I am often critical of my fellow Democrats because we tend to be too elitist and woke. But I am encouraged by some recent proposals. Congressional Democrats have introduced bills that will both strengthen and increase social security payments by as much as $200 per month. This legislation is going nowhere, however, without Republican support.
Many seniors are heavily dependent on social security for much of their income. But funds will run out within 13 years unless the fund is replenished. This will be accomplished by raising payroll taxes on people who earn more than $250,000 per year, in one proposal, and $400,000, in another.
Democrats are also proposing that the way the annual cost of living adjustment is calculated be adjusted to make it more realistic.
I am aware of no Republican support for any of these measures. Instead, The Hill reports that Republicans would rather "reform" social security behind closed doors.
I agree that we Democrats have our flaws. But if you think the Republican party is the party of the little guy, think again.
Sure, just throw money at seniors during an election year. Typical Democrat playbook. Doesn't matter that the SS Trust Fund will go bankrupt in 7 years or that young taxpayers will be taxed more to prop up a system that they themselves will never benefit from. But as long as senior deadbeats like you Bernie gets more dough per month to pay for bike upgrades we should all be happy.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear seniors who need social security are not dead beats. They paid into a system with a promise of getting that money when they retire. Giving more money is usually not the answer I agree when it's allegedly going to run out. However isn't taking care of our seniors and those who paid in their entire lives more of a priority then most of the Democrats crazy spending that's going on? Finding a solution should be before letting millions of illegal immigrants into the country and offering them incentives. And I could go on and on about all the Democrats spending and now inflation
Delete@12:12
ReplyDeleteObviously you are too young, to understand the basics of SS. A person doesn't even qualify for SS unless they have worked long enough and paid into the system. If I'm receiving SS it doesn't make me, or Bernie, or anyone else collecting a "deadbeat."
Like unemployment, if you don't pay in, you don't qualify.
I heard the same siren of SS going broke for the last 50 years, yet it survives and will continue to survive. The alternative would be many millions of old people homeless without healthcare.
You bitch that you may have to pay more into it. Cry me a river. I saw my contributions increase during my working life, and even though I'm collecting I still have to work a part-time job to pay my bills.
Only an idiot would try to make SS a political issue. There are both Republicans and Democrats collecting and depending on SS.
Reagan wrecked social security. I wish the democrats would lean away from the politics of bathrooms and pronouns and get back to being the Party of working people/. The republicans have always been and still are the party of big business and the wealthy. The fact that they can still pull off the con on the American public is as much about the democrats pathetic messaging as it is about republican spin skills.
ReplyDeleteReagan wrecked social security. I wish the democrats would lean away from the politics of bathrooms and pronouns and get back to being the Party of working people/. The republicans have always been and still are the party of big business and the wealthy. The fact that they can still pull off the con on the American public is as much about the democrats pathetic messaging as it is about republican spin skills.
ReplyDeleteJust another attempt to BUY votes before the election. Either it is the republicans are going to eliminate SS or the dems will give you more money. They have been using this stick and Carrot for 50 years.
ReplyDeleteYou know they dont want it to pass, they will add some poison pill so they can blame the Republicans. Bernie, you are better than this.
State Republicans have proposals that will undermine revenue sources of the local tax base and most certainly lead to tax imcreases. It is a slight of hand shift. How elses can they pay for corporate giveaways? Causing taxpayers pain is a GOP strategy.....create a crisis to campaign against.
ReplyDeleteThis is misleading and/or untrue, just as the previous post where you've been called a liar by Mr. Moore. Are there other parts of the bill that are so obnoxious they poison a good idea? This is usually the case. You also seem to forget that it was a Democrat (Clinton) who rolled SS into the general fund and made it a transfer (i.e. welfare) program. Forget about SS. Democrats want your IRA and 401(k) money like heroin addicts ready to steal from granny. The government is broke. The middle class is loaded and Democrats hate that and want to start tapping your savings. Watch IRA and 401(k) proposals from thieving money-addicted politicians.
ReplyDeleteHad the Feds (both Republicans and Democrats) not financially raped The Social Security Program, we as seniors wouldn't have to worry about a meager SS payment per month. Had the government invested my money instead of finding ways to spend my money funding the Military and other programs not intended to be included in the SS Program I easily could have retired as a millionaire. My employer pays 8 % of my wages, as did I, into Social security for almost 50 years. That's 16% of my earnings going into the SS fund. The slimey bastards saw this as a bottomless money pit and raided the fund repeatedly to pay for programs that were not intended to be Social Security programs. Social Security pays benefits for Republicans as well as Democrats and I hate to think about where we would be as a nation of elderly people without those benefits.
ReplyDeleteYep. What timing!
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who do not want to collect Social Security then simply turn it down. There is no law that says you must collect SS funds. For most Americans now more then ever depends on surviving on SSFunds for their retirement. Ever since the abolishment of the defined pension plans for the American worker, during the Regan Administration have a class of seniors need the fund just for basic human needs. 401Ks are not the answer and the next group of upcoming Senior Americans are woefully prepared for retirement due to poor wages, high medical and no extra monies for a 401k. Thanks to Republican’s..
ReplyDeletehttps://cultureshield.com/PDF/45_Goals.pdf
ReplyDeleteEveryone needs to take a hard honest look at these items and be honest on where we are as America today.
No amount of SS increase will come close to offsetting the crushing economic hardships being suffered by American seniors via the Democrat party economic playbook over the last year and a half.
ReplyDeleteBasic cost of living increases are outpacing any suggested SS increases by far.
But it’s an election year. And Democrats will do what they always do in an election year; break out their big bag of crumbs and start spreading the crumbs at the feet of those desperate souls that they created.
Then run TV adds claiming to be the party that feeds the hungry.
The Democrat party loves their constituency to follow that “D” playbook:
Dumb
Desperate
Dependent
Disarmed
I will repeat, the previous President helped the Seniors, too! By lowering the percentage amount for every IRS tax bracket, all persons receiving monthly Security payments, making withdrawals from their IRA’S, corporate pensions, 401 (k), 403(b), etc. resulted in keeping more of their money. Of course, nearly doubling the Standard Deduction helped as well.
ReplyDeleteIt the present Administration continues to do more, I’m sure it will be appreciated. Such a move, to me, is more helpful to more people than this Administration’s plans to cancel student college loan debt.
Money we don't have. Buying votes....typical.
ReplyDeletePromises made and gone south due faulty assumptions.. What to do ?? The usual DEMOCRAT solution.... We need to get those "RICH" people that never pay their fair share.
ReplyDeleteA win win as we widen our umbrella and create a bigger dependent class... I'm sure those folks making 200K+ and paying a top rate of 30%+ won't miss another 6.2% and will ring their reps off the hook to embrace this scheme. They can put off buying another TESLA and live with high gas prices like the rest of us !!
REPUBLICANS are EVIL !!!
Are you saying Democrats don't make over 200000 year only Republican?
Deletethe system is self correcting, people die and go off the rolls daily.
ReplyDeleteHow about we put the money back into the fund that was stolen over the years by congress and never returned to make them look good when budget time came around?
Maybe they should just let Janet Yellen and her minions redefine the word "increase."
ReplyDeleteYet another example of how our government is broken, and the root cause is politics. Neither Democrats or Republicans give a shit about the American people, yet so many here will wave their pom poms for their team. Wake the fuck up.
ReplyDeleteWe need problem solvers, communicators and consensus builders in Washington (and Harrisburg), yet all we do is send the biggest loud mouth "Culture Warriors" who simply pose and preen at photo ops, make speeches at fundraisers and generally do stupid stunts to get on cable news.
We have real problems in this country that impacts EVERYONE and we need to start sending smart, committed people who are willing to work with each other, to respect different points of view and get meaningful legislation passed instead of symbolic resolutions.
I remember when Bush2 was 1 democratic vote away from privatizing Social Security. Economy was booming and it almost seemed like a good idea until, like every other time the slush money surges by lowering taxes on the mega-rich and then crashes, the stocks dropped like a brick. Had the elimination of Social Security gone thru our country would have seen the likes of another great depression if not worse.
ReplyDeleteThese wannabe rich who would like to see the end of Social Security are striving to see our country end up like India, with the oligarchs of the unbelievable rich living in the private skyscrapers in the middle of unwashed masses living in filthy sheet metal huts.
Make no doubt about it, those who are unempathetic, bellowing the loudest about how we should be ending Social Security instead of buffering it, will be the first to cry and bemoan the fact that it is gone when they need it.
So the Democrats which is the party of big tech, academia, Hollywood, big business is definitely not for the little guy. They love the big guy but not sure if they give that big guy 10%. But the party of low taxes, less regulation, lower energy costs, is not for the little guy? Below is a left wing outlet showing how dems are killing the middle class.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/18/most-middle-class-households-say-income-falling-behind-cost-of-living.html
I agree that we Democrats have our flaws. But if you think the Republican party is the party of the little guy, think again.
Define little guy? Hard working Americans making how much money?
Delete"Just to be clear, the Republican tax cuts of 2017 are driving the deficit. Spending more than revenue causes a deficit. But Social Security is required by law to pay benefits only from its revenue and trust funds. Social Security is one of the few government programs with built-in fiscal discipline.
ReplyDeleteBottom Line: Though Senator McConnell may not have meant to publicize the Republican agenda to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the long history of Republican opposition may be an example of what Sigmund Freud and modern psychologists believe--a slip of the tongue may reveal more of the truth than a well-constructed prepared remark. And in order to defend their expensive and regressive tax cut, Republicans may be preparing to cut America's most popular programs."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/11/02/republican-public-opposition-to-social-security-and-medicare/?sh=e241c544e71e
12:12am - Typical uninformed Republican reaction. Why comment if you know nothing about it? The bill funds social security for 75 years.
ReplyDeleteWell, the problem with Social Security is that it requires an expanding pool of workers earning money in the economy to pay for those who are already in retirement and collecting benefits. The reason for this is that politicians have raided the Social Security fund on a routine basis for other priorities. One may disagree with the priorities (Republicans prefer to spend that money on corporate tax cuts, state surveillance and bombs, Democrats on expanded healthcare and tax credits for the poor; both parties came together during the pandemic to pay everyone a bonus) but if we had listened to Al Gore in 2000 when he suggested that we put the Social Security Trust Fund in a "lock box", we'd have the money now. Ol' Al is looking pretty smart with a bit of historical perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt's also the case that an expanding workforce could be achieved the same way it was for our grandparents and great-grandparents: immigration! Sorry for making MAGA heads explode...
"So the Democrats which is the party of big tech, academia, Hollywood, big business is definitely not for the little guy."
ReplyDeleteThis post proves you to be full of shit. Incidentally, favoring low taxes for the wealthy is hardly what someone who cares about the little guy favors.
You've been played.
:Sure, just throw money at seniors during an election year. Typical Democrat playbook. Doesn't matter that the SS Trust Fund will go bankrupt in 7 year"
ReplyDeleteThe proposal from Sanders and Warren is over a month old. They have consistentky throughout their careers supported the little guy. Moreover, This proposal funds social security so that it does not go broke. Had you actually read my story or the stories to which I link, you'd know that,
Maybe you can also define little guy?
Delete"Promises made and gone south due faulty assumptions.. What to do ?? The usual DEMOCRAT solution.... We need to get those "RICH" people that never pay their fair share."
ReplyDeleteWell, there you have it. The "populists" defending people with incomes of more than $400k from the big mean government saying they should give back a little bit more than some schmuck making $40k so that our elderly do not have to choose between buying a drug and eating.
I absolutely agree it is time to make those who earn more pay more. And there should be higher taxes on capital gains than we currently have.
How about recovering the surplus that has been spent by congress, and take it out of the assets of those congressmen who were happy to steal the money. Now they want more and the surplus will again be stolen and spent, Mostly in buying more votes.
ReplyDeleteIf the country had to pay all the iou's , it would have to sell every asset of the federal government, and it would not be enough.
In fact why don't we start selling many of the assets of the federal government, it was all bought with taxpayer money. They are content to just leave many of those assets in every country that we leave. Then complain about not having enough money.
If the federal government confiscated every asset in the country, within 10 years it would all be gone. Congress acts much like those homeless addicts, but has an eternal slush fund, YOU
Oh, wow, the idea is a couple months old, so it is not in an election year. Come on.
ReplyDeleteThis post proves you to be full of shit. Incidentally, favoring low taxes for the wealthy is hardly what someone who cares about the little guy favors.
ReplyDeleteYou've been played.
Time to bring the receipts unlike you who brings CNN/MSNBC talking points. Facts,Data,numbers is what I deal with. Top 10% of the wealthiest pay 70.8% of all the taxes in 2019. Top 25% pay 86.6%. So low taxes for the wealthy doesn't carry any weight. It might even be higher if Hunter Biden paid his but another story for another day. Also attached is IRS data about the tax cuts on the middle class. Middle class was put in lower tax brackets. Hence paid less. I expect a retraction of your statement. Receipts below
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/measuring-the-effects-of-the-republicans-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-on-personal-income-taxes
https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20top%201,%24461%20billion%20in%20income%20taxes.
C'mon man. Here's the deal: The party that funds research into why lesbians are obese has little standing in any fiscal responsibility discussion. There's also $50 billion we're spending on Biden's Ukraine War. Needy seniors should understand that they need to take one for the team. Wokeness and never-ending wars must be paid first. Old folks can save money by driving electric cars. Seniors might also consider an altruistic departure from this world that supports cannibalism of their remains and feeds future generations, as recently explored in the NYT. I suspect Bernie would taste bitter. Anyhoo, the answers are all around us.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/23/style/cannibalism-tv-shows-movies-books.html
@9:29 am
ReplyDeleteYou are correct! Thanks for your comment.
"Time to bring the receipts unlike you who brings CNN/MSNBC talking points. Facts,Data,numbers is what I deal with. Top 10% of the wealthiest pay 70.8% of all the taxes in 2019. Top 25% pay 86.6%. So low taxes for the wealthy doesn't carry any weight."
ReplyDeleteHere is the data:
1) The 25 most wealthy Americans saw their worth rise by $401 billion between 2014 and 2018. They paid only 3.4% of their increase in wealth, via income and capital gains, in taxes. Middle income Americans saw their wealth, via income and capital gain, rise by $65,000. They paid $62,000 in taxes. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
2) The top tax rate used to be 91%. Now it is just $37% on the wealthy. The richest 1% pay 24%, while someone making $75k pays 19.7%. https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-taxing-wealthy-americans/
3) The 400 most wealthy families pay just 8.2% of their income and capital gain, which pales in comparison to what the rest of us pay. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/23/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-average-taxpayer.html
So yes, our tax system unfairly gives the wealthy breaks that the rest of us are denied. This needs to change.
Increase in wealth is subjective, it is not really accounted for unless it is sold, I suppose most peoples 401k is not worth what it was worth a year ago, In a free and fair country we do not tax peoples increase in wealth which is continually changing. We tax income or gains on sales of property.
ReplyDeleteSo, you are saying you support an annual asset tax. Which is in effect confiscation of private property.
Does anyone believe that if your wealth decreases you will get a tax rebate. Who is going to judge what the increase is, your house your car, your personal possessions? it will always be a one way street, away from you.
Another half baked socialist idea to grab the wealth of the productive. Bernie sanders nor elizabeth warren have ever had real jobs, they have only been politicians their whole life. That is all you need to know about their knowledge and qualifications.
Just 37%, wow are you out of touch with what is fair and just.
ReplyDelete" we do not tax peoples increase in wealth which is continually changing. We tax income or gains on sales of property.
ReplyDeleteSo, you are saying you support an annual asset tax. Which is in effect confiscation of private property."
That is right, and what I am saying is that change in wealth is reflected once there is a capital gain. The tax rate on long-term capital gains is ridiculously low. They can also borrow against their portfolio, and that is not taxed at all.
Also, I would certainly consider an annual asset tax. The notion that this is a confiscation of private property is absurd. People who own homes and pay real estate taxes based on the value of their homes, are paying an annual asset tax. We should consider such a tax on those multimillion stock portfolios, except those set up as IRAs.
You want to decrease the deficit? Let's do it. Stop shielding the ultra rich. So much for Republicans being the party of the working man.
You know, if you have just $10 to your name, the guy with only $5 to his thinks YOU are wealthy!
ReplyDeleteI like wealthy people. They frequently create business opportunities for others. Hire the unemployed, donate funds for a new hospital wing, purchase expensive things. Geez, some play great basketball . . . and you get to buy sneakers with their name on the side!
If you tax all the billionaires in the country at 99%, it'll pay for about five weeks worth of goodies. Yakking about taxing the rich is very satisfying and very popular. It's also completely useless and indicative of an effort that isn't remotely serious. This is why nothing will be solved. Social Security is a welfare transfer program that should be means tested at every step. You didn't save any money while you worked. It's not yours. Some politicians were spending it faster than you could deposit it. There's no money there. There hasn't been for 30 years. Sorry gramps and granny. You're on the dole. It was always going to end this way.
ReplyDeleteProperty tax is also confiscation of wealth and is a rejection of the principle of private property. In effect, the school teachers own your property and you pay them rent annually, Over the life of your ownership, you probably dont really have any gain, only the bureaucrats have gained from your property.
ReplyDeleteThe best part of this blog is watching poor people defend rich politicians and corporations while vehemently against any proposals that make their personal life easier.
ReplyDeleteBuncha bootlicking fools
This blog is called Lehigh Valley Ramblings. I used to enjoy it because it covered local politics and filled in the gap because local media is non existent. Now it’s just another left leaning blog with stories about National politics. Shit I can get that anywhere.
ReplyDeleteWell the CBO released this today.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. faces a challenging fiscal outlook according to CBO's extended baseline projections, which show budget deficits and federal debt held by the public growing steadily in relation to gross domestic product over the next three decades.
As far as Social Security goes, how about shoring up the current system instead of expanding it. Neither the 250k or 400k proposals account for inflation, so eventually everyone will be paying in. Life expectancy for men when the program was enacted was 60. Women 65. Now it’s 78 and 82. Perhaps keep the same age we have now for certain physical jobs like construction, but raise the age slightly for less demanding physical jobs. The Simpson Bowles Commission was completely ignored and came they had some good proposals. It’s going to come to a head soon. Social Security. Debt. Deficits. The payments on our debt are going up drastically as the Fed raises interest rates. I never made a lot of money but I saved an invested like SS wouldn’t be there.
"This blog is called Lehigh Valley Ramblings. I used to enjoy it because it covered local politics and filled in the gap because local media is non existent. Now it’s just another left leaning blog with stories about National politics. Shit I can get that anywhere."
ReplyDeleteDoes it hurt your little head to see stories that relate to social security? I have a perfect solution for you. Stop reading this blog. You can always go into your echo chambers that tell you what you want to hear. I cover local stories, primarily NC, and some stories that I believe impact us all.
"As far as Social Security goes, how about shoring up the current system instead of expanding it. Neither the 250k or 400k proposals account for inflation, so eventually everyone will be paying in. "
ReplyDeleteThe Democratic bills I mention - I believe there are at least three - would actually shore up the current system. Now if you think an expansion is unnecessary, the GOP could easily introduce amendments to reduce or eliminate it. But the clock is ticking and the fund needs to be replenished. Glad you agree. I doubt everyone will be paying in. You just need to increase payroll taxes on those who make $400k or more to replenish the fund for a considerable number of years.
Who is trying to bullshit who? The republicans hated Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid when they were created and have spent over half a century trying to kill the programs. The shear ignorance of some of these posts is alarming. I fear for my beloved country when even factual history is disputed.
ReplyDelete@ Bernie, remember Simpson Bowles? I thought they came out with a reasonable compromise on SS, spending, and deficit reduction. The fact remains that D's will not accept a slight increase in age even though life expectancy when SS was enacted was around 60, it's 80 now. R's will not accept a payroll tax increase. Until we get some movement there nothing will happen.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Sanders and Warren, their proposals may be a starting point but the math doesn't add up. People are living longer yet we are going to increase benefits? That's crazy. Maybe all the rich guys on their second marriage who take it at 62, and all their kids under 18 get a check too, maybe cutting out some of that fat may help. Maybe some means testing. It will come to a head about 5 years from now, that's how our government works, it won't budge until it's crisis mode.
The 91% tax rate was a joke, nobody paid that and I mean nobody due to all the loopholes. I thought 39% was fair then they cut it to 37. Remember in the high tax Dem states high earners are paying well above 50% when you factor in state, local, and property taxes. NYC it’s 60%. That’s enough I don’t care how much you make when government is taking more than half that’s extreme. I’m talking about earned income here capital gains which the Mitt Romneys and Obama’s live off that’s a whole other discussion.
ReplyDelete