safe side.
the money you paid in is long gone
Yep. The "trust fund lock box" is just a bunch of IOU's. Gonna have to tax and borrow to pay them.
this line of reasoning makes sense only of the "lockbox" concept was in play... ie the money you put in has sat there accruing interest, and they pay you back the same dollars you put in.
the feds have dipped into social security reserves time and time again. social security at this point is being funded by payroll taxes, ie taxpayers now are paying for current ss recipients. and today's taxpayers are going to be getting ss checks that are coming off the backs of tomorrow's taxpayers. that's all fine and dandy except we're in the process of a major demographic switch as the baby boomers retire. when the ratio of ss taxpayers to ss recipients is thrown off balance, funding issues ensue. the only ways to mitigate at this point would be to:
raise the social security tax
decrease social security benefits
increase retirement age
you choose which of those 3 or which combination of those 3 you think is best policy instead ofbut i want my money back !
You say it so proudly, boomer.
You're a . I had no control over them pissing the money away and I have paid in for almost 50 years and paid the max witholding for 30+ years.
You got yours and to with everyone else. That’s kinda yalls thing, eh boomer?
Kosmic Parasite dragging out the "lock box" red herring.
Tha is wrong with you, asshole? I'm not retired and plan to work into my 70s, health permitting.
No lockbox to it Boukaki. Just a bunch of IOUs someone is going to have to come up with the cash to pay.Kosmic Parasite dragging out the "lock box" red herring.
"long gone" is a red herring
This doesn't answer the "safety net" question. Why do you consider getting your own money to be a safety net?
More red herrings. Not having the money doesn't mean the person you owe is looking for a safety net.this line of reasoning makes sense only of the "lockbox" concept was in play... ie the money you put in has sat there accruing interest, and they pay you back the same dollars you put in.
the feds have dipped into social security reserves time and time again. social security at this point is being funded by payroll taxes, ie taxpayers now are paying for current ss recipients. and today's taxpayers are going to be getting ss checks that are coming off the backs of tomorrow's taxpayers. that's all fine and dandy except we're in the process of a major demographic switch as the baby boomers retire. when the ratio of ss taxpayers to ss recipients is thrown off balance, funding issues ensue. the only ways to mitigate at this point would be to:
raise the social security tax
decrease social security benefits
increase retirement age
you choose which of those 3 or which combination of those 3 you think is best policy instead of
I'd still bet you've not paid much in so you never consider it anything but welfare.
It functions as a safety net because the recipients are getting their money from current taxpayers. It's an en lement. That much is apparent as the program was aimed at getting senior citizens out of poverty.
That's like saying a food stamp recipient isn't getting a handout if he pays income taxes.
Last edited by spurraider21; 05-01-2018 at 05:57 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
