State of the Union.

[BerniePragle]

19 hours ago, El Luchador said:

Getting rid of SSI doesn't have to mean doing nothing,  the same 15% can be invested without the government having control over it but still requiring it be set aside. The worker doesn't get it and neither does the government.  It would be put into safe, insured investments, or private insurance.

 

I understand and agree.  That makes sense.
For a while, my wife and I lived next to a guy  who worked for the railroad for 42 years.  He did very well with his retirement being separate from SS.  Much better than if he would have been in SS.
If the 7-1/2, 7-1/2 contribution is mandatory and automatic, I agree.  If it's a choice between trusting a bunch of crooked politicians or  a bunch of crooked bankers and insurance companies, the bankers and insurance companies win by a little.

 

9 hours ago, Nailbender said:

 

  At least the quote was good.

Here's a few more for your collection.

-At least when a mosquito sucks the blood out of you, he doesn't pretend to be doing it "for your own good."

   Marty Rubin

-Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

      Reagan

-It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.

     Thomas Sowell

 

 

 

I know nothing of Marty Rubin.
I've read a couple of Thomas Sowell's books.  An amazing guy with an amazing perspective.
Reagan, I have absolutely no use for.  Much of the rape and plunder of the middle class by the .01% has been a result of Reagan's Trickle Down BS.  How the middle class keeps falling for that is beyond me.  It's demonstrably NOT worked for anybody but the super rich for 40+ years.
 

[Nailbender]

16 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

 

I understand and agree.  That makes sense.
For a while, my wife and I lived next to a guy  who worked for the railroad for 42 years.  He did very well with his retirement being separate from SS.  Much better than if he would have been in SS.
If the 7-1/2, 7-1/2 contribution is mandatory and automatic, I agree.  If it's a choice between trusting a bunch of crooked politicians or  a bunch of crooked bankers and insurance companies, the bankers and insurance companies win by a little.

 

I know nothing of Marty Rubin.
I've read a couple of Thomas Sowell's books.  An amazing guy with an amazing perspective.
Reagan, I have absolutely no use for.  Much of the rape and plunder of the middle class by the .01% has been a result of Reagan's Trickle Down BS.  How the middle class keeps falling for that is beyond me.  It's demonstrably NOT worked for anybody but the super rich for 40+ years.
 

I contemplated leaving the quotes unattached but wanted to give credit.

It's surprising to me that a self proclaimed deep thinker such as yourself would be so focused on who the quote was from rather than the content of the quote itself. The quotes aren't all that profound but you sure changed the subject to something unrelated and partisan you'd rather talk about pretty fast. Telling.

[mspart]

So does anything need to happen to SS or Medicare to make it viable as the baby boomers retire?  

mspart

[BerniePragle]

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I contemplated leaving the quotes unattached but wanted to give credit.

It's surprising to me that a self proclaimed deep thinker such as yourself would be so focused on who the quote was from rather than the content of the quote itself. The quotes aren't all that profound but you sure changed the subject to something unrelated and partisan you'd rather talk about pretty fast. Telling.

Since you decided to make it personal:

"self proclaimed" thinker?  Gee, I have two pieces of paper from Cornell, one from UofC, and 14 from the USPTO that confirm my thought process.  Et tu?

[Plasmodium]

Feel the Bern!!!!

[Mike Parrish]

On 2/15/2023 at 9:34 AM, mspart said:

I said nothing about a nonpartisan response.   I notice you are again dodging my response to yours.   The whitehouse.gov site listed a bunch of lies that do not pertain to the here and now.   That is what I addressed and you cited this as refutation.   So like I said, Nice try.  Not fooling anyone. 

mspart

I suspect your fact-checking was faulty.

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

So does anything need to happen to SS or Medicare to make it viable as the baby boomers retire?  

mspart

Simply removing the income cap for withholdings makes both programs solvent forever.

[mspart]

4 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

I suspect your fact-checking was faulty.

Please share your suspicion.    I read the white house file you linked.   It was all old news.  Somehow I think you don't really want to see this one through. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

Please share your suspicion.    I read the white house file you linked.   It was all old news.  Somehow I think you don't really want to see this one through. 

mspart

I did share my suspicion, you quoted it directly.

I'm happy to discuss this topic.

Let's go point by point instead of doing that ole Gish Gallup.

[mspart]

4 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Simply removing the income cap for withholdings makes both programs solvent forever.

I hadn't heard that.   Is this your opinion, or is this substantiated somewhere?   I'm guessing it really wouldn't be that simple.   Nick Saban would have a difficult time with that one I'm guessing.  Income could be renegotiated so salary is lower but somehow other forms of remuneration could be employed.   Those fatcats will find a way I suspect. 

 mspart

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

I hadn't heard that.   Is this your opinion, or is this substantiated somewhere?   I'm guessing it really wouldn't be that simple.   Nick Saban would have a difficult time with that one I'm guessing.  Income could be renegotiated so salary is lower but somehow other forms of remuneration could be employed.   Those fatcats will find a way I suspect. 

 mspart

Here's a good breakdown of the options:

https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/pdf/socialsecurity/votingcard_0801.pdf

It's an older article.

 

Here's something more recent

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/03/changes-americans-are-willing-to-make-to-fix-social-security.html

Quote

1. Raising the Social Security payroll tax cap

• Share in support: 81%
• Democrats in support: 88%
• Republicans in support: 79%

Raising the payroll tax cap is the one proposal that got “overwhelming bipartisan support,” according to Kull.

In 2022, Social Security payroll taxes are applied on up to $147,000 in income, a level that is adjusted each year. That means high earners may pay Social Security payroll taxes for just part of the year.

However, one Democratic proposal — Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust put forward by Rep. John Larson, D-Conn. — calls for reapplying those payroll taxes for wages of $400,000 and up. Another bill proposed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., calls for a $250,000 threshold, plus additional taxes on capital gains, and net investment and business income.

Increasing the level of income at which Social Security payroll taxes are reapplied to income of more than $400,000 would eliminate 61% of the shortfall, researchers estimate. The proposal is popular with the public, having earned its own slogan, “Scrap the Cap.”

Removing the cap entirely, taxed through the 147K-400K range, would likely (can't find the article I found before) eliminate the shortfall entirely.

 

Best I can do while I'm eating ramen.

[mspart]

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

I did share my suspicion, you quoted it directly.

I'm happy to discuss this topic.

Let's go point by point instead of doing that ole Gish Gallup.

You shared a whitehouse screed.   Did you read it?  If you had, you wouldn't have put it up.  I quoted from it.   It was talking about in the past Rs wanted to change SS.   And that is true.   But we are not talking about the past.   We are talking about right now.   You intimated that you would share data that showed lots of Rs are trying to get rid of or otherwise change SS.   You have not provided that.  

Now Rick Scott has a bill he offered to sunset any programs after 5 years for re-upping this year.   That would include SS.   It is not a bad idea in general for most programs to be reconsidered, but when the Rs figured out it meant SS and MC, they roundly criticized him and rejected the idea.    Are you saying that puts them on record to want to change SS?  

Which current Rs have stated in 2023 they want to get rid of SS and are offering legislation to do that other than Rick Scott? 

mspart

[mspart]

Just now, Mike Parrish said:

Here's a good breakdown of the options:

https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/pdf/socialsecurity/votingcard_0801.pdf

It's an older article.

 

Here's something more recent

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/03/changes-americans-are-willing-to-make-to-fix-social-security.html

Removing the cap entirely, taxed through the 147K-400K range, would likely (can't find the article I found before) eliminate the shortfall entirely.

 

Best I can do while I'm eating ramen.

OK, you should not type and slurp ramen at the same time, agreed!   I'll take a look at those.

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

You shared a whitehouse screed.   Did you read it?  If you had, you wouldn't have put it up.  I quoted from it.   It was talking about in the past Rs wanted to change SS.   And that is true.   But we are not talking about the past.   We are talking about right now.   You intimated that you would share data that showed lots of Rs are trying to get rid of or otherwise change SS.   You have not provided that.  

Now Rick Scott has a bill he offered to sunset any programs after 5 years for re-upping this year.   That would include SS.   It is not a bad idea in general for most programs to be reconsidered, but when the Rs figured out it meant SS and MC, they roundly criticized him and rejected the idea.    Are you saying that puts them on record to want to change SS?  

Which current Rs have stated in 2023 they want to get rid of SS and are offering legislation to do that other than Rick Scott? 

mspart

It's a terrible idea. Flat out.

The GOP has perennially has said they want to cut, freeze, change social security over the past three decades.

To argue otherwise is disingenuous.
 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Mike Parrish

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, mspart said:

OK, you should not type and slurp ramen at the same time, agreed!   I'll take a look at those.

mspart

I'm multitasking!!

[mspart]

The Actuary.org link says nothing about dumping the salary cap.

mspart

 

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

It's a terrible idea. Flat out.

The GOP has perennially has said they want to cut, freeze, change social security over the past three decades.

To argue otherwise is disingenuous.
 

Granted we will not agree on this idea.  But you again did not respond to the question:

Which current Rs have stated in 2023 they want to get rid of SS and are offering legislation to do that other than Rick Scott? 

mspart

[mspart]

The CNBC link doesn't say anything about getting rid of the shortfall 100%.   Quote:

Increasing the level of income at which Social Security payroll taxes are reapplied to income of more than $400,000 would eliminate 61% of the shortfall, researchers estimate. The proposal is popular with the public, having earned its own slogan, “Scrap the Cap.”

So please provide something that provides some kind of evidence to support your claim.  This is becoming a habit with you.   You never directly answer a question, provide a link, it doesn't answer the question, and you keep dodging.   I'm just asking you to support your perspective.   That should be easy but apparently is not. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

The Actuary.org link says nothing about dumping the salary cap.

mspart

 

Second page, second row of the table.
Look for

"Increase wages subject to
Social Security tax"

[Mike Parrish]

https://time.com/6254832/republicans-sunset-social-security-medicare/

[mspart]

25 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Second page, second row of the table.
Look for

"Increase wages subject to
Social Security tax"

Are you sure you want to use that one.   Where does this document say 100% fixed?

mspart

[Nailbender]

41 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

Since you decided to make it personal:

"self proclaimed" thinker?  Gee, I have two pieces of paper from Cornell, one from UofC, and 14 from the USPTO that confirm my thought process.  Et tu?

Sorry, I don't have any patents to share and wouldn't if I did.

Since you seem confused, my post was referencing this gem.

"A nickle's worth of free advice from an old man before I leave you... When you play any sport or any game, you will never be much better than, maybe, a little better than the people you play with. The same is true of being intelligent. If you want to be smart, hang around and converse with smart people. I know, what a concept. In my opinion, this board is a very good place to start/continue."

     Been stuck in my craw. Hanging out where you feel comfortable doesn't make you any smarter. It's mentally lazy. So is the attitude in your post. I've been reading here for a long time. There's as much genius or ignorance as anywhere but other parts of the forum have some great wrestling talk. 

     Nothing personal about it, for me at least. You think you're smart, maybe you are. I've seen nothing in your discourse to prove either way. However thinking you're smarter than everyone, does seem to be a theme with you and others here. Once again illustrated by... 

     The fact that you took the time to dig that out, block out your personal info and post it while flipping the bird. As if that proves you have it all figured out. 

     Please do tell me more about how smart you are, if you're so inclined though. I'm sure your old buddies will eat it up and it gives me quite a chuckle.

[mspart]

Finally, something that kind of looks like something.   From the TIME article:

But Scott wasn’t alone among Republicans in floating ideas that could lead to the paring back of federal entitlements. The Republican Study Committee, a quasi in-house think tank for the House GOP conference, unveiled a 2023 budget blueprint last year that would raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and the Social Security eligibility age from 65 to 69.

Thank you for finally providing something that supports your position.   The question is, are they acting on this plan?  Not to my knowledge. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

5 minutes ago, mspart said:

Are you sure you want to use that one.   Where does this document say 100% fixed?

mspart

As I said, it's an older document that covered more options.
I included a newer document that has newer numbers but not all the options included in the older document.

"Raising the current 80,400 limit to 100,000" fixes 26% of the shortfall back when this document was compiled.

Extrapolation is a thing.

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

Finally, something that kind of looks like something.   From the TIME article:

But Scott wasn’t alone among Republicans in floating ideas that could lead to the paring back of federal entitlements. The Republican Study Committee, a quasi in-house think tank for the House GOP conference, unveiled a 2023 budget blueprint last year that would raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 and the Social Security eligibility age from 65 to 69.

Thank you for finally providing something that supports your position.   The question is, are they acting on this plan?  Not to my knowledge. 

mspart

Moving the goalposts a little there?

If you actually want to discuss the issues civilly, stop including the snide commentary.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Mike Parrish