Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Here we go again, Cuts in Social Security and Medicare disguised as payroll tax cuts

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 16, 2012, 8:28 a.m. EST by paulg5 (673)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here we go again, Cuts in Social Security and Medicare disguised as payroll tax cuts to fund government's overspending. A obvious plan to underfund then eliminate these programs all together. I guess we are all stupid if we fall for this!

29 Comments

29 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Chugwunka (89) from Willows, CA 2 years ago

A lot of people getting SSI shouldn't be getting it. That why it is always in trouble.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

What are you referring to? Is there some legislation pending that we should be aware of? Please point to a source or article.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thanks for the link. I think Harkin is making some political hay. He made those statements, I believe, leading up to the vote to get a better deal. And I don't blame him for being really pissed off. The Republicans insistence that the public get any kind of help today had to be offset by cuts in other needed programs, while leaving the wealthy happily enjoying their millions, is disgusting. But this does not set a precedent, since the general fund has been raided for decades.

I'm certainly not saying that this isn't a concern: it is. The fund must be left alone. But I don't believe the hyperbole that this is the beginning of the end of Social Security. And, considering how important extending unemployment benefits are right now ,combined with far more draconian measures the Republicans had been insisting on, this is not the worst compromise that could have happened.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Extending unemployment benefits? not really when they are cutting state's with a maximum of 99 weeks back to 30

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

No, it's an extension. Normally unemployment is for 26 weeks. This bill extends payments until 73 weeks (not 30 weeks). Although it cuts the duration of benefits, is renews the extension program, which was due to expire.

It also provided a partial payroll tax holiday, and averted ending the "Doc fix" to Medicaid.

This is NOT the best bill that could be written, but it was the best considering the anti-worker, anti-poor Tea Baggers and Republitards currently enjoying their majority in the House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/payroll-tax-cut-deal-_n_1280815.html

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

26 weeks is the max as long as the state you live in is below a certain unemployment rate in PA where I live that rate is 8.5 persent if the rate falls below that and you are at or past 26 weeks there are no more extensions!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Some states have indeed opted out of the federal program. That is criminal as far as I'm concerned. But it has nothing to do with this legislation, which is federal; Like with Medicaid, it cannot force the states to participate.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

the 8.5 percent cutoff for Pennsylvania is a federal mandate sure the state wants the funding why wouldn't they! The federal government sets the threshold for funding. So money that is appropriated is not necessarily used. Paying for an extension at the front end and then cutting from the backend really isn't spending ya think!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I'm really not sure what you referring to. Are you talking about an unemployment rate threshold per state? And is that rate mandated federally or by each state; up until now it's been a state determination.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

All I know is that my unemployment was terminated when the state's unemployment rate fell below 8.5% and in the letter of determination I received it said a Federal Mandate. If this applies to each and every state I'm not sure, I figure it would but probably at different rates for each state. If the money doesn't have to be paid back then why would any state refuse it or set up minimum standards, I don't know if they do or do not pay it back?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Different states have different rules. THey also have different lengths of time for extensions. I know because I was also unemployed for a very long time this past year. I don't know the reason for it, except that maybe the states pay for part of it.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

I'm older, so my perspective is likely different than many here at this forum. I'm not terribly knowledgable regarding possible alternatives.

What is the answer to the "Medicare costs" riddle? If Medicare were ended, what, if anything should then be done regarding healthcare coverage for seniors? Should Medicare end "tomorrow?" Should it be phased out over time? Should it be privatized? Should it just be completely eliminated as a federal program?

[-] 1 points by gwiech (4) 2 years ago

The problem is not Medicare but healthcare costs in general. Having people buy private insurance rather than government subsidized healthcare will put them at the mercy of the insurance companies. Not good. The healthcare delivery system needs to be overhauled or no reform will truly fix the quirks.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

As you're aware, many say that a single-payer system would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-05-18/industries/30743750_1_lid-on-health-care-costs-health-care-inpatient-costs

As has been said by others, the business of healthcare insurance places all emphasis on paying for diagnosis and treatment. That's more than a little backwards. Place the emphasis on making healthy choices concerning diet and lifestyle. Essentially this is done now regarding tobacco use for example. Reward subscribers who maintain their weight, verified through physician-generated medical reports. Reward subscribers who receive regular medical check-ups. Reward them with lower monthly premiums if they are self-pay. Reduce or eliminate co-pays for doing those things. Lets' face it, most people would willingly do these things in order to save money.

[-] 1 points by Anti385 (58) 2 years ago

Why not include a link in the main post?

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

There is no link the story is all over the place

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

700b 'defense' budget.

That's where the overspending is.

[-] 1 points by kylelee34 (48) 2 years ago

Social security: 826 billion Medicare and medicade: 906 billion

And as a percentage of GDP defence spending is LESS then it's averaged over the last 50 years. But the point is the author thinks we're cutting funding to SS and Medicare with the payroll tax cut when if truth they are the two most heavily funded areas of the budget.

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Those costs wouldn't matter if the USA didn't spend hundreds of billions on unnecessary wars and killing.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

It's the government borrowing that depleats the Social security trust and the cuts in social security tax that cause underfunding. Social Security has had a surplus in funding each year for the past 12 years!

[-] 1 points by kylelee34 (48) 2 years ago

The social security trust is made up of US treasury bonds, our debt intrest gets reinvested into social security. Also they aren't really seperate accounts, the government has accsess to spen from any account and pay into any account...it's all just federal money in the end.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Yes the SST is made up of TB's, but I'm not understanding what your saying here, doesn't make sense, You do not get "interest from debt"! As for the combining of the accounts that's really no important because they keep track of how much is collected for each account. So just because the money is available that doesn't mean it ok to use it for something else!

[-] 1 points by gwiech (4) 2 years ago

The government has borrowed the money and pays it back with interest. That's how bonds work.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Yes but I think that money that the government borrowes from itself, by writing IOUs for huge sums taken from Social Security and Medicare surpluses isn't real money!

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

The democrats would never allow this! Ask shooz and epa!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Obama = traitor Trojan horse -- could there be any stronger proof? It's just amazing.

It's obvious that Obama was hired by his puppet masters for his silken tones and smooth delivery. But rape is still rape even if vaseline is used.

His whole purpose is to gut the opposition to his puppet master's anti-middle class, anti-American way of life, pro-globalist, pro-war policies. After all, he's a Democrat, he's one of ours (insert sarcasm thingy).

Cicero: "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."