2016 Election
Quote: ams288From what I've seen of the debate:
-zzzzzzz
I agree. I wanted to watch but it just put me to sleep.
Quote: ams288-Is Jim Webb a Republican plant or something? Get that joker off the stage now.
Heaven forbid anyone in the party have different ideas.
Quote: ams288-Lincoln Chafee(sp?) looks like he doesn't know where he is
Kind of scary...
Quote: ams288-Hillary and Bernie have performed just about as I had expected. Loved Bernie's line about Hillary's damn email nonsense
They were both right at average. I was sure that Dems would love his line; ignoring her troubled history is an important part of getting her elected and I don't really think Bernie expects to win. He was kissing up to her; maybe he wants to be VP.
Quote:"Honest Gil" Fulbright finished ahead of Jeb Bush in a recent Republican straw poll, despite the fact that he's not a real candidate.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/10/13/fake-candidate-honest-gil-orig-vstan.cnn
Finally, someone I can believe in.
Quote: rxwinehttp://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/10/13/fake-candidate-honest-gil-orig-vstan.cnn
Finally, someone I can believe in.
There is 30 seconds or so of my life wasted. Not even funny. Just a commercial for some group that wants to bring about "campaign finance reform"...which I am fine with--if it is fair. In other words, if corporations and individuals can't donate huge amounts to PACs, then neither can unions UNLESS the union only uses funds obtained from members who wish to allow their money to be used that way. Each person gets to decide how their union dues are used for political purposes instead of the union deciding for everyone. Most people want to fix the other side and let their side get away with the same old stuff.
That won't work.
Quote: TwirdmanNo she was and is quite a moron regardless of what happened on SNL. Palin is simply incredibly ignorant and stupid.
Anytime you mention how stupid Palin is, it is guaranteed that at least two righties will pop up pretending how smart and accomplished she is.
It's 2015, Palin is ancient history. If only they could see what a lost cause defending her legacy is....
Quote: ams288Anytime you mention how stupid Palin is, it is guaranteed that at least two righties will pop up pretending how smart and accomplished she is.
It's 2015, Palin is ancient history. If only they could see what a lost cause defending her legacy is....
Palin was hurt by SNL.
SNL parodies all politicians. The humor is generated by putting the politician in a funny situation
With Palin, the funny material was already there due to her being dumb.
SNL went with imitation which hurt Palin
Too make fun of Palin, you simply imitate an already dumb Palin
The Repubs need more debates, still too many candidates and Trump still well below 50%
The Dems don't need more debates, Hill clear front runner
I haven't looked into how Fox News and the right wingers judged the debate, nor do I care to.
Quote: ams288Based on what I'm reading, the general consensus about the debate seems to be that Hillary won, Bernie did fine, and the other three cemented their status as also-rans.
Some things I heard early on leaned towards Bernie, but most put it down to the two of them...then the other three.
Quote: ams288I haven't looked into how Fox News and the right wingers judged the debate, nor do I care to.
I haven't read how MSNBC and the committed leftist judged the debate, nor do I care to ever know.
Both of our statements are unnecessary digs at a source we really don't believe and if we really didn't care we wouldn't mention them...it seems to me we both do care about what they say...
Quote: RonCBoth of our statements are unnecessary digs at a source we really don't believe and if we really didn't care we wouldn't mention them...it seems to me we both do care about what they say...
Perhaps you do, but I truly don't.
Man, some of you guys are really bad about always thinking I post things that I don't actually mean.
--------
Anyway, the debate was watched by 15 million people.
That's huge! I am shocked, to be honest. Without Trump and with the small field of mostly boring candidates, I was expecting well under 10 million.
Quote: ams288
Anyway, the debate was watched by 15 million people.
That's a gigantic number with most people like me were watching the Cubs win their 1st post season series in a century instead
How about that Huck tweet last nite
Racism exists because we have a sin problem in America, not a skin problem
?????????
How can I sin if I am an atheist?
For Christians, I believe racism is a sin. So isn't Huck saying his base sins because they are racists that ignore the Black Christian church institution and call a certain Black Christian a muslim?
Quote: ams288Perhaps you do, but I truly don't.
Man, some of you guys are really bad about always thinking I post things that I don't actually mean.
Most people don't make a huge point of saying what they haven't seen and don't care about. I find that usually means they care in spite of their protestations. They may only care to see if the "other side" is saying something different than their sources, but they usually do care.
If you say you don't care, I believe you.
Quote: ams288Anyway, the debate was watched by 15 million people.
That's huge! I am shocked, to be honest. Without Trump and with the small field of mostly boring candidates, I was expecting well under 10 million.
What is shocking about it? Trump has brought more interest to the election than the rest of the candidates combined. That may make some people nervous on both sides and bring more interest to even debates that he is not in.
They are boring.
Do I count in the 15 million if I fell asleep watching them drone through their opening statements? I thought the Republocrats were boring...
Quote: terapinedThat's a gigantic number with most people like me were watching the Cubs win their 1st post season series in a century instead
How about that Huck tweet last nite
Racism exists because we have a sin problem in America, not a skin problem
?????????
How can I sin if I am an atheist?
For Christians, I believe racism is a sin. So isn't Huck saying his base sins because they are racists that ignore the Black Christian church institution and call a certain Black Christian a muslim?
If it isn't a sin, it should be...content of their character, not the color of their skin...
Having people in "the base" that believe things other than you do is quite normal. You say it like it never happens to Dems, but there are people in that base that are not good folks, either. I have an idea--why don't you and I both work to get the unworthy kicked out of the base of each party...
If you are an atheist and it isn't a sin because you can't sin, then you can just say that it is wrong and leave it at that.
Quote: beachbumbabsHuck is just trying to get a bumper-sticker level meme out there so he can be relevant again (if he ever was). Not gonna happen.
Perhaps maybe, an Admin on these forums should not be so outspoken on these forums when it comes to political debate. I would think the Admins would prefer to appear neutral in such a debate, again on these forums. There are multiple other avenues to get involved with, while expressing sincere and heartfelt sentiment about the political arena. But is here, as an Admin, the appropriate place? I have wondered this question a couple of times, now I have posted it.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLPerhaps maybe, an Admin on these forums should not be so outspoken on these forums when it comes to political debate. I would think the Admins would prefer to appear neutral in such a debate, again on these forums. There are multiple other avenues to get involved with, while expressing sincere and heartfelt sentiment about the political arena. But is here, as an Admin, the appropriate place? I have wondered this question a couple of times, now I have posted it.
That's silly.
You're basically saying, "I don't agree with your position, so please be quiet."
Never a good stance to take.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLPerhaps maybe, an Admin on these forums should not be so outspoken on these forums when it comes to political debate. I would think the Admins would prefer to appear neutral in such a debate, again on these forums. There are multiple other avenues to get involved with, while expressing sincere and heartfelt sentiment about the political arena. But is here, as an Admin, the appropriate place? I have wondered this question a couple of times, now I have posted it.
Perhaps you should not be trying to censor me.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLPerhaps maybe, an Admin on these forums should not be so outspoken on these forums when it comes to political debate. I would think the Admins would prefer to appear neutral in such a debate, again on these forums. There are multiple other avenues to get involved with, while expressing sincere and heartfelt sentiment about the political arena. But is here, as an Admin, the appropriate place? I have wondered this question a couple of times, now I have posted it.
That's absurd
Admins are just regular posters just like you and me.
Admins have political views.
If you are not interested in those views, then block.
Quote: ams288That's silly.
You're basically saying, "I don't agree with your position, so please be quiet."
Never a good stance to take.
I will assume you didn't call me silly. I have not posted my stance recently in the great political debate we are experiencing here on a gambling forum. You have I think, which is great. My question, my pondering, had more to do with whether these forums was an appropriate place for someone in an Admin position, on these forums, to be so outspoken. I did not say it was not correct, I just asked the question. I hope you can understand the difference.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI will assume you didn't call me silly. I have not posted my stance recently in the great political debate we are experiencing here on a gambling forum. You have I think, which is great. My question, my pondering, had more to do with whether these forums was an appropriate place for someone in an Admin position, on these forums, to be so outspoken. I did not say it was not correct, I just asked the question. I hope you can understand the difference.
Sounds to me like you really really need to block this Decision 2016 thread. It is creating issues for you. If you don't like a political discussion on a gambling site: ignore it!
Quote: ams288Sounds to me like you really really need to block this Decision 2016 thread. It is creating issues for you. If you don't like a political discussion on a gambling site: ignore it!
Did you just change the subject, again?
My post was sincere. Your replies have not helped me in my understanding.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLDid you just change the subject, again?
My post was sincere. Your replies have not helped me in my understanding.
BBB responded to your initial post. Maybe you should respond to her instead of all of mine. She's got the final say, and clearly she doesn't agree with your premise that she should keep her opinions to herself.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI will assume you didn't call me silly. I have not posted my stance recently in the great political debate we are experiencing here on a gambling forum. You have I think, which is great. My question, my pondering, had more to do with whether these forums was an appropriate place for someone in an Admin position, on these forums, to be so outspoken. I did not say it was not correct, I just asked the question. I hope you can understand the difference.
Admins are people not mindless automaton. Any reasonable person expects them to have views of their own. Expression of those views is completely understandable. If any admin is taking action because their view is a specific way and they disagree with a particular posters views that could be a legitimate problem, but I don't see how the mere act of sharing political opinions somehow is nonadmin worthy.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI will assume you didn't call me silly. I have not posted my stance recently in the great political debate we are experiencing here on a gambling forum. You have I think, which is great. My question, my pondering, had more to do with whether these forums was an appropriate place for someone in an Admin position, on these forums, to be so outspoken. I did not say it was not correct, I just asked the question. I hope you can understand the difference.
He didn't call you silly. He said what you said ("That's") was silly.
I hope you're not going to turn into another member looking for reasons to be insulted and telling other people how to feel about things you've twisted into something they aren't and telling people what they can talk about while breaking the same boundaries you set for others and making ad hominem attacks and insinuations about the moderation here - all of which you've demonstrated at least a trend towards in the last couple of weeks, despite your involuntary vacation. I really do hope you don't. Because those seats are overbooked now, and those flyers are happy to lead you down the road to perdition for their own amusement.
If I were to offer advice to you, I would say, Relax. Enjoy. Be a friend. Make a friend. But who you want to be here is up to you, not me.
BBB is more than entitled to her opinion and to voice it. If you disagree or have opposing political views, state them. She can handle it. That's what discussion is. :/
Quote: beachbumbabsHe didn't call you silly. He said what you said ("That's") was silly.
I hope you're not going to turn into another member looking for reasons to be insulted and telling other people how to feel about things you've twisted into something they aren't and telling people what they can talk about while breaking the same boundaries you set for others and making ad hominem attacks and insinuations about the moderation here - all of which you've demonstrated at least a trend towards in the last couple of weeks, despite your involuntary vacation.
That to me felt insulting. Just so you know.
I asked a fairly simple question, fairly simple.Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if.......(nevermind ;-)...2F
Me: early 30, male, socially very liberal, fiscal conservative. For most of my adult life the social liberal aspect has dominated my politics. This year for the first time, my fiscal conservative views will be a bigger consideration. I have switched my party registration and am planning on supporting Donald Trump in the Nevada caucuses early next year. When the general election rolls around, I will decide based on the candidates.
My partner/significant other/spouse: twenty years my senior in his mid 50's. He is supporting Bernie Sanders. Social Security is his big issue and he is convinced the republicans will take away or reduce his SS if they get the chance. The democrats likely won't change anything concerning SS and Bernie Sanders in particular talks of increasing payments to seniors.
My brother: 23 years old. He is supporting Jeb Bush. My brother grew up in Florida and he says Jeb Bush was a good Governor, although he was just a boy at the time, so what does he know.
Fourth roommate: He says he is late 20's but I believe he is in early 30's. (We were nearly the same age when we met 6 years ago and somehow, he hasn't kept pace with me) ??? He says he intends to vote for Hillary because he thinks things were good when Bill Clinton was president (he's a bit of an idiot).
So, we sort of have all the bases covered....lol. My brother didn't vote in 2012, the first presidential election he was eligible to vote, so I am guessing he probably won't vote again. I doubt goofball #4 will vote. He's not real political. So all I have to do is convince my partner not to cancel out my vote. :)
I am in favor of two changes to social security that would both save money and allow your money to grow faster:
--Eliminate payment of social security benefits to rich people. That's right. If you are a millionaire (or some other more than reasonable number that protects people from poverty in their old age--the original intent of the program), billionaire, zillionaire, or maybe a many hundred thousandaire...nothing for you. Graduated at a certain level and gently fizzling out at a higher level. You made it! You achieved the American Dream! Congratulations! No real need for you to get anything back; it was an insurance plan against you not making it...
--Allow everyone to take 2% of the amount they pay in (about 1/3 of their tax paid in) and invest it in a set of investments intended, but not guaranteed, to do better than "COLA"... If you end up with more money in your account and you are poor or middle class, you get more out if it makes more and a little less if it doesn't (remember, this is 1/4 or less of the total "investment" in your social security). If you achieve the American Dream, you do get everything above what your standard rate would have been for taking the chance. Nobody loses everything; everyone has a chance to win. Good investments, not crappy ones.
Social Security is the "third rail" but we can make it better without really hurting anyone.
Quote: RonC
--Allow everyone to take 2% of the amount they pay in (about 1/3 of their tax paid in) and invest it in a set of investments intended, but not guaranteed, to do better than "COLA"... If you end up with more money in your account and you are poor or middle class, you get more out if it makes more and a little less if it doesn't (remember, this is 1/4 or less of the total "investment" in your social security). If you achieve the American Dream, you do get everything above what your standard rate would have been for taking the chance. Nobody loses everything; everyone has a chance to win. Good investments, not crappy ones.
Last time this was proposed all hell broke loose.
Quote: AZDuffmanLast time this was proposed all hell broke loose.
Yes it did. The opposition sold everyone on the idea that they were going to lose Social Security instead of the chance to make their benefit grow with safe investments. It is a mentality out there that we have to deal with; however, I don't think we can keep playing to the lowest common denominator forever. That is good for both of the political parties but not for the people. Perhaps this is why Trump is a good thing--challenging the status quo in both parties can only help.
You'll get the name-calling knuckle-draggers on both sides...how long can we listen to them?
Instead of fighting against the Tea Party and their ideas, they decided to call them "Tea Baggers"...and on the other side, instead of just being against the President's failed policies, they call him nasty names...
Quote: RonCSince you mentioned Social Security...
I am in favor of two changes to social security that would both save money and allow your money to grow faster:
--Eliminate payment of social security benefits to rich people. That's right. If you are a millionaire (or some other more than reasonable number that protects people from poverty in their old age--the original intent of the program), billionaire, zillionaire, or maybe a many hundred thousandaire...nothing for you.
Didn't some candidate already propose this in this election cycle (maybe Trump?).
It is a good idea that both sides should be able to get behind, but you know there will always be pushback from some special interest for whatever reason...
Quote: RonCYes it did. The opposition sold everyone on the idea that they were going to lose Social Security instead of the chance to make their benefit grow with safe investments. It is a mentality out there that we have to deal with; however, I don't think we can keep playing to the lowest common denominator forever. That is good for both of the political parties but not for the people. Perhaps this is why Trump is a good thing--challenging the status quo in both parties can only help.
The real problem with directed accounts is that it makes more financially independent people, which one side does not want. It is a maor reason I will never, ever join AARP. They want me to be poorer and dependent.
So few people understood the idea it was amazing. And to be really fair, Bush thought all he had to do was propose it and people would be goo goo for it.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe real problem with directed accounts is that it makes more financially independent people, which one side does not want. Both party's have pretty much ran our country in the dirt. Both party's support the Fed, so therefore support the devaluation of our money. They both be guilty Az., it's a shame the people don't have the guts to elect a third party.
I like AARP. Granted they don't have the hard hitting critical thinking info we have, but the mag is reasonably priced and covers issues for older folks. I'm not aware of another group that combines old peoples issues in one place as well as they do, such as medical, bad meds, hearing aids, scooters, travel etc. They have advice about employment and senior interests. I'm not following you, on them wanting you poorer?Quote:It is a maor reason I will never, ever join AARP. They want me to be poorer and dependent.
A lot of people don't understand investing. As crooked and complex as it is, with the crony's from either side swindling the working class to tears.Quote:So few people understood the idea it was amazing. And to be really fair, Bush thought all he had to do was propose it and people would be goo goo for it.
A lot of us remember 5% interest on pass book savings, and how many here, understand ZIRP, or hedonics, or even Glass Steagall, or the savings and loan swindle? Most don't even understand that money is "loaned into existence" or fully grasp "global wage arbitrage" ala Nafta. A lot of the older middle income people don't have the knowledge to even get their money back, let alone profit on it. The swindlers have let the thieves steal every working persons savings, and you suggest everyone should either understand how to make money on money, or suck it up? Not fair man. The deck is stacked, by and for the criminal class.
Quote: petroglyphI like AARP. Granted they don't have the hard hitting critical thinking info we have, but the mag is reasonably priced and covers issues for older folks. I'm not aware of another group that combines old peoples issues in one place as well as they do, such as medical, bad meds, hearing aids, scooters, travel etc. They have advice about employment and senior interests. I'm not following you, on them wanting you poorer?
AMAC is one, not as well known, but a Google search pulls it up. As to wanting me poorer, AAPR was against me putting said 2% of my FICA to my own account. I can easily get a better return than SS. If someone has kids they could pass that wealth to them if any was left over. So, I say they want me poorer. The funny thing was when Bill Clinton wanted to let the Feds direct the investments, nobody balked. The issue is individuals doing it for themselves that gets them upset.
Quote:A lot of people don't understand investing. As crooked and complex as it is, with the crony's from either side swindling the working class to tears.
You are correct here, people know little. Even when you know investing, to "know money" is even more rare. I doubt 1 in 10 understand how the Fed and money work. If they did--REVOLUTION!
We'll see whether people feel the same way when they see the second freeze in three years for their Social Security payments. And the chances for more of the same in future years are growing.Quote: AZDuffmanThe real problem with directed accounts is that it makes more financially independent people, which one side does not want. It is a maor reason I will never, ever join AARP. They want me to be poorer and dependent.
Quote: SanchoPanzaWe'll see whether people feel the same way when they see the second freeze in three years for their Social Security payments. And the chances for more of the same in future years are growing.
I don't think people will be surprised by tomorrows official announcement of no COLA for 2016. It has been know that this was likely for several months.
I personally am not worried about Social Security. I figure it will not be there for me, when the time comes (still years away), so I am planning as such. If it is, that will be a bonus. :) My partner need not worry either, as he is not dependent on his social security any longer. He just doesn't seem to realize that. :/
Someone earlier mentioned one possible solution being kicked around is some sort of means test, which would disqualify those at a certain financial level from Social Security. I am not sure why there is such resistance to this. Yes, some well off people would not receive SS that they paid into. Isn't it the same with welfare and unemployment? You pay into these, directly or through various tax dollars, and if you are never in a position that you need them, you don't get them.
BUT many older folks depend on SS to live, and those that do rely on SS for all or a majority of their later-life income, are not living all that well. If SS is your only income you are at or close to current official recognized poverty limits, so these people deserve a better (more fair) way of calculating cost-of-living than is currently being used. The current model for calculating cola was actually designed decades ago for WORKING government employees. It in no way takes into consideration the unique expenses and spending patterns of older Americans who tend to spend far more on health related expenses including medications.
So when the government says that there is no inflation (as they will tomorrow), which is mostly a reflection of lower gas prices in the last year, and not food and other consumer goods, but completely disregards the huge increase in medications and health related expenses that eats up a much larger portion of Senior's income, then the government is flat out screwing the Seniors and reducing many to a poverty or below poverty level of existence. That is NOT the deal these people were promised and paid into. :(
Quote: kewljBUT many older folks depend on SS to live, and those that are dependent on SS for all or a majority of their later-life income, are not living all that well.(
We can always go back to before there was SS.
Quote:Ironically, while life expectancy was rising quickly, many employers shunned older workers. A 1930 survey found that almost a third of 224 American factories had maximum age limits for new employees. Four plants wouldn't hire anyone over the age of 40. In another 41 plants, the age limit was 45. The rest had no fixed limits, but they rarely hired people over the age of 50.
Retirement nest eggs, except among the wealthiest Americans, didn't exist. How could they? Even at the peak of the stock-market boom in 1929, the average annual income of all salaried employees was $1,475 -- the equivalent in purchasing power of about $16,000 today. Without health insurance, an aging person's savings could be quickly drained by medical bills.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109520630433518093
Quote: rxwineWe can always go back to before there was SS.
That's a rather lame and weak response. :( Sure we can go backwards. Perhaps we should do away with electricity and automobiles as well.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/13/napolitano-california-to-allow-illegal-immigrants-to-vote-for-the-next-president-video/#ixzz3odLpLijj
I know, the source is from the Conservative side and the speaker is from Fox...but, to be fair and balanced, read the law and decide if it opens the door to illegals voting more easily than in other states:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461
Quote: kewlj
Someone earlier mentioned one possible solution being kicked around is some sort of means test, which would disqualify those at a certain financial level from Social Security. I am not sure why there is such resistance to this. Yes, some well off people would not receive SS that they paid into. Isn't it the same with welfare and unemployment? (
Because since I started paying in 37 years ago, it has been a 'promise' from my government to me that when I achieved a certain age I would qualify for a certain amount. I have made my retirement plans contingent on that 'promise'. All my years of paying taxes, likely 10 to 20 times the average household, I never expected anything back from that, but Social Security is different. Welfare, food stamps, and programs like that are available for the poor, that is not what Social Security is.
Quote: SOOPOOBecause since I started paying in 37 years ago, it has been a 'promise' from my government to me that when I achieved a certain age I would qualify for a certain amount. I have made my retirement plans contingent on that 'promise'. All my years of paying taxes, likely 10 to 20 times the average household, I never expected anything back from that, but Social Security is different. Welfare, food stamps, and programs like that are available for the poor, that is not what Social Security is.
I understand and I believe that is a "promise" we need to change. The government already broke the promise of "free health care for you and your family for life" it made to me for my military service (we all have to sacrifice), so I can't say I would feel sorry for someone who is rich (the "means" test I propose would make sure someone was truly "rich" and not just on the edge of being rich) not getting SS payments just because they were previously entitled. Social Security is not needed by people who have enough wealth to generate $100,000 or $150,000 or more a year.
I would also add a test for getting back in should income fall, but the test would have to include someone proving they have not "protected" assets by giving them away or creating trusts to make them look "poor"...
You pay more taxes when you make more money. I had a guy whine about more taxes to me as he sat on $500,000 many years ago making huge interest and income...I have a guy in the office with millions doing the same. I agree that the tax system needs a full overhaul, but I would thank my stars if my success and hard work put me in a position to make a lot more money and pay more taxes...
I'm in no way leaning socialist, there is just a point where SS is no necessary.
Actually the mere presence of the illegal immigrants means extra power for states like California. They are counted in the Census to determine apportionment. That means that the votes of legitimate Californians carries more weight that the votes of, say, Nevadans.Quote: RonCRead the law and decide if it opens the door to illegals voting more easily than in other states:
Quote: SanchoPanzaActually the mere presence of the illegal immigrants means extra power for states like California. They are counted in the Census to determine apportionment. That means that the votes of legitimate Californians carries more weight that the votes of, say, Nevadans.
You make a fair point, but I believe you choose about as horrible of an example as you could.
The other night in the debate Hillary Clinton referenced Nevada's population as having the largest percentage of illegal immigrants. I haven't fact-checked that and haven't seen anyone dispute it. Whether the largest percent or not, Nevada has a large percent, so picking another state would have served your point much better.
Well, that point was brought up the other day in a discussion here in Nevada about proportional representation. The problem being that California has about 10 times the number of representatives in the House. Wyoming or Idaho would certainly be purer examples of how millions of illegal immigrants distort the votes of legitimate Americans.Quote: kewljYou make a fair point, but I believe you choose about as horrible of an example as you could.
The other night in the debate Hillary Clinton referenced Nevada's population as having the largest percentage of illegal immigrants. I haven't fact-checked that and haven't seen anyone dispute it. Whether the largest percent or not, Nevada has a large percent, so picking another state would have served your point much better.
Quote: RonCI understand and I believe that is a "promise" we need to change. The government already broke the promise of "free health care for you and your family for life" it made to me for my military service (we all have to sacrifice), so I can't say I would feel sorry for someone who is rich (the "means" test I propose would make sure someone was truly "rich" and not just on the edge of being rich) not getting SS payments just because they were previously entitled. Social Security is not needed by people who have enough wealth to generate $100,000 or $150,000 or more a year.
I would also add a test for getting back in should income fall, but the test would have to include someone proving they have not "protected" assets by giving them away or creating trusts to make them look "poor"...
You pay more taxes when you make more money. I had a guy whine about more taxes to me as he sat on $500,000 many years ago making huge interest and income...I have a guy in the office with millions doing the same. I agree that the tax system needs a full overhaul, but I would thank my stars if my success and hard work put me in a position to make a lot more money and pay more taxes...
I'm in no way leaning socialist, there is just a point where SS is no necessary.
Mean testing at that income bracket will have no effect on the solvency of SS. Starting at 100k if you were to administer a 20% phase out for every dollar earned above that amount you'd save SS 1.33% and would only save 1.03% after taxes and that is not including any behavioral responses and is before factoring in administrative cost for means test, right now cost to administer SS is incredibly low. If cost to run the program increased to the level of cost to run disability so this would be an increase from .6% to 2.3% it would not only wipe away the meager savings, but make SS more expensive. That is the main reason means testing is not really seen as a viable way to shore up SS. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ss-2011-03.pdf
It would honestly be better to simply eliminate the cap for SS and start charging the tax on income derived from investments.
Quote: SanchoPanzaActually the mere presence of the illegal immigrants means extra power for states like California. They are counted in the Census to determine apportionment. That means that the votes of legitimate Californians carries more weight that the votes of, say, Nevadans.
Except California even with that is still underrepresented compared to tiny states like Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont. Wyoming has a population of lets be generous and round up to 600k and gets 3 electoral votes California has a population of 38 million and gets 55 electoral votes. So despite having 63X the population they only get 18 times the number of votes in the electoral college. Wyoming is the most extreme example, but it holds similarly true for most of the other small states. Hell in Wyomings case you'd have to have like 3/4 of California be illegal immigrants to get to a fair proportion of electoral votes.
Quote: TwirdmanMean testing at that income bracket will have no effect on the solvency of SS. Starting at 100k if you were to administer a 20% phase out for every dollar earned above that amount you'd save SS 1.33% and would only save 1.03% after taxes and that is not including any behavioral responses and is before factoring in administrative cost for means test, right now cost to administer SS is incredibly low. If cost to run the program increased to the level of cost to run disability so this would be an increase from .6% to 2.3% it would not only wipe away the meager savings, but make SS more expensive. That is the main reason means testing is not really seen as a viable way to shore up SS. http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ss-2011-03.pdf q]
Twirdman pegged it correctly. Removing the top 1%, or 5%, or even 10% (heaven forbid) from benefits will not fix SS. It has to change, I think everyone knows that. How to phase in the changes and still try to be fair is the conundrum. We created a monster and there are some reasonable plans floating about on how to tame the beast. The chances of those changes being accepted in today's political climate are slim. Not accepting some changes will eventually be really ugly. Good luck to us all.Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if.......(nevermind ;-)...2F
The study quoted is from a liberal, progressive think tank. Perhaps take studies from both sides and figure out where the middle is...
Is taking the tax from all monies earned, instead of a limit on what is taxed, may be an answer.
The issues is that we've long since used up all the easy answers. Most answers will hurt.
Quote: RonCChange has to start somewhere. Root out the waste, fraud, and abuse in disability payments. That will more than cover the costs of the extra admin work. Get people used to the idea SS is for only those who really need it instead of for everyone. Make a reasonable means test.
The study quoted is from a liberal, progressive think tank. Perhaps take studies from both sides and figure out where the middle is...
Is taking the tax from all monies earned, instead of a limit on what is taxed, may be an answer.
The issues is that we've long since used up all the easy answers. Most answers will hurt.
Even best case scenario for your proposal you said no one making over 100k should get SS. So say rather than a graduated scale we simply immediately cut people off once they hit that level. Lets also pretend no one does anything to avoid this cut off the savings are incredibly minor since only 2% of benefits are paid to people earning that amount or above. At best means testing is a bandaid easy solution to a more complex and difficult problem. It is a good sound bite and doesn't really hurt anyone, but it also simply cannot fix the issue by itself and likely won't save any money at all once all things are accounted for like behavioral changes and administrative cost for means testing.
http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/econ_sec/2012/option-means-test-social-security-benefits-AARP-ppi-econ-sec.pdf source for 2% claim.
I wonder what the following type situation would yield in savings:
If your SS & other income are over $75K gross, you pay 100% tax on your SS benefits over the $75K maximum. So let's say a retired couple has $35,000 in combined SS Benefits and they have $50,000 of other income (e.g. IRA/Retirement distributions, Investment Income including muni interest, etc.). Well they essentially pay 100% tax on the amount of SS benefits that put them over the $75K base. They have a total of $85K in total income, which includes $35K of SS benefits, they pay $10K in taxes or essentially pay back the last $10K of their SS Benefits.
If you have over $75K of other income, guess what, you get no SS Benefits (or really you pay it back in a 100% excise tax)...........my apologies for the "broken promise", but I don't think the promise was for your SS benefits to make you better off then middle income America. If you wanted that kind of retirement lifestyle you should have saved more while you were working and funded it yourself.
But of course this will never pass politically.........cause when it hits you personally, no one wants to cut what they feel the government owes them no matter what you call yourself politically, liberal or conservative.
I am approaching 50 years old and if you told me today that I would have to keep paying into the SS system based on today's taxing methods and I would never get a dime out of it, I would be fine with that if you guaranteed me that would make is solvent for the next 75 years for older folks that have incomes under $75K. I will have paid thousands into a system and get nothing out of it..........but that has been my view of the system since I started my career at 22.......the system has always been going to go broke in the future and I have never counted on it for retirement security unless my other plans went completely bust. If you planned on SS benefits getting you from a retirement you privately funded to yield $65K per year in cashflow getting you up to $100K (e.g. those $35K of SS benefits being the difference), well, too bad.......you aren't going to be out on the street with the $75K that you will end up with.
Now Medicare.......that is a much bigger challenge and one that the solution is not nearly as easy IMHO.
