Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Social Security does not contribute to the debt and should not be part of debt reduction negotiations.

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 22, 2012, 10:30 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Washington, Dec 20 -

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today strongly objected to a proposal to cut Social Security benefits. The White House suggested a reduction in Social Security to cut costs as part of the so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations. The proposal called the “Chained Consumer Price Index” would result in a reduction of benefits for Social Security recipients even though Social Security does not contribute to the debt and should not be part of debt reduction negotiations.

Congressman Kucinich’s remarks follow.

“Will Seniors be pushed off the ‘fiscal cliff’? Social Security did not cause the deficit, but the White House’s plan to lower Social Security cost-of-living benefits could eventually reduce Seniors’ annual benefits by hundreds of dollars. The gimmick is called the ‘Chained Consumer Price Index.’ The Chained C.P.I. works this way: As the cost-of-living goes up, seniors inevitably turn to cheaper alternatives.

“For example, if seniors usually eat steak but then can’t afford its higher price, they can switch to something cheaper, like cat food- - and the cost-of-living calculation would be ‘chained’ to the cheaper item - - cat food. So, the less you pay for food the less benefits you get. The ‘chained CPI’ benefit cut will chain aging seniors to a poverty of choices, a lower standard of living, with cheaper products.

“The chained CPI formula doesn’t take into account seniors’ rising health care costs. If it did benefits would go up. There is no justification to cut Social Security benefits. No to throwing seniors off the fiscal cliff. No to a Cat Food Christmas.”



Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yes, all we have to do is lift the cap on Wages for which Social Security Taxes are applied. 100% of the solution is fixed.


Increase wages subject to Social Security Tax Solved. All we have to do is tax the wealthy earners. We don't have to cut benefits. We don't have to raise retirement age. We don't have to do anything else. Just get the rich to pay into the country. damn.

Late add: The rich class lobbied to reduce this tax burden. That is the only reason they don't pay social security tax.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I completely agree
I hope the pres & the dems have the ba11s to go off the cliff
give the loosing liars NOTHING

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yeah, the manipulation and lies of Lawyers and Politicians is criminal how it dumbs down the population.

Here is a quote from a historian about the year 1803, a time when in London people were either cannon fodder, or Factory Fodder. Michael Cathcart, The Extraordinary Tale Of William Buckley.

Check 7 minutes in to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lstfcCYmw4&NR=1&feature=fvwp

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Here's the biggest recent reason for our massive national debt!


[-] 0 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Article is too Simplistic. But I like to place blame on George W. Bush and certainly his Election and the Federal Budgets that Followed including under Barak Obama ... prove that Congress stopped responsible managment of the Federal Budget in 2000. There is some great info to be gained from looking at Ronald Reagan Budget Increases as well. The budget was 200% under better control under Bill Clinton.

However we have to blame Willian J. Clinton for deregulation of the banks. I also heard the Neoliberal Economic Policies arose in 1970 under Milton Friedman in the University of Chicago.


But here is the thing. If the writers of the Article looked at Federal Outlays under George W. Bush ... they would see huge annual budget increases for most major budget lines ... not just war or defense. You say budgets increase every year to manage inflation and population increases. So that would be like 3% per year for most of the budget ... probably most government budgets operate like this. And if it is medicine, health expenses, health insurance, or hostpitals ... then like 6% increase when needed based on concrete numbers. You go to war, you can create a new budget line that can be terminated when the war is over, but it would appear to be a DOD budget increase of lik 6%-20%. These are Outlays. But there are hidden costs of war and other budget lines that get increased for foreign aid, foreign military assistance, foreign military sales, veterans benefits, new construction costs and new buildings and personnel costs for veterans assistance, medical, and social costs including food stamps, unemployment insurance, temporary assistance for homeless families.

But set aside the federal Trust Programs like unemployment, social security, medicare, and medicaid. Those programs are growing, but price controls in medical benefits and medicine seem like the only control we have. But ... also Trust Programs are well funded, have Robust Funding through payroll deductions. If Politicians keep their hands off of our Trust Programs for our Safety net, ...they will be fine.

Also the aritle fails to realize the unfunded costs of war equipment that has not be repaired since the start of the war. Once war is over and US national security within the USA is considered ... the Pentagon will ask for funds to repair tanks and airplanes and installations and training areas and training programs.

Here are some Federal outlays... Sorry if you saw these already. These prove beyond doubt that Congress has Abducated its Budget Responsibilities. If fact I can't name one Public or Private Executive that has taken responsiblity for screwing up the USA, the 2008 Financial Crisis, the many accounting frauds, the frauduent US Ratings of Derivatives, the Fradulent Independent Accounting Firms, the Tax Rate on Carried Interest, the 29 huge Transnational Corporations which have negative Tax Rates, the huge bonuses paid to bankers after the bailout, and the general culture of giving wealthy interests No Taxes.

Defense Vendor Payments 1998 = $95.6 Billion
Defense Vendor Payments 2011 = $394 Billion

DOD Federal Outlays 1998 = $256 Billion
DOD Federal Outlays 2011 = $680 Billion

Department of Education outlays 1998 = $43.7 Billion
Department of Education outlays 2011 = $245.6 Billion (500% increase)

Federal Highway Administration 1998 = $19 Billion
Federal Highway Administration 2011 = $44.8 Billion

Health and Human Services Grants (misc) 1998 = $37.7 Billion
Health and Human Services Grants (misc) 2011 = $101.9 Billion
Food and Nutrition Service (misc) 1998 = $ 13.7 Billion
Food and Nutrition Service (misc) 2011 = $ 95.7 Billion
Supple. Nutrition Assist. Program (SNAP) 1998 = $20 Billion
Supple. Nutrition Assist. Program (SNAP) 2011 = $77.6 Billion
Total Food and Nutrician Services 1998 = $33 Billion
Total Food and Nutrician Services 2011 = $102 Billion

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 1998 = $13 Billion
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 2011 = $18.9 Billion
Total Administration for Children and Families (HHS) 1998 = $32.5 Billion
Total Administration for Children and Families (HHS) 2011 = $54 Billion

Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1998 = $23.4 Billion
Unemployment Insurance Benefits 2011 = $117 Billion

Medicare 1998 = $210 Billion
Medicare 2011 = $552 Billion (no price controls)
Medicaid 1998 = $ 100 Billion
Medicaid 2011 = $ 269 Billion
Total Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services 1998 = $380 Billion
Total Centers Medicare & Medicaid Services 2011 = $1.095 Trillion

Federal Salaries (EFT) 1998 = $87.5 Billion
Federal Salaries (EFT) 2011 = $178.4 Billion

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

I agree congress is a big part of budgetary failure. Mainly they have failed to maintain progressive tax policies with high enough taxes on the rich.

I also agree all areas of budget have increased but the 'cause ofthe debt is as follows:


And while I believe we agree, I'd love to see where you got you numbers from. I've checked a couple of budget sites and they aren't matching up. One example: Dept of Ed is no where near $245B. It's not more than $77B. Medicare has many price controls (just ask hospitals) and a few others.

So maybe I could see a link to your budget source.


[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I haven't been back for like 5 days looks like. The data is from Dept of Treasury website and I had to pull it by hand ... sort of like copy and paste. I looked at archived daily and monthly reports. If you look at daily reports ... look at 31 Sept for each year ... then look at the cumulative total outlays column. I had to do a lot of research and used my own personal experience to interpret the results.

I do have a philosophy about this huge federal budget lines. The planned budget doesn't matter much to me. I use budget outlays. usually I don't look at the Revenues. You will see Outlays (Withdrawls) and Revenues (Deposits) in separate areas of the Treasury Reports, so it is easy to actually find the data. The other things is reading totals for each department ... generally the total is at the bottom of course and is the Largest Number that I focused on but not in Department of Health and Human Services. Also you should know that Federal departments post adjustments usually down in dollars for budget lines. However I choose to ignore these to simplify. This means I probably used the data in archive Daily Data on 31 September of the Year I pulled.


https://fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=12092800.pdf (2012, 28 Sept Daily Report)

Look at Withdrawls Column for Dept of Education, Total for Fiscal year = $226.6 Billion for 2012 (Year Total)

I didn't actually use your Google search data, since Google tracks all users. So not sure the cause of all this Debt as you state.

https://fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=11093001.pdf (2011 total Fiscal Withdrawls for dept Education = $245 Billion Dollars for 2011.....

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

Cool. Whatever you say.

Good luck.

Tax the rich!, cut defense, & corp welfare!

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I still don't have the details on Corp Welfare. I know states, cities, and federal government give tax abatements. States like to attract the hardball corporations to build or stay in the state and are willing to discount taxes for 5 years or more... probably to be extended later on. You might have seen my post about the 29 Corps including Facebook that have a negative tax. Meaning they not only pay no tax, they at least also are getting tax writeoffs for the next year ...if they don't get cash.

I pulled up the Catalog of Federal Domestic Subsidies and it is hard to put it all together without looking at CATO Institute Data. And there is a Walmart Watch website that tracks Walmart subsidies by State for parking lots, warehouses, and retail store subsidies in things like tax abatements ... and maybe sharing construction costs if I remember right.

Corporate Welfare is so Broad and Wide and Diverse ... it is complicated.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

And it should be ended wherever possible, as soon as possible, andthat money given back to the 99%.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Flat tax Social Security, first dollar to last all forms of income.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

How many tax write offs for corps & individuals/families?

I know people will scream if they have to give up tax credits for kids, non working spouses, mortgage insterest, health care, charities, etc. I don't take many write offs myself.

You probably would wnt to limit the write offs for corporations and limit other kinds of tax abatements. But if states and cities give the most tax abatements, then maybe that is not an issue. What about a corporation that takes federal subsidies, but writes off million dollar Executive compensation packages as a cost of doing business?

[-] 3 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

create a 20% AMT for corps

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yes, originally the AMT was to be for wealthy who found ways not to pay the tax. Some committe in congress completely changed the purpose and target of the legislation. Completely corrupted process in our legislature.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

There are no write-offs for Social Security tax now, it just stops at around $100,000 and is not collected on dividends and cap gains, but since so much income has shifted to the top income brackets and to other forms of income that should be taxed now for everyone's security. The income tax should pay for all other government activities, I would give every body the first $50,000 income tax free to live on and flat tax it after that if I had my way.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

flat tax is NOT a good idea - Eisenhower's numbers worked well. So did Clinitons

The details of flat-tax proposals vary, of course. But all of them end up benefitting the rich more than the poor for one simple reason: Today's tax code is still at least moderately progressive. The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all -- a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes.

Flat-taxers pretend a flat tax is good public policy, for two reasons.

First, they say, it would simplify paying taxes. Baloney. Flat-tax proposals don't eliminate popular deductions. (I'll be surprised if Perry's plan eliminates the popular mortgage-interest deduction, for example.) So most tax payers would still have to fill out lots of forms.

Second, they say a flat tax is fairer than the current system because, in Cain's words, a flat tax "treats everyone the same."

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It's organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income (the exact amount depends on whether the person is married and eligible for tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit of the Family Tax Credit.)

People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket -- not on their entire incomes.

So when Barack Obama calls for ending the Bush tax cut on incomes over $250,000, he's only talking about the portion peoples' incomes that exceed $250,000. He's not proposing to tax their entire incomes at the higher rate that prevailed under Bill Clinton.

Republicans have tried to sow confusion about this. They want Americans to believe, for example, that if the Bush tax cut ended, small business owners with incomes of $251,000 a year would suddenly have to pay 39 percent of their entire incomes in taxes rather than 35 percent. Wrong. They'd only have to pay the 39 percent rate on $1,000 -- the portion of their incomes over $250,000.

Get it? We already have a flat tax -- flat within each bracket.

The real problem is the top brackets are set too low relative to where the money is. The top-most bracket starts at $375,000 a year. People with incomes higher than that pay 35 percent -- again, only on that portion of their incomes exceeding $375,000.

This is absurd. It means a professional who's making, say, $380,000 a year pays the same income-tax rate as a plutocrat pulling in $2 billion or $20 billion.

Our current flat tax at the top is treating the nation's professional class exactly the same as it treats super-rich plutocrats. My doctor pays the same rate as Steve Forbes.

Actually, it's worse than that because the plutocrats get most of their income in the form of capital gains, which are taxed at only 15 percent. That's why America's 400 richest people -- who earned an average of $300 million last year, and who have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans put together -- now pay at a 17 percent rate (according to the IRS).

The Republicans' push for a flat tax masks what's really going on.

Remember: The top 1 percent is now raking in over 20 percent of the nation's total income and owns over 35 percent of the nation's wealth. Under almost anyone's view of fairness, these are grotesque portions. They're especially large relative to what they were as recently as thirty years ago, when the top 1 percent raked in under 10 percent. And these huge portions at the top continue to increase.

Meanwhile, the top tax bracket is now 35 percent -- the lowest it's been in three decades. Between the end of World War II and 1980 it never fell below 70 percent.

Simple fairness requires three things: More tax brackets at the top, higher rates in each bracket, and the treatment of all sources of income (capital gains included) exactly the same.

Not only fairness demands it, but also fiscal prudence. A truly progressive tax would bring in tens of billions of dollars a year from the people at the top who are in the best position to afford it.

Regressives are pushing the flat tax as a smokescreen. They'd rather not have anyone talk about the unfairness and fiscal absurdity of the current system.

Rather than merely oppose the flat tax, sensible people should push for a truly progressive tax -- starting with a top rate of 70 percent on that portion of anyone's income exceeding $5 million, from whatever source.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Reich has not seen my flat income tax, and Reich is in favor of flat taxing Social Security tax, the example Reich uses here does not address SS tax at all, in my plan the first $50,000 is income tax free the thinking here is that is roughly what is needed just to be able to provide the labor in the first place so people shouldn't be taxed on that portion, after that a flat income tax, no deductions except for state and local taxes (it's ridiculous to collect taxes on money paid in tax), I'm pretty sure it wouldn't work and be fair, not that I would run it pass him if I were really in position to do it.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

wow, thanks. Yeah, I realized I was sort of reading it wrong, but then sent the question to you anyway to see how you felt. Many countries don't have income tax. It is actually kind of contraversal. It certainly has given congress all kinds of power to spend money and make deals. I mean congress seems to be corrupted by Income tax.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

folks are folks, the trick is having a decent set of rules to protect us from each other's short comings

I would pay all "entitlements" or direct payments from the "social" fund, there should be plenty of money if we flat taxed it, and then pay the other things out of the extra money people made, that over about $50,000 a year, I figure it takes about that to keep a car and a roof over your head.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yes, we are all paying all kinds of other taxes if we set aside income tax or placed a minimum income level of $50K.

Was just thinking how a decent set of rules is undercut by sneeky bastards in government, ...through not staffing personnel to monitor regulations (perhaps this is how wealthy get away from tax audits), ... htrough not budgeting for regulators offices, computers, equipment, buildings, training, ... through not funding civil court costs for the SEC or Regulators to sue big banks or go into lengthy court battles against wealthy corporations ...through Lobby influence over congress for preferential treatment. Rules are not enough, must be enforced, must be staffed, must be backed by budget, must have funding for lawyers and lengthy court battles,... and must be headed up by people that are not in bed with the people they regulate. There is always the revolving door, and regulation capture.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Yes "regulators" that are really doing job interviews is bullshit. I've seen it first hand.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yes, It is the only Model that Explains Washington DC, our Regulators, the Corruption, and how bad decisions are made and go forward costing Millions of dollars to the Government & Taxpayer.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

We've known what the problem was for a very long time, but the only people that can fix it are benefiting from it. If I could I would pass an amendment saying if you ever work for the government in certain areas you can never work in the private sector or invest in it I would. We need to find and cultivate people who are true public servants, I believe they are out there I think we see them and meet them all the time, but the way the country is set up if you don't do a little self-promotion you don't get very far in most cases.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yes, that is true. There are a lot of self promoters, especially in business and government. And people network to better compete. That is why one of my suggestions was Lifetime Government Employment. We have plenty of old laws on Finanical disclosure and Conflict of Interest to Draw upon. But as you say, the laws are weak.

There is nothing new here. It is not like inventing the wheel. All this law has been discussed before and the laws are still on record particularly in federal employment as far as I know. So yeah, CItizens standing up and saying this is Wrong is the battle. Even if we just fixed the levels below Congress it would stop a lot of conflict of interest, fix a lot of problems..

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I just saw where the coach for the New Orleans Saints signed for 8 million a year for 5 years, and nobody bats an eye. We keep saying we want better teachers, how we want to pay for performance, what do you think the chances are that anywhere in the great state of Louisiana there is a teacher making 8 million a year?

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Zip. Our culture is out of balance and that might just bring down the government.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

I posted on this too, take a look, the new Kings arise, the question becomes will we bend our knees or restore democracy


[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I think we share some of the same feelings. Probably I have isolated myself more. I gave up trying to explain things to my conservative work mates over 10 years ago (I no longer work).

Very difficult to do a fair balanced look at any one country. I bought a Mother Jones Magazine this year for some good work investigating taxes or budget or something. But some of the emails from Mother Jones are pretty obviously slanted or opinion pieces. Been deleting emails without reading since oversubscribed.

Problem is I look around me ... and I see a pretty violent, militarized culture. It might just be me... There are probably a lot of deeper ideas and culture in the big cities. But if you make money in the city you have to join the game and be a money guy/gal, you have to become a capitalist.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 5 years ago

You might be on to something there FRF. Kudos :)

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

Thanks Sparky, I don't actually often make specific suggestions, I figure we got a lot of work to do just telling people the truth right now, and there are most likely better people for the actual writing the rules.

But I like this model a lot, everybody pays a flat amount of everything they make into a common fund from which all "direct payments" are made, retirement, medicare, SNAP, ect. That way we decide what we want to put into retirement and such and how we want to divide it between those in need and those who are old, also in need I guess.

Then you move to paying for things like the army and prisons and guarding the border and such. I think you pay for those things with a income tax collected on money after you allow everyone enough to cover the basic cost of providing labor to their employer. Now what form that income tax takes should there be different rates or deductions, well I'm open.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 5 years ago

Well I was never in favor of a flat tax, because it hurt the middle and lower class the most; but with the first 50k tax free, the burden shifts to upper class. With the first 50k tax free, I would suggest that deductions be eliminated and rates be the same across the board. Keep it simple. To fix SS - lower the rates and remove the cap.

I'm sure none of these ideas will see the light of day as long as we remain unrepresented. Cheers

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Right on!!

It really is that simple.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Cool. How accurate is that? I've never heard of that site before.

Thanks for the link.

[-] 2 points by ivyquinn (167) 5 years ago

It's very accurate. It's all based on sociological stats.


[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Truth - attacks on SS are attacks on the needy and helpless for no reason ( other then bad - control subjugation ). End the Wealthy/corpoRAT entitlements/subsidies - as those are the only UN-earned benefits that society offers.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Social Security is one of the best programs in this country's history.

The percentage of the elderly that live in poverty has decreased drastically since it's inception. "Social security is doing exactly what it is designed to do." - Sanders

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Love Bernie Sanders. Can we make thousands of clones with the same outlook on life(?) - put them in office to steer a sane course - whether or not the people are involved?

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Seems pretty senseless to keep bailing out habitual gamblers.

Send them to rehab.

White-collar crime probably accounts for more cost to America's bottom line than all other crime combined.

Such a shame that these corporcrims now own your SCOTUS.

Where is the War on White Collar Crime? It's not like there's no evidence.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

It is not just reserved to the USA - Greed white collar crime - profits over people/life/environment/society is - IS - a world wide illness. This is the greatest threat - ALL OF HUMANITY HAS EVER FACED.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

I would say that globalism is the greatest threat.

But I hear ya, DKA. The two richest drongos on our continent are as thick as two short planks. Hope you had a good Chrissie, my friend. ;-)

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Thx - yeah it was - spent two days with family. Hope you and yours are having a good holiday season.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 5 years ago

S.S. tax brought in $ 725,429 bil, paid out $773,247 bil. according to the social seciurity adminstration. It s running at a huge loss.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 5 years ago

S.S. tax brought in 725.429 bil, paid put 773.247 in benefits according to the Social Security administration. Its bankrupt.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago


Try again.

When program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) the extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes, but a legal obligation to program recipients is created to the extent this occurs. These surpluses add to the Trust Fund. At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.[1] The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. The trust fund represents a legal obligation to Social Security program recipients and is considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of April 2012, the intragovernmental debt was $4.8 trillion of the $15.7 trillion national debt.[2]

The program is actual great and isn't expected to run into problems until the 2030's. A simple solution for the 2030's: END THE RICH PEOPLE LOOPHOOLE of a 100,000 income cap.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 5 years ago

the program is good, the revenues to pay for it are declining, more people ( about 10,000 per day ) are signing up for it.

[+] -4 points by town (-374) 5 years ago

social security is bankrupt. it took in$725,429 bil and paid out $ 773,247 bil.

[-] 3 points by dv8u2dv8 (7) from Danese, WV 5 years ago

All those crazies with assualt rifles and they're too delusional and stupid to use them on the rich scum whose rise to the top of the pot is the greatest threat to survival the human race has ever faced.

[+] -5 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

You're advocating for the murder of people simply because they are wealthy?

Obama's class warfare seems to have been quite successful apparently.

You definitely could be classified as a crazy,delusional and stupid person for posting something like that.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Obama's class warfare?

Next you'll tell us about the war on christmas? lol

I stinkle you both

[-] 7 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Thanks for the remarks. Many people need a finance class since there are strong revenue streams for both Meidcare and Social Security and both are Trust Funds. As I remember ... usually social security will only go up by like .5% no matter the inflation ... of course you are correct the way the government measures CPI older people have to rely on family to feed them. Fish is expensive. Beef is expensive. I got 2 for one on bread, paid $4 and threw out half a loaf after eating more bread than I normally do. Bread is Inflated.

Bottom line, we have stronge revenue streams for Social Security and Medicare. No need to cut back. Rich people just have to pay a percentage of their income in return for getting rich in America. No need to increase retirement ages At All.

[-] 9 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

"Social Security is Strong", by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) :


All the very best for xmas, yule, new year & beyond 'Ma' to you and yours & indeed to all readers.


pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 4 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Yeah, we all have to break down the press and statements from congressmen and Corporate executives. #1, Banks & Corparations have no morals (we can't accept anything they say) #2, In 1890s in the USA times were hard and money was scarce. It was austerity. Austerity kept farmers poor and struggling. Maybe if you were in a city and had a good job, then you didn't feel the depression. #3, why would you ever trust a Banker or Economist. The economists seem to not have a model that includes fraud and economist can not say the word fraud for some reason. #4, As far as we know the Media is just reading off some piece of paper. How do we know there is any media investigation. How can we trust anything that comes off the TV or Cable. same for politicians. Politicians Create Consensus. Read that Again. The game in Washington is to create a truth. (like no, don't look at the CIA, they never bribe the press or control the press, but the Church Committe found out different).

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

"Stealing from Social Security to Pay for Wars and Bailouts", by Paul Craig Roberts :

Thanx for your excellent comment 'Ma' & best wishes for xmas, yule, new year & beyond :-)

pax ...

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 5 years ago

healthcare should be handled by providing it to the public

not paying odd the doc wagon


[-] 2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 5 years ago

The chained CPI formula has been bogus for years.

The equation used to calculate it has been tweeked many times....and each time its tweek always seems to continue the trend of underestimating the CPI. There is a website that still tries to calculate the CPI with the old equations -


If you take both CPI's back to the 80s - the current estimated CPI is actually around 10% right now. Unless you're getting 10% raises every year....you're getting poorer every year. This doesn't even factor in Social Security either.....the people are basically getting completely screwed by this.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

inflation is kicking the middle class's asses

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 5 years ago

It's stealthy too....and most people don't understand it so it makes it all the more difficult to bring it to everyone's attention.

Good post.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

Mondragon has its own social security system http://www.mondragon-corporation.com/ENG/Who-we-are/Organisational-structure/Finance.aspx but it depends upon its workers relying upon their collective efforts rather than upon unaccountable corporate bought politicians. Too bad the vast majority of American workers and protestors don't support that. http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ Collective self-reliance would bring an end to having social security held hostage by the corporations via their politicians. Collective self-reliance would establish a mutual insurance company that could solve the universal health care crises. Collective self-reliance would also result in a national credit union that would greatly reduce the predatory criminal activity of the banking industry. But then, perhaps that's the problem. With collective self-reliance solving government controlled social problems, there'd be little for protestors to actually complain about. I suppose it's better to just organize and complain rather than to actually get something done.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 5 years ago

TPTB hate us, and can't be trusted.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22863) 5 years ago

Robert Reich on the "Chained CPI." Very informative and we should all understand this as Obama has it in his budget.


[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

do YOU think that we will go "off the cliff"
I hope we do - primarily - the Dems will have much more power - so there will be no benefits cuts &
military will be cut

do you think the Rs will try blackmail again with the cieling ?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

I don't want to be pushed off the cliff.

According to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group, going off the cliff would affect 88 percent of U.S. taxpayers, with their taxes rising by an average of $3,500 a year.

That 2 percent rise in payroll taxes would result in 160 million American wage earners seeing their tax bills increase by an average of $1,000.

Annual income of $20,000 to $30,000: $1,064 average tax increase Annual income of $40,000 to $50,000: $1,729 average tax increase

These will also be gone: the enhanced dependent care credit, enhanced child credit, enhanced adoption credit, enhanced earned-income credit, repeal of personal exemption phase-out, repeal of limit on itemized deductions, enhanced student loan interest deduction, and an exemption for mortgage debt forgiveness.

Where do you think those new tax dollars will go? Military spending? Further privatizing the military and replace more troops with tax dollar foreign mercenaries representing the USA presence? Pay off previous military spending debt? Subsidies for banks? Bail out the fraudulent banks in the next 2013 or 2014 financial crisis?

These tax hikes will take away more than 2 months of rent from me a year. I already live in some of the lowest cost housing there is in my city. The only thing cheaper is ghetto, further away from my job and only saves me a hundred a month, after gas cost only 50.

I don't want to be pushed off the cliff.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

most of the things above will be restored by congress almost immediately BUT
the military cuts will be MUCH harder to restore

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

you're putting way way too much faith in a republican majority house of representatives with talk like that.

the military spending is way easier to restore. again house majority republicans.

Congress often passes unconstitutional laws, You think some "cliff" is going to stop them from putting money into the military?

Congress can't even react to the current problem in decent time and you want to trust them with raising taxes on the middle class?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

The house!?!? God help us
But anything they pass must get thru the Senate & Obama
My fear is that the House could bargain military $ for tax cuts
If they could threaten US default, they are crazy - again


[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

a well organized 3rd party candidate with the proper knowledge on how to exploit social media with a comprehensive plan to start tackling of the immense multi-dimensional problems we face. i am talking about a super detailed plan on how to fix the whole thing. from social inequality to environmental crisis, from economic calamity to political dysfunction. this can be done. by the time the election roles around in 2016 a true candidate of the people could have them shaking in their boots.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

We had that in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000,1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980 and continually before that. No one votes for them.

What can be done?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

i disagree. the last well run campaign was nadar in 2000. this was before the explosion of social media. if youtube, facebook, and twitter had been around back then there is no doubt he would have garnered the 5% needed for federal matching funds. jill stein and gary johnson failed to use social media in an efficient manner.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Jill and Gary tried using social media. No one gave a fuck.

Group think has this country on lock-down voting for democrat or republican. Just look at the "blame Nader" bullshit and how people demonize him. Can you believe that? Democrats claiming to be liberals demonizing the creator of OSHA and the EPA? Outrageous. Propaganda and the Asch effect have this country on lockdown.

We need more ideas than just "social media"

I agree with you, but what can be done? Honestly, I'm out of ideas.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

neither candidate had a detailed plan with the details worked out. jill had an outline gary had nothing.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

The Green platform was pretty fantastic if you haven't looked at it.

How detailed are you thinking though? Look I'm all for it and I'm with you on this. But what exactly do you mean a more detailed plan?

Something outside of the norm must be done. You talk about Nader in 2000 and he still barely had nothing. Something has to be done. I agree. But what is that something. I truly am out of ideas. I had no idea the TRUTH would be so unpopular when it comes to elections.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

i mean actual budget analysis done by the cbo. i mean real details its great to say invest in green technology for example but how about a list of companies and concepts you would like to explore for example. you have to have an answer for every question in a way that just makes the r's and d's look completely out of their league. it will take a lot of man hours and brain power to create such a plan.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

i meant Green platform as in the Green Party's platform.


[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

yeah it's a good start but far from detailed.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Please leave more details about the details you feel are left out.

I don't know what kind of details you're asking for. The platform is very detailed.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22863) 5 years ago

We have no morality as a nation if we are going to cut the benefits of the elderly and the poor while funding an over-blown military and needless wars.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Good comment - our national spirit/soul is dying - being killed.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

We have a Wall Street government pushing massive levels of propaganda and lies.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22863) 5 years ago

It is up to the people to get back the government. This can only be done through knowledge and the advantage is with the Wall Street government because many of these money and economic matters are difficult to explain and understand. Posts such as this one are great because it lays out something complicated and makes it fairly simple.

[-] 5 points by therising (6643) 5 years ago

Good point. We need a lot more of this "making the complicated simple and comprehensible."

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

Why are people down-voting this?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22863) 5 years ago

Trevor, I watched myself get down voted within a matter of minutes earlier today. I checked to see who was on recent comments and it was all very friendly occupiers. So, my theory is that there are a lot, or at least some, people logging in with monikers that they use only for the agenda of voting certain comments down, and so, we have no idea who these people are. Of course, there are the usual people who disagree with us who post here often, but I honestly don't think it was any of them.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

He won't believe it, but I voted everybody back up on this..............:)

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22863) 5 years ago

Thanks, shooz. I do a lot of voting up too. It's not important for the points individually but it is important that the message gets out. Oh, and you guys should get along, :). You're both awesome occupiers. Happy New Year!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Thanks to you too, and Happy New Year to all!!!

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8580) from Phoenix, AZ 5 years ago

If we want people in Washington to pay attention to us we should pay attention to them and vote against those who want to include SS and support those who do not.

As of this writing it seems to be divided along party lines, this does not surprise me.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

It isn't right now, but I believe by around the year 2017 if it continues on the same path it will eventually be out of money - then what?

And when the president gives a "ss tax reduction" to those who pay into it, that doesn't help either.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

The 2017 number is not accurate.

Also not having a rich people cap would greatly help social security, which is one of the greatest programs in our country's history.

Supporting elders who gave their life to working for this country - GOOD PROGRAM

I'd rather see our monetary policy used for programs like this, instead of just printing money for Wall Street and the big banks' 1% policies

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Here is a link on the SS Trust Fund and associated financing.


Well unless something is done about its going to be out of money - sooner then you think.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 5 years ago

it's owed trillions. It's perfectly fine until the 2030's. A simple solution to the 2030 problem is to get rid of the rich people income cap.