I think this is an issue that plays against Trump this time around, even if his "hands off" approach seemed to help in 2016. Thanks to inflation, the GOP and its conservative base is back to thinking about fiscal responsibility again, I don't think there's as much appetite for throwing fiscal caution to the wind again like there was for Trump's first election.
During Reagan, S.S. insolvency was at one point mere months away. So 6, 8, or 10 years seems enough time to fix it. Raising the FICA rate by a tiny amount and ditching the income cap might well solve the insolvency question for a couple of generations.
Social Security and Medicare are not on the chopping block, because politicians don't want to commit job suicide. They hate it, they grumble a lot, but they can't even get rid of Obamacare, and there's no way they have the stones to take on seniors.
I'll go to Mara-largo and give Trump a rim job if I'm wrong.
The reason why Republicans have been taken over by a strong populist revolt is because the party elite continues to push unpopular policy solutions that hurt working Americans. Republican policy continues to be unpopular and cannot gain majority support. The elites are in denial about that fact, so instead of doing more popular things, these elites have pandered to extremism and enabled a rage machine to stoke hatred of out groups that reached its highest pitch on Jan 6th.
Paul Ryan talks about Democrats demagoguery on the issue, but that’s dishonest. It’s not demagoguery to challenge Republicans’ policy solutions and their overblown concern trolling of the medicare solvency problem. Republicans are less Cassandra and more Chicken Little. There is clearly more than one way to tackle the issue that does not mean a reduction in benefits or eligibility. Among other ideas, we could raise the income cap, crack down on tax cheats, target entitlement fraud, repeal tax loopholes, etc. The Republican solution to healthcare is another example that was deeply unpopular, yet Republicans continued to ram it down voters throats and unlike Obamacare, won’t get more popular with time. Alas, the Republican elite have also learned nothing and will make another go at these policies. I’m not even mentioning the Supreme Court swinging far to the right.
The continued warnings about our fiscal crisis imo overshadow other real national security concerns. For example, are we prepared for a large confrontation with authoritarian encroachment? Do we have any plans to improve domestic material and manufacturing capability? Do we have all allies onside (not yet)? How will we deal with labor shortages? There are so many questions. It the meantime the Republican Party elite will continue is zombie policy agenda and stoking the anti-others rage.
Joe, I agree something needs to be done for the future, and no cap on SS from one's salary would be a start, maybe. Also, I disagree with the "entitlements" connotation that the Social Security and Medicare i receive monthly are free - I worked and paid for them for 50 years.
Among the threats to SS is the number of jobs (especially well paying manufacturing ones) that have been eliminated by technology and globalization. A steel worker or machinist job contributed a lot more to the system than a barista or a "would you like fries with that" position now does.
Or you could raise taxes and end the income tap but quelle horror, how will the rich be able to afford more yachts and bribe politicians for massive tax payer funded stadiums for their sports teams
Non scientific, anecdotal observations (I’m 73) based on those I know, of those on disability, none, I repeat, none, have any disability. The only disability I see is the disability to say ‘no’ to those that have no ‘right’ to it.
The reported only alluded to the fact the the status of social security and medicare is not about the debt. So the GOP is using debt fears to scare folks into believing that changing social security and medicare is about the debt. The GOP's base of wealthy folks simply would like to crush both programs.
We should raise taxes (reverse years of tax cuts for the well to do) also make sure that corporations pay their fair share.
Then we should reform social security - but by increasing the revenue. Not making the retirement age any higher. Nor by raising the eligibility age for medicare.
While folks are living longer, in fact many folks are far less able to sustain a full time career as they age. I retired at 70 but was already slowed down physically (even coming to the office was a challenge).
Want to get rid of the income cap to salvage Social Security? Start telling Baby Boomers that their benefits will be cut. Or that they will have to work years longer to qualify. The Boomers vote, and probably more so as they age. That’s a huge demographic. Maybe even Fox News, which follows its viewership (according to Amanda Caroenter’s Bulward article today), will demand the removal of the cap. Win/win - the burden falls more on the wealthy who are able to pay.
Don’t ask me what effects that might have 30 years hence after the Boomers are gone.
Take a look at Paul Krugman's analysis of the financial future of SS and Medi. Worth the effort before flatly asserting SS and Medi are heading for insolvency
I would hope whichever congressional committee does budget/deficit/Treasury work would ask for help from the insurance industry, in order to share best practices with the gov dept running it, and that dept would propose options for keeping solvent to congress.
I do worry that Medicare/Medicaid has been farmed out to industry. While it makes the government's job easier, it raises the overall cost of the work being done, and then neither the government nor the vendor are incentivized to lower the cost to the govenment. The vendor may be incentivized to make improvements, but they don't have to pass on a lower cost to the government. This is one of many many reasons that make it seem as if the government (and therefore us) is paying too much for everything. And of course, we are all brought up to maximize our earnings and never leave money on the table, and that is why Trump calls his use of tax loopholes smart. Almost everyone wants to get as much as they can from the gov. If Congress is serious about controlling spending, they have to act like it all the time, and we have to have a shared accountability between the managing department and Congress' budget management.
The maga-controlled House holds a hearing on China policy in prime time while Belarusian President and Putin puppet Alexander Lukashenko visits Xi Jinping. What could possibly go wrong? /s
Anyone, including you, who uses the terms “insolvency“ and “bankruptcy“ to describe the fiscal problems of social security is being disingenuous. As long as there are American workers contributing taxes to the program, there will be money there. The problem isn’t that SS going broke, the problem is that there won’t be enough money to pay everyone 100% of what they were promised unless some reasonable changes are made. Quit scaring people with inappropriate terms.
Your technical, CPA-version, of "insolvency", isn't what most folks think of when they hear that term. Most don't parse the term to mean one can only pay part of a debt but not all of it. To most, it simply means the person or entity is broke.
Where is the hypocrisy? Paul Ryan attempted to reform entitlements to put them on a sounder footing - and Democrats, as usual, demagogued his efforts with fearmongering. That's why we are facing the impending insolvency of the entitlement programs - politicians learned the lesson that they will be punished for trying to act with foresight to save entitlements. So they are all waiting for a crisis to force their hands.
If I remember correctly, Ryan's plan was an all cuts, no revenue plan. Hardly a consensus package that will win the day. But you label the Dems as demagogues and fearmongers, when they were reacting to a typically partisan proposal that was presented as a performative act, rather that a serious policy proposal.
Ryan's plan for SS was 1) to allow individuals to manage up to 1/3 of their SS savings on their own (ie hand it to a private enterprise to invest) while making the FED a guarantor of at least cost of living increase on those investments (!), 2) gradually raise the age of retirement to 70, 3) and in order to increase overall taxes to offset costs, eliminate all deductions and establish a flat $12k deduction, establish two tax rates of 10% and 25% and (here's the real tell...) eliminate INHERITANCE, CAPITAL GAINS, AND DIVIDENDS TAXES TOTALLY.
Medicare? His idea was to raise eligibility to 69.5 yo, and (and once again, here's where he shows his real colors...) REQUIRE RECIPIENTS TO BUY THEIR OWN INSURANCE FROM PRIVATE INSURERS.
So, yeah. No increase in revenues only ways to make his own fat ass richer.
These people are so transparent.
The 70yo pot smoking writer here is absolutely right. The fixes are obvious. The problem is that there's nothing in it for the grifter class.
I think this is an issue that plays against Trump this time around, even if his "hands off" approach seemed to help in 2016. Thanks to inflation, the GOP and its conservative base is back to thinking about fiscal responsibility again, I don't think there's as much appetite for throwing fiscal caution to the wind again like there was for Trump's first election.
During Reagan, S.S. insolvency was at one point mere months away. So 6, 8, or 10 years seems enough time to fix it. Raising the FICA rate by a tiny amount and ditching the income cap might well solve the insolvency question for a couple of generations.
Social Security and Medicare are not on the chopping block, because politicians don't want to commit job suicide. They hate it, they grumble a lot, but they can't even get rid of Obamacare, and there's no way they have the stones to take on seniors.
I'll go to Mara-largo and give Trump a rim job if I'm wrong.
The reason why Republicans have been taken over by a strong populist revolt is because the party elite continues to push unpopular policy solutions that hurt working Americans. Republican policy continues to be unpopular and cannot gain majority support. The elites are in denial about that fact, so instead of doing more popular things, these elites have pandered to extremism and enabled a rage machine to stoke hatred of out groups that reached its highest pitch on Jan 6th.
Paul Ryan talks about Democrats demagoguery on the issue, but that’s dishonest. It’s not demagoguery to challenge Republicans’ policy solutions and their overblown concern trolling of the medicare solvency problem. Republicans are less Cassandra and more Chicken Little. There is clearly more than one way to tackle the issue that does not mean a reduction in benefits or eligibility. Among other ideas, we could raise the income cap, crack down on tax cheats, target entitlement fraud, repeal tax loopholes, etc. The Republican solution to healthcare is another example that was deeply unpopular, yet Republicans continued to ram it down voters throats and unlike Obamacare, won’t get more popular with time. Alas, the Republican elite have also learned nothing and will make another go at these policies. I’m not even mentioning the Supreme Court swinging far to the right.
The continued warnings about our fiscal crisis imo overshadow other real national security concerns. For example, are we prepared for a large confrontation with authoritarian encroachment? Do we have any plans to improve domestic material and manufacturing capability? Do we have all allies onside (not yet)? How will we deal with labor shortages? There are so many questions. It the meantime the Republican Party elite will continue is zombie policy agenda and stoking the anti-others rage.
Joe, I agree something needs to be done for the future, and no cap on SS from one's salary would be a start, maybe. Also, I disagree with the "entitlements" connotation that the Social Security and Medicare i receive monthly are free - I worked and paid for them for 50 years.
Among the threats to SS is the number of jobs (especially well paying manufacturing ones) that have been eliminated by technology and globalization. A steel worker or machinist job contributed a lot more to the system than a barista or a "would you like fries with that" position now does.
Or you could raise taxes and end the income tap but quelle horror, how will the rich be able to afford more yachts and bribe politicians for massive tax payer funded stadiums for their sports teams
Non scientific, anecdotal observations (I’m 73) based on those I know, of those on disability, none, I repeat, none, have any disability. The only disability I see is the disability to say ‘no’ to those that have no ‘right’ to it.
Agreed. I know two of those myself. Disability has got to be one of the more abused elements of the benefit.
The reported only alluded to the fact the the status of social security and medicare is not about the debt. So the GOP is using debt fears to scare folks into believing that changing social security and medicare is about the debt. The GOP's base of wealthy folks simply would like to crush both programs.
We should raise taxes (reverse years of tax cuts for the well to do) also make sure that corporations pay their fair share.
Then we should reform social security - but by increasing the revenue. Not making the retirement age any higher. Nor by raising the eligibility age for medicare.
While folks are living longer, in fact many folks are far less able to sustain a full time career as they age. I retired at 70 but was already slowed down physically (even coming to the office was a challenge).
Gosh!...If the equation taught in business school is true:
BalanceEnd = BalanceBeginning + (MoneyIn - MoneyOut).
Paul Ryan is right since increasing MoneyIn violates the religious rights of the First Church of Republicanism.
Want to get rid of the income cap to salvage Social Security? Start telling Baby Boomers that their benefits will be cut. Or that they will have to work years longer to qualify. The Boomers vote, and probably more so as they age. That’s a huge demographic. Maybe even Fox News, which follows its viewership (according to Amanda Caroenter’s Bulward article today), will demand the removal of the cap. Win/win - the burden falls more on the wealthy who are able to pay.
Don’t ask me what effects that might have 30 years hence after the Boomers are gone.
Take a look at Paul Krugman's analysis of the financial future of SS and Medi. Worth the effort before flatly asserting SS and Medi are heading for insolvency
I would hope whichever congressional committee does budget/deficit/Treasury work would ask for help from the insurance industry, in order to share best practices with the gov dept running it, and that dept would propose options for keeping solvent to congress.
I do worry that Medicare/Medicaid has been farmed out to industry. While it makes the government's job easier, it raises the overall cost of the work being done, and then neither the government nor the vendor are incentivized to lower the cost to the govenment. The vendor may be incentivized to make improvements, but they don't have to pass on a lower cost to the government. This is one of many many reasons that make it seem as if the government (and therefore us) is paying too much for everything. And of course, we are all brought up to maximize our earnings and never leave money on the table, and that is why Trump calls his use of tax loopholes smart. Almost everyone wants to get as much as they can from the gov. If Congress is serious about controlling spending, they have to act like it all the time, and we have to have a shared accountability between the managing department and Congress' budget management.
The maga-controlled House holds a hearing on China policy in prime time while Belarusian President and Putin puppet Alexander Lukashenko visits Xi Jinping. What could possibly go wrong? /s
Anyone, including you, who uses the terms “insolvency“ and “bankruptcy“ to describe the fiscal problems of social security is being disingenuous. As long as there are American workers contributing taxes to the program, there will be money there. The problem isn’t that SS going broke, the problem is that there won’t be enough money to pay everyone 100% of what they were promised unless some reasonable changes are made. Quit scaring people with inappropriate terms.
"Insolvency" is the condition of being unable to meet incurred obligations, so that seems to fit your description exactly.
Your technical, CPA-version, of "insolvency", isn't what most folks think of when they hear that term. Most don't parse the term to mean one can only pay part of a debt but not all of it. To most, it simply means the person or entity is broke.
Paul Ryan received SS benefits after the death of his father. He's the typical GOPer, I got mine, screw you! What a hypocrite!!!
Where is the hypocrisy? Paul Ryan attempted to reform entitlements to put them on a sounder footing - and Democrats, as usual, demagogued his efforts with fearmongering. That's why we are facing the impending insolvency of the entitlement programs - politicians learned the lesson that they will be punished for trying to act with foresight to save entitlements. So they are all waiting for a crisis to force their hands.
If I remember correctly, Ryan's plan was an all cuts, no revenue plan. Hardly a consensus package that will win the day. But you label the Dems as demagogues and fearmongers, when they were reacting to a typically partisan proposal that was presented as a performative act, rather that a serious policy proposal.
Apparently you feel for the act.
Ryan's plan for SS was 1) to allow individuals to manage up to 1/3 of their SS savings on their own (ie hand it to a private enterprise to invest) while making the FED a guarantor of at least cost of living increase on those investments (!), 2) gradually raise the age of retirement to 70, 3) and in order to increase overall taxes to offset costs, eliminate all deductions and establish a flat $12k deduction, establish two tax rates of 10% and 25% and (here's the real tell...) eliminate INHERITANCE, CAPITAL GAINS, AND DIVIDENDS TAXES TOTALLY.
Medicare? His idea was to raise eligibility to 69.5 yo, and (and once again, here's where he shows his real colors...) REQUIRE RECIPIENTS TO BUY THEIR OWN INSURANCE FROM PRIVATE INSURERS.
So, yeah. No increase in revenues only ways to make his own fat ass richer.
These people are so transparent.
The 70yo pot smoking writer here is absolutely right. The fixes are obvious. The problem is that there's nothing in it for the grifter class.