Supercommittee Dem and Repubs to safety net: Drop Dead?

Social Security is solvent for decades to come.

It will require tweaking as the years go by to improve it and account for more users.

But there is no need or reason for dramatic cuts.

I feel very sorry that these rich white men feel otherwise.

A bunch of rich white men want to cut benefits to poorer people?

I find this completely shocking.

Also, I'm open to actual evidence that my claim is wrong.

I'm just here to tell the truth. People can and will believe whatever they want to believe.

There are people more powerful than me who want social security phased out of existence.

In this country, if you have the money, you have the access to power.

Poor and middle class people don't have the money.

Thanks to hikes in the Social Security payroll tax in the 1980s designed to create a surplus to handle the crunch of baby-boomer retirements, the program's trust fund is projected to grow steadily for nearly 20 more years — until 2027.

After that, officials estimate there will be sufficient money to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041, when the surplus is expected to be exhausted. From that year on, payroll tax revenue alone should be able to meet 78 percent of the program's obligations — even if no changes are made.

'I have no doubt that Social Security will be there for a couple generations,'' said Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economics at the New School for Social Research in New York. ''Looking at the numbers right now, Social Security is one of the most financially sound programs that we have in the federal budget.''

http://www.ohio.com/news/social-security-more-solvent-than-most-americans-realize-1.111266

Despite what you may have seen or heard, the Social Security Trust Fund today has a $2.5 trillion surplus that is projected to grow to more than $4 trillion in 2023. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until the year 2039. Let me repeat that. According to the people who have studied this issue most thoroughly, Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits for the next 29 years. At that time, in 2039, it will be able to pay out only 78 percent of benefits. What that means is that while the system is strong today and for many years to come, it’s important that we make some changes soon so that Social Security remains strong and solvent for the next 75 years. And there’s a pretty easy way to do that.

http://vtdigger.org/2010/08/16/sanders-a-way-to-make-social-security-solvent-for-the-next-75-years/

whynot_31 said:

The politicians seem to be concluding that the detractors of SS are more powerful than its supporters.

What took them so long?

Our political processes are a joke.

One only has to look a sh-t like this in order to realize that there is no political process:

http://www.washingtonspectator.org/articles/20111015postedprices.cfm

Some people are idiots.

They want to keep the government out of their medicare!

They think federal tax breaks on mortgage payments isn't benefitting from govt programs.

They are against social programs that benefit other people, but for ones that benefit them.

Many Americans claim ignorance.

But they're not the ones writing the laws, the 10% are.

(Republican voters) don’t have much tolerance for too many facts or too much information.

-Republican pollster Ed Rogers 10/24/2011

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_10/an_aversion_to_too_many_facts033197.php

Apologies, but I don't find your credentials very compelling.

You understand.

No, hadn't inferred that.

Although when it comes to social programs, one side yells about socialism and death panels.

If you think the number of Democrats who yell about evil capitalism is equal to the number of Republican voters who didn't support health care reform b/c of death panels and socialism, you're simply not credible on political commentary.

Not related to my comment.

When it comes to social issues, and especially health care or social security, Republican voters have a well-known aversion to facts.

The same thing does not exist on the left when it comes to these topics.

If we're talking about health care and social issues (which I thought we were), yes, it matters that only one side believes things as irrational as death panels and Obama wants socialism.

Or that the govt should stay out of their medicare.

I repeat once again, BOTH sides seem to be willing to cut entitlements.

And I repeat again: a bunch of rich white men are willing to cut services that largely help the poor, and disproportionally help nonwhites?

This is ground-breaking news.

Can't I judge political parties based solely on their actions?

You can do whatever you want, but if you don't think money and power are directing these decisions, not what's actually best for the country or what most voters actually want, I pity your naivete.

whynot_31 said:

Of course money and power direct these decisions, and the politicians are dismantling these programs largely because they perceive that these programs as no longer having enough support.

You are really underestimating the power of money in politics. Politicians can successfully sell bad ideas to the public if they have $$$ incentive to do so.

Cutting Social Security is a great example.

Health care reform is another. Perhaps the best there is.

If we are not going to incur even more debt, people can't just want programs, they have to be willing to pay for the programs or be able to soak someone else for the costs.

Do not talk to me about debt if you're not talking about health care reform.

Medicare can't negotiate with drug companies. So instead of changing that, we're cutting medicare?

Now why would we do that? Hmmmm.

And Social security is not part of our debt. It needs to be completely left out of this conversation.

Yes, I choose to judge the parties based on their actions and not their rhetoric.

Although you may not like what they are doing, they are finally cooperating and getting something done.

I couldn't care less.

The parties "got something done" with invading Iraq too.

...the rest is rhetoric.

Um, you're the one talking about what the public wants and what the Super Duper Committee thinks the public wants, as if those play central roles when rich white guys and health care companies cut support for poor, disproportionately non-white people.

Let's vote for the party with the most flowery language in 2012.

I don't like either party most of the time, but on social services, Democrats don't believe horsesh-t like "health care reform is socialism and death panels" or that Social Security is in trouble and somehow has something to do with our debt.

Make no mistake:

ALL Republicans and 3 Democrats killed real health care reform, yet these are the people yapping to use about our debt.

It's a joke that Repubs are taken seriously on debt.

Let me repeat that again lest you attempt another false equivalency:

ALL Republicans and 3 Democrats killed real health care reform, yet these are the people yapping to use about our debt.

I dislike both parties but on many topics, such as the one you started here, the Republicans are much worse.

See how both can be true?