What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Republicans will demand cuts to SS and medicare or crash the economy (1 Viewer)

Jackstraw

Footballguy

THEY'RE GETTING THE BAND BACK TOGEHTER!

Remember all the debt ceiling hijinks the Dems played with the entire world economy during Trumps Presidency? Me neither.


For a few weeks now, they’ve been open about their intention to hold the debt ceiling hostage, a tactic they’ve used repeatedly since Tea Party Republicans tried it out in 2011. It works more or less the same way each time: Republican lawmakers say they will not vote to raise or suspend the debt ceiling, threatening to let the United States default on its debts, which would almost certainly trigger a global economic crisis. In exchange, they demand political concessions from the Democratic President.

This time, they’re planning to demand cuts to Medicare and Social Security — a policy position so staggeringly unpopular, one would expect them to keep it shelved until after they’d procured enough votes to enact it.

House Republicans, some of whom are poised to take over major committees in the case of a congressional flip, have been open about this intent both in interviews and, in terms of their desired changes to the programs, in the Republican Study Committee budget released earlier this year.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said more in an interview with Punchbowl News published Tuesday.
“You can’t just continue down the path to keep spending and adding to the debt. And if people want to make a debt ceiling [for a longer period of time], just like anything else, there comes a point in time where, okay, we’ll provide you more money, but you got to change your current behavior. We’re not just going to keep lifting your credit card limit, right?” he said. “And we should seriously sit together and [figure out] where can we eliminate some waste? Where can we make the economy grow stronger?”

He added that he would not “predetermine” anything in terms of extorting cuts to Social Security and Medicare during a debt ceiling standoff.
House Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) said on Fox News Sunday that calling what Republicans want to do to the two programs “cuts” is misleading. He said they actually want to “strengthen” and “shore up” the programs.

In the study committee budget, Republicans call for raising the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security, and encourage increased means testing for Medicare.
To keep the programs solvent, Democrats have suggested raising taxes on the wealthy rather than making more people ineligible.
Democrats have started to seize on this Republican positioning.

“RT if you agree: it’s shameful that House Republicans are once again threatening to hold the debt limit hostage and risking the U.S. economy in order to slash Medicare and Social Security programs,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) tweeted last week.

“Are you going to support a party that wants to give more tax breaks to the rich, cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, or are you going to support people prepared to stand up for working people?” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) added Sunday on NBC.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...al-security-debt-ceiling#EmbedCommentsWrapper
 

Monty Burns

Footballguy
COMPROMISE:
Republicans call for raising the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security
Dems say raise SS taxes on the wealthy by raising the cutoff amount

DO BOTH, but who am I kidding, that will never happen
 

Desert_Power

Footballguy
COMPROMISE:
Republicans call for raising the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security
Dems say raise SS taxes on the wealthy by raising the cutoff amount

DO BOTH, but who am I kidding, that will never happen
The cap on Social Security has actually gone up a lot recently and projected to again next year to $160k.
 
Republicans call for raising the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security
That is fine if you have a desk job (like me) and a skillset that technology isn't encroaching on (I hope), but the skilled craftsmen, the mechanics, the watermen, the small business owners, etc. of my parent's generation didn't make it to their Social Secuity retirement ages. None of them (in my family)! Some because their bodies were too beat up by their late 50s, others because their once highly valued skill was replaced by cheap laser printers or whatever. So, while I'm selfishly fine with this idea, I think it contrary to society's goal of addressing worker shortages for those that would "work with their hands".
 

Rich Conway

Footballguy
Republicans call for raising the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security
That is fine if you have a desk job (like me) and a skillset that technology isn't encroaching on (I hope), but the skilled craftsmen, the mechanics, the watermen, the small business owners, etc. of my parent's generation didn't make it to their Social Secuity retirement ages. None of them (in my family)! Some because their bodies were too beat up by their late 50s, others because their once highly valued skill was replaced by cheap laser printers or whatever. So, while I'm selfishly fine with this idea, I think it contrary to society's goal of addressing worker shortages for those that would "work with their hands".
We could help solve this problem with UBI/BIG. Just saying...
 
Another solution is to make receiving benefits optional. Paying in would still be mandatory, as it is today, but give people the opportunity to opt-out of receiving the earned benefit that goes along with paying into these funds for your entire life.

Here's how it would work. You continue to pay into SS and Medicare your entire life, like you do today, but then when it comes time for you to receive the benefit, you go to a website and opt-out of receiving the benefits you earned by paying into the system your whole life. Couple of clicks and you're done.

Since many would likely be on board with this, it should easily make both funds solvent in perpetuity.
 
We could help solve this problem with UBI/BIG. Just saying...
It was about this time 40 years ago when working my CWSP job at the library when I ran out of behind the counter tasks to do and went looking at the returned books to skim. The skinniest (fewest # of pages) was A New Radical's Guide to Economics which was released about a decade earlier with an attempt to explain the University of Chicago's conservative brand of economics to the hippies of the time. It had the libertarian arguments against licenses, a case as to why women should be paid less than men, etc. It also had a chapter on Guaranteed Income (or maybe it was just a Negative Income tax). That chapter stuck.
 

jamny

Footballguy
Another solution is to make receiving benefits optional. Paying in would still be mandatory, as it is today, but give people the opportunity to opt-out of receiving the earned benefit that goes along with paying into these funds for your entire life.

Here's how it would work. You continue to pay into SS and Medicare your entire life, like you do today, but then when it comes time for you to receive the benefit, you go to a website and opt-out of receiving the benefits you earned by paying into the system your whole life. Couple of clicks and you're done.

Since many would likely be on board with this, it should easily make both funds solvent in perpetuity.
What makes you think many people would be on board with this?
Unless I'm missing the joke here.
 

FairWarning

Footballguy
COMPROMISE:
Republicans call for raising the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security
Dems say raise SS taxes on the wealthy by raising the cutoff amount

DO BOTH, but who am I kidding, that will never happen
The cap on Social Security has actually gone up a lot recently and projected to again next year to $160k.
COMPROMISE:
Republicans call for raising the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security
Dems say raise SS taxes on the wealthy by raising the cutoff amount

DO BOTH, but who am I kidding, that will never happen
The cap on Social Security has actually gone up a lot recently and projected to again next year to $160k.
They should remove the cap or tweak it some. Make it unlimited bit make the withholding tax a smaller percentage as the income rises.
 

ignatiusjreilly

Footballguy
I think people are missing the point of the article @Jackstraw posted: It's not just that they want to cut Medicare and SS, it's that they once again want to threaten to tank the economy in order to do it. They know it's unpopular, which is why they didn't even attempt to do any of this frontally when they actually held power in 2017-19. Instead, they want to resort to hostage taking in order to force Democrats to provide them with political cover.

What's that? You think comparing politicians to terrorists is offensive? Take it up with Mitch McConnell
 
I think people are missing the point of the article @Jackstraw posted: It's not just that they want to cut Medicare and SS, it's that they once again want to threaten to tank the economy in order to do it. They know it's unpopular, which is why they didn't even attempt to do any of this frontally when they actually held power in 2017-19. Instead, they want to resort to hostage taking in order to force Democrats to provide them with political cover.

What's that? You think comparing politicians to terrorists is offensive? Take it up with Mitch McConnell
Right. It is "Starve the Beast".
 

ignatiusjreilly

Footballguy
I think people are missing the point of the article @Jackstraw posted: It's not just that they want to cut Medicare and SS, it's that they once again want to threaten to tank the economy in order to do it. They know it's unpopular, which is why they didn't even attempt to do any of this frontally when they actually held power in 2017-19. Instead, they want to resort to hostage taking in order to force Democrats to provide them with political cover.

What's that? You think comparing politicians to terrorists is offensive? Take it up with Mitch McConnell
Right. It is "Starve the Beast".
Different strategy, similar rationale. StB was a Reagan-era term that said supply-side tax cuts would cut revenues, and thereby force cuts in government spending. (Meanwhile the exact same people argued at that those tax cuts ended up increasing government revenue. You'd think that if you argued two mutually contradictory things at the same time, at least one would have to be correct, but they actually managed to go 0-2. Supply-side cuts decreased revenues rather than increasing them, but they did not lead to any spending cuts; instead, they just blew up the deficit. Republicans then proceeded to run this exact same playbook under W and Trump. Much like communism, supply-sideism can never fail, it can only be failed.)

The similarity to the debt-ceiling hostage taking is that Republicans always talk about cutting spending, but instead of adopting a straightforward strategy of developing platforms articulating which spending they will cut, winning majorities, and then using them to enact whatever cuts they had promised, they instead rely on tricks and subterfuge.

It's a little like that person who says they want to eat better, but instead of working to develop healthy habits or examining their dysfunctional relationship with food they rely on all sorts of psychological gimmicks like putting a padlock on their refrigerator. Or, to make the metaphor a bit more direct, it would be like if this person put a gun to their spouse's head and threatened to shoot them if they didn't prepare a healthy dinner.
 
Different strategy, similar rationale. StB was a Reagan-era term that said supply-side tax cuts would cut revenues, and thereby force cuts in government spendin
Same strategy. Starve the Beast was to force government's hand to cut programs that could never be cut (at least to the degree desired) via normal legislative process. The strategy is to force a crisis and then have the programs a causality of that crisis.

Starve the Beast hasn't worked yet because (per Cato at least) when you provide government at a discount (lower taxes) spending goes up because more is demanded.
 

FairWarning

Footballguy
Different strategy, similar rationale. StB was a Reagan-era term that said supply-side tax cuts would cut revenues, and thereby force cuts in government spendin
Same strategy. Starve the Beast was to force government's hand to cut programs that could never be cut (at least to the degree desired) via normal legislative process. The strategy is to force a crisis and then have the programs a causality of that crisis.

Starve the Beast hasn't worked yet because (per Cato at least) when you provide government at a discount (lower taxes) spending goes up because more is demanded.
the other option is government to show spending responsibility. Wasn’t Biden just bragging about reducing the deficit? If so, is it for long run or just thru the midterms? This seems to be the way things get done now - slap a coat of paint over a problem and let someone else deal with it after midterms.
 
Democrats should use the lame duck period to just raise the debt ceiling themselves while they have the votes. Take the gun away from Republicans.
 

ignatiusjreilly

Footballguy
Democrats should use the lame duck period to just raise the debt ceiling themselves while they have the votes. Take the gun away from Republicans.
I think there are some Senate rules selling what they can do via reconciliation, but generally speaking I agree they should do whatever is possible.

Ideally they would get rid of debt ceiling votes entirely. It is a substantively meaningless vote that has been weaponized to the point where it can crash our economy
 

supermike80

Footballguy
Good God. Do the dems have ANY strategy at all? Beyond abortion, which at least in Michigan is ALL the ads talk about, now they are telling you what the GOP wants to do. Nowhere, anywhere have I see a plan about what the dems will do. Nothing. All they want to do is scare you into what the GOP might do, and have no plan to counter. Jeez this party is lost. Just LOST
 
Another solution is to make receiving benefits optional. Paying in would still be mandatory, as it is today, but give people the opportunity to opt-out of receiving the earned benefit that goes along with paying into these funds for your entire life.

Here's how it would work. You continue to pay into SS and Medicare your entire life, like you do today, but then when it comes time for you to receive the benefit, you go to a website and opt-out of receiving the benefits you earned by paying into the system your whole life. Couple of clicks and you're done.

Since many would likely be on board with this, it should easily make both funds solvent in perpetuity.
What makes you think many people would be on board with this?
Unless I'm missing the joke here.
It's not a joke. There should be a mechanism by which people can voluntarily opt-out of their earned benefits, rather than forcing cuts on everyone. One tweak I would add in retrospect is the ability to partially reduce one's own benefit, not just eliminate it all as the only option.

One of the major parties is interested in overhauling (i.e. reducing) earned benefits that Americans have paid into for their entire lives. So I assume, naively probably, that a lot of people in that party (and some in the other one for that matter) would also be on board with sacrificing some or entirely eliminating their own benefits. This solution provides a mechanism for that.

I certainly favor eliminating the cap, which is currently set at $147K and set to go to $160K next year. That's already a step in the right direction, and I'm surprised it's not higher. They could easily make SS solvent until 2050 at least with this tweak alone, it's already set to be solvent until 2034 under the current system. The voluntary proposal would serve to add years on to that projection.
 

Stealthycat

Footballguy
I say just borrow 15 trillion dollars, and voila! problem solved

right ?

and in 10 years, we borrow 30 trillion dollars more and again, the problem is solved
 
For Social Security, here's a link to a quick primer on solvency:

What the 2022 Trustees’ Report Shows About Social Security

  • The trustees estimate that, if policymakers take no further action, Social Security’s combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund reserves will be depleted in 2035. This is one year later than projected in last year’s report.
  • After 2035, Social Security could still pay roughly 80 percent of scheduled benefits using its tax income even if policymakers took no steps to shore up the program. Those who claim that Social Security won’t be around at all when today’s young adults retire and that young workers will receive no benefits either misunderstand or misrepresent the trustees’ projections.
  • Over the entire 75-year period, the trustees put the Social Security shortfall at 3.24 percent of taxable payroll; the shortfall is concentrated in the later decades of the projection. Expressed as a share of the nation’s economy, the 75-year shortfall equals 1.2 percent of GDP.
  • 2035 is the “headline date” in the trustees’ report, because that is when the combined Social Security trust fund reserves — that is, the excess contributions it has collected and invested in Treasury bonds over the past three decades — will be depleted. At that point, if nothing else is done, the program could pay 80 percent of scheduled benefits, mostly out of workers’ ongoing contributions, a figure that would slip to 74 percent in 75 years. Contrary to popular misconception, benefits would not stop.
Bottom line, continued SSI solvency is a pretty easy fix. Medicare, on the other hand, is a bit tougher, but still pretty easily solvable. Anyone proposing to cut the SSI program in any significant way should start with themselves and those like-minded to the idea, thus my proposal about the voluntary opt-out above, which would likely solve any shortfall by itself if people are willing to put their benefits where their mouth is.
 
the other option is government to show spending responsibility. Wasn’t Biden just bragging about reducing the deficit? If so, is it for long run or just thru the midterms? This seems to be the way things get done now - slap a coat of paint over a problem and let someone else deal with it after midterms.
What is this talking about? Democrats come into office and fix a problem created by the previous administration which results in a ballooning deficit the first few years. These are almost always temporary measures and as such the deficits start going down. With the mess cleaned up, deficits low (at least relatively) you get your wish an America votes in the next round of tax cuts which creates larger structural deficits which eventually leads to another mess to fix. Rinse and repeat,

Oh, the major structural item that democrats added to the deficit was Obama extending some of the Bush tax cuts. If you'd like to say "wait a minute" what about ObamaCare, it extended Medicare's viability and its burden to the deficit comes from GOP efforts to eliminate its funding. Another attempt to "Starve the Beast".

As far as "slowing spending responsibility" goes there simply is almost nothing discretionary left to cut except defense spending. So, if you want to cut spending you must cut defense spending and/or entitlements.
 
Make millions of undocumented pay into SS and Medicare (many do). Problem solved for a few decades.

Document them with “work cards” and have them pay into SS without benefits until they become a legal citizen
Definitely this as well as the proposals above. There are pretty simple fixes to extend SSI solvency without reducing benefits. It's chicken little stuff to insinuate otherwise.
 
For Social Security, here's a link to a quick primer on solvency:

What the 2022 Trustees’ Report Shows About Social Security

  • The trustees estimate that, if policymakers take no further action, Social Security’s combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund reserves will be depleted in 2035. This is one year later than projected in last year’s report.
  • After 2035, Social Security could still pay roughly 80 percent of scheduled benefits using its tax income even if policymakers took no steps to shore up the program. Those who claim that Social Security won’t be around at all when today’s young adults retire and that young workers will receive no benefits either misunderstand or misrepresent the trustees’ projections.
  • Over the entire 75-year period, the trustees put the Social Security shortfall at 3.24 percent of taxable payroll; the shortfall is concentrated in the later decades of the projection. Expressed as a share of the nation’s economy, the 75-year shortfall equals 1.2 percent of GDP.
  • 2035 is the “headline date” in the trustees’ report, because that is when the combined Social Security trust fund reserves — that is, the excess contributions it has collected and invested in Treasury bonds over the past three decades — will be depleted. At that point, if nothing else is done, the program could pay 80 percent of scheduled benefits, mostly out of workers’ ongoing contributions, a figure that would slip to 74 percent in 75 years. Contrary to popular misconception, benefits would not stop.
Bottom line, continued SSI solvency is a pretty easy fix. Medicare, on the other hand, is a bit tougher, but still pretty easily solvable. Anyone proposing to cut the SSI program in any significant way should start with themselves and those like-minded to the idea, thus my proposal about the voluntary opt-out above, which would likely solve any shortfall by itself if people are willing to put their benefits where their mouth is.
Those "reserves" however are [mostly] just IOUs from the general fund. Formally they are trivial interest bonds but functionally this was a large way how we paid for the income tax cuts over the decades. Now those that benefitted from those tax breaks are either going to need to repay the loans, fund the IOUs some other way, or eliminate the need to replay those loans at all. Which option are they selecting here? And who is continuing to do that bidding?
 

The General

Footballguy
When a third or whatever the number is have zero in retirement savings they better make sure SS payments are funded or get ready for tent city with grandmas and grandpas coming to your neighborhood.
 
So, if you want to cut spending you must cut defense spending and/or entitlements.
Sorry to selectively quote you here, and the overall statement here is basically true, but the bolded is a word we should really collectively get away from using. SSI and Medicare are earned benefits. Americans have paid into these programs for years. Those benefits are earned.
 
So, if you want to cut spending you must cut defense spending and/or entitlements.
Sorry to selectively quote you here, and the overall statement here is basically true, but the bolded is a word we should really collectively get away from using. SSI and Medicare are earned benefits. Americans have paid into these programs for years. Those benefits are earned.
Don't disagree. I also think that it should be important as Americans that America keeps its promises.
 

jamny

Footballguy
Another solution is to make receiving benefits optional. Paying in would still be mandatory, as it is today, but give people the opportunity to opt-out of receiving the earned benefit that goes along with paying into these funds for your entire life.

Here's how it would work. You continue to pay into SS and Medicare your entire life, like you do today, but then when it comes time for you to receive the benefit, you go to a website and opt-out of receiving the benefits you earned by paying into the system your whole life. Couple of clicks and you're done.

Since many would likely be on board with this, it should easily make both funds solvent in perpetuity.
What makes you think many people would be on board with this?
Unless I'm missing the joke here.
It's not a joke. There should be a mechanism by which people can voluntarily opt-out of their earned benefits, rather than forcing cuts on everyone. One tweak I would add in retrospect is the ability to partially reduce one's own benefit, not just eliminate it all as the only option.

One of the major parties is interested in overhauling (i.e. reducing) earned benefits that Americans have paid into for their entire lives. So I assume, naively probably, that a lot of people in that party (and some in the other one for that matter) would also be on board with sacrificing some or entirely eliminating their own benefits. This solution provides a mechanism for that.

I certainly favor eliminating the cap, which is currently set at $147K and set to go to $160K next year. That's already a step in the right direction, and I'm surprised it's not higher. They could easily make SS solvent until 2050 at least with this tweak alone, it's already set to be solvent until 2034 under the current system. The voluntary proposal would serve to add years on to that projection.
I get what you are proposing but I questioned you thinking that "many would likely be on board with this"
I find that hard to believe. Just because politicians are proposing changes doesn't mean that you'd find many people willing to forego receiving a return on money they have given up over a lifetime.
 

Sand

Footballguy
COMPROMISE:
Republicans call for raising the age of eligibility for both Medicare and Social Security
Dems say raise SS taxes on the wealthy by raising the cutoff amount

DO BOTH, but who am I kidding, that will never happen
Terrible compromise.

We don't need to raise the age. We already all work too ****ing much and for too long

The age shouldn't be some static number. It should be Average age of death - X years. That will help stabilize the expenditures. (I'm also of the opinion there should be no income cap on SS tax, which would completely fill the gap, BTW).

I think people are missing the point of the article @Jackstraw posted: It's not just that they want to cut Medicare and SS, it's that they once again want to threaten to tank the economy in order to do it. They know it's unpopular, which is why they didn't even attempt to do any of this frontally when they actually held power in 2017-19. Instead, they want to resort to hostage taking in order to force Democrats to provide them with political cover.

That's the only way things will get done. Congress, in general, will kick the can down the road until it's a hair on fire emergency. I fully approve of pressure being installed to force an important decision. Otherwise the blue team would just keep whistling past the graveyard.

  • After 2035, Social Security could still pay roughly 80 percent of scheduled benefits using its tax income even if policymakers took no steps to shore up the program.

Or, if we don't want to apply pressure to fix the system now while the bill can be amortized over 15 years, we could just swallow this. Personally I'd be fine at 80%. If the blue team is fine with their constituents being at 80%, then let them keep whistling and ignore the pressure (or whine about it and do nothing, like what is being done now). That's on them.
 

Sand

Footballguy
So, if you want to cut spending you must cut defense spending and/or entitlements.
Sorry to selectively quote you here, and the overall statement here is basically true, but the bolded is a word we should really collectively get away from using. SSI and Medicare are earned benefits. Americans have paid into these programs for years. Those benefits are earned.
Most folks get out more than they put in (which is why SS has bend points in the benefits). So if you go with partially earned that's more correct for most.
 

Stealthycat

Footballguy
If I could stop my kids from having to pay a dime into social security I'd gladly give mine up ..... one of the worst investment systems ever, like a ponzi scheme almost ..... forced to pay into it all your life and maybe never ever draw and the powers that control can change all the time the age you can retire and how much you can draw
 

tri-man 47

Footballguy
As others note, I like the idea of raising the SSI income cap. Someone making over $150-160K is also likely participating in an employer retirement plan. They'll be fine. With a higher (or no) cap, will the 'rich' be subsidizing the 'poor?' To a degree, yes, but it's done in a way that's not painful. Push the cap higher, possibly with a lower %, and resolve the problem. Some people die young and never collect; others live into their late 80s and 90s and collect more than they paid. It's not perfect, but I like the system.
 

Sand

Footballguy
With a higher (or no) cap, will the 'rich' be subsidizing the 'poor?'
They already do, GB. The bend points in SS are highly progressive and ensure that those at the lower get a much higher proportion of benefits than those who have earned a lot over 35 years. Really, once you get into that third bend it's almost all subsidy to those at the lower end. Not saying that's good or bad, just noting that it is constructed that way.
 

The General

Footballguy
With a higher (or no) cap, will the 'rich' be subsidizing the 'poor?'
They already do, GB. The bend points in SS are highly progressive and ensure that those at the lower get a much higher proportion of benefits than those who have earned a lot over 35 years. Really, once you get into that third bend it's almost all subsidy to those at the lower end. Not saying that's good or bad, just noting that it is constructed that way.
This honestly is how it should be. There’s not a great alternative. I get that it might not be fair but it allows at least some level of safeguards to old people who are less fortunate and yes sometimes by their own doing and poor choices.
 

ignatiusjreilly

Footballguy
I think people are missing the point of the article @Jackstraw posted: It's not just that they want to cut Medicare and SS, it's that they once again want to threaten to tank the economy in order to do it. They know it's unpopular, which is why they didn't even attempt to do any of this frontally when they actually held power in 2017-19. Instead, they want to resort to hostage taking in order to force Democrats to provide them with political cover.

That's the only way things will get done. Congress, in general, will kick the can down the road until it's a hair on fire emergency. I fully approve of pressure being installed to force an important decision. Otherwise the blue team would just keep whistling past the graveyard.
Two problems with this strategy: One, as we've seen on multiple occasions, it doesn't actually force anything. Congress can always go back to kicking the can down the road. (Google "Gramm-Rudman-Hollings" or "super-committee/sequester".) Like I said previously, it's like going on a diet by putting a padlock on the refrigerator door.

Two, and far more importantly, if your strategy to get something done is by credibly threatening to shoot the hostage, there's a chance the hostage actually gets shot. In this case that means we default on our debt, the economy crashes, our debt rating does down, our debt payments go through the roof, and America willfully surrenders its economic supremacy. We're talking an economic calamity which would dwarf the Great Depression. It would be like if Biden declared that it was so important to get rid of the filibuster and codify Roe v Wade that, if the GOP didn't agree to do it, he'd nuke Florida. You simply can't run a country with that kind of crazy brinksmanship.
 

Sand

Footballguy
With a higher (or no) cap, will the 'rich' be subsidizing the 'poor?'
They already do, GB. The bend points in SS are highly progressive and ensure that those at the lower get a much higher proportion of benefits than those who have earned a lot over 35 years. Really, once you get into that third bend it's almost all subsidy to those at the lower end. Not saying that's good or bad, just noting that it is constructed that way.
This honestly is how it should be. There’s not a great alternative. I get that it might not be fair but it allows at least some level of safeguards to old people who are less fortunate and yes sometimes by their own doing and poor choices.
I don't disagree at all, but I didn't want to come off as being negative toward this outcome when laying that out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top