"Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 23:13:33

Chris Christie's Tilt at Social Security - I think this is probably right that it'll make for easy 30 second attack ads, but it's good policy, and it will be good to have someone in the race shouting about it.

by **SK790** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 00:54:34

Doll Is Mine wrote:I hope Bernie Sanders runs. The debates alone would be fantastic.

Yids for Bernie. I know Soren is in.

by **Monkeyboy** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 04:14:02

Yes, let's make the election about social security, because that's the main problem facing the US. As usual, it requires the occasional tweak, but making it into a major issue is just avoiding the real problems, such as income disparity. Hey, want to help seniors? How about fixing the income disparity problems before we have the majority of the next generation requiring public help in their old age? Want to help seniors? How about punishing those who would cut out the pensions that the older generation has paid into for much of their lives. Want to help seniors? Hey, why not cut our defense budget to reasonable levels and put some of that money towards senior programs?

Can we PLEASE not go down the path again where republicans try to make it sound like SS is on a collision course with doom and maybe focus on the stuff that is actually hurting people? PLEASE!?!?

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 07:46:05

jerseyhoya wrote:Chris Christie's Tilt at Social Security - I think this is probably right that it'll make for easy 30 second attack ads, but it's good policy, and it will be good to have someone in the race shouting about it.

But his vocabulary is all wrong. By design, Social Security is not an entitlement. You earn Social Security benefits. It's not that hard to do - but you still have to do it. You may not be taking benefits away from current beneficiaries but saying they're getting a handout is punching them in the dick with your tiny, soft, pudgy, uncalloused, entitled fists

by **pacino** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 07:55:15

Discussing it as a savings program when they tried to cut it 10 years ago didn't work so they're trying a new tact because people hate welfare, even when they themselves get it.

by **Bucky** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 08:01:35

Yeah, I don't disagree with the Sanders/Warren camp much, but the whole point of SS is that the employee and employer pay into a fund on behalf of the employee with the expectation that the employee will receive payments upon achieving a certain age, with the benefit defined by the contribution amount. Sort of like a legally required 401K. So I would ask that others please be earnest when the talk about this. If they want to raise caps without increasing benefits, then it becomes a true tax. If they want to decrease benefits for someone who has paid in because of their elderly income level, then it becomes a true tax. If someone wants to fund it with tax money, I'd much rather they pull it from the income tax side. The net effect of the other plans it that folks (like me) would start neglecting private investments (401Ks, etc.) in order to keep their retirement 'income' down low enough so they can recoup the money they paid into SS. Call it the "401K responsibility penalty".

In related news, I participated very respectfully in a conversation about this on Michael Tearson's page and he unfriended me. :lol:

He always said he'd drop people when they get nasty, but he dropped me because I disagree. Oh well.

by **slugsrbad** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 08:01:47

pacino wrote:Discussing it as a savings program when they tried to cut it 10 years ago didn't work so they're trying a new tact because people hate welfare, even when they themselves get it.

Yea, but just imagine how much easier our job would be if welfare (sorry, I mean, human services) didn't exist, but for some reason our jobs did? We would basically be pro BSG posters!

by **pacino** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 08:05:08

who is Michael Tearson

by **Bucky** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 08:10:51

geez, you young suburbanites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tearson

by **pacino** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 08:12:40

Born in 1948..so he's on social security and medicare?

by **Soren** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 08:38:28

SK790 wrote:
Doll Is Mine wrote:I hope Bernie Sanders runs. The debates alone would be fantastic.

Yids for Bernie. I know Soren is in.

by **pacino** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 08:41:22

These are other declare Democratic candidates:

Jeff Boss, 9/11 Truther and perennial candidate from New Jersey
Vermin Supreme, performance artist and perennial candidate from Massachusetts
Robby Wells, Reform Party and Constitution Party presidential candidate in 2012 from North Carolina

and the Republican side:

Mark Everson, former Internal Revenue Service Commissioner, former President of the American Red Cross from Mississippi
Jack Fellure, retired engineer from West Virginia; 2012 Prohibition Party presidential nominee

Wanna go third party? :

Terry Jones, pastor for Dove World Outreach Center from Florida; presidential candidate in 2012, independent candidate
Zoltan Istvan, futurist, writer, transhumanist philosopher from California; founder of the Transhumanist Party

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 08:50:38

Bucky wrote:geez, you young suburbanites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tearson

thanks but I still don't know who he is 8-)

re: Medicare, it still startles me how few c-level execs/biz owners are unaware that they/their senior employees (age 65+) have earned health coverage that is frequently more generous than their employer-sponsored coverage, and that (if their company is small) they can elect to drop their employer-sponsored coverage for themselves and enroll in Medicare while they continue to work, keeping their company plan for employees, all while saving their company/themselves a bunch of money.

Happily for me, most people in the health benefits business don't realize it either

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 09:30:25

I wonder if one effect of SS is to allow people to be more aggressive with their 401k/IRA investments. That is, if you know you have the backstop of SS, you can afford to lose a little elsewhere. If that's the case, then without knowing any details, Christie's plan makes sense. However, that 80k income--is that simply based on the interest/dividends from your retirement savings, or does it also entail drawing down the principle as well? Because let's say you've saved a million by your retirement date, which doesn't produce (in today's market) 80k a year unless you start taking down the principle. So, does your SS top you up, allowing you to hold on to the principle? That's pretty cool, because you will be financialyl secure no matter how long you live. On the other hand, let's say the 80k income is in part based on drawing down the principle--and you live a long, long time. Your principle exhausted, do you now get the full benefit?

Again, in part, depending on the details, you could consider Christie's plan more like insurance than a tax.

by **pacino** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 09:33:22

Well, the people without any ability to save rely on it to live. So there's that, too.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 09:39:44

Bucky wrote:Yeah, I don't disagree with the Sanders/Warren camp much, but the whole point of SS is that the employee and employer pay into a fund on behalf of the employee with the expectation that the employee will receive payments upon achieving a certain age, with the benefit defined by the contribution amount. Sort of like a legally required 401K. So I would ask that others please be earnest when the talk about this. If they want to raise caps without increasing benefits, then it becomes a true tax. If they want to decrease benefits for someone who has paid in because of their elderly income level, then it becomes a true tax. If someone wants to fund it with tax money, I'd much rather they pull it from the income tax side. The net effect of the other plans it that folks (like me) would start neglecting private investments (401Ks, etc.) in order to keep their retirement 'income' down low enough so they can recoup the money they paid into SS. Call it the "401K responsibility penalty".

In related news, I participated very respectfully in a conversation about this on Michael Tearson's page and he unfriended me. He always said he'd drop people when they get nasty, but he dropped me because I disagree. Oh well.

You'd trade 80k for 20k to just be able to receive SS benefits? That's silly.

by **Bucky** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 09:59:06

no, i'd probably choose different methods of savings that don't register as 'income' at retirement age

..plus, even if i did go with your scenario, i'd have lots more money to spend now

by **drsmooth** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:19:21

The Nightman Cometh wrote:You'd trade 80k for 20k to just be able to receive SS benefits? That's silly.

No one's "trading 80k for 20k". Your remark suggests you don't understand the simple adjustment Christie's suggesting.

Moving the eligibility age makes sense and is much less at odds with the fundamental concept of the program than phasing out benefits. Phasing out benefits suggests the benefits haven't been earned. That's a problem.

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 10:24:24

I do think from a political perspective, reducing benefits for upper income seniors to zero won't really work. But really, I don't see a problem with reducing benefits for upper income seniors to a pretty low amount.

I understand I'm in a pretty enviable position with all of this--while my salary is modest, I have a very generous 401k (my 8% contribution is matched with 10%) and a job that as long as I'm healthy (and higher education somehow manages to avoid an implosion) I can easily do well into my 70s. So, if things stay more or less the same, I see a period of time where I'll be forced to start taking 401k distributions, I'll start getting social security, and I'll have my salary. (Since 70 is currently full retirement age for SS, is there any reason at that point to delay taking benefits if I'm still working?)

(Also--generous retirement plans in academia are common (though much less so than they used to be) because you typically don't start putting money away until you're 30 or so.)

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Apr 16, 2015 11:56:46

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Chris Christie's Tilt at Social Security - I think this is probably right that it'll make for easy 30 second attack ads, but it's good policy, and it will be good to have someone in the race shouting about it.

But his vocabulary is all wrong. By design, Social Security is not an entitlement. You earn Social Security benefits. It's not that hard to do - but you still have to do it. You may not be taking benefits away from current beneficiaries but saying they're getting a handout is punching them in the dick with your tiny, soft, pudgy, uncalloused, entitled fists

Is he saying they're getting a handout? (No)

Saying his vocabulary is all wrong and then getting his vocabulary all wrong.

Archived

"Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)

Re: "Let them eat gay cake" (Politics thread)