Heartless to cut Social Security

The Republicans in Congress are at it again, trying to cut Social Security. What a heartless idea, especially now when there’s still a recession.

Ordinary working people pay Social Security taxes on their entire income. Wealthy people do not. They pay Social Security taxes on only $106,800 a year, even if they earn several million dollars a year or more.

Taxing all income brackets equally would raise about $377 billion, which would go a long way toward solving any problems. Republicans insist benefit cuts are the way to “save” Social Security (which is in much better shape than they want you to think) because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

They also want you to think that Social Security adds to the deficit but, by law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it’s required to pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.

Republicans also think we should keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which actually would add about $678 billion to the deficit.

Politicians should not cut Social Security; Americans desperately need it. People who want to cut Social Security checks should try to live on one for a month. 

Ellen Field, New Gloucester

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

xyz's picture

Bulls...

eye, Ellen....Now I will read the rants from the rabid-right-wing-cowardly-teahadists.

SRV's picture

Regardless of the original

Regardless of the original intention of the Act, it makes little sense not to at least explore the idea of means testing, at least for those recipients who have more than $500,000 in savings or assets. No one at or above that level needs a monthly check from the government even if they did pay into the system. Unfortunately, nobody has the will to propose such a plan given the monolithic voting power of the AARP and related lobbies.

scott's picture

So what you are saying is

So what you are saying is that if I piss all my money away and be irresponsible with any extra money I have I should be entitled to a gov't check but if I did the right thing and saved and invested and was responsible I should get the shaft and not a dime of SSI? That's is what is wrong with you libs, screw the responsible ones and give it all to the people who make wrong decision #4876. How about rewarding those that do the right thing? Do you still give your kid an allowance even though they didn't do any of thier chores? My parents didn't. Why? Because I didn't earn it!

Voisine's picture

If Republicans Had Their Way in 2004 ...

If Republicans had their way in 2004, Social Security would have been "privatized" and by 2008, it would have completely collapsed. If you think the Republican "tax cuts" were nifty, consider what they did to the economy. Clinton's surplus was an opportunity to shore up Social Security, but no, Bush and Republicans did what they do best, the only thing they do ... give to the most privileged in order to GET BACK from them in the form of cash to elect more corrupt, worthless, anti-middle class Republicans. What's wrong with America? One word: Republicans.

Pirate's picture
verified

If ifs and ands were pots and

If ifs and ands were pots and pans; we'd all be on Broadway.

cranky yankee's picture

Ok RWB, since you seem to get

Ok RWB, since you seem to get your talking points from Glenn Beck let's check some recent history. Five years ago, when the Republi-scum wanted to privatize social security (just hink how well THAT would have worked out) they were claiming it would be broke in 2015. Now the CBO is saying it will be broke in 2049. Hmmmmm. Maybe as we turn more calendar pages, reality will sink in and we'll realize that social security isn't the goose that laid the golden egg (and it was NEVER intended to be), but it's holding its own thank you very much. There are three major problems effecting social security. Problem one is that the population base has shrunk. The original concept of social security was that the upcoming generations would support the older generations. Problem two is that when social security first started the average life expectancey for a male was 58.1 and female was 61.6, meaning many people never collected. Now, the life expectancy (in 1997) was Male 73.1 Female 79.1 meaning that social security dollars have to go a lot further. The third problem is how the money is invested and what happens with the returns on those investment. Social Security dollars, that is the dollars paid in by myself and my employer are invested in government securities. As those securities mature, they are redeemed to pay Social Security benefits. Any surplus is then turned over to Congress to be spent however they want and the Repubs have spent just as well as the Dems. The surplus should be returned to the fund and reinvested and those securities held separately from the general fund. There is one more fix needed-raise the $106,800 cap on employees annual earnings.

Pirate's picture
verified

That $106,800 cap is what's

That $106,800 cap is what's got Ellen's pantyhose in a twist. And you wann jack it up? It's o.k. with me and the parrot, but what about Ellen?

Frostproof's picture
verified

The problems were built in from the beginning.

Problem 1: The number of people working and paying SS taxes has shrunk. That number will dwindle to zero under the policies of the current administration. The population overall has increased wildly, especially in the wagon-rider classes.

Problem 2: FDR chose those ages deliberately so the gov't could collect more money than it paid out. Over the decades, Congress has raised the rates and the salary caps many times, trying to preserve the cash-cow. If they removed the cap completely, it would kick the can down the road about 6 years.

Problem 3: The taxes collected are not invested in anything, they are spent as soon as they are received to pay current benefits and, of course, other things completely unrelated to retirement. There is no fund, there is no account with your name on it. There is a huge stack of IOUs that are redeemed by printing money, debasing the value of what's already in circulation. There may have been surpluses on paper, but that stopped this year - SS will pay out more than it takes in. That crossover has arrived about 8 years earlier than the experts predicted.

thinkingman's picture

Cranky, the reason the dates

Cranky, the reason the dates of insolvency have changed is pretty simple - they raised the retirement age for full benefits since that originla statement...duh!

momof4's picture

I still think

citizens should have to take a test before they vote.

Pirate's picture
verified

That would completely

That would completely eliminate the "American Idol" and "Life with the Kardashians" crowds.

Lil's picture
verified

except

Except it would be unfair to conservatives, since all they ever get on their tests is drool.

Pirate's picture
verified

You speak from first hand

You speak from first hand experience (the drooling part), right?

momof4's picture

lil

that was actually kind of funny...

tron's picture

Racist had it that way before, to keep blacks from voting,

it was ruled unconstitutional. So now you want to change the Constitution of the United States to reinstate racism? And you're offended when referred to as a bigot?

Pirate's picture
verified

Watchu smokin' today, Boy

Watchu smokin' today, Boy

momof4's picture

What do you mean, tron?

Who called me a bigot?

Pirate's picture
verified

He called you a bigot because

He called you a bigot because you suggested a test should be required in order to vote. Obviously, he fears he'd have trouble passing the test, even though skin color would not be among the criteria.

tron's picture

I have and

I do now. That was a very racist statement you made, and I called you on it.

rstonge's picture
verified

please explain

Tron, please explain who saying having to test someone before they can vote is racist? She didn't say, "Blacks should be tested" or "Hispanics should be tested". She said "citizens should have to take a test before they vote." Last I checked, Blacks, Hispanics, White and other can all be citizens, so I don't see the racism in here statement.

thinkingman's picture

Why is it the liberals always

Why is it the liberals always bring up the color issue and call people racists and bigots and yet neverget warned by the LSJ topnotch staff about it....tron, refresh your own shallow mind on the very definition of a bigot and then look in the mirror...

tron's picture

The price of liberty and freedom is

eternal vigilance. I merely pointed out the obvious, literacy was once a weapon used by racist to exclude blacks from registering and voting. momof4 wanted to go back to that era. We have all become wise to the fact that right wing wackos love to redefine words in order to deflect the onus from themselves, but sorry, booby, not gonna work this time.

Publikwerks's picture

Can we all just agree?

Can we all just agree that the other side sucks and their policies will lead us to destruction?

Pirate's picture
verified

Yes, and until that changes,

Yes, and until that changes, our country will continue its spiral down the road to Perdition.

Publikwerks's picture

If only the other guys would

If only the other guys would listen to our us, they would realize they were wrong. Unless they are to closed minded or stupid to realize how very wrong they are

Publikwerks's picture

Sorry, I was doing some work

Sorry, I was doing some work while typing that.
Meant to write:
If only the other guys would listen to us, they would realize they were wrong. Unless they are to closed minded or stupid to realize how very wrong they are

jalbrecht's picture
verified

But mommy why can't I take Bill's cookies

Why do Republicans want to privatize Social Security. Simple, trillions of dollars would be transferred from government bonds to private equities on Wall Street. Trillions more to be added to the trillions Bush and Paulsen sent to Wall Street in the bailouts. When trillions of unearned dollars are pumped into a market you get an equity bubble that like all bubbles bursts in time. This massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super rich would improverish America and create a depression that would put the Great Depression to shame. The super rich would be sunning themselves in Monoco while American workers wait in bread lines.
Don't be fooled. A vote for Republicans is your own economic death sentence.

VoiceOreason's picture

You may need the government

You may need the government to babysit your retirement, but I could do a helluva lot better investing myself than what SS will give me. If I had the option of opting out of SS and investing the same amount myself I would be retired already. The investments I made on my own have cost me far less than I contributed to SS in my career, and the projected return is going to be far greater. Every time the SSA sends me the little summary sheet detailing what I can plan on for retirement benefits, it ticks me off. You libs line up to suck at the government teat because that's all you know how to do. It's not your fault. That's probably what your parents and grandparents did and what they taught you. I thank God every day that my parents brought me up to be self sufficient, and not to rely on the government for a monthly wedge of cheese.

tron's picture

apparently your parents also taught you

to be an azz and a liar.

VoiceOreason's picture

Ha Ha Ha ! Is that the best

Ha Ha Ha ! Is that the best you can do? I guess the government doesn't provide witty retorts with entitlement checks!

Pirate's picture
verified

Wow......

Wow......

momof4's picture

kinda gives some insight

as to why this country is so screwed up, eh, Pirate? I had the same reaction as you....

Pirate's picture
verified

Again, they walk among us and

Again, they walk among us and they vote. Witness the mess we're currently in.

WideStanceRepublican's picture

Social Security

is the biggest pet peeve of all republicans because it puts to bed their idea that government cannot work efficiently for the people. Social Security is financially sound and is in no danger of running out of money. That is until you get republican monkeys wrangling the numbers to support their idiotic ideas. Just imagine if all the morons who wanted to privatize Social Security got their way in 2007? The market crash in 2008 would have meant millions of seniors would have zero assistance after working their whole lives and contributing into Social Security.

Keep Social Security forever because it is solvent and it makes republicans look like the fools they are.

seekingthetruth's picture

I got news for you

Non of our government programs are going to remain solvent if The Messiah keeps adding trillions to the deficit.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

One thing a Republicn is good at - avoidin blame.

George Bush gave us the first trillion dollar deficit. Gave us the depression that is now fueling this years trillion dollar deficit. But of course, Obama's black so it must be his fault.

Pirate's picture
verified

Does that mean that

Does that mean that everything that was Bush's fault was his fault because he's white?

Pirate's picture
verified

And Borat oBAMa tripled

And Borat oBAMa tripled Bush's deficits in his first 18 months.

rstonge's picture
verified

racist?

Saying "Obama's black so it must be his fault." is an extremely racist thing to say. I've not seen anyone blame the President because of the color of his skin. I've only seen the President being blame for policies.

preaves's picture
staff

I think he was being

I think he was being sarcastic ...

Pirate's picture
verified

Sarcasm, like good looks and

Sarcasm, like good looks and talent, will only carry you so far. jalbrecht brought up oBAMa's blackness completely out of context. No one had mentioned to that point.

tron's picture

President Obama's race is implicit in every post

the right wing wackos do. Look at the myriad ways they misspell, corrupt and otherwise ridicule his name. Add that to the majority of the right wing who still claims that President Obama wasn't born here and is a Muslim, and you see that his race is ALWAYS present.

Pirate's picture
verified

oBAMa's skin color is the

oBAMa's skin color is the only thing about the man I DON"T find offensive.

tron's picture

keep repeating that to yourself,

and you'll believe it. Isn't that the wacko way?

seekingthetruth's picture

jalbrecht wasn't being sarcastic

He was implying that Republicans are racists.

He was wrong. If I had said it then preaves would have surely deleted my comment.

The liberal prejudice of preaves is as see-through as glass.

Frostproof's picture
verified

I think it it impossible for

I think it it impossible for Albrecht to be sarcastic.

momof4's picture

I agree.

No matter what jabs we take at one another in this forum, I have never once seen a post regarding Obama's color. You are right, rstonge, it is his policies, and it's too bad that some have to grasp at straws to make their (non) points.

Pirate's picture
verified

Privatization of SSI had a

Privatization of SSI had a 25% maximum allowable, and was totally VOLUNTARY. Market investment of Teachers' and other unions is o.k., though, but not SSI is that it?

RedWhiteBlue's picture

Once again liberals open

Once again liberals open their mouths and show their stupidity.
The CBO, which liberals love to say is nonpartisan says Social Security will run out by 2049 and 2010 is the first year it is running a deficit.
Thanks again Dumbocrats for another failed big government program. Tax and Spend

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/03/30/social_security_is_r...

Lil's picture
verified

surpluses

So, if 2010 is the first year of running a deficit, what happens with the surpluses collected over at least the past 25 years?

Pirate's picture
verified

dems spent it on their

dems spent it on their giveaway welfare programs.

Frostproof's picture
verified

Those surpluses were spent as

Those surpluses were spent as soon as they were received. They are not there.

jalbrecht's picture
verified

39 years from now? Now that must be an emergency

OH! I forgot, enough republicans are in the Senate to obscruct any action in the national interest. So it might take 39 years to solve a small problem that could be solved just by letting the economy grow, but the republicans won't let that happen either. They want to steal Bill's coolies.

RedWhiteBlue's picture

Never thought of it that way.

Never thought of it that way. Good point.. Screw the next generation, and the next, and the next. Live for Today Dumbocrats. Who cares about Americas future, right?

Republicans will never let the economy grow. They just happen to be the party of big business though, right? While Dumbocrats are the party of regulations and taxes... hmm...

jalbrecht's picture
verified

Fly baby fly

I agree it will take Republicans several generation to export enough business so they can ignore what goes on in the US. They are working in the interests of Big Business as you say; not in the national interest.
Live for today! 39 years is not today. Its 2 generations. As the letter writer said, problem solved by just taxing all income. But Republicans won't let that pass. Protecting their Wall Street bonuses again.

Pirate's picture
verified

They are NOT going to cut SSI

They are NOT going to cut SSI benefits to EXISTING recipients; give that thought right up. They will, or have, however, raise the age at which a person can receive FULL benefits. SSI funds, Ellen, are NOT separate from the general budget. There is no such thing as a Social Security FUND.
Again, existing SSI recipients will NOT be burdended with cuts in their checks. They will never DARE to do that; it doesn't matter who the president is, or who is in control of congress. Far too many VOTES at stake. And, that's what it's all about, Ellen; VOTES.

fixit001's picture

I Agree furthermore if it

I Agree furthermore if it wasnt for the Scum Bums dipping their greedy little paws in it over the years it would not be in the shape it is!! we need to create a fairly ssi taxed base throughout the entire population from 0 dollars to multimillion dollar saleries then when the fund is where it should be stop the scum bums when they try to rob it yet again!!!

Advertisement