Nuclear war? Ha ha. Try too little, too late. Who cares about primaries in 2016? Of course SS and Medicare cuts will be put on the table and likely passed. No doubt a few members of the so-called “progressive caucus” in Congress will raise a stink before they vote for whatever package Obama puts before them. Progressives who campaigned for, endorsed and voted for Obama got what they bargained for: the “lesser of two evils.” Want to know why no one in Washington pays any attention to progressives except (rhetorically) at election time?

Will primaries follow?

No. They will fold. Again.

Romney hit Obama for cutting Medicare. If Dems “chain the CPI,” GOP will correctly claim they cut Social Security.

I would be surprised if there were no proposed cuts for the big 3 from Obama. Look at every offer he has made since 2009. Including the B-S commission to ‘reduce the debt’ with its special mandate to look for cuts in the big 3.
During the debt deal he offered to raise Medicare age and to cut SS by .7% of payroll. (chained CPI was only part of that offer).

So here we are again, after they floated the same cuts in the Fiscal bump, including raising Medicare Age and the chained CPI. The Democrats. Did. That. Recall that Pelosi was on board and only Reid stopped SS from being cut.

There must be no poverty, unemployment, lack of healthcare, no foreclosures, homelessness in Bubbleland. Where Panglossian recommendations for more cuts are trotted out by technocrats seeking to out stupid each other. They lie about life expectancy. They lie about the availability of jobs. Even the whole deficit ‘crisis’ is a lie.

It is past time to get new legislators. If that was even possible to do.

Cuts are coming even if SS and Medicare are “saved”. If you are part of the 99% (that includes Muppets who think they are rich) your lifestyle in on the way to the crapper. Money in a mattress and start a victory garden.

WE apparently have won a round. The bigoted minister who was going to pray at the inauguration has dropped out!

The uber wealthy really don’t care about the wedge issues like gay rights they just use them to gin up the low information citizens. As long as it doesn’t cost them a dollar they will throw us a bone now and then.

Obama put cutting Social Security and Medicare on the table in previous negotiations before he even took office

fixed that for ya

from the hamsher herself;

Obama has made a deliberate and concerted effort to cut Social Security benefits since the time he took office. FDL reported on February 12, 2009 that the White House was meeting behind closed doors to consider ways to cut Social Security benefits, and that the framework they were using was the Diamond-Orszag plan, which was co-authored by OMB Director Peter Orszag when he was at the Brookings Institute.

and she goes on;

But NYT columnist David Brooks reported that shortly after the summit, “four senior members of the administration” called him to say that Obama “is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security.”

Nuclear war – really!

I didn’t vote for any of them.

My social security was increased by $6 per month this year. Combined with my pension I might just be over the federal poverty level, though they may have raised it.

I wonder what cat food tastes like?

It’s only a question of WHEN, not whether.

What will happen? Nothing, except some seniors will die sooner than they might have. Where’s Sarah Palin when we need her to wail & rend her tunic about Death Panels?? What’s that you say? She’s sucking off Roger Aisles and is too busy to care? Why hoooow nice for Palin.

and so: on it goes…

The Eager Beaver/s Obama wants to appoint to Social Security as an administrator wrote this last year, May, 2012, in the Boston Globe (with co-author Reynolds):

On the revenue side, we should hold tax rates steady, but gradually phase in a rise in the current $110,100 ceiling on wages subject to Social Security contributions. Until the 1990s, that ceiling reached roughly 90 percent of all wages. We should move back up to that 90 percent level by 2020 and then index the ceiling to future wage gains. This reflects the income gains that the most successful Americans have seen in the past generation. Lifting the FICA ceiling would be far preferable to the “means testing” that some have proposed — which would deny benefits to the more affluent. We could also enhance revenues by requiring all future state and local government employees to join the Social Security system, a reform that would also, over time, make local pension costs more manageable.

On the benefits side, we should change the way we calculate the cost-of-living adjustment for all beneficiaries, by utilizing a revised Consumer Price Index which most economists agree more accurately reflects the rate of inflation for the expenses most seniors incur. Such a change would curb the rate of increase in benefits for future generations of retirees, but no one would actually get less money. This change in the benefits formula should be structured so that it makes future economic growth a clear positive — enabling incoming revenues to grow somewhat faster than promised benefits so that the system becomes truly self-sustaining.

Lastly, we should accelerate the rise in Social Security’s full-benefit retirement age from age 67 to 68 by 2030 and then index the full benefit age for future generations to gains in longevity. Life expectancy past age 65 has risen nearly 50 percent since 1940, when Social Security first began regular monthly payments. That said, we should improve disability options for those engaged in physically demanding jobs. No one expects coal miners or telephone line crews to work into their late 60s

.

*******
Raises NRA to 68
Indexes benefits downward (price based indexing) to account for (as yet undocumented) increases in life expectancy.
Institutes the chained CPI which reduces benefits for everyone, increasing over time.
Does increase the FICA capture zone to 90% and incorporates currently exempt groups.

*****
This is disgusting. I just started reading a National Research Council tome about how we have the worst life expectancy compared to other developed countries with a focus on risks between birth and age fifty. If we really look closely at our unemployment levels and their negative impacts, our fragmented and unaffordable healthcare system and its inaccessibility, the rosy picture of people living longer disappears quickly. We are being fooled by bureaucrats into accepting cuts based upon bad numbers.

There won’t be a nuclear war. There won’t be a conventional war. There won’t even be a mobilization on the left. Not a shot will be fired.

People like Rachel Maddow and Markos Moulitsas will gripe and grouse for several months afterward but as 2014 approaches, they’ll be parroting DNC talking points and telling everyone to shut up and get in line because a Really Important Election is coming up. Count on it.

NO. CUTS. AT. ALL. OR PRIMARY.

P.S. There really is no “left” these days. All the Obama voters I know are pretty much yesterday’s Republicans, who agree with the fiction that Team USA has a “debt crisis,” who are blissfully delighted to witness Obomba doing the exact same things – and worse – that they professed to loath W for (drone killing innocent children, torture, domestic spying, etc), love to believe in so-called “American exceptionalism” and RayGunz “shining city on the hill” bullshit, etc. And/or they happen to public sector Union members, who are abjectly & proudly unaware of all of myriad of rank incursions into collective bargaining rights in various other states, such as WI & MI, and don’t really think they should have to pay Union dues anyway bc: why? We don’t need Unions anymore.

FOOLS!

What “Left”?

The only true “radicals” in Team USA are the far, far right extremists, who wish to take Team USA back to feudal fascism.

Most on the so-called “left” just want to be “left alone” with their own version of fictionalized fantasy that Obomba is a “good guy,” who was “forced” by the mean-bully Republicans to do a crappy job.

Link to Roosevelt-Reynolds op ed on “fixing SS”.

Agree.

Everyone will suck it up and get in line to bend over & take it over & over again declaring how it’s ever so “different” when a “Democrat” is POTUS.

It’s not just the Tea Party who lives in a fantasyland devoid of facts.

Of course. But we must primary the fucks who vote for the cuts. We need to publicize all the bastards repeatedly for the next two years. Then we vote against them if they got past the primaries. Fuck them. They will be on our side or we dump them

And there would absolutely be Democratic primaries in the next round of Congressional elections.

No, there probably won’t be. Since the rise of Obama, the Democratic Party base cheers as Democrats pass a recycled Republican healthcare plan from the 1990s and as Democrats make Bush’s tax cuts for people making between $250k and $400k permanent.

I agree with you about primarying these assholes. I prefer starting an entirely new party because it will take longer than my life expectancy to get the deadwood out of the Democratic party, and a get-out-the-deadwood effort has about a 1:20 chance of success.

The Tea Party is devoid of facts except one: they’ve taken down incumbent Senators Robert Bennett and Richard Lugar and elected Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Pat Toomey.

link to life expectancy article and link within article to research ‘tome’.

Good to keep trying but progressives will win when the Dow goes below 8000 and the muppets/wannabe wealthy class close their checkbooks to the dumbass uber wealthy. Our second official Great Depression is on the way in a similar fashion to Hoover’s austerity plan and nothing can stop it.

progressive power in america?????? you guys must be smoking the good stuff. libs couldnt be bothered to clean up voting even after the 2000 debacle. too many sellouts in dc for positive change

O, you don’t know they’re propping the market up, comrade?

Talk is cheap.

The problem is that “progressives” never back their tough words with action.

For example, virtually the entire Congressional Progressive Caucus said they would never vote for a health bill that did not contain a public option. But they did anyway.

They fund the Wars
They vote for the Bank Bailouts
They vote for the budget deal compromise.

Even Bernie Sanders (a self-described socialist) voted for the Corporatist Obamacare legislation.

No Democratic Senator ever uses the fillibuster provision to stop bad legislation.

And so-called progressive groups like PCCC never come out strong against Barak Obama (who is quite obviously a Neocon, Right-wing policy ideologue despite his campaign rhetoric) or come out strong against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, etc. and really try to Primary these guys.

They have no political message besides “okay, lie to me one more time again“. No “progressive” group or think-tank ever works to ever Primary Obama, Pelosi, and all the turncoat Democrats.

All these people should be calling for Obama’s Impeachment right now, for continuing and expanding all the fraudulent Bush Wars, and Human Torture, Government Wiretapping, and protecting all the War Criminals.

The truth is that just is there no progressive movement in this Country.

I see zero evidence of any serious pushback.

No reason to cut benefits, no reason to go to chained CPI, no reason to raise the retirement age.

Just bump the payroll tax from 6.2% to 7.2% and SS is solvent for the full 75 year projection.

I did not know about the meeting Jane posted about, but I did know that Obama told the Washington Post in January 2009, before his inauguration, that he had to “reform” entitlements because the country could not afford them.

Then there was the Cat Food Commission, of which the infamously Ayn Randish Ryan was a member.

After that failed, partly because Ryan himself ended up voting against the Commission on which he had served, we somehow got to the likely unconstitutional super committee, whose recommendations were supposed to bind both houses (and the president?). Anything to deflect the political heat.

Around that time, Conyers reported that it was Obama, not Boehner, not Cantor, not any Republican, who had put Social Security and Medicare on the table. And he urged mass demonstrations at the White House.

They allegedly could not agree on a Grand Bargain, with Kerry supposedly being the biggest dissenter, so, lo and behold, action got deferred until after the election. (Oh, so convenient for all involved.)

In other words, the trail of bread crumbs was there for all voters to see.

And after the election we got the fiscal cliff deal for almost two whole months. Very little in revenue dollars, with the “entitlement” cuts still to be decided upon.

No reason to cut benefits, no reason to go to chained CPI, no reason to raise the retirement age.

Just bump the payroll tax from 6.2% to 7.2% and SS is solvent for the full 75 year projection

NO. Just simply remove the (regressive) 110,000 payroll cap, so that wealthy people pay into the program.

But Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid all don’t want that, and they refuse to ever propose that resolution.

They seek a reduction in the actual benefits.
They want it to whither on the vine (to use a Newt Gingrich expression)

I expect that Obama will welcome being “forced” to cut Social Security benefits as part of a debt ceiling deal. The setup was making the Bush tax rates permanent for most of the super-rich.

Chained CPI should be called what it is – a way to assure that Senior’s standard of living DECLINES every year. It’s not only catfood – as living costs increase, seniors will go from a small apartment, to a single-room-occupany hotel, to a cardboard box. All so the 1% can keep amassing a larger percentage of our nation’s wealth!

Raise the cap.

We’ve been doing that since 1951.

It doesn’t seem to have worked.

I don’t think raising the percentage is correct. That would hit lower income earners where they live.

Raising the cap is preferable, IMO.

To the contrary, it’s been proven to work.

No, the cap has never been signficantly raised in the last 20 years. Just tweaks…

Don’t raise the payroll tax rate until ALL of the Trust Fund bonds are REPAID via higher taxes on those who “borrowed” the funds but did not contribute to the Trust Fund (read: the 1%).

Don’t forget what happened in 1983 when Reagan raised the payroll tax to “prefund” the baby-boomer retirement – all those extra funds were used to provide lower taxes on the wealthy.

Bravissimo!

I could not agree more.

The idea that the left is going to start a nuclear war when they can’t even bring themselves to vote left of the Democrats would be hysterically funny if it were not so very important and so very sad.

You are right, it would solve the problem and provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people; which is why it is a non-starter. :)

Don’t forget. The progressive base/movement is us. :-)

will primaries follow?

Will they fuck, ……..suckas!!!!

On the bright side, it might contain fewer unnecessary carcinogenic additives than people food.

Yes, and that’s in part bc those Tea Party pols were backed by the 1%.

The Oligarchs love the Tea Party bc Glenn & Rush have reliably brainwashed them into thinking that voting against their own interests is a good thing. Also Tea Partiers love to live in the delusion that they, too, will soon be members of the 1%, and they have learned from their Pastors that Gordon Gecko was right: GREED IS GOOD. So if they do get into the 1%, they sure as hell don’t wanna share *anything* with the horrid, dastardly, lazy, shitty teh poorz, even if it means that nice grandma down the street who worked her ass off all her life dies fast due to dwindling finances brought on by chained CPI. Fuck grandma if she didn’t “save enough.” That’t HER problem, not MINE. I got MINE, eff everyone else.

In 21st century America, it is absolutely imperative that you make the right choices. Topping the list: choosing the right parents.

Agree. Raising the cap would make a lot of difference and result in betterment for all. But that’s NOT what the Oligarchs want, so fahgeddaboud it.

And anyhoo, Soc Sec has nothing to do with our “Debt.” That is all bogus anyway. Are there some “real” issues with Soc Sec? Yes, some. But again, raising the cap and/or doing away with it altogether will resolve most, if not all, of those issues.

Anything else is bogus bullshit brought to you by Mr. Socialist, himself, Barack Obama.

I only eat organic which I get at the farmer’s market, from the farmers themselves, or at one of the two food coops, from the same farmers. It is much more expensive than the big box petro/pesticide/agra-business fare with its corporate welfare subsidy.

But I know where it came from and who grew it.

I’ll live under a bridge before I eat that corporate poison.

NO shit.

I know several people right now who will be *devastated* by chained CPI. One woman works with me in a part-time job at 82. Why how nice you say? Well she doesn’t mind working, per se, but there’s a big physical component to what we have to do. And the physical side of the job is literally *incapacitating* her and worsening some medical-health problems she has. It is probably also shortening her life.

But she is *broke* even though she has worked full-time most of her working life… up to the age of 82 (she works almost full-time now). It’s honestly one of the most horrific things I get to witness on a weekly basis.

This woman’s family (she has 2 kids; don’t know about other rels) all work, as well, but are also struggling to get by, so they don’t have much to help out their mom & grandma… but they give her what they can.

I know that my friend is not alone is such circumstances.

But I also know that the 1% – including Barack Obama – could give a shit about her plight. Screw her. Die fast.

If you disagree with me… well more fool you.

Win what? By that time, there will be the very rich and corpses.

A neocon black man. Fuck. We been had.

The cap has not been raised nearly as fast as the fat cat’s incomes have escalated.

That, in a nutshell, follows the increase in income inequality in the last 30-40 years, and more importantly, the resultant rise in wealth inequality.

Before social security, when one could no longer work, one starved.

Unless one had independent means.

I cannot do that, but I have become careful about additives.

However, that comes at a dollar cost.

He is just a mouthpiece for the MOTU. I feel like I’m watching a really bad 70′s movie where the plot line is so absurd no one could believe it and yet here we are. My pet theory that the uber wealthy are certifiably nuts will eventually be proven as a law assuming we all survive this train wreck.

Who coulda known?

If all wages were taxed and counted toward benefits, the change would almost make Social Security solvent. This option would remedy 93 percent of the financial shortfall. While high earners and their employers would pay considerably more, these top earners would also receive higher benefits. For example, one who had paid taxes on lifetime earnings of $400,000 would get a benefit of about $6,000 a month, or $72,000 a year. One who had average lifetime earnings of $1.0 million a year would get a monthly Social Security benefit of about $13,500 a month, or $162,000 a year. These estimates assume that the existing benefit formula would apply to all earnings. An historical rationale for having a maximum cap on earnings that count toward benefits is to avoid “extending Social Security coverage to a level where forced saving is unnecessary and where the provision of additional retirement income is best left to private saving and pensions” (Advisory Council on Social Security, 1979).

Cutting Social Security and Medicare still remain a top Republican ruling party duopoly priority and for those with short memories, Obama put cutting Social Security and Medicare on the table in previous negotiations. So Green will likely face the scenario of major Democrats publicly putting it on the table if not cuts being part of a larger package.

Fixed.

When will DPers learn that their party is also a party of neoliberal foolishness?

Since 1937 the average percentage of covered earnings subject to the cap was 83%. It’s currently 86%.

My pet theory that the uber wealthy are certifiably nuts will eventually be proven as a law assuming we all survive this train wreck.

You be dead before that happens. We all be dead before that happens.

Greatest good for the greatest number of people indeed.

The tax max remained at $3,000 until 1951. Social Security Commissioner Arthur Altmeyer argued for the tax max increase in the context of maintaining the relationship between benefits and preretirement earnings for middle and higher earners.

Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, he suggested that “if the wage base is not raised, the differential between benefits for low-wage and high-wage workers will not adequately represent their differences in levels of living and the benefit structure will tend more toward a flat level”

I.e., if we don’t raise the cap, the rich won’t maintain their earning advantage over the poor throughout their retirement.

A neocon African American is no surprise.

For just one example, we’ve had one on the Supreme Court bench since Bush 41.

The surprise for me was a neocon Democratic African American. Then again, I had not read up on the DLC until after the 2008 election, an omission for which I kick myself at fairly frequent intervals to this day.

I don’t know comrade. I saw some of his pushers’ zealous praise, I learned of his backing by the Crowns, and I suspected the choice of a nomination of a black man was cynical, but I didn’t put two and two together.

How ’bout you?

They represent roughly 21% of the entire House and 41% of the Democratic Caucus. Too bad they don’t have more clout. A solidified block of votes could make some difference in legislation but not with the politics of TeaBaggery hanging over all their heads. We’ll see, I guess.

I consider flat taxes regressive: equality is not always equity and neither is a flat tax.

I am confident that all the king’s economists and all the king’s mathematicians can arrive at a formula that will ensure that the solvency of Social Security will continue without causing undue hardship to lowest income wage earners.

It’s interesting that you keep making this same argument, because most of us more socialistically inclined commenters have no problem with people who pay more into the fund getting higher benefits, and, as nixonclinbushbama @ 61 has said, we think an equitable and sound benefit structure is possible . Why do you hate rich people? And actuaries?

I don’t think raising the percentage is correct. That would hit lower income earners where they live.

Obama just jacked the payroll tax up 2% (from the temp. 4.2%).

You are so right.

And, a great deal of the battle was lost when Obama promised, before he was even inaugurated, to cut entitlements because the nation could not afford them.

Once a Democratic President referred publicly to those programs as entitlements and said the nation could not afford them, the Republicans had won. Nothing and no one can unring that bell.

After that, even if Obama were to protect every program until he leaves office, they could say that he knew it had to be done but did not have the wherewithal to do it.

Primary after the cuts. Nuclear war. How far out of reality is Green?

I said what I thought would be correct.

I never said a thing about Obama.

Not sure what your point is?

Are you implying that I should see something as correct because Obama did it?

Sorry to keep sticking this under your nose. It’s not meant for you, but many people think raising the cap is a magic bullet that solves the SS shortfall and is paid for by others. They think “the rich” will pay more and not get any extra back. As you well know, it doesn’t work that way.

Exactly. If you won’t put you money where your mouth is, you aint saying shit.
You can talk about obama failures all day long. It means nothing if you end up voting for him.

No, in fact it technically wasn’t Obama anyway.

But raising the payroll tax 1% or 2% isn’t the end of the world, even for low wage earners, as is proven by the increase.

Indeed. In fact It wouldn’t surprise me if they said some cuts were needed as I’m starting to hear from some obamabots.

No, you choose to assume that. In fact many of us are well aware that SS benefits are tied to what was paid in, and see that a standard aspect of insurance, and something that would be preserved if the cap were removed and applied to all types of income.

The Democrats are like the battalion commanders in Vietnam who demanded that certain hills be taken no matter what the cost because they were very important to turning the war around. Guys went out knowing they were gonna get the shit kicked out of them (I’m talking about places like the Que Sons and Hamburger Hill, Ripcord) but they did what was asked of them, watching their friends die, and when it was all over, they abandoned the places with no looking back.

They try to frighten everyone with what the crazies in the GOP are going to do if they get in and when the election is over they abandon everyone who fought for them in the election and negotiate with the enemy.

This country needs a cleansing conflagration to rid us of the venal politicians who are completely out for themselves.

who said vampaires are real. Those two sons of the undead should have their coffins reprosessed or exposed to directed sunlight.

In our two (one) party system you are only allowed to be a politician if you are only out for yourself. The big problem for Progressive Democrats is they don’t accept that there is precious little difference between a rich R and a rich D. I left the D’s after voting for O and will never return. I with all the people who believe we need a third party and so far the Green seems appealing. If OWS became a party it would be interesting IMO. Maybe electing non millionaires would make a difference, candidates who pledge never to enrich themselves beyond their humble $175k salary.

since there is a “tea party” party I think we should start running some ows’s, jane comes to mind btw

I would donate a nice bit of me savings to a campaign if jane is the candidate

I left after Kerry walked away from challenging the results in Ohio.
The big problem in this country is that no one believes there’s a class system of any significance. That might have changed a little with OWS but the owner class is making sure that any glimmer of nascent class consciousness is quickly snuffed out.

That’s likely solve some numbers but the truth is the truly wealthy don’t collect a ton of wages. They make most of their money off the backs of other people’s labor through the hedge funds and stock market.

I suggested as much to DD as well. I enjoyed voting for Stein and not voting for Feinstein in CA. No third party will be perfect but someone has to represent progressive thinking and philosophy and one of the major parties needs to be dependent on that third party if anything is going to change for the good.

What happens when an empire decays, comrade? The generals get desperate.

“This country needs a cleansing conflagration”. Well now you’re talking bullshit.

Do you have a schematic of that process comrade?

The increase just occurred. So let’s actually let it effect a paycheck or two before declaring it no big deal.

By the way, how about seeing you make a workable budget out of $285 a week since you insist the extra $3 is gonna be not such a big deal? Using the government’s formula on how much should be spent on housing (30%)that gives them a whooping $342 to spend on a place to live.

Instead of taking money away from those on the bottom, we should be giving them more.

If you need a schematic then feel free to talk to a hedge fund.

Out of the millions that Romney made, only about $300,000 of it was wages. That’s why his tax rate was so low.

Taking money away from those at the bottom was President Roosevelts idea.

I was looking for something statistical. For one, I’d like to see how the hedge funds launder their money, if that data is even available.

Seen anything like that?

Hey, did you get your head higher than your ass?

Is there no possible way to both raise the cap AND adjust the forumula so those that pay more into social security get more back but also the lowest wage earners also see some increase in their return so they can live in some semblence of decency as they age?? What are actuaries paid to do? I’m a bit confused by your assertions. I can’t believe this is so complex it can’t be fixed.

Good thing “liberals” don’t put social issues ahead of the economic ones like those “conservatives”.

You are describing an abused wife, who washes her husband’s shirt so he smells nice when he goes out with his mistress and spends the family food money on a motel room.

income from non labor sources needs to be taxed at a much HIGHER rate

Wow! You still have a pension? Good going, they stole mine. Cat food? Try dry dog food cheaper and crunchier good for your teeth ( especially your canines.) ;)

Nuclear war, my ass. All I ask is that these toothless weenies don’t refer to themselves as “the Left” anymore–I don’t want to be associated with them.

How about if you report Unearned income you have to give it back since you are saying you didn’t earn it. Mitt could keep the $300k he earned and give back the $20+ million. Talk about pulling youself up by your own bootstraps, who should get income they didn’t earn; now that’s an entitlement.

Can you kindly provide links to document that statement. It is not my understanding.

Whiner. Isn’t that what you once called me? Told us all how much you “Hated” whiners-meaning me. But now I understand! Your self loathing is likely responsible for such bile, as well as the zeal with which you have directed it at others.

Ignore him. He’s either a paid shill or sociopath. Or both. He will be eaten by his Masters when his useful life has expired. He’s in for a very rude awakening soon.

What a laugh. The primaries and the nuclear war on the left should have started a long time ago. The fact of the matter is that no democrats are listening to progressives and they don’t plan to start now.

Nope. The government allows them to keep things hush- hush. You’d be hard pressed to find anything out about the inner workings of a hedge fund.

What in the world are you babbling about?

I’m making the statement that one of the reasons we(and by we, I mean families like mine who pay taxes)we end up having to pay for subsidized housing, food stamps and a whole host of other things is because the people on the bottom of the food chain don’t make enough to cover these costs. It makes absolutely no sense to take money from them.

Not quite sure how that equates to “self loathing” but then again I’m not sure that you’re sure what the hades you are babbling about.

I’d support a flat tax with the caveat that the first $20,000 of a person’ income be exempted.

As it is a lot of the rich DO get more out of the deductions we allow. Most of the poor use the standard deduction because they don’t own their houses or can’t afford the costs up front for things like Hummers or energy efficient upgrades.

Yes.

But what you’re suggesting (changing the formula) is actually CUTTING benefits. Others have suggested going to a chained CPI which merely provides a slightly smaller benefit increase each year and we all know how that’s gone over.

And in fact, that’s what Simpson-Bowles proposed, changing the bend points for higher earners. Again, not to many fans of SB around here.

Gladly, chart 4.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html

And mtquinn #95 can KMA. When (s)he provides a fact (s)he can rejoin the conversation.

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income.

It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent.

LINK (h/t welshTerrier2 for the link)

The cost of living increase isn’t a benefit. It’s for the purposes of keeping existing benefits current with inflation. Chained CPI does this less accurately than the current calculation, and less accurately than the CPI-E calculation proposed to reflect the real expenses of real seniors in the real world.

#102 agree

I think I read if we wanted to get back to the 90% level the cap should be $143k instead of $113. Not too big a deal buster.

#103 agree

BTW, I think it was in 2009 SS recipients were give $250 check even though CPI was 0. Therefore, for the purposes of keeping up with inflation those lucky ducky’s are already about 5 to 10 years ahead. :-)

I’d support a flat tax with the caveat that the first $20,000 of a person’ income be exempted.

“flat taxes” are not in fact, “flat”, they are regressive

a “true” flat tax would flatten regressive taxes and fees so that the wealthy pay at a higher rate then the rest

FOR INSTANCE;

if I make 10k a year, I spend all of my income on goods that are re-taxed at the local level (for instance sales tax, property tax”

if sales tax is 9 percent, that means I am taxed an additional 9 percent of my income

if on the other hand I only spend 1/10th of my income on goods that get sales tax, that means I am only paying 1% of my income

so the poor are paying ten times more then the wealthy in this case

if we were to raise that sales tax on the wealthy to reflect the same rate as it reflects on the poor, then THAT would be a “true” flat tax

there is not one person who is suggesting a “flat tax” who actually wants a true flat tax

the left-right paradigm will keep you enslaved forever. wake up. build your own party from the ground up.

not so fast my friend. flat does not mean neutral. the flat tax proposal does what it proposes to do….provide a FLAT, not neutral tax rate. bottom line. we would ALL benefit from a true flat tax rate which means the existing I.R.S. tax codes would be replaced with a single line item tax rate.

They allegedly could not agree on a Grand Bargain, with Kerry supposedly being the biggest dissenter, so, lo and behold, action got deferred until after the election. (Oh, so convenient for all involved.)

And lo and behold, Kerry is on his way out of the Senate, very likely to be replaced by Scott Brown in the next election. (God help us if a sellout like Kerry is what stands between us and the apocalypse.)