There is no crisis facing social security - the only problem is that the rich have refused to pay their share of taxes while getting more from the system. These conservatives have conspired to 'starve the beast.' Mitt is one who has not paid enough taxes to support the system.

For MediCare, the 2003 senior prescription drug benefit law of Bush has given away too much obscene profits to phamaceutical corporations, making MeidCare most costly and less competitive - ironically, it's the GOP who has argued about how MediCare is not sustainable?????

How could the drug companies get such breaks - the 2003 law is not allowing the federal government - the largest buyer of prescription drugs in the entire world - to negotiate drug prices - thus giving billions of dollars to drug companies and adding more to the deficit.

How can the Republicans argue Medicare is now too costly when they helped drug companies to commit the fraud to the system.

the hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!

Pigotry

I wish had your confidence in what Obama would do after he is reelected. I fear the return of the "grand bargain" and he was the one who appointed the Cat food Committee. I don't have much faith in his campaign promises.

Not to say Rmoney would be any better. The only bright side for social security with an Rmoney victory is that the democrats would be more likely to act like democrats and defend it.

SS has over $7 Trillion in UNFUNDED liabilities.

Yep, no problems with that, huh Pigotry. (GGGEEEEEEZZZ!!!)

Pigotry I hate to disagree with you but please don't confuse FICA/Medicare with Federal taxes. There are upper limits on benefits and the salary currently taxable goes up to somewhere in the $120,000 or so... Sorry but you should check your facts...

Another reason for challenges facing social security is that more babyboomers have been retiring, burdening the system more. But the reform should focus on guaranteeing the poorer retirees and tax those who will have a very comfortable retiring life even without (much) social security and medicare benefits. The reforms should make it more equitable.

Besides, many members of minority have worked hard throughout their lives and paid into the system, but their life expectancy is 5 years lower than Caucasians, getting less than what these minority members should deserve - just more bad breaks and uncalled-for sacrifices by members of minorities.

Mitt the Twit has been playing by a different set of rules from the rest of us.

His tax rate is half that of your average American, and he's stashed the difference in offshore accounts from Switzerland to the Cayman Islands. As CEO and sole owner of Bain Capital from '99-'02, he received $100,000 a year in salary for a job now he claims he didn't have at a company whose decisions he refuses to accept responsibility for.

The Romney Rules are a double standard, plain and simple.

They let Romney argue that the basic guarantees of healthcare and a secure retirement are "free stuff you don't pay for," then turn around and tell reporters that talking about his six figure non-job is off limits and no, you don't need to see his taxes.

Hey ROMNEY WHERE ARE YOUR TAX RETURNS?

If Romney is elected he will explode the deficit by his 5 trillion dollar tax reduction for billionaires who shipped all the jobs to Asia. He will then start a war in the Middle East, even without the 5 trillion in revenue, and with a huge deficit. So, he will have a war with no funds to pay for it. This will give him an excuse to take the ENTIRE SS trust fund, ending SS for ALL retirees including current retirees(who PAID FOR their benefits) and throwing seniors out on the street to die. This has been the Republican wet dream and end game all along; it is their master plan.

romney has an appliance shop in china which employs 20,000 workers no air cond/living three girls to a dorm 1 bathroom per thirty people no air in dorms either barbed wire fences everywhere.(they work 16 hours a day for $2.00 a day 7 days a week).he has oil investments in russia.money in banks in china, russia,switzerland etc. etc hey romney where is your tax returns? you put money in foreign banks to keep from paying the american government its share of your taxes.romney will change the retirement age to 70.no grants for students to go to college-go slap burgers on a grill and hope you can make enough money to go to school.medicaid gone-go find medicine man.granny lost her old age pension last month-granny better go make you some corn mash. it'll get you a little money for food. middle and poor working class eat mitt twitt's dust.

Social Security can SAVE our economy. Tax EVERY DOLLAR. No cap. LOWER the retirement age and INCREASE benefits.

The Result? MILLIONS RETIRE because they CAN. MILLIONS of JOBS open up for younger workers. EVERYBODY has money to spend so the economy picks up.

This is TRICKLE UP economics. The kind that WORKS! Unlike the TRICKLE DOWN kind that the GOP and Mittens Romney advocate. EVEN THE RICH GET RICHER because BUSINESS WILL FLOURISH.

Our seniors are fed up with Mitt the Vulture's plan to use vouchers in his reform plan to MediCare. Mitt touches the third rail and will be electrocuted. The result is cute?

As the vouchers won’t affect our current seniors that is a goofy bit of “Mediscare.” As a future senior – I’m interested in finding out how the vouchers would work. Since they are talking about offering both the current system and a voucher system, it sounds like a very viable option.

One thing about Obama – he is stuck on this raising taxes thing. He’s like a scratched record that needs to be replaced. Rather than continuing to raise the taxes of those who have their lives together, how about lets improve the economy and find jobs for those who are able bodied but don’t have a job. That way they can pay their own way and pitch in with the rest of us to help those who aren’t able bodied. That is a far better idea than punishing those who have managed to be successful.

Romney/Ryan 2012

Since they are talking about offering both the current system and a voucher system, it sounds like a very viable option.

Since people would choose the option that provided them with the best benefits, I doubt that this would be viable in the long-term. Since Ryan is determined to index vouchers at less than the cost of medical inflation, they wouldn't be popular for very long.

Ryan seems to think that the market can solve every problem. Yet, employers, who collectively ensure more individuals than Medicare, still face huge cost increases every year.

Raise the cap and lets keep SS solvent. I don't trust Mitt and I sure don't trust having my medical benefits with companies more concerned with making a profit than caring for individuals. While Medicare may not be the greatest is serves a purpose and should be the model for all citizens of the United States. Think of the cost savings if there was only one medical plan in which we all paid into. Right now people without insurance use the system and don't pay at all. With one plan the saving in adminstrative costs would save millioins in itself. Its time for this country to take care of its citizens first and foremost.

Seniors need to mind their own gd business and quit standing in the way of us younger folks fixing this problem! SS is a crappy retirement system with crappy returns that can't possibly pay out what has been promised. Get our of our way and let us craft a real retirement plan that actual invests our FICA instead of expecting today's workers to make up for 50 years worth of lost inflation and growth through confiscatory taxes. The pay as you go SS system is financially retarded and morally abhorrent!

I love it when the boomers are blamed for starting to strain SS. Did someone expect us all to die early?

Interesting article regarding Medicare vouchers.

www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/09/13/top-obama-advisers-proposed-voucherizing-medicare-way-back-in-2010/

Hey blo-j er, jblo...

I've spent my life paying into SS. What about you? I shouldn't get what I paid for? Is that a republidumb thing? Screwing working people out of what they've already paid for? Yeah, sounds like big money talking to me. Go screw yurself. No, wait. Don't. Be more greedy pos running around.

Very simple fix. Capital gains income should be subject to Social Security taxes. Likewise, the cap on SS taxable income should continue to go up and you can make a good case that it shouldn't even be capped at all. I would be fine with a cap of say somewhere around $150,000 at which point additional income would still be taxable, however, people would be allowed to offset those additional SS tax liabilities by instead putting that money into 401K type retirement accounts.

There are some pretty easy ways to increase the SS revenues without needing to cut any benefits. People forget too that the Baby Boomer bubble vansihes by the time we get to 2035. Us Boomers don't like to think about it, but the fact is that many of us will be dead by then. That means the rate of drawdown decreases. In many ways the current drawdown issue is self correcting over time. The amount of needed adjustments to revenue streams is indeed just a minor tweak. A fraction of a percent goes a long way and likewise a raising of the cap helps a great deal too.

There is some logic also to having SS tax on Capital gains. We already give people a substantial tax break on Capital gains incomes. In reality capital gains are income that doesn't come from an individual himself working. You can also argue that it is working people that actually make the capital gains happen. If you can make money off of other peoples work by not working yourself, why doesn't it make sense to give a little bit of that back for those that do work for a living? The future shortfalls we're talking about are relatively small and if we start making very small tweaks now it is fixed very quickly. Applying SS taxes to capital gains and doing nothing else, makes any problems with Social Security completely vanish.

These kind of small tweaks that will increase revenues slighty are what Obama is talking about. Romney on the other hand is wanting to in reality cut benefits by raising the eligibility age. That really is just a way to phase out Social Security. True that today many people can potentially work later in life, but a lot of that has to do with what kind of work you do. If someone wants to work to 75, assumong they have the work opportunity, fine, let them, work. That just would mean people who weren't drawing Social Security benefits. Raising the eligibilty age eliminates any choice.

Romney views that many people retire because they want to milk the system as moochers, and thinks that retirement is financially attractive to these people. Anybody that thinks that retirement is financially attractive, is an idiot. Unless of course your retirement includes some huge golden parachute. But the reality is that Social Security was designed for middle class working folks who don't have golden parachutes.

Guys like Romney have no clue. He has never "worked" a day in his life. It's easy for him to suggest people should work until 70. But his own personal situation is far different than the average American. Likewise he doesn't seem to see the benefits of older workers getting out of the way and letting younger workers take their place. In reality, lowering the Social Security age at this point with a weak economy, would actually be a big boost. But it would make a dent in the Social Security surpluses. However, if all those "replacement" jobs paid just a small bit more into SS, it would be a win/win. Older workers thinking about retirement tend to be a lot more conservative in their spending so less of their incomes goes back into the everyday economy than say someone younger who's raising a family. Doing this would be an economic boost while really costing nothing short term. I think if you would ask younger people looking for work if they would be acceptable to paying slightly more in SS just for the opportunity to get that job, 99% would jump at it.

Lord help us they want to "tweak" Social Security again! How about paying the 3 Trillion the government owes the plan thanks to using it as a piggy bank since 1983 when Greenspan and Reagan colluded to rape the middle class and the working poor.

1983: Greenspan advises Americans to accept sharply higher payroll taxes to ensure that the plan will be there for the baby boomers at the turn of the century. Six months after the law is passed Greenspan/Reagan suggest that Social Security benefits be trimmed to reduce the budget deficit. This contradicts the legislation to guarantee the benefits from 1985 on.

1985: The Fed calls for cuts in S.S. even though the program is running a surplus.

1988: The Fed calls to cut S.S. benefits again even as the program is running a growing surplus.

1990: Greenspan denounces the Moynihan plan to cut the payroll tax, even though the S.S. surplus is being used on non S.S. spending by the government.

1994: The Fed again calls for cutting S.S. benefits.

1997: Greenspan recommends cutting the S.S. benefits by raising the retirement age and amending the cost of living formula(which was already reduced in 1983).

1999: Even though the government is running a surplus, Greenspan calls for trimming S.S. benefits.

2001: The Fed supports the Bush tax cuts to reduce the projected budget surplus.

2004: Greenspan suggests that benefits should be cut for future retirees because the Bush tax plan has created a huge budget deficit even though the S.S. trust fund is running an annual $170 Billion dollar surplus.

STOP STEALING FROM THE PEOPLE and then blaming us for the problems that have been created.

We paid for our retirement and they stole it instead of investing it so now we're the 47% who are a drain on the taxpayers? Pay us back the money borrowed with the interest it would have accrued and every thing will be just fine.

For Obama to claim that, “Social Security is structurally sound,” Obama told Lehrer, is frighteningly stupid. There is nothing sound about it. Its like saying the Titanic is structurally sound, never mind that gaping hole in the hull. Is Obama even capable of being honest with the American people? Why would you sugar coat this issue? 18 years ago republicans under Clinton wanted to tweak the system to keep it solvent, democrats instead chose to vilify republicans for the mere suggestion. The longer we wait the bigger the tweak will need to be. Obama is many things but proactive leadership and visionary isn't any of them.

@Pigotry You need to check some of your facts... SS was started as a FORCED savings plan for US to retire. It i believe was started in the 30's under FDR (Democrat), Now here is where the problems started, You had a DEMOCRATIC White house in the 60's that Financed a war and and social welfare. I also believe that BILL CLINTON changed things with the SS funds so more people get money out that didn't put in a dime.. Need i go on..

I have like most Baby Boomers worked hard and have PAID thousands into it and WE expect our money back... so until you check facts DO NOT BLAME THE SENIORS WHOM HAVE PAID IN THERE ENTIRE WORKING LIFE...

Pigotry, what W Bush did for drug compnaies, Obama will do for medical insurance companies: Give them gadzillions of dollars. It's hard not to be cynical about everything that comes out of DC. And these people are supposed to be the best we've got? Sheesh!

Pigotry,

There is no crisis facing social security - the only problem is that the rich have refused to pay their share of taxes while getting more from the system.

Fact Check Alert.

Higher income workers who are over the cap of wages (currently $110,100/year) subject to SS payroll tax receive, under current rules, 1/6 the benefit from the last dollar they put into SS as lower income workers do from every dollar they put in.

This, of course, doesn't even include the fact that a higher income person, assuming they saved some money during their working years, is more likely to be taxed on up to 1/2 of their SS benefits - cutting the higher income workers effective "return on payroll tax" even more.

So, no, the rich (and middle class) are paying MORE than their fair share of Social Security taxes. Much of what they put in gets redistributed to lower income workers.

Obviously if the cap is raised (or eliminated) the benefits must also increase for those contributing more unless the program will become viewed as a welfare program (remember what happened to that in the Clinton years?). It might be possible to maintain the 1/6 ratio but most employees have NO idea this is what is happening and opening up the debate on the cap is likely to inform more people and result in a call from the middle class (esp. in high cost of living areas) to level the playing field and make sure that someone making $70K a year reaps the same benefits on each dollar paid into the system as someone making minimum wage.

@pullmyfinger13, nobody ever anywhere has talked about changing it for people 55 or older. If you're on SS then STFU and let those of who actually will be affected have an adult discussion about what WE want for OUR retirement!

One thing you're right about Pigotry: SS as currently formulated is a wealth transfer program. From poor black men to rich white women, young to old, gay to straight, unmarried to married, the unfortunate (die early) to the fortunate (long lived), etc. Which is why it always amazes me that liberals defend this robin hood in reverse program!?

@lulu98

Yup, everyone likes to rag on the Boomers, while at the same time, ignoring the fact that the Boomers account for over 80% of all SS taxes paid into the fund for the last 50 years. In short, they paid their dues, so the rest of my generation can shut up and let our parents and grandparents retire in peace.

Look people, it does not matter now about what happened in the past, we have to focus on the future. First of all America needs a retirement age limit ( I mean a set age) if every employee working decided to continue to work until health or death forced them out the younger generation would not have employment. This is already happening to our graduates now. I personaly believe we should return the social security retirement age back to 65 and early retirement at 60. What needs to happen is that the SSI and Medicare rates need to be raised, 7.2 by employee and 7.2 by employer and 14.4 for self-employed people, if it takes another 1 percent increase per contributor to fund these retirement programs then so be it, and the same increase for medicare, but there has to be accountability, no one should be able to have access to these funds for any reason period, they should be earmarked for these programs only and nothing else. I have seen the math and if the rates were raised we would not have to worry about them for many many years. Also you should know that people cannot depend on private investments for retirement, banks can go broke, (unless obama is still in office and he will give them your money to stop that from happening), businesses can and will go broke unless they are a auto. manuf. com. (again the above statement applies) plus lets face it most people will not put the money back for their future. I know this because I am one of those, every time I tried to save money for anything something would happen and I had to use it. Now if I had had a company that took money from my salary for that purpose, and I had no choice, and they had to put that money into a insured account to guarantee it against any situtation, wait! isn't that what social security was supposed to be doing, but the sorry,thiefing, lying politicions managed to get their gruby hands on it. Social security would be solvent and thriving for many generations had the politicions been forced by a unchangable law forbidding them from touching the funds. That is what has to be done, plus we have got to stop giving this money away to people who did not pay into it and has not met the requirements to draw it. This does not require a genius to figure out. I have worked for the last thirty years and paid into these programs, this is not an entitlement, this is my money they took from me all these years, they owe it back to me with interest. They continue to bring up a fact that says we are living longer than ever before, B.S. I know very few people who live past the age of eighty unless they had access to complete medical care their whole lives and believe me that just was not the case for most of us. The only time I had medical care was if it was a life or death situtation. The company's I worked for did not offer medical insurance and the ones who did I could not afford it on the pay I earned. If a person pays into S.S. for 45 years and only gets a S.S. for 15 years (thats starting work at 20 and retireing at 65) who do you think is coming out on the best side of that.

For those of you like jblo, SS trust fund is made up of about 2.7 trillion in treasury bonds that draw about $120,000,000,000.00 in interest per year. Your SS funds are indeed invested.

lilDi

For those of you like jblo, SS trust fund is made up of about 2.7 trillion in treasury bonds that draw about $120,000,000,000.00 in interest per year. Your SS funds are indeed invested.

Wouldn't be too bad if we knew where the $2.7 Trillion was... is it in Iraq? Afghanistan? Homeland Security? Maybe it's sitting in Medicaid somewhere? Let's go ask Bush.

jerry is correct above. . KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF my SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE!!! Tax the people who work . . They can pay!!!

OBAMA/BIDEN for Seniors!!!

The Big Republican Lie About Taxes and Spending
If Republicans want to run the government like a business, why do they keep "selling" below "cost"?
Republicans often say that government should be run like a business. If we use that business analogy, let us consider that the government's "products" are the services it provides: defense, Social Security, Medicare, law enforcement, food and transportation safety, environmental protection, medical and scientific research, etc. The "price" government charges for these "products" is the taxes it collects.

Using the business analogy, let's say the business of America was humming along nicely in 2000 -- "turning a profit," i.e., running a surplus. But the Republican economic philosophy is that "customers like low prices therefore cutting prices is good," and after the inauguration of President George W. Bush, Republicans lowered the price for government products -- by cutting taxes -- at an arbitrarily low rate below "operating costs." Imagine how this approach would affect a business in the real world. Bankruptcy would result -- and quickly.

Republicans understood that the resulting deficits were unsustainable. The costs for the products exceeded the prices they were charging to deliver them to consumers. But after arbitrarily cutting the price and recognizing that they were now generating deficits, these Republican "businessmen" reached an odd conclusion. They convinced themselves that since "cutting prices is good" then the only other explanation for their red ink must be higher operating costs -- they were spending too much.

Remember, first they were making a profit, then they cut the prices, then they started losing money, and then blamed operating costs for their problem. The possibility that the lower revenues from the reduced prices never occurred to them. Our Republican "businessmen" then reached the conclusion after careful, sober, consideration that, even after laying-off millions of workers to cut costs, they were still spending too much. So, unfortunately, they must eliminate the product lines and go out of business -- even though the products were selling like hotcakes. In a real business these would be considered either grossly incompetent or suspiciously dishonest businessmen.

Our Republican "businessmen" are so fixated on the concept of "cutting prices" that they would rather go out of business than raise their prices. Somehow, they convinced themselves that the price could be whatever the customer wanted to pay, not what they needed to pay to keep the company in business.

No business could survive if the price it charged for its products was lower than the cost to produce them. Yet since the Reagan years (with the exception of the Clinton administration and despite unanimous congressional Republican opposition) that has been the official economic policy of the US government -- resulting in an enormous national debt.

Faced with this $14 trillion dollar national debt -- generated by irresponsible "low prices" Republican tax cuts -- the Republican solution is to cut or eliminate vital and popular "products" like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They have been aided in this scheme by an incoherent and feckless Democratic Party and a news media owned by the same plutocratic interests that control the Republican Party.

While there are always some products offered by the US government that are of questionable value, most of the big-ticket items are of obvious public utility, meet a vital societal need and enjoy strong "consumer demand" by citizens.

The Republican opposition to Big Government programs like Social Security and Medicare is not due the national debt. The national debt is due to the Republicans' opposition to these programs since they can only be financed by a system of progressive taxation -- which is the real Republican target.

Republicans know they could never attack popular programs like Social Security and Medicare directly -- it would be political suicide. So for a generation Republicans have utilized a strategy known as "starving the beast," which means depriving the government of revenue through tax cuts.

Scams like the so-called Ryan Plan, which destroys Medicare and will cut, if not eliminate, already stingy Social Security benefits are just the inevitable endgame of the "starve the beast" strategy. After decades of deliberately engineered budget deficits through insufficient taxation, Republicans now point to vital programs like Social Security and Medicare and say "Unfortunately, we just can't afford it."

Its totally sad and amazing that Americans know so little of our own history. Social Security came about to help seniors retire without total poverty. In most industrial countries in Europe they had retirement programs many years before we started ours.Germany alone started their's in the 1880's to help their senior population live in dignity. What do you think people did before Social Security was started. In those days if you were too old to work and your family couldn't help you you begged on the streets or starved.The wealthy classes here didn't give a f@@k about the old and poor. If you got injured at work and had to be off or couldn't work there were no social programs to help you,the bosses just fired you.What happened to you then,they could care less.Why do you guys think these programs were started.Did you think the government just decided they needed to pass the time of day and thought "oh well,we can play games or start social programs".Its because of the Democrats in those days along with labor unions and a few good Republican Liberals (yes they existed then,even if only a few).That we have things like labor laws to protect workers from abuse,assistance programs for the unemployed and poor,the 40 hour week,and 8 hour day.Vacations,and vacations with pay,medicare,medicaid,maternity leave,student aid programs,etc,etc.All the benefits and programs that have helped build the middle class,and helped the old and the poor survive. But in the creation of these programs they have been fought by most of what would be called the Republican Party in today's world. Now we actually have people that have forgotten how hard it was to fight for citizens right to a decent life (and which groups did the fighting for them) willing to throw out a century of progress and return to a total free market society. That would be a better arrangement for the 1% to 10% of societies winners.Those that have 70% or more of the countries wealth.They don't need or want those programs. They "have their's,and if you don't screw you". But the promise of a better life in America for all its people was made possible by those programs. I can't even believe that there is an argument in 2012 about how important it is the have programs like those in any country,let alone ours.And how anyone would think that a party that has always opposed social progress,would protect that progress if they were returned to power.

UncleBob . . Don't you Dare make me sound like a VICTIM!!! I am NOBODY'S victim!

Vote OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 . . KEEP the Dream (and ME) ALIVE!!!

TOGETHER we can do this . . . YOU PAYING FOR ME!!!

They're lying to you about Social Security and Medicare. They do not need to be cut in anyway, and as a matter of fact they have always been pretty stingy compared to other countries benefits.

Here's some information on this subject:

Cutting Social Security will not fix the national debt

"…Contrary to the widespread myth further forwarded by the commission, Social Security is neither going broke nor causing our federal deficits. It never contributed and, unless the law is changed, never will contribute a penny to the debt. It is self-financing, has no borrowing authority, and cannot pay benefits unless it has the income on hand to cover the entire cost.

Today, Social Security is running surpluses and will be in sound financial shape for nearly three decades. Even after that, its long-term shortfall can be addressed easily without cuts. If a corporation could make such claims to its shareholders, it would be cause for champagne, not gloom and doom…"

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1228/Cutting-Social-Security-will-not-fix-the-national-debt

Lies Linking Social Security to the National Debt

By Jeanine Molloff

Most Americans don't understand how Social Security and Medicare are funded, and as a result have been bamboozled by a curious assortment of corporate network 'talking heads,' (yes this includes CNN), and astroturf organizations whose sole purpose is to muddy intellectual waters--allowing corporate interests to reign supreme. They con us by crafting and massaging several myths regarding public programs.

Lie#1: Social Security is Broke....

This national myth is my all time favorite. Not only is Social Security NOT BROKE--IT IS THE ONLY FEDERAL PROGRAM WHICH IS FULLY FUNDED. I repeat--SOCIAL SECURITY IS FULLY FUNDED, ALWAYS HAS BEEN. The problem lies in the fact that the government has continually raided the monies all of us have paid into the system, to subsidize corporate tax breaks, unbridled military spending and what have become routine Wall Street bankster raids on the public dime. In fact, this raiding was discussed during the alleged 'surplus' years of the Clinton administration. In a heated congressional testimony by then Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and US Senator Ernest F. Hollings--the ongoing use of Social Security monies for general revenue projects was exposed. (Source: click here) If anything, the Fed Reserve 'owes' monies to the Social Security Fund.

Lie#2 : Social Security and Medicare Contribute to the National Debt...

Even a fiscal conservative like Sen. Max Baucus has testified that Social Security does not belong in deficit reduction talks. Baucus, as the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, held a hearing entitled "Perspectives on Deficit Reduction: Social Security" just this May. Baucus explained that:

"Social Security benefits are financed only through payroll taxes and the Trust Fund." Baucus further explained that Social Security, ..."is not responsible for the deficits we face in the general fund today. Therefore, I believe Social Security should not be part of our efforts to reduce these deficits." (Source : http://www.advisorone.com/node/20983) In fact the federal law FORBIDS any mingling of Social Security monies with general revenues. Baucus himself clearly stated that, ..."Social Security must remain separated from the rest of the Federal budget and the program cannot borrow money from the general Federal budget." (Source : http://www.advisorone.com/node/20983)

So, how can any Congress or any President LEGALLY sponsor any bill which would MANDATE across the board spending cuts including to Social Security? Well, both democrats and republicans came up with a few very sneaky plans. The two most prominent plans are the Corker-McCaskill CAP Act (S. 245), and the Cut, Cap and Balance Act (H.R. 2560).

First I'll describe the Corker-McCaskill bipartisan compromise. Another presidential 'buddy', Sen. Claire McCaskill co-sponsored a bill benignly dubbed the 'Corker-McCaskill CAP Act or S. 245. It has a 'companion' bill in the House of Representatives, which is now the 'flavor of the month,' namely the 'Cut, Cap and Balance Act or simply, H.R. 2560 in the House and S. 1340 in the Senate. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/2?c112:H.R.2562:)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lies-Linking-Social-Securi-by-Jeanine-Molloff-110724-711.html

I'll give all you anti SS folks a little heads up. My wife, not yet retired, has "contributed" over $250K to the ssytem since she began working. My payments into the system were about the same. Had we invested that cash, it would have been worth a lot more. If you think we're gonna give up on SS you've got another thing coming. I don't give a fk about what the younger generation thinks about this cause it's our money. The gov't had no right to steal it and dump it into the general fund, and therlelby create this fkn Ponzi scheme that now exists. Keep your hands out of MY pocket, azz wholes!!!

Hey Skylark #1.7, I second that 101 % - "SALUTE" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am just sick and tired of hearing 50 years of political chicken little tactics over our, tax payer funded, tax payer benefit programs, and the need to screw the provider and the recipient at the same time if it is ever going to be solvent! Statistics always getting worse paying more than taking in. As if no one ever dies and the dead will get an endless share and every penny they paid in even if their dead at benefit age. Nothing ever seems to equal out or effect the total in the recipient column against the provider column when the projectionist tell the tale.

Crying to the tax payer whose money the politicians decide goes where and when they say. Telling us that the portion they take from us, for us, isn't enough so we'll have to sacrifice. While another portion they take from us for the likes of Pakistan continues to go up and never ever seems to be under funded at payment time. But oddly enough this wealth of foreign aid, that never runs dry, could never be diverted to the people whose money it is.

The US citizens who should always be first priority when the decision of what is funded and where and when our money collected will go and how far it will go. And the likes of Pakistan and other foreign aid programs should be last in line. Once all US citizen programs have what ever portion of projected tax collection is needed to make our future security solvent without drastic rate hikes or reduced benefits.

Opps didn't receive or plan correct for the projected amount of payroll deductions this year to meet tax payer benefit programs. Without cutting or changing what the fund providers recieve as promised. Then sorry Pakistan and the rest of the world our politicians promise to you will be a little short this quarter! But don't worry we're working on a tweak just for you!

Stop it already! Stop letting them scare us into screwing ourselves while we continue to provide for the world. Leave our programs alone just as they are unless making them better for us. There's no need to raise benefit age or lower benefit amounts or drastically raise payroll rates, the money is there and will always be there if we take care of America first and let the rest of the world have the left over's, not the other way around.

Are we not yet tired of being second rate citizens, in our own country, to others in foreign lands?

It's mine, I paid it, I earned and I want it. For myself and my children's children who deserve security to. Far to many people have never known the elderly who had nothing at 80 years old, were no longer able to work or feed themselves or put a roof over their heads or family to care for them. Before S.S. for many the lucky died young! Ending S.S. means going backwards because like it or not the majority will never think of saving until they reach an age and time that it's to late.

@lilDi, the supposed $2.7 trillion dollars was spent the second it was collected and exchanged for IOUs. In order to convert the IOUs into actual money that can be sent out in checks the government either has to borrow money from china (i.e. tax your grandchildren) or raises taxes on your children. YOUR contributions are long gone. Now we can continue this ponzi scheme idiocy or we can cut our losses and design a system that actually invests in real assets instead of just investing in the governments ability to impose confiscatory tax rates on future generations.

BTW, if the "trust fund" is so secure why would even Al Gore claim we need a lock box?

@Tony D-373561, so basically you're saying that because you were ripped off it's okay for your kids and grandkids to get ripped off too? That's like me saying because my house was broken into I should be able to break into my neighbors house to steal replacements for my stuff.

YOU are whats wrong with the world! None of the proposed changes will affect you at all yet you still stand in the way of younger folks fixing this f'ed up system.

@pullmyfinger13, the sad thing is you don't even realize that SS provides only a small fraction of what you could have had if your FICA taxes had been saved and invested. Heck I had a family friend recently die at 64. Paid into SS going on 50 years and now he gets nothing. So when you talk about reforming SS "screwing the working man" it just indicates how horribly financially illiterate and ignorant you must be!

Justicenonexistant,

nteresting article regarding Medicare vouchers.

www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/09/13/top-obama-advisers-proposed-voucherizing-medicare-way-back-in-2010/

I just looked at that article (link does not work...put in browser). It proves my suspicions about Obama being more Republican than the Republicans. I do not trust him at all on this. Many times over the last couple of years I read in the paper things that sound pretty Republican coming out of the Obama White House. I'd be very careful about who one chooses to vote for. Do not assume the classic party positions.

Skylark said,

If Romney is elected he will explode the deficit by his 5 trillion dollar tax reduction for billionaires who shipped all the jobs to Asia. He will then start a war in the Middle East, even without the 5 trillion in revenue, and with a huge deficit. So, he will have a war with no funds to pay for it. This will give him an excuse to take the ENTIRE SS trust fund, ending SS for ALL retirees including current retirees(who PAID FOR their benefits) and throwing seniors out on the street to die. This has been the Republican wet dream and end game all along; it is their master plan.

Memories of the ravings of Newt Gingrich? I do remember those. All this would be so typical republican, except that suspicion should be cast on Obama (evidence posted by the fellow above). Did anyone notice the pattern in Europe as each country imposes austerity on its people? Oftentimes it is some so-called leftist or socialist or whatever that does the austerity. This is the opposite of what one would normally think. I smell that possibility here. Warning: Do not assume that Obama would not do the same here. There is a pattern here. Look and choose carefully.

Empress-409341 Austerity was the Republican President Hoover's policy during the Great Depression. It failed miserably. Austerity is the Republican plan today. Providing government support for jobs was Democrat President Roosevelt's plan. It returned this country to prosperity. Providing government support for jobs is the Democratic plan today.

You can spin things loopy all you want. That only speaks of your own intelligence. You can't change the above facts with any amount of spin.

You all seem to forget that SS was not an entitlement in the beginning. The feds were borrowing money from it and putting in IOUs. It wasn't until Johnson moved it to the General Fund that things start to get dicey. I wonder if any of the IOUs got paid back. The feds can now borrow from SS and not worry about but yes they have to come with the money to pay seniors even though people still pay the taxes into it. Pretty neat thing the feds got going right. This fund was meant to stand on its own with the worker paying for it and the feds doing admin only but they seen all this money sitting there and well the rest as they say is history. So now you all blame the boomers for wanting their money, some of us have worked long and hard and some of us had our retirement plan take a nose and will need that money. Blame who you will but it was our fed government that has bled the fund and I just bet they are still doing it.

No, we blame baby boomers for knowing it was a ponzi scheme and then not doing anything about it for decades upon decades. Not only did they refuse to fix it, they now stand in the way of the rest of us fixing it!

Congress has no problem working with Obama. All he has to do is say, "This is what I want to do and this is how it will be paid for."

Unfortunately, the "this is how it will be paid for" part is always left out...or...more correctly, left to future generations.

In the following elections to the disasterous 1983 hack job to Social Security that Ronald Reagan did, many, many senators and congresspeople were VOTED OUT OF OFFICE!! which is why nothing else has been done to harm Social Security and Disability. The Congress learned its lesson. And now it seems they have forgotten the lesson.

A reminder: Any Congressperson any Senator who votes to cut Social Security or so called "Tweak" It, as in 1984 elections, they will BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE!!!!!! that includes you Mr. Obama!!!!

The moral of our story: HANDS OFF SOCIAL SECURITY... and... HANDS OFF SS DISABILITY!!!!

and thats my opinion.

My husband and I have paid into social security for a long time. We will need social security as part of our retirement. He has a retirement plan; I don't. Essentially, social security and my husband are my retirement plan. I would rather pay more taxes now to support social security than have benefits reduced in the future. It is a sort of forced savings, if you will. Any one person making more than $120,000 can afford to pay more towards social security to account for the greater numbers of people retiring compared to those paying into the system.

I hesitate to raise the retirement age any higher than 67 because while some people can fully contribute in the workplace past that age, not all can. And, just because someone lives longer doesn't mean they can work all that much longer. My dad lived to be in his 90's but he definitely couldn't have worked very well during two decades of his life. His ability to adapt to new technologies and ideas was limited and his health was not good enough to work either.

god bles the cameraman who secretly taped mitt romney's dinner to exploit his true colors1

Yeah, I also don't think anything should be done with Social Security. Just let everyone take a 25% benefits cut in 20 years. That'll sit well with everyone, won't it?

Congress has no problem working with Obama. All he has to do is say, "This is what I want to do and this is how it will be paid for."

You mean, all he has to say is "I'll sign anything you want." The Tea Party will not compromise with Obama .. it is their way, or no way. I blame that on the contamination of our government by religion. Religion doesn't compromise. Now, unfortunately, neither do our politicians.

Anyone who says Congress has no problem working with Mr. Obama is either living in a dream world, lying to promote the other party's agenda, or seriously clueless. Unless you live under a rock you heard what was proclaimed when he was elected, and do you think the mountain of filibusters signals cooperation? All the automatic no votes on anything he wants done, even if THEY thought of it or agreed to it originally or even wrote/sponsored the bill originally. You call that cooperation and working with him? Be honest. They aren't going to do anything he wants. And the blue dog Democrats aren't Democrats and are useless, so don't even count them as Democrats.

Just look at their approval ratings. They would have been fired for laziness, failure to do their jobs, and taking way too much time off in any other job, but for some reason we have them in a nice payroll and lifetime benefits to do nothing but say no, filibuster, and...what else is it they do?

I love it when I read all those whom are of the opinion that Social Security is just a ponzi scheme, and should be dismantled. Amazing when you consider their own grandparents, and possibly their own parents rely on this most valuable benefit. Heck, even PAULY RYAN benefited from SOCIAL SECURITY as a young man. I paid for them, you will pay for me! Barry-NJ, you are so correct, the TEA PARTY, really, The Koch Brothers, will not work with anybody else to benefit all Americans. Funny when you see older people at these rallies. Don't they know the Tea Party wants to eliminate Social Security?

May God help our children if Oblameo is elected to another four years! Remember, if reelected, he will be beholden to no one except the power brokers who are paying big money to support his reelection bid. He can try anything he wants to try unless he has someone to slow him down or tell him no. Remember, please, his open mike comment to Putin concerning his freedom after the election. And this is really what you want for another four years? I fear that Oblameo socialist roots will feed him too well and he will sell us out to the rest of the world to feather his retirement nest.

Middle class mom of four You wrote a very convincing, articulate and most valuable approach to Social Security. From your keyboard to all the Politicians eyes. I would add, go after all the fraud and waste, especially involving SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY, disallow millionaires the benefit, and stop using SOCIAL SECURITY as a PIGGY BANK! Thank you.

Badgeman,

Define millionaire. Someone who saved and invested and now has a million? Someone who has lived in their house forever in a high priced area and now it is worth a million? The guy next door who lived frugally. Should they give it up?

Please SS is a problem, especially when all the MONEY in the SS fund are Treasurey Bonds and the Money was taken for other things. the problem is those bonds are coming due..

You mean work with President Romney... Obama will not be president long enough to get it done. He's ignored it until now, what makes you think he would ever consider working with anyone on this issue. The other party can take a seat in the back of the bus... remember the famous uniting words of Obama. Man, did that set the tone for his failed presidency.

texastornado

God bless the camera person who captured Obama's response to Putin!

Jay - The special treasury bonds draw interest. SS surplus dollars are used to buy more bonds. SS short falls are made up by selling enough bonds to cover the short fall. "bonds are coming due", what ever that means is not correct. Bonds are not coming due!

LULU WROTE..' Define millionaire. Someone who saved and invested and now has a million? Someone who has lived in their house forever in a high priced area and now it is worth a million? The guy next door who lived frugally. Should they give it up?'....... Lulu, in the case of disallowing Millionaires the benefit, I was referring to those whose income is millions per year, in my opinion, of course. Romney wants to limit or stop all benefits for the wealthy, whatever that means. I should have been clearer.

A private option Romney wants is crazy. Pure and simple the Romney plan is not one that makes things better.

Obama 2012

Romney 1040

America has questions about Romney's Lying on the debate, how can anyone in their right mind vote for a Liar !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And now today he is stating that he was wrong. He got caught saying what he really believes. I don't think that for the 47% that kissing up is going to work.

He's wrong because he got caught. If he truly believes that he was wrong then, I'd like him to explain why he changed his mind? Or, is it more flip-flopping?

Unlike Obama who tells the 47% "where's yo money? where's yo dollah?"

Dear Crystal Do you belong to the KKK? You should join it for you show what ab idiotic bigot you are.

For all you people stuck on the 47% remark or any other gaffes by the candidates on either side, I pity you and say you deserve everything bad that may happen to you. Seriously, try to uplevel yourselves to real issues and details and get away from the TV ads!

Sweet, sweet, Cher,

Stuck on the 47% remark? Ya' think? The man who wants to lead the country doesn't have any use for almost half of the people that live in it? I would say that is a 'real' issue. The you say that we deserve 'everything bad that happen(s) to you"? Really? Is that some of that good old 'compassionate conservatism'? Yup, that's what I thought.

Tired of Mitt trickery. His apology tour not accepted by America

Romney 1040 PLEASE

Romney said he was wrong about the 47% remarks. Why should we believe him?

He has lied 533 times in 30 weeks! That works out to more than two lies a day! Do the math. Patheos Steve Benen

Romney lied 27 times in 38 minutes during the debate where he started off by threatening Lehrer and Big Bird.

Romney is not qualified to be dog catcher.

If you want to see the 47% he was referring to just read these posts: they are dependent on social security and have no interest whatsoever in planning for their own retirement. They'd rather have a "forced savings plan" with horrible returns than to have to actually think for themselves.

If you want to be stupid and do financial retarded things with your 12.4% FICA contribution, fine, but why do you have to drag the rest of us down with you!?

Jblo, really? - because a good portion of the 47% are current military members, veterans, retirees on social security, disabled Americans, etc. - I mean maybe we should just build camps and put the 47% in there to make license plates. OH, wait, I'll bet Bain Capital already thought of that!

Military is about 2% of the population, what about the other 45%.

The elderly have more wealth and income than any other age group these days.

The fact is the 47% don't even realize they're the 47%. The refuse to let us reform SS/medicaid and then don't recognize how dependent they are.

Moogly,

No, Moggly, it's based on your income near/at retirement. If you live a normal life span - you will use more than you ever put in - it's a fact. They don't cheat you. You want a government that governs 'least' - buy a bigger lawn hose to put our any fires, get a guard dog because there will fewer police, figure out a better way to get your library books, purchase your own health insurance if you're disabled - if you can find someone that will take you, practice driving down dirt roads because there won't be anyone to fix the ones the government maintains, join one of your local-yokel militias because you probably figure you don't need the military, see if you can purchase one of those 'buy-a-degree' because government funded colleges and college loans aren't needed, take your chances eating food because the FDA won't bother 'getting in your life', you better start boiling your water, on and on and on.....

The Social Security system as been one of the more successful programs. It has provided millions of people with a retirement that would not have been there otherwise. What would have worked for you will not necessarily have worked for others. There are several countries that have more generous benefits than then country and all the citizens seemed to be satisfied with the results.

Sorry.. but that 10% isn't a real figure... better check your facts again... yup it's up.. but I've done the same math... and I'm 66 and it isn't anywhere what you are talking about..... Too much FAX news I guess.

"you will use more than you ever put in - it's a fact."

Excellent! Why should I save for retirement when the government will force my kids and grand kids to pay for it. Whoopie! What a deal for me!

Moogly:

Please let me know where you expect to get 10% a year for the next 30 years, and I'll take the tax hit on withdrawing my entire IRA and investing it there. The only place I've even heard of rates anywhere like that was the 13% on Greek government bonds because the risk is so high that they have to offer those kind of rates.

And that 2 million would had been WIPED OUT in 2007 Stock Market Crash.

Now, back to reality.

And thats my opinion.

how you figure moogly on the big money your going to retire on. when all you can earn as a minimum wage or less working you are gonna get that 2,000,000 a year?

Stock market. Surrre. I want my retirement based on the bad decisions and unethical, greedy behavior of a bunch of smug, greedy bankers and traders? Umm no, thanks.

10% return? Not realistic at all

Government, surrrre, I want my retirement based on the corrupt, greedy bunch of morons in Washington DC. Ummm no, thanks.

The Moogly....And if a bull had ( ) it would be a cow......If you were able to put all that money away, great....if!!! BTW if we all put that money away, your parents/grandparents would probably have starved, as there would have been no Social Security for them either! Unless they were wealthy, then....

Moogly, you're not that good at math or history. What would have happened to your stock market funds held in 2008?

Obama kept his word

Folks shouldn't forget that he and every other GOP candidate opposed the auto recovery, preferring to let the industry go bankrupt.

From day one . President Obama has stood with the auto industry, saying, "We cannot, and must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish." He's kept his word: More than 1.4 million American auto industry jobs have been saved, 200,000 created, and more than 150,000 are expected in the next few years.

What did Mittens say, “let Detroit go bankrupt”.

Yes, and I am sure his father turned over in his grave. Great son and great legacy!

Hey Witchking... bankrupt doesn't mean out of business. It just means that a court of law reorganizes the company and debts to give the company a good chance at successfully continuing. The US bailout of the auto industry was just a big givaway (from my pocket to yours) to the auto unions.

God bless america these fool haearted conservatives are falling for the big fat romney lies. he's a professional liar and a silver tongued devil.his 29% truth is just enough to fool some of the people some of the time. the elite socialites know they can keep all their big money and big tax breaks if they vote for romney.he is arrogant,self righteous he bullies people like he did our president.if i was in a presidental debate i dont know that i would know how to react to this kind of bullying.it made our president look like a lame duck because of his bullying practices. i wonder if he learned his bullying in sunday school.

yes hellfire mr obama has reduced unemployment. he is giving loans to student to help them get a better education for the american future. he is trying to make healthcare affordable for everyone not just the elite rich like the repub conservatives are trying to do.

Yes, he has, hellfire. You go on making things up and spewing soundbites if you like, but yes, he has.

The only reason unemployment looks lower is due to people leaving the work force. Look at the governments U5 and U6 numbers.

And I still do NOT understand people who think that GM did not go bankrupt. It did and still is looking for money.

Witch, it was W who bailed out the auto companies with some of the TARP money. Obama continued with the bailout. The credit (or criticism) goes to them both. Personally I would have let the big banks and the auto companies go under. There would have been a lot of pain but a lot of lessons learned too.

Flip flop Romney scares me. The guy works in the interest of INDUSTRY not the American people. Our money will go that direction if he was elected.

Romney 1040

BigBear...good idea. I'll just slack off, take any easy job below my potential, pay a little into SS, but not enough to survive on, and then the government can take some guy who worked hard and payed a lot in and give his money to me.

(God if life were as simply black and white as so many dream it to be.)

hs321 - you are 100% right! As an ordinary person who is in the middle class, I do not understand why everyone thinks the rich should pay more than everyone else! If they EARNED their money, why should someone who hasn't get it? Everyone should pay an amount PER DOLLAR earned, not based upon if they have more. This country gives everyone the right to the PURSUIT of happiness, not the right to HAPPINESS. If you work hard you should get the benefit. You should not have to give it to the government for others who have not earned it. Poor and disadvantaged people should be helped but this should be done in a private environment. People are very generous and do not need to have the government take their money to benefit others.

I love those that advocate no cap, like a person who makes a million should pay $65,000 a year and get less than half of that back and a person like me who earns $85,000 by working 2 jobs and going to school nights should pay $5,100 and get back the same amount as the guy that paid in $65,000 a year, and a person who quits high school and works one job for $30,000 a year should pay $1,800 in SS tax and retire at the same time and get the same amount of money.

Lets pay more for mediocrity, like we do with affimative action hiring and affirmative action college admission.

That is exactly how I feel. Why should those who were successful just give it all up to those who did not contribute more? iI have earned and put in the max for years. Worked my way thru college and grad school. Saved too. As to the double dippers.....so you serve twenty years in the military and go to work for a gov. Agency. They work there for another twenty. Why should they not collect what they earned?

Absolutely correct. And psychological profile of Nazis and Conservatives would find a lot of similarities. Sadistic bullies are the same everywhere and in every era.

Social security...never be in the hands of selfish Republicans PERIOD

The S.S, is basically a sound program and there is not any reason why this program has to be destroyed just to satisfy a small group of selfish individuals.

jeanie - I wish that you and other people would stop the character attacks on both candidates and analyse the policy that each one has implemented or planning to implement.

We should not care if they look good, or sing. or are cool, we should look for Content, background and experiences in life.

My vote so far will go for Romney unless he blows the next two debates. Obama did terrible proving to me that he has thin skin and thinks he is too big to fail.

concerned citizens wants to throw seniors out on the street to die, as Romney will do.

Concerned, what about Romney is so pleasing to you? Are you rich? Do you think he really cares about you? How is he going to pay for his budget? Is there revenue to offset his budget? We have not heard anything, so why would I TRUST him? So please enlighten everyone as to what makes Romney so appealing to those that fall under the middle class category. I see absolutely no benefits coming our way from his "budget". I have asked this question and I get nothing back accept more finger pointing, more insults but no feasible explanation.

Yeah, I also don't think anything should be done with Social Security. Just let everyone take a 25% benefits cut in 20 years. That'll sit well with everyone, won't it?

So please enlighten everyone as to what makes Romney so appealing to those that fall under the middle class category.

I've got the same question. For instance, he's promising a 20% tax rate cut for EVERYONE, to be paid for by eliminating UNSPECIFIED deductions. Deductions have far more value to middle-class taxpayers than to the "1%". It is a great trade-off for the very wealthy, but the rest of us may find that the loss of various deductions, such as mortgage and taxes, may cost more than what we save in the tax rate cut.

NJ Gov. Christie is already trying to pull this stunt in my state. He wants a 10% tax cut, but at the cost of dropping property tax rebates. For the middle class, the loss of a tax rebate of up to $2,000 will far outweigh the value of a 10% tax cut (which works out to a savings of about $400/yr, or less). In NJ, many taxpayers pay far more in property taxes than in income taxes. It is the wealthy who benefit from Christie's schemes because property taxes are a much, much smaller proportion of their income.

Barry, we went back to NJ a few months ago for a wedding, and the state has fallen apart. The roads are like sinkholes with a little road between them, and things in general looked as if they were neglected. There is money in NJ I know for a fact, just as there is plenty of money in this country as well, but it is siphoned to where a few benefit and the rest suffer.

But Gov. Christie is the next Great Wonder!

Gov, Krispy, has given less and less money back to the local towns and municipalities, and there's a 2% cap on property taxes, or they're get even less from the State. Meanwhile, like you wrote RAM, the roads, bridges and infrastructure is falling apart. But fear not, Gov. Krispy wants to give the wealthy, and everybody else, a tax break..of course the wealthy will get a huge tax break....so even less revenue is collected.

And Obama is nothing but a "commy pinko bastard" that just wants to turn the US into the USSR. Didn't work out so well for them and it wouldn't work out so well for us. Or... maybe your statement is a bit hysterical too.

Fiscal bankruptcy is not a big threat there are many ways to deal with spending to much but when even a rich nation spends trillions as Bush did on useless wars and you do not get a single dollar in return for your investiment then it will take some time to work those problems out. I can remember reading articles encouraging Bush to consider if this was a wise course of action and everyone knows what Bush choose.

You forget congress also pigotry.

It was and still is a just cause.

Hellfire, you make silly comments that just show you aren't thinking, have little life experience or haven't learned much from what you have lived through, or that you are a troll. Your whole post is nonsense and not based on reality.

willard makes bernie madeoff look like a saint?huh?

That's a fact. That is a fact. That steaming pile of Mitt makes Madoff look good.

355 lies in 30 weeks. 27 lies in 38 minutes. Romney is unbelievable.

Let us not forget that many people are collecting SS that never paid a dime into it. Benefits have been added, but not funded, and the entire structure is imperiled by this "unfunded" pay out scheme. As far as burdening the recipients, bear in mind that up to 85% of your SS payment is subject to the income tax if your income exceeds a certain level. So, the "wealthy" (someone making over $10K I Guess if you're a Democrat) do take a hit. When it comes to "fairness" I don't believe it is "fair" to take from someone who worked for it and give to some lame piece of crap that has layed around the crib or bodega and not earned it. Equal opportunity - I agree. Equal outcomes (guaranteed by the government) - the worst face of socialism!

You are right, prog. Little generalizing there, jtarpa? Nastiness and your own unfairness negate any point you wanted to make.

and the 1% now running for the white house a malignant case of GREED.

my friend patrick was a truck driver for 35 years. retired at 65 died at 66 with stomach cancer. whoever gets this one.

jtarpa - You must earn the right to receive SS when you retire. If you have not earned enough points by paying into SS, you don't get any at retirement.

You are correct. there are several ways that can be used to correct the problems that exist in the system and they are workable but the extreme groups will have to be pushed aside in order to accomplish anything.

Sounds like you need a new career. "If all you get from your job is a paycheck; you've been cheated, you've cheated yourself." (or something like that) -- Mark Twain (I think)

Wow, View. Looks as if if your view is pretty narrow. So you think everyone can or should doing some job that they supposedly can do until they are 90 and make sure they make a lot of money at it? Life doesn't work that way. Not everyone gets advanced degrees or has a cushy job, and instead of rewarding hard work that keeps everyone safe and convenienced it is just too bad if you do something you can't do until you are 70?

Wow, ram... where did you get all that? I encourage people to follow their dream, do something they love, something that they don't feel like they are stuck doing. Robert is clearly unhappy with his work, and that's a shame. What is more shameful is that it appears that he isn't going to do anything about it ... what a waste! (no pun intended) There's nothing wrong with working at a waste treatment plant, unless you think there is, as he clearly does. So I say, start pursuing something that interests you. And I don't think that waste treatment plant operators shovel muck or clean any more toilets than I do. I don't work in a cushy job, and I do plan on doing it until I'm 70, baring unforseen problems. No one owes me a retirement or an extended vacation in my later years (which I am now entering.) I fully accept working as long as I am able, not only as long as I feel like it.

True. But corporate America converted pensions to profit years ago replacing them with something else that was set up as a supplement the 401K. We all know what happened to those in the crash that started the current depression. Interest rate are almost in the negative numbers so it is difficult to save. Wall Street is a casino and unless you are an institutional investor with the best trading software it is rigged against you.

Social Security is the only thing many people have left.

Social Security is NOT an entitlement.

The government could actually save a lot of money by offering a lump sum payout for Social Security like companies have done with pensions, but not only would you lose big time by taking it, but the rest of us would end up supporting you in many cases anyway since odds are very good that you'd be destitute in just a few years.

Lump sums assume what amount one would need to invest at a set rate with withdrawls equal to the monthly checks you'd otherwise receive until death. That's why lump sum payouts seem so low compared to annuities and it's also how Social Security can afford to pay you more than you put in. And, also don't forget that your employers contributed half of what you put in together and that wasn't taxed as part of your income, so that half of the lump sum would be taxable as income at a flat 30% rate with the difference determined when you file your year end tax returns.

Social Security is not bankrupt and can be saved with minor tweaks. Scare tactics for political gain are just wrong, especially when the elderly victims are often totally dependent on that monthly check. The other parts of our government (mostly the military) are seriously overfunded with insufficient revenue which is why the Social Security funds were tapped, but in either case the Social Security Administration would have invested any overage into treasury bonds so the net result of return with interest is the same. Your Social Security is as safe as Treasury bonds and they're still one of the highest rated and safest investment on the planet for return on your money.

The word entitlement isn't a bad word. It simply refers to something someone has a right to, basically. The word has been twisted into something it never meant by those who want to make people who ARE entitled to something look lazy, greedy, or something else negative. I am entitled to my paycheck because I do what the employer has contracted with me to do. I am entitled to what my health insurance coverage says I am because I pay an obscene amount to have that coverage.

So anyone who twists that word into something derogatory is spreading hate and trying to make others looks bad. I have paid into SS and will be entitled to collect benefits when I qualify or become disabled because I have followed the law that said if I am x and/or do x I receive benefits. It's all politics and nastiness to make that word something that it isn't and use it to belittle or dismiss those who might not agree with those who use it that way or might not live as they wish.

Ram; I agree with you 100%; I think that the dictionary would have a different definition than what the Republicans defines the word entitlement. My dictionary says I Quote : the right to receive, demand . The republicans has changed the definition to the privilege to be lazy greedy etc .. When elected I guess they will rewrite the Webster Dictionary. OH YEAH the election in 2016 you will need to show both your photo ID and your 1040tax form to allow you to vote after Romney<Ryan rewrites the contitution.

why would you the working person want to vote for someone who will take the food off your childrens table and put it in his swiss bank account.

Actually he's been busy the whole time and accomplished a lot. He doesn't have a failed record, either, but nice talking points.

texas-

Proof please.

Just because you believe the DNC talking points does not make it true. You evidently have a lot of growing up to do.

Golf anyone?

At Georgetown Steel Romney took $44 Million out of their pension plan knowing full well that was insured by the federal government. That means Romney stole $44 Million from me and you and sent it to his Swiss bank account.

Bain was considered a pioneer in outsourcing. There is a law that gives tax cuts to corporations that export American jobs. The Democrats have tried to repeal that law twice. They were filibustered by the republicons. Twice. How very patriotic...........

Romney has $100,000,000 in an IRA that is capped at $6,000 a year. How is that done?

There was an amnesty given in 2009 for tax cheats. Why does Romney refuse to show his 2009 tax returns? Is he a tax cheater?

Suits have been filed against Romney for misrepresenting the facts in legal documents saying he was not active at Bain Capital after 1999. He was the CEO and sole owner.

Romney lied 533 times in 30 weeks earlier this year.

Romney lied 27 times in 38 minutes during the debate. One of his lies was about that tax break for exporting American jobs.

O and Joe and Big Bird!

I missed the lies, but I'd be willing to read and consider them if you'd care to enumerate them.

Desperate spin on a miserable failure by Obama

The very first one was "I am not promoting a 20% tax cut that will cost 5B to the gov't." I almost fell off my chair when he said that one.

Second " I want a great Education system for the US", Romney has been saying he want the dept. merged with another one or done away with. Definitely a way to promote Education.

> The very first one was "I am not promoting a 20% tax cut that will cost 5B to the gov't." I almost fell off
> my chair when he said that one.

What I heard in the debate was that that was only half of his proposal. The other half was that any tax reduction was offset by reducing deductions to make up the difference. Which deductions would be reduced would be determined by congress, which it obviously must be. Furthermore, he pledged that no tax cuts would be enacted that would add to the deficit. So, the tax cut would only be applied to the extent that offsetting deduction reductions are found. That is his plan that I heard. I know it's convenient to leave out half the plan to suit your argument, but that's not honest. Taking his plan as a whole, I don't see the lie. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but you haven't done it.

> Second " I want a great Education system for the US", Romney has been saying he want the dept.
> merged with another one or done away with. Definitely a way to promote Education.

Clearly the way we have been "promoting" education has not worked. We spend twice as much per student (adjusted for inflation) that we did 30 years ago, but students do no better now. If spending (oops .. I'm mean "investing") more on education actually resulted in measureably significant improved student performance, I'd be all for it. But that has clearly not happened. Something is clearly busted and needs to be changed if things are to improve. If the current bureaucracy has fail to improve things, then it isn't unreasonable to consider going in a different direction. No point in supporting insanity. So again, I don't see the lie. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but again, you haven't done it.

So if that is 2 of the 27 "lies," what are the other 25?

InMy View;Yep blind people can't see. and you sure are blind to facts. All he said was lies so is too many to list.

View: there are not enough deductions to make to off-set that cut, period, not without tax increases. Believe what you want, but this is total smoke up.. If you cannot see the the BS, don't ask us to spell it out for you. And getting rid of a department and making a subset of another is not helping to keep it as a priority!

Clayton, if you will review Rakesh's post, you will note that he specifically sites "27" lies, of which Zannie offers 2. Unfortunately, your post adds nothing to the discussion, no information, no understanding, no perspective and no facts. Indeed, your post is a lie. I seek input from others that can add to my knowledge and understanding. I am willing to be convinced and persuaded. Give me a reasonable, convincing argument, and I will be. I don't even mind conceeding facts, if you would just provide any. It's hard to reason with close-minded people, and I would encourage you to pry yours open just ever so slightly. The problem with so many people on all sides of the issues is the unwillingness to consider and reason even on the level of a seven year old. Our country is dominated by school-yard politics: people identify with a particular team, and then support that team at whatever cost, regardless of the unreasonableness of the teams position. I know it's a stretch, but try to rise above that.

Zannie, the issue is whether Romney was lying or not. He specifically qualified the tax cut on the ability to find offsetting revenue by changing allowable deductions. He also stated that no tax cuts would be enacted that increased the deficit. The 20% reduction is contingent on the other requirements being met. Whether it is BS or not is a presumption on your part and obviously can't be determined until after the fact. In the 2008 campaign, Obama said his campaign would accept federal matching funds (and the limitations that came with it.) Now when he made that statement, he wasn't lying. But later when he reneged on that promise, we could see that it was a lie, but not until he actually did it. In the same way, you can't call his plan a lie or that it won't cost 5T$ a lie if his plan is carried out as specified. If he gets his chance and then doesn't follow through, then you can say it was a lie, but you can't label it as a lie now and it is inappropriately presumptive to say that it is. There are rules to logic, you know.

As far as the department of education, as we know from other examples, merging one department into another usually means changing the name on the building and not much more, other than perhaps some cost savings due to the pooling or resources. Anyway, the same considerations apply. Just because your plan (if you have one) isn't his plan, doesn't mean that he doesn't value education or see it as a priority. I certainly hope you can agree that what we currently are doing is not working and we have to start thinking outside the conventional box.

In My View: Your wish is my command.

Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:

1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

8) “Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.

11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.

12) “I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.” Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant woud significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be “35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending” and as a result “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” “To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues,” the CBO found.

13) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.” Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

15) “Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them.” The Medicare program changes for everyone, even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums.

16) “And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill — Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.” Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach — which does not cap the growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.

17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.” Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

18) “But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.” The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.

19) “And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost.” Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable.

20) “[I]t puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.

21) “Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law.

22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.” Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.

23) “It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.” The Affordable Care Act incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative.

24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.

25) “In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion of the $90 billion “went toward “clean coal,” energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites.”

26) “I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”

27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.” Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger.

Update

Romney has now admitted that number 26 was not true.

No. We libs have been ranting that tea pots are stupid, selfish, arrogant, nasty people. And the obstructionist repukes have only done ONE thing consistently...cash their payroll for doing nothing. (I hope this helps.)

it only helps demonstrate your obvious biases.

Facts are not bias. Do you own a dictionary?

they are only facts in your mind ---- to anyone intelligent, they are only opinions. --- and opinions like that are worthless.

Is your stupidity terminal?

hard to say, but for certain, your greed, and the greed of others like you, is terminal, for this country.

Oh, its Obama's fault that the job numbers are bad, but now its to the TP's credit that they are getting better. This after the TP has passed nothing worth even looking at? People like you are the hypocrites.

The TEA party has been trying to put the brakes on Obama's runaway train of economic failure.

LMAO Tammy, what a joke. The TP are the biggest laziest pieces of (fill in the blank) you could name. They should bill for wasting the country's time and money.

i'll wager most people who agree to that make less than the cap.

So what? Everyone who's in is paying up to the cap anyway.

so.... it's pretty easy to choose a solution that doesn't have any ill-effects on your finances. -------- untrue --- i've never made enough income where the cap came into play.

For God's sake ron, get a clue. Only the wealthy that report self-employment or w-2 earnings would be affected by lifting the cap. I know you're concerned about the welfare of your country club pals, but I have yet to see you come up with an idea of your own. IF IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU WHY DO YOU CARE?

Heaven help us.

i care, on principle ---- i don't have envy of those whose income is higher than mine, and i do not expect those people to subsidize my standard of living. ---- i made my own choices in this life, and i accept full responsibility for those choices. ---- i do not expect a personal bailout. ---------------------- and i have stated my ideas about this long ago ----- raise the retirement age, raise the amount a person pays in, and limit the amount of benefit ( though i believe we already do that ).

Who said bail out? What does this have to do with federal insurance. What a DOLT. Your comments indicate you have the IQ of a lima bean. You just continue these stupid threads about something you know little about and that does not, by your own admission, affect you. You must have no real life. Drop ......................

i'm already drawing social security. ------ i'm not the one asking for no cap on contributions. ----- that is not the solution. ------ your solution is in essence a bailout ---- you are expecting one group of people to subsidize another group --- i disagree with that idea.

well -- I make more than the cap and beleive raising the cap should be part of "tweaks". I didn't need the $200.00 reduction in paying into SS either.. did not make much difference in may saving or spending on things..

fixes need to be a mixture of things...

I ran the numbers too and based on actual and current predicted input into SS - I will "likely" live long enough to take out more than I put into SS. I also ran some reaonable numbers on a "401K" alternative with a "reasonable rate of return" and expected "market fluctations" and do not see that acutally being better than SS in my case. I "like many" other have very ineresting SS input flow over time. I make very little money per year for almost 20 years of my adult life - in school - in graduate and veterinary school - in the military at relatively low "payroll for a long time - so only modest input into SS. I only broke making $50K of SS taxable income in 2000. since 2000 - for most of the last decade I have done really well and income steadily increasing - so in the last 3 years - I have be lucky to have taxable income breaking the 106K cap for a year. so I have been lucky and blessed -- but total input into SS is just under 200K from me and employers over 24ish years -- I have about 6 more to go til 62 and first opportunity for early 22..

I have in the last 12 years done a much better job of saving than I did in my 20's and 30's - early 40's

so I have doubts on most stories where folks have said they would have a million plus in investment if only they could have had and manage their own SS money -- simply do not think this is true for the vast majority

well... if i had put away $100 a week for the 40 or so years i worked, that's about $208,000 ---- and while that's not much money for some people, that is more than enough for me. ----- that is certainly way more than i'll ever draw on social security. even if i live to be 100.

The last 15 years of employment, I beat the cap and my last 2 to 6 paychecks per year increased enough to pay for Christmas and property taxes. That said, I have no problem with eliminating the cap for everyone. We always had enough in savings by the end of the year to pay for Christmas and property taxes, so those final paychecks were just gravy that enabled us to keep our money in savings and investment more.

If an individual is making $1,000,000 a year, I can see where that might be a substantial hit, but someone like that should be able to save and invest plenty anyway. No big loss to anyone if they are even half way intelligent about their finances.

Oblameo's tweaks (please note: unspecified tweaks) scare me more than anything Romney has in mind. If you research Oblameo's past, you will find that the vast majority of his mentors and employers have been card-carrying communists and/or socialists. If he is reelected, you will all get what you deserve.

the rich already subsidize our poor little income. they provide us with old junk cars we can make three years worth of payments on.hand me down clothes.jobs no one is willing take because the wages are so small.(you might even get to clean their golden toilets).

Bob, your bias and nasty and untrue comments negate anything else you say.

Ron, cool if you did put aside 100 a week. Not everyone really can do that. So cool for you.

Ram, what was biased, nasty, and untrue in my post? I state the truth based on what the man has said for 5 years about his future intentions and the fact that many of his mentors and employers are card-carrying communists/socialists. You need to do some research on those mentors and employers and what the term "community organizer" means before you start calling me names.

In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy my retirement that is based on the fruits of my labor and the savings we have managed to accumulate by thrift and denying ourselves a lot of luxuries that others have had along the way who now have very little available for retirement.

I did say raise the cap not eliminate. It went from $106K to $110K for 2012. I think they can switch to a new CPI method and make the 62 early retirement option have a bit less payout to encourage some to work closer to full retirement age or shift this the 63 for those under a given age

Means testing for taxing occurs today and perhaps some tweak there

Medicare taxes are not capped, likely need to be raised some given the cost of health even with some better focused effort sto control cost. They will likely adjust Medicare premiums for those using by income some more this is also a means testing model

I will pay more in Medicare premiums at 65 than my brother as I have considerable more in income in retirement than he will

Ibte I think my SS annual will be in the 20K range. I do plan to draw at 62 and given my male family history and other things have a high probability to live to my mid 80's or so. So even a this modest draw I think I will in the end draw more than I put into the SS system even if you calculate at realistic rate of return. I have made more income in these last 3 years with a little less than 6 to go to 62. So my largest input of money's has not had that much to time to accrue interest and grow

Lots of folks make the most in the later part of their working lives

a

I've seen stupid cut and paste, but this is at the top of the stupid list. Ignorance is bliss. I guess. Semper yourself.

No.

Thats real hope and change.

Romney/Ryan 2012 Hope for a real Change that will actually carry us Forward

mitt twitt & pauly crackers will move us forward alright into poverty,joblessness ,no medical care and all the pain and suffering we cant bear.no food on the childrens table its in willards bank account.pauly crackers is afraid of getting his lilly whites dirty.if you want granny's pension going bye-bye,no medical care,no government college funds for our students future. all american jobs go overseas(romney's outsourcing). the 1% elite will still have their jobs. you middle and poor working class go cry in your b$%^#r.

Carol, I've actually argued with some who state, 'I don't want my kid paying for a program(Social Security) that may not be there for him/her!' I then ask that person...'does your grandparent or parent collect Social Security?' Their anwser is always 'YES!' I then retort, 'WELL I PAID FOR THEM, YOUR KID WILL PAY FOR ME!'

wrong ------ i paid into my social security --- it's MY money. -------- if i am lucky to live long enough to surpass what i paid in, then talk to me about what may have been subsidized. ------------------ what needs to change is the length of time people pay in, and raise retirement age.

Well RONPAUL, I write it again, I know, I know, railroad people.....I'll bet there was somebody in your family who collected Social Security! In any case, you are correct.....'what needs to change is the length of time people pay in, and raise retirement age.' I'll add, GO AFTER ALL THE FRAUD AND WASTE REGARDING SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITIES. RAISE THE PAYROLL DEDUCTION AMOUNT. STOP USING SOCIAL SECURITY AS A PIGGY BANK FOR OTHER PROGRAMS. Here's where I agree with Willard...DISALLOW MILLIONAIRES TO COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY.'

sorry to disappoint you ---- the only relatives i had who weren't railroad, were self-employed, as i have been for over 20 years. ---- and now that i am semi-retired, my daughter and her family are also self-employed. ----- if there's a downside to self-employment, the only savings you have for the future is the investments you make along the way. ---- fortunately, i didn't squander all my earnings. --- i could be better off, but that's my own fault, and i accept responsibility for my own choices ---- i do not expect a bailout from anyone wealthier than i am.

my mom a one and only seamstress paid 18% in taxes set for a small business 250 workers. this set up by the government is not fair.....

The entitlement aspect of these programs is that the majority of people receive from them far more than they pay in to them. And some people who receive from these programs have paid nothing into them. My 90-year-old mother retired due to health problems when she was 56. She has been received Social Security since she was 60. She worked for 35 years, and for the last few years, was working as a charge nurse. Nevertheless, even adjusted for inflation, the amount that she has received from Social Security is considerably more than was paid in. But she receives the benefits because, by virtue of the way the program is set up, she is entitled to do so.

Entitlement is something you have a right to so stop believing the Republicans about not having the right. We are entitled to Social security since we paid into it. Look up the definition in the dictionary . Republicans are so stupid they don't know what the word entitlement means.

Actually, I haven't met too many people (Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc) who don't know what the word entitlement means. Have you conducted surveys on this?

T2q,

And there are others who did not collect anything or little. My mom passed at 58 and my dad at 66. He retired at 65.

No president alone will dictate how SS will be modified; congress will be the ones to hash that out. What the president can do is to get the ball rolling, to address the issue. The sooner the problem is addressed, the less painful the solution will be. Unfortunately, Obama has just twiddled with the issue. We need a president to actively address and push it. Obama has failed, not only on this, but on almost every important economic issue.

Gosh, an active president, who sits down with his cabinet on a regular basis, who meets with congressional reps on a regular basis, who stands tall to address our problems. Wow, what dream compared to a spineless, gutless, apologizing simpering wimp who has no real-world experience and believes that ivory-tower socialist principles that have failed around the world will work here, who cannot see the riots in Spain and Italy and Portugal and Greece because the governments there have continued to borrow to provide ever-increasing handouts to the common people who are now more explosive than a hatful of mercury fulminate over having all their "gimmees" cut.

Does any of that sound familiar, or does nobody read the newspaper or watch the news besides me?

Wow, Bob. You really do have some issues.

Yep Bob Loves watching FALSE NEWS for great reporting sure don't know what extreme teaparty paper he reads for my paper and news on TV should don't have such extreme views . A very uneducated fool indeed

Nope, just looking at the record.

Romney/Ryan 2012 Hope for a real Change that will truly carry us Forward

KC Bobby, sure hope for your sake that you will never rely on SS, Medicare, unemloyment insurance or any other US Government backed program to survive.

so..... you don't believe savings accounts have a potential benefit ?? ------ you don't believe in an idea that would give people more control over their retirement financial situation ?? ---- you would rather people are forced to rely on a social security tax system ?? ---------------------- and yet, the same democrats who would deny a person the ability to control his future, would force that person to purchase medical insurance rather than have a medical savings account. ---- i guess democrats really are not much into saving anything.

So RONPAUL....if less money is going into the system, because money is diverted into 'private accounts,' how does the system survive? BTW, are your parents, or grandparents collecting SOCIAL SECURITY? If they are or were, I paid for them, the young will pay for me!!! I'll tell you what.....they should go after all the fraud and waste involving SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITIES, RAISE THE AGE TO COLLECT, RAISE THE AMOUNT OF PAYROLL DEDUCTION, AND MAYBE, DISALLOW MILLIONAIRES TO COLLECT, and STOP DIVERTING THE MONEY FROM SOCIAL SECURITY TO OTHER 'PROJECTS!' Then there will be money in this valuable fund.

no ---- my parents and grandparents were retired railroad --- that has it's own fund. ------------------ and the only time YOU paid anything toward someone drawing is if that person's checks exceeded the amount he paid in. -------------- the social security system was not designed as a retirement plan --- it was supposed to be a last-chance way to insure people had a little something if something happened to their regular savings. ---- problem is, people have gotten lazy about saving for retirement.

Lazy, well I don't know about that. All I do know, is I paid into this system for over 40 years,and I certainly don't call that an entitlement. I'm certain, somebody in your family, collected SOCIAL SECURITY, they didn't all get those nepotistic rail job jobs. You can call people lazy, each person is different, with a different set of problems. If they did invest in the market, especially in recent years, they're money did rather poorly. Your comment, 'and the only time YOU paid anything toward someone drawing is if that person's checks exceeded the amount he paid in.' So, in essence, your stating the money I put into the system, is all mine, and I should certainly get it back. OK I'll buy that too!

stock market is for suckers ---- wouldn't touch it with my money ---- there are much better avenues of investment. ----- i am semi-retired, and have owned my business for over 20 years. ---------------- and yes, you should get back what you paid in. ---- the good thing about a savings plan independent of the social security system, is that the money in that plan is yours, and if you die before 70, for instance, that money goes to your family, not the govt.

TOO late for me RONPAUL, as I'm nearly 60. I'm also recently retired, having worked over 40 years, and over 32 in my main field of work to get my pension. There is no more money that I would be able to 'invest' in Social Security, that's it!

well.... you sound like you're close to my age --- i'm only 63. ----- it's ironic how, by the time we reach our ages, that only then do we realize the value of planning for our older years. ---- as for me, i always though i had plenty of time to worry about that. --- then my kids grew up, had kids of their own, and suddenly i'm not young anymore.

and, btw, my name is ronpal, not ron paul.

ronpal...LOL......Sorry, and I thought you were a Paulista....HENCE 'RONPAUL'.......glasses needed....lol........planning???....I just recently realized I can't play professional baseball...too old!!!...lol.....

i hear ya ---- took up golf a few years back and wish i had started years ago --- now i'm probably going to have to give up golf because of arthritis in my hands.

Ron, it kind of s-cks getting old....just don't like the alternative....and I hear you about the arthritis....You take good care, my friend....