Defend It: Reducing Social Security Benefits

Defend the proposition that Social Security benefits should be reduced. (Raising the eligibility age is a major benefit reduction.)

Explain why it is a good idea... what net good things follow from doing so.

I have been called a DLC whore and an Obama apologist on this board, but that is just a shitbox idea all around.

What I do favor doing is lifting the earnings cap (phased out over a period of time) on FICA taxes. That would keep the program solvent for many more decades.

along on 800 a month disability now. If they cut that or take it away..I got nothin left to lose..

And those who do will collect less.

This will have the effect of postponing indefinitely the date at which the trustees will begin redeeming the bonds in the $4.5t trust fund.

That trust fund then becomes a gift of low taxes for the rich.

Other than that? I got nothin.

and no need to cut it, just greed.:grr:

(NOTE! I'm not saying I agree with all of these premises, I'm merely presenting you with a plausible chain of reasoning.)

AXIOM: More benefits are always better.

PREMISE 1: The United States is currently fiscally insolvent.
PREMISE 2: If the United States is unable to become fiscally solvent, it will suffer a fiscal crisis.
PREMISE 3: A fiscal crisis will, among other things, make it impossible for the government to meet its entitlement obligations, resulting in no or nearly no benefits.

THEREFORE: The United States should take any measures necessary to avoid a fiscal crisis.

FURTHER PREMISE 4: Reducing Social Security and Medicare obligations is a necessary measure to avoid a fiscal crisis.

THEREFORE: Social Security and Medicare obligations should be reduced.

So, bottom line, if you want to argue against benefits reductions, focus on proving one or more of the premises wrong.

It should read "Raising taxes on the rich and cutting imperial military spending are necessary measures to avoid a fiscal crisis."

You are correct!

And, there's way too much paperwork involved in taxing rich fucks.

But for different reasons.

I tend to believe that it is going to be almost impossible, long term, for government revenues to exceed around 20% of GDP. Even when we have had much higher income tax rates, revenues hovered very closely to that 20% mark. So I don't think additional taxes will be able to play a very large role in avoiding a fiscal crisis. A small role, but a minor one.

However, through a combination of defense spending cuts and robust economic growth, I believe it is possible to grow our way out of the crisis. Unfortunately, the window on that is only so long. If we do not start growing the economy very rapidly within a decade or so, then a fiscal crisis seems unavoidable.

but if they can get people to believe the premise, they can get them to sign on to the conclusions they want.

In fact:

1. The US ruling class, & the global ruling class, has decided to deflate the bubble they created on the backs of citizens -- which means impoverishing them.
2. They can't do it all at once, because that would spark violence/rebellion. So they will do it in the manner of boiliing a frog, death by 1000 cuts.
3. Social security is one cut in that process.

I agree with you about attacking the premises -- as well as the conclusion.

My big question is: Why would the President of the United States engage in a propaganda effort like this?

Didn't President Obama create the Deficit Commission?

If someone over 75 is making over $200,000 a year, I don't think they don't need their SSI.