Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:02PM, catboxer wrote:

 that if this "zombie-eyed granny starver" and his running dogs have their way, we'll be out of luck, not to mention money..

Friedmann did a really good piece ripping both Ryan and Obama-Ryan fails in his views because there is long term fiscal responsibility but short term lack of resources for Social Structure and Infrastructure and the President is the reverse.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:50PM, Bodean wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 10:42PM, catboxer wrote:

huh?

I did do the numbers, and came to the startling conclusion that we need to cut expenditure and increase revenue.

As I always say, we could start by opting out of a war of choice or two. I expect another defeaning silence in response to that.

Also, too, the Buffett rule.

The Buffett Rule ...... you mean ... the One where Buffett would love the Government to take more of his money, but, he's too damn selfish to just write the check??  The ONE where Buffett took advantage of every tax credit and deduction he could find so he wouldn't have to pay more?Ain't nobody preventing Buffett from paying more. ... or Gates .. .or Soros ... or the Koch Bros [who are the only two Conservatives in the Top 20 richest people in America].

Well, this is the problem, really. There is an article on Yahoo today talking about the top billionaires that support the Buffett Rule, each claiming that they should pay more in taxes. Yet, each one of them also continue to take advantage of the tax credits and loopholes that allow them to pay lower taxes. If they really want to pay more in taxes and aren't just saying it to look good then all they have to do is not use any of the tax credits or loopholes that they're allowed. I'm sure pigs will fly before that happens though...

Apr 12, 2012 -- 12:24PM, ted08721 wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 1:16PM, Girlchristian wrote:

 

I'm 34 and don't expect SS to be there for me if we continue with the way it's currently set up and don't reform it in some manner. I'd also add that SS is supposed to be a safety net and NOT replace saving for one's own retirement. Anyone choosing to rely on SS and not save for their own retirement, even if it's $5/paycheck to start, is a fool, IMO.

That is great if you can afford it and if the greedy elite does not steal it from you.
Over time that has become less possible for more and more people, we are well on our way to becoming the largest Banana Republic.
Have you not read about all the data that said the middle class is disappearing.
Even those in what is consider the middle class are having a hard time making ends meet.

"“If we’re only creating jobs for the highly skilled and for folks with basic skills, then you’re leaving an awful lot of people behind,” said Mark Vitner, a senior economist at Wells Fargo in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Until we have broad-based growth, it’s hard to imagine how we can have a self-sustaining economic recovery.”

The article deals mostly with the recent downturn in the economy I believe it metioned that the whole downward spiral of wages has been accuring over several decades.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/mid-in...

It depends on what you mean by can't afford it. If you have cable, then you can afford to save. If you have a cell phone then you can afford to save. Even if you only put $5/paycheck away it will add up by the time you're actually ready to retire.

Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:36PM, Girlchristian wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 5:10PM, MMarcoe wrote:

Apr 11, 2012 -- 4:58PM, catboxer wrote:

It doesn't need fixing. It's completely solvent through 2037, and the solvency could be extended indefintely through the simple expedient of raising the cap.

Rule #1 -- If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Republican motives for tweaking this sound program are not the ones they claim.

I agree that we can raise the cap if need be, but I want the option to divert some of what's mine to other investments. It wouldn't need to be the stock market, either.

I agree. We've been raising the cap since 2000 and if the only way the program is solvent is to just keep raising the cap then that's an issue and indicates that reform is needed. Not to mention, the solvency only exists if politicians don't 'borrow' from the money and we all know that won't happen.

Obama can't raise the cap anyway as he promised no tax increase on those making less than $250k and to raise the cap would mean a tax increase for anyone making more than the $106,800.

Solution: raise the cap but don't call the resulting tax increase a tax increase. Bush the First did that with his famous "revenue enhancements." Course, it cost him the election, but if Obama wins this year, he could institute it in late 2015 when he's safe.

Apr 12, 2012 -- 2:26PM, LeahOne wrote:

Has anyone got any stats on just how many of us eaern any mnore than that $106,800 cap amount?

I know that when DH was a Reservist, a couple of years we got part of our IRS refund due to excess SS taxes paid by his two employers - but that stopped happening quite a few years ago as the 'cap' amount soared much faster than inflation.  And certainly much faster than his income increased, lol!

Whoever said 'lose' the cap - I tend to agree!  The 'cap' is on *earned* income, salaries - it does not touch the value of stock given to corporate officers - and is it levied on all those 'bonuses' handed out on Wall St?

I am all for 'privatizing' A PART of SS assets -but only in a managed set-up like the TSP which already exists.  With a very stringent requirement of accountability for the managers.   And all kinds of safeguards to protect the ignorant and unsophisticated.

 

 

The article I read the other day said that raising the cap would only affect about 1/5 of tax-payers and not do as much to 'fix' the problem as many claim and in fact would only delay the problem, but I don't have the link saved on this computer so I can't provide it.