Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
WASHINGTON -- A Republican plan to rein in the rising cost of Social Security would dramatically reduce retirement benefits for middle- and upper-income Americans, especially those now younger than 25, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the program's chief actuary.

The plan, by Rep. Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, would reduce benefits by gradually raising the retirement age and gradually trimming benefits for the top 70 percent of earners.

22
Share 16 Comments Together, the two provisions would slice initial benefits by about a quarter for middle-income Americans who turn 65 in 2050, according to the analysis. Wealthier retirees would see even deeper cuts, losing about a third of scheduled benefits in 2050 and more than half of scheduled benefits if they turn 65 in 2080.

With congressional elections less than two weeks away, the Ryan plan has been a frequent target for Democrats accusing the GOP of plotting to gut Social Security. But the report by Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, also examines other ideas for overhauling the program, including several under discussion by a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission appointed by President Barack Obama. Leaders in both parties say Social Security may present the best opportunity for compromise on the commission, which is due to issue a report Dec. 1.

Goss' analysis shows that those ideas may not be much more palatable than Ryan's plan. For example, allowing the retirement age to continue rising two months per year until it hits age 70 would cut initial benefits by nearly 20 percent for anyone turning 65 in 2050. Meanwhile, the commission is talking about trimming the cost-of-living increase retirees receive each year, as well as cutting their initial benefits.

"There's been a lot of discussion about how easy it would be to cut Social Security in order to save it," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Democrat of North Dakota, who requested the report as chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security. "The new analysis reveals that these proposals result in benefits cuts ranging from 10 percent to as high as 50 percent. . . . That's not what I'd call 'saving' Social Security."

Ryan spokesman Conor Sweeney said Goss did not analyze the full effect of Ryan's plan to balance the federal budget and ignored Ryan's proposal to guarantee a higher minimum benefit to low-income retirees. More to the point, Sweeney said, failing to overhaul Social Security -- which is already paying out more than it collects from payroll taxes -- will cause more immediate harm.

"According to the Social Security Administration, Congressman Pomeroy's do-nothing plan will impose painful, across-the-board benefit cuts on current seniors and those nearing retirement," Sweeney said. "It is deeply irresponsible for elected leaders to stand idle with icy indifference as the social safety net collapses."

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/10/republican_social_security_pla.html





I thought pubs were against wealth redistribution?:huh:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,157 Posts
At least Ryan is looking down the road and proposing something, as opposed to the long term democratic social security plan, outlined below:

DemocraticPlan said:
So, between 2010 and 2050, Ryan wants to trim outlays for the highest earners, which gives someone 30 years old sufficient time to plan for a later retirement age and an up front, honest assessment of our ability to afford the current system.

I thought you preferred honesty from your government - but perhaps you'd rather continue to believe the delusion that we can continue the current entitlement programs indefinitely.

Steven
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
I say... good for both of them.

So why not campaign all-out, in [Tip] O'Neill’s plainspoken way, against a GOP that is disloyal to the most successful -- and most popular -- social program in American history?

Because Democrats have been disarmed by the president's deficit reduction commission, which plainly intends to propose Social Security cuts. (to pay for nationalized health-care)

Rather than allow such cuts to be greased through the lame duck session of a decimated Democratic Congress, or passed under cover of "bipartisanship" in a decidedly more Republican one next year, shouldn't the case be stated and debated before the election? (Right now, Social Security is treated as the issue that dare not speak its name.) There is also the question of Democratic identity: What does the party stand for if not Social Security? And then there is the question of Democratic stupidity: Qualified and muted comments by Democrats in effect suggesting that Democrats won't endanger Social Security as much as the other guys will can only further pave the road to defeat.

The president's deficit reduction commission was a response to a series of popular myths -- that the federal deficit is a root cause of our economic distress and that Social Security is a root cause of the deficit. . . . So the deficit commission has targeted Social Security, which has nothing to do with the deficit.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/04/simpson/index.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
If you don't think measures like this will be forced on us in the next 40 years, you haven't been payin attention. Haven't seen the whole plan so can't comment on the details. But whatever happened to the complaint that the GOP has no plans or solutions? SS is political dynamite and everyone is scared to death to propose anything that looks like a cut. It takes some real cajones to even mention this as the trial balloon it surely is.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I thought you preferred honesty from your government - but perhaps you'd rather continue to believe the delusion that we can continue the current entitlement programs indefinitely.

Steven

I honestly dont see the difference between tax increases for the wealthy, expiring bush tax cuts, wealth redistribution...

Or this SS plan.
Your still robbing from one class to pay for anothers.




But it's ok if your party does it.
Hypocrisy.:rolleyes:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Supposedly,

A large part of the Tea Party agenda was to avoid this SS endangerment......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,476 Posts
I honestly dont see the difference between tax increases for the wealthy, expiring bush tax cuts, wealth redistribution...

Or this SS plan.
Your still robbing from one class to pay for anothers.




But it's ok if your party does it.
Hypocrisy.:rolleyes:
If the Dems had proposed this, you'd be all over it like a fly on ****. :laughing:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I honestly dont see the difference between tax increases for the wealthy, expiring bush tax cuts, wealth redistribution...

Or this SS plan.
Your still robbing from one class to pay for anothers.




But it's ok if your party does it.
Hypocrisy.:rolleyes:
No one says there should be NO wealth redistribution. What we are against is a never-ending stream of new ideas for blatant or hidden redistibution. However, for better or worse, SSI has become an expected benefit. It is paid for throughout our working life, and we plan for retirement expecting that minimal return on our payments. But the plan does no good if goes entirely belly up. Every analysis says it will do just that as the workforce dwindles and the retiree numbers rise. One of many tweaks suggested is some sort of means testing. I don't like it, but when driving toward a brick wall at 70 mph, I tend to think stopping and looking for another route is the prudent action.
 

·
Grey Squirrel
Joined
·
22,780 Posts
You want to fix Social Security? Eliminate the withholdings limit and you'll have more than enough money to pay benefits and have money left over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
Exactly why I say privatize it. Give me back what I and my employers have paid into it over the years and let me invest my future contributions and employee match on my own for the next 30 and I'll be happy with that. That way the Fed Gov't no longer has to worry about where my future payments are coming from.

If I remember correctly GWB proposed exactly this back in 07 or 08 and got beat up pretty bad for it. I'd rather be in charge of my own money anyway. I'd be willing to bet, using standard assumptions, prospective payments from SSI are at a net Negative ROR compared to what I've (and employer match) paid in over the years.

SSI is a ponzi scheme anyway. No matter how you slice it.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top