Would you trade Social Security reform for Higher taxes for the rich?

[LeftyAndProud60]

I would

[DrDan]

1. don't think so - but guess it depends on what "reform" entails

[SharonAnn]

35. No. If I'm starving on the street, what do I care if they're paying more?

[demwing]

2. Why?

There is no balance achieved in such a trade.

[w4rma]

3. No. (nt)

[phleshdef]

4. Raising the cap = social security reform that raises taxes on the rich.

Thats the only kind we really need to be talking about.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. I am sick and tired of trade-offs.

We have to stand up to the lies thrown around by the Repukes.

[rfranklin]

6. No cuts in Social Security! We paid in....

now we should get out what we were promised. Raise the cap on Social Security contributions. The wealthy should work for the majority, not the other way around.

[DCKit]

20. +1 We never asked Congress to borrow against OUR SS to fund the wealthy.

We need parity, not another bailout for the rich.

Really, where are they going to go, if not here? The taxes in the social democracies are far higher, and the cost of living (imports) would drive them insane in any 3rd world country.

[customerserviceguy]

22. We never called them on it when they did it, either

Either way, it's done. All we're left to do is to figure out how to get out of the trap they set for us. And all the answers involve pain.

[DCKit]

24. It isn't (and never was) an unsecured loan. SS holds Treasury bonds.

They seem to think they can default on the debt to SS without consequence. Saying the program is broke(n) is an outright lie, but a useful lie to those who would like to erase $2.7 trillion from the debt - on our backs.

We need to convince them otherwise.

[customerserviceguy]

25. Those are not Treasury bonds in the usual sense of the term

Regular T-notes and bonds are salable on the open market. The specialized securities that the Treasury hands over to the Social Security Trust Fund are not.

That said, there are only a few ways to redeem them. One is to raise taxes, and/or cut benefits, thus bringing the system back into a surplus. The next way is to borrow on the open market, with fully negotiable Treasury notes and bonds, and transfer the money raised to Social Security. The third way is to just pay off the obligations of Social Security with printed money, and inflate the currency.

The last way is the easiest to do, but results in the most chaos, as Social Security has a COLA built into it, any increased inflation will translate into higher benefits. I understand that the financial wizards are working on ways to fudge the COLA, but that will only slow the process down, not stop it.

What feasible ways do you see of coming up with the trillions of dollars that are owed to Social Security, without resorting to the above methods? "Tax the rich" doesn't count, since we couldn't even do that with a Democratic House, Senate, and White House. It surely can't be done with a Rethug House.

[DCKit]

29. Is there a point to your questioning? How is this a worthy argument?

There is no difference if the bonds Treasury "hands over" to SS aren't "the same" as those you might buy on the market. It's the same damn thing - money borrowed, money owed. The fact that it's a contract with SS and the American people doesn't make a bit of difference when compared to the obligations on bonds sold to China and the sovereign funds.

Treasury might, in some alternate universe, default on those bonds it sells on the open market, but what's the solution if they can't afford to pay them back and choose not to default? Raised taxes, increased revenues and "austerity measures". Then WE (the bottom 99%) still pay for it. So they're going after OUR money instead, via the debt owed to SS - money we all paid into SS over our working lives - to decrease the national debt, for the short-term, to improve the balance sheet and justify the excuses for continued, undeserved tax breaks for those at the top of the heap.

The whole thing is one huge lie, a scam on a previously undreamed of scale to continue to defraud the American public. They had a plan, and it's coming to fruition. There is, and never was, a "crisis" in SS funding. The crisis was contrived to provide an continuing excuse for tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations ON OUR BACKS, then to hand them even more of OUR money via a default on Treasury bonds due to SS.

I'm sorry if you don't get it, but this is a useless argument. The facts are clear: We're getting screwed so the top 1% can continue the kleptocracy in one of the most transparent examples of "The Shock Doctrine" ever attempted.

It's not a crisis, it's a scam and it's theft. No how, no way those who contributed to SS over their working lives should allow our government to default on those bonds so individuals and corporations who pay far less of a percentage in taxes than the average middle class worker can continue paying less in taxes.

They simply want to default on SS (at least a portion of it), to justify continuing on our unsustainable path. The answer to this artificial crisis is "austerity" and higher taxes for the top earners and corporations - the same corporations sitting on $$$$ about equal to the the debt owed to SS.

Funny how that worked out.

[customerserviceguy]

31. Yes, there is a point

There seems to be two trains of thought on this:

1) Money was robbed, and moral suasion will make sure that "the people that caused it" give it back. No general tax raises or benefit cuts are needed, and it is simply immoral for Congress and the President to enact either. All we have to do is protest enough, and the problem will be solved.

2) Money was indeed made off with, and may never be fully paid back. By electing people for decades who contributed to the problem, the entire American society has to deal with it, we're at the end game. We can solve this by cutting in the places that hurt the least, raising taxes in the places that hurt the least, and making sure that this sort of financial sleight-of-hand never happens again. If we can get to budget surpluses, we can actually pay off these obligations.

My stand is the latter of the two. I've made proposals in the past that I've referred to on this thread that attempt to actually try to fix this situation, rather than let Social Security continue to run off the cliff. If we had the kind of Congress and President needed to apply your fixes to this, we'd have had single-payer healthcare last year. As you know, we didn't even get a public option, and at the end of the year, we got Social Security undermined even further by the use of accounting tricks that ended up benefitting the upper middle class far more than the President's "Making Work Pay" tax break.

We can manage a softer landing to this situation than the one we're headed for, or we can simply stamp our feet, and hold our breath till we turn blue, to "make" Congress go against it's own selfish interests.

[msongs]

7. false choice when we can have both despite obama and the republicrats. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

8. in the mildest terms: fuck that shit.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Who would benefit from these Higher Taxes ...

the rich or society?

[elleng]

10. 'TRADE?' Depends. S.S. reform should = raising/eliminating the cap

on contributions, that's the necessary reform.

Rich should 'pay' both ways, pay into S.S. however high their income, AND pay 'higher' taxes, commensurate with income and fairness.

[liberal N proud]

11. Why would we need to do that?

Tax the rich and leave Social Security the FUCK alone!!!!!!!!


:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[xchrom]

12. I can say 'no' - but what difference does it make?

The legislation being crafted is neo-liberal not
Progressive.

Whether I like it or not.

[MichiganVote]

13. Higher taxes for the rich? Don't make me laugh. They will never pay high taxes friend.

[shraby]

14. Any trade-off before long will be back to the same old same old

for the rich and the social security will be made to keep its trade-off, and as usual, the losers will be the ones who are on social security.

[OHdem10]

15. No

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyAndProud60]

17. shut up. That feels better. NT

[Caretha]

18. Shut up?

LOL

You are so funny. Hate being called out, do you?

[Autumn]

19. Hell no, these people we have in power

are not good at reform.

[ladjf]

21. Don't have to trade. Just raise the taxes on the rich bastards and

hold the line on SS.

[woo me with science]

23. Nobody's elderly mom should have to negotiate with a billionaire for her food money. nt

[woo me with science]

26. Tired of negotiating with thieves. nt

[Vinca]

27. If the reform made sense. Lowering the age makes sense,

not raising it. There are no jobs for people over 55 now. Where are the old folks supposed to make a living until they're 70? How about we change SS for the better and make all income subject to SS deductions?

[GoCubsGo]

28. Social Security doesn't need reform.

It needs Congress to return the money it has been stealing from the fund for decades. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way the program is running. It isn't "broken", as the republicans like to claim. That's just their excuse to try to convince people to privatize it, so they can steal even more from it. Put the money back that has been "borrowed", and the system will be solvent for decades to come.

[ljm2002]

30. The question is absurd IMO...

...since higher taxes for the rich would allow Social Security to remain solvent without any so-called "reforms", not to mention would allow the Treasure to PAY BACK the >$2Trillion they BORROWED from the SS fund.

Tax the rich and leave the rest of us alone for a change.

[Cherchez la Femme]

32. Why should they have to be traded?

Since FDR, never needed such crap before -- why should we HAVE to make a choice as to which, of only two offered, swords of Damocles we stand under?

Highly disingenuous posit.

[mkultra]

33. YES< but i wont trade UI for it.

[kiva]

34. No. n/t

[bhikkhu]

36. One has nothing to do with the other

Social Security doesn't need to be reformed, it is pretty well set for many years and is not a "budget item".