The New Republican Congress

[tschu]

Yes, Abdullah, I am opposed to screwing over the elderly and disabled, particularly when that screwing over is an intentionally manufactured "crisis" used for political leverage. I think that's a pretty fair viewpoint.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Yes, Abdullah, I am opposed to screwing over the elderly and disabled, particularly when that screwing over is an intentionally manufactured "crisis" used for political leverage. I think that's a pretty fair viewpoint.

 

but you think baby boomers are the worst and screwed us over, so f#*k them?

[tschu]

 

Yes, Abdullah, I am opposed to screwing over the elderly and disabled, particularly when that screwing over is an intentionally manufactured "crisis" used for political leverage. I think that's a pretty fair viewpoint.

 

but you think baby boomers are the worst and screwed us over, so f#*k them?

 

 

They are the worst. But they are human beings and should have a safety net just like everyone else. Even you.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yet there's a faction of the GOP voter base out there fist-pumping at the testicles that it takes to attempt the moves Junior and knapp posted. "Hell yeah, I want my party to have GIANT BALLS swinging around when they're f'ing me in the ass"

Sadly, the behavior of Republicans in Congress is rewarded when it comes to elections. Vote to shut down the government, costing tax payers billions, for no purpose? Vote to repeal the ACA 50 times, knowing it will fail? Conduct several investigations into Benghazi, despite the findings?

 

How does the electorate respond? By giving them both the Senate and House.

 

The quote was brilliant by the way.

[Junior]

At some point you have to bow to the Republican party's superior bastardry.

 

"You know this thing that was working fine, and would have continued to work fine if we did nothing? Well we intentionally f'd it up so we could blame Obama"

 

And you know what? It will f'ing work.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

At some point you have to bow to the Republican party's superior bastardry.

 

"You know this thing that was working fine, and would have continued to work fine if we did nothing? Well we intentionally f'd it up so we could blame Obama"

 

And you know what? It will f'ing work.

 

 

but it's not working fine.

 

 

 

If it does, the Social Security trustees last year projected that the exhaustion date for both the retirement fund and the disability fund would be 2033, after which the combined trust funds would only have enough coming in to pay 77% of promised benefits. (If the fate of both funds weren't tied together, the exhaustion date for the retirement fund would be 2035, just two years later.)

Simply reallocating revenue, however, may not go down well with Republicans or some Social Security reform advocates. Their line of argument: you're just pulling from one underfunded program to feed another and you're missing an opportunity to put in place needed reforms.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/17/news/economy/social-security-disability/

 

The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits.

To close that gap while maintaining scheduled benefits, we would need to enact an immediate increase in the payroll tax rate from 12.4% to 15.9%. For workers earning $50,000 a year, that would mean a tax increase of $900, nearly 2% of gross income. And employers would have to match it. For workers making the maximum now subject to payroll taxes (a bit under $120,000), taxes would rise by $2,100.

Because earnings covered by Social Security are capped, the payroll tax is steeply regressive: Higher-income earners pay a much lower rate than do those at lower levels. For a worker making $250,000, payroll taxes amount to only 5.9% of total earnings, less than half the rate of someone making $50,000.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/william-galston-the-hard-numbers-on-social-security-1405468518

I'm fine with fixing the regressive tax as part of the solution, practical. Maybe the repubs being dicks might actually lead to some kind of reform.

[tschu]

Abdullah, the Social Security system has been theorized to have been running out of money every since it began. I wish I could find the hilarious chart of all the timetables that Social Security was supposed to run out by.... 1970, then 1977, 1992, 2000, 2017, or whatever, and now 2033 apparently...when in fact it's just like any other government program, it needs adjustments and refunding in order to continue (like duh, obviously)

 

Yes, captain obvious, an aging US population means that we need to raise taxes and SS contributions in order to keep the program going. It is not a crisis, it is a known quantity and one that isn't a secret, nor is it some immediate threat. However apparently the goal is to artificially turn it into a crisis, for whatever reason.

 

If you're all of a sudden coming to grips with the fact that the Social Security system and the payroll tax are horrible and disproportionately affect the poor, WELCOME. Welcome to what the rest of us already know. But guess what? Fixing it is the exact opposite of what the GOP wants to do. They want to just slash the benefits and call it a day. I'm glad I could educate you yet again.

[tschu]

The fact remains that despite the biggest boom generation of them all being replaced by a generation giving us an extremely low birth rate, despite medical advances resulting in very long life spans, despite a stupid payroll tax that punishes the poor...we could still slash the benefits by 25% and the program would work, as is, until the mid-2080s. That essentially proves that there is no crisis and that with a few easy tweaks, we can keep the system going with the current level of benefits with just a few simple adjustments. But nah, that would be too easy and make way too much sense apparently.

 

I agree that changes need to be made, but I don't think that this is the way to accomplish them. Nor do I think that this is going to result in any changes. It may even f#*k the system up even further. Put it this way, I'd be shocked if all of a sudden the Republicans wanted to raise taxes and were interested in the well-being of the elderly, poor, and disabled.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Abdullah, the Social Security system has been theorized to have been running out of money every since it began. I wish I could find the hilarious chart of all the timetables that Social Security was supposed to run out by.... 1970, then 1977, 1992, 2000, 2017, or whatever, and now 2033 apparently...when in fact it's just like any other government program, it needs adjustments and refunding in order to continue (like duh, obviously)

 

Yes, captain obvious, an aging US population means that we need to raise taxes and SS contributions in order to keep the program going. It is not a crisis, it is a known quantity and one that isn't a secret, nor is it some immediate threat. However apparently the goal is to artificially turn it into a crisis, for whatever reason.

 

If you're all of a sudden coming to grips with the fact that the Social Security system and the payroll tax are horrible and disproportionately affect the poor, WELCOME. Welcome to what the rest of us already know. But guess what? Fixing it is the exact opposite of what the GOP wants to do. They want to just slash the benefits and call it a day. I'm glad I could educate you yet again.

I've learned nothing from you but...

 

[Marf]

Ya, but they obviously made gas prices drop 2 dollars a gallon in 2 months. Because that's how economies work. SUCK ON THAT ONE OBAMA!

[carlfense]

However apparently the goal is to artificially turn it into a crisis, for whatever reason.

Because what the GOP really wants to do with Social Security is so unpopular (even among their own voters) that the only way they can accomplish their goals is to make it look like they are required.

[TGHusker]

The fact remains that despite the biggest boom generation of them all being replaced by a generation giving us an extremely low birth rate, despite medical advances resulting in very long life spans, despite a stupid payroll tax that punishes the poor...we could still slash the benefits by 25% and the program would work, as is, until the mid-2080s. That essentially proves that there is no crisis and that with a few easy tweaks, we can keep the system going with the current level of benefits with just a few simple adjustments. But nah, that would be too easy and make way too much sense apparently.

 

I agree that changes need to be made, but I don't think that this is the way to accomplish them. Nor do I think that this is going to result in any changes. It may even f#*k the system up even further. Put it this way, I'd be shocked if all of a sudden the Republicans wanted to raise taxes and were interested in the well-being of the elderly, poor, and disabled.

Too much of a political football not to make the simple tweaks/adjustments. If we fix the system, it can no longer be used for political advantage. That is the problem wt DC. It seems that too many issues never get resolved because those issues have to be available for the next election.

[BigRedBuster]

 

The fact remains that despite the biggest boom generation of them all being replaced by a generation giving us an extremely low birth rate, despite medical advances resulting in very long life spans, despite a stupid payroll tax that punishes the poor...we could still slash the benefits by 25% and the program would work, as is, until the mid-2080s. That essentially proves that there is no crisis and that with a few easy tweaks, we can keep the system going with the current level of benefits with just a few simple adjustments. But nah, that would be too easy and make way too much sense apparently.

 

I agree that changes need to be made, but I don't think that this is the way to accomplish them. Nor do I think that this is going to result in any changes. It may even f#*k the system up even further. Put it this way, I'd be shocked if all of a sudden the Republicans wanted to raise taxes and were interested in the well-being of the elderly, poor, and disabled.

Too much of a political football not to make the simple tweaks/adjustments. If we fix the system, it can no longer be used for political advantage. That is the problem wt DC. It seems that too many issues never get resolved because those issues have to be available for the next election.

 

Bingo....

[VectorVictor]

Ya, but they obviously made gas prices drop 2 dollars a gallon in 2 months. Because that's how economies work. SUCK ON THAT ONE OBAMA!

 

[tschu]

 

 

The fact remains that despite the biggest boom generation of them all being replaced by a generation giving us an extremely low birth rate, despite medical advances resulting in very long life spans, despite a stupid payroll tax that punishes the poor...we could still slash the benefits by 25% and the program would work, as is, until the mid-2080s. That essentially proves that there is no crisis and that with a few easy tweaks, we can keep the system going with the current level of benefits with just a few simple adjustments. But nah, that would be too easy and make way too much sense apparently.

 

I agree that changes need to be made, but I don't think that this is the way to accomplish them. Nor do I think that this is going to result in any changes. It may even f#*k the system up even further. Put it this way, I'd be shocked if all of a sudden the Republicans wanted to raise taxes and were interested in the well-being of the elderly, poor, and disabled.

Too much of a political football not to make the simple tweaks/adjustments. If we fix the system, it can no longer be used for political advantage. That is the problem wt DC. It seems that too many issues never get resolved because those issues have to be available for the next election.

 

Bingo....

 

Yep. Drives me nuts, both sides