Republicans want testing for Social Security.

Americans have been paying a good portion of their income into a public retirement plan called Social Security...currently over 15 percent of a workers income up to 107k of income. If a worker makes more than 107k, you don't pay Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance tax.

Retirement age is 65. Now Republicans have announced that they want to raise the retirement elgibility age by 5 years; reduce annual increases intended to adjust for inflation; and implement a needs testing scheme in order to qualify for benefits. Of course you will still have to pay for the benefits regardless of your qualification status. So there are some folks who have paid into the program all of their lives and will get absoutely nothing from the program. Is that fair? How much money can you have in your retirement accounts and still qualify for Social Security?

How do you feel about the issue?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPwTM8uTRfg

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The answer seems clear, apply the tax to income over 107K.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Democrats have already raised the retirement age on a sliding scale joe, or aren't you aware of that.

It was President Lyndon B. Johnson Johnson and the Democrats in control of Congress that crafted and signed the bill that put the Social Security Trust Fund into general fund for Congress to spend.

It was the Democrats who started taxing Social Security with Al Gore being the deciding tie breaking vote in the Senate as Vice President.

It was the Democrats under Jimmy (the Peanut) Carter who started giving Suplimentary Social Security to Immigrants, even thought they never paid a dime into the Fund.

So joe the Democrats have their fair share of sins to account for to.

The Social Security Administration website (www.ssa.gov) calculates full retirement age or normal retirement age as follows:

Born 1937 or earlier, full retirement age 65

Born 1938, full retirement age 65 and 2 months

Born 1939, full retirement age 65 and 4 months

Born 1940, full retirement age 65 and 6 months

Born 1941, full retirement age 65 and 8 months

Born 1942, full retirement age 65 and 10 months

Born 1943-1954, full retirement age 66

Born 1955, full retirement age 66 and 2 months

Born 1956, full retirement age 66 and 4 months

Born 1957, full retirement age 66 and 6 months

Born 1958, full retirement age 66 and 8 months

Born 1959, full retirement age 66 and 10 months

Born 1960 and later, full retirement age 67

ps: and guess what it doesn't matter, Social security is going broke.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

These measures are necessary and inevitable. Pretending otherwise is foolishness.

 

It does not matter what Democrats have done in the past with elgibility requirments. Without the Democrats there would be no Social Security. The question is, where to now? And Social Security is not the problem, it is completely solvable by making all pay and equal percent of their earned income in Social Security Tax.

What is more difficult is Medicare which Republicans have yet to address, other than by denying benefits by pushing back elgibility dates. Democrats have taken a stab at it with the recent healthcare reform law and Republicans tried to stab them in the heart for their efforts to control medical costs in the country and thereby save Medicare.

Scroll down to Chart B in the Social Security Trustee Report.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

 

No...

If People who have paid into this service, will loose there money then it's not right and another sign of how the republicans only look out for there rich friends.

 

That was actually Supplemental Security Income. SSI is a welfare program funded by general revenues, not Social Security. Furthermore, SSI began under Nixon. {source-snopes}

No, you do, lying is a sin last time I checked.

Do you even bother to fact check the bullshit you post?

 

Oh dear spidergoat, I can't hold a candle to the sins of the Democrat Politicians, they revel in the glory of their sinning, and are proud of that fact.

Well spidergoat, occasionally I do make a mistake, and it appears that I have on the funding of SSI, as it is handled through Social Security, but i am not wrong about Carter and the Democrats expanding the program to immigrant.

Now how many times have you failed to do a full check of the facts before you run off at the mouth, and spew your volumes of Bullshit?

As to Nixon;

SSI was created in 1974 to replace federal-state adult assistance programs that served the same purpose. The restructuring of these programs was intended to standardize the eligibility requirements and level of benefits.[4] The new federal program was incorporated into Title XVI (Title 16) of the Social Security Act.[5]

And where did I not agree with the program, as it standardized the requirements across the nation, rather than the hodgepodge of individual state standards.


I love this new talking point from the you and the liberal left of the Forum, it is becoming funny, the constant accusation of lying, so every time you have your facts wrong, and don't do a complete check of the history of the subject are you lying?

According to the standard set by you, the answer is clear.

 

that's probably the best way to do it. that and reduce benefits for those who can afford extravegent retirements.

 

Means testing for Social Security is perfectly reasonable. The current practice of paying such welfare money to rich people, money which is taken disproportionately from the paychecks of the poorest of the working class, makes no sense.

 

Actually you are wrong. The SSI was signed into law by Nixon in 1972 and from the outset (i.e. 1972) citizenship and residence eligibility for SSI was as follows:

The individual must reside within one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia and be a citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence or permanently residing in the United States under color of law.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf (see second page)

 

Never denied that Nixon signed SSI into law, and having checked my source, the law was signed in 1972, typos do happen, and I am a ham handed typist.

 

I think it speaks to how you are processing Republican talking points, which more often than not are lies.

 

Yeah, they can up it to any age they want...I don't expect that if/when I retire far in the future that there will be such a thing as SS.

 

One of the major problems, as previously pointed out, is Medicare. The Republican solution is not to address the key drivers of medical care cost but rather to just deny care...push the expense back 5 years and hope people die faster.

That is no solution, and this from the party that scared the helll out of people with death panels. Republicans reallly do want people to die before they get benefits they have been promised all of their working life. Right at the end point, they want to say sorry saps we already spent the money you have been paying us for your retirement and we are going to change the play book.....you are out of luck.

 

You can provide citation to back this up joe?

And you accuse me of lying.

 

What part did you miss Buffalo Roam?

I provided proof that the problem with Social Security is the Medicare Portion. Medicare is a part of Social Security.

Delaying elgibility by 5 years as the Republicans want to do means fewer people will ever access Medicare because they will die before they reach the elgibility age of 70. And of those that do reach elgibiltiy, they will spend fewer years on the program because at some point they will die off.

And I provided proof to you of this also. That is the Republican position. So go back and reread my posts and my previous citations. It is all there.

And was it not the Republicans who were scaring people with "death panels" ,which have no basis in fact, when Democrats were trying to pass healthcare reform this year.

So what part of that did you miss?

 

joe, you provided nothing but a partisan hyperbolic lie, again provide documentable proof that Republicans want people to die, and that is their intended policy, documentable proof not your hysterical supposition.

Now joe since you love to call me a liar so how about the whopper you just told?

I provided proof that the problem with Social Security is the Medicare Portion. Medicare is a part of Social Security.​

From the Governments own web site;

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/reports/trustees/historypt.html

So Medicare is not funded out of the same Trust Fund as Social Security, and therefore doesn't effect the Social Security Trust Fund in any way.

Now do you really believe the bullship that you put out?
Or are you deliberately lying?

 

What's the problem? Bush had no problem raising billions for the war in Iraq. I don't see why we can fund that and not social security.

 

spidergoat when you reach a point where you have only 2.6 workers for every retired person, and that is a spun number, how do you fund Social Security?

The Government has no money of it's own, it can only tax, print, or borrow.

We have now reached the point that even if we confiscated every dollar from the Rich, we wouldn't even break even.

And Obama has done more than His share to add to the Debt and Deficit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000576-503544.html

March 16, 2010 5:13 PM
National Debt Up $2 Trillion on Obama's Watch

The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion since President Obama took office.

(in only 15 months)

"When we walked in, we had a deficit of $1.3 trillion and projected debt over the course of a decade of $8 trillion," he told the CEOs on February 24th. "The lost revenue from this recession put us in an even deeper hole. And the steps we took to save the economy from depression last year have necessarily added to the deficit -- about $1 trillion, compared to the $8 trillion that we inherited."

(so George left a 8 trillion dollar debt)

and Obama has increased that to 12 trillion in 17 months, that means by the time Obama ends His first term He will have added 11.2 trillion Dollars to the Debt, yes when is Obama going to take responsibility for His Presidency, it's all Georges fault doesn't cut it any more.