Remove the cap on Social Security contributions - fixed indefinitely. Other fixes are quite possible for any of the programs. As I said, Republicans don't want to fix them, they want to destroy them. And they use debt to force cuts.
Republicans have no answer to this simple chart
- Thread starter Craig234
- Start date
Remove the cap on Social Security contributions - fixed indefinitely. Other fixes are quite possible for any of the programs. As I said, Republicans don't want to fix them, they want to destroy them. And they use debt to force cuts.
No, your statement is the flat-out lie. Republicans have wanted to kill these programs from before they passed. Nixon was simply a realist at the politics of the time and knew what he could and could not do, just as Republicans sang the praises of unions under Eisenhower when they were massively popular, until they could later declare war on them. If you don't want to get an education and learn the Republican agenda, don't lie about what it is.
cawacko
Well-known member
That would make it even a larger income redistribution program than it already is.
S.S. isn't going anywhere and it isn't being destroyed by Republicans.
cawacko
Well-known member
Go back and look at the votes those programs received when they were created. Nixon was a Keynesian who had no problem expanding the programs the way he did. Once we was out of office our modern entitlement program was essentially complete until Bush's pill bill and the ACA
Yes, it would, and totally sustainable. That's a good thing.
Republicans want to destroy it and always have. They simply haven't found a way to do it yet, but they are threatening it by reducing the payments - even Obama endorsed lowering the increases. Far more at risk are the healthcare programs.
Abortion has remained legal since the Supreme Court declared it is, but that doesn't mean you can say Republicans don't want to make it illegal, just because they haven't been able to yet. You need to look at more - that they have won elections by running against it, appointed judges who are against it, and expressed their support for ending it.
That's not the same as the social spending, because Republicans are often much more duplicitous in what they'll admit about their intentions, but you can easily identify their interests and agenda that often is at odds with what they'll admit publicly. And they have won many elections by running against those programs when it's politically viable to do so. In your recounting you ignore things from Clinton's slashing of welfare to the increases with programs such as Head Start and CHIPS.
You love to just ignore what you are told and respond repeating yourself ignoring the response you got, as you did again here when told that Republicans like Nixon have done 'liberal' things that are politically popular because of what they can get away with - as the example you ignored of Republicans LOVING unions under Eisenhower showed. Nixon did things to get popular support that he did not necessarily support. And Keynesian is not the same thing as supporting social programs - they may or may not overlap.
Irish Exit
Verified User
They are not "helping workers" by making them dependent on the government and the DNC. They are disrupting the labor movement every time they toss a crumb to the masses from their limousines. The GOP is a strawman.
Irish Exit
Verified User
National debt has to rise if money supply is to be expanded under the current system. It is how new money gets introduced to the market. No national debt=no new money supply. That said, I do think we should be taxing the hell out of corporations, but not by rate adjustments so much as by eliminating depreciation across the board, stopping the accounting madness that allows them to deduct future expenses not yet incurred, and end the special treatment of capital gains/losses & passive income for tax purposes.
Republicans saved Social Security by Reagan's SS tax increases; otherwise, there would not be a $2.5 trillion surplus which is currently paying the difference between SS revenues and benefits. Benefits began exceeding revenues in 2010 and the surplus is paying the difference until 2037 when the surplus will be depleted.
Taking the cap off SS taxes would not account for the difference as increased taxes equals increased benefits. Obama, the Republicans, and anybody else who has bothered to look at the trustees' report knows changes have to be made or the system can only pay 70% of its benefits by around 2037.
SS has problems because of all the additional benefits added, not because of a shortage of funds (except the decline in the birth rate and increase in life expectancy). One-third now retire early at age 62, a benefit not part of the original program. Taking more taxes should not be the first impulse when unnecessary benefits can be reduced or eliminated.
I'm going to not keep responding to your trolling repeating yourself ignoring the responded. They're easily fixable and tax cuts for the rich are a big problem to do so. Don't say the same crap again.
You're an ideologue and it's a waste of time to talk to you. The word 'dependent' has fried your brain.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
That's a relevant point, and another case where Republicans had to deal with the political limitations of the time. He hurt social security, but did go along with the changes to help it as well, which was not just his policy, it was bi-partisan with Tip O'Neill.
And it's why Reagan would get nowhere in the Republican Party today - just like his support for handgun control and legalization of millions of undocumented immigrants. There was times he did things like that,as exceptions.
That's wrong about increased benefits. Removing the cap would fix it - google and read.
I'm open to a review of options if not done by Republicans who want to gut spending on the American people.
cawacko
Well-known member
Reagan kept S.S. alive and gave us the surplus we have today. It's interesting your position though because I've read a number of progressives who argue they don't want it turned into a welfare program because they feel it will be easier to cut. But that's what you're arguing for. A very different program than the 'earned right' FDR envisioned.
cawacko
Well-known member
We could talk all about the '96 welfare reform. I'm sure you remember the predictions that millions of kids would be out on the streets hungry if it passed. It was great legislation which got more people off welfare and into work and did not have the horrifying affects its opponents predicted. If you remember Bill Clinton took office saying we were going to change welfare as we know it. Even Democrats then knew how bloated the welfare roles were and incentives for one to want to get off were so out of whack.
cawacko
Well-known member
Reagan hurt S.S.? Please look at what Democrats in Congress did to S.S. in the '70's if you want to talk about hurting S.S. They said the trust fund would last 50 years and it lasted maybe five? Reagan stepped in and fixed that.
You're calling others ideologues but your whole premise here is Democrats = Good, Republicans = Bad so you have to try and fit everything that happened into that framework.
Even if we did not increase benefits the increased taxes would not be enough to cover the shortfall. But most of those plans do not account for the increased benefits those people would receive. If they did not increase benefits they would be paying higher taxes for no benefits which turns it into a welfare program.
Again, there are many areas it could be cut without hurting anyone who depends on it. If SS was such a great idea why not keep it as originally conceived without adding all the additional benefits and beneficiaries.
Irish Exit
Verified User
Most people who cannot formulate an argument default to that "It's a waste of time to talk to you" canard. Be sure to tell me bye or that you are putting me on ignore because that really wins an argument
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
can you link to something that provides evidence either of those claims are true?.......
Hey, cawacko ignores what he is told and repeats his same false statements, as he always has done.
It was a bi-partisan project, not a Reagan policy. Reagan and O'Neill. Yes, some progressives disagree with me as you said - and what I said is just one option for fixing it to show how easily it can be done.