To those demanding an absolute ban on consideration of any changes to SS and Medicare...

[brooklynite]

...this year I will be receiving a promotion and a salary increase of about $25,000. Setting aside the income tax situation (I'm under the $250,000 cap, so presumably my taxes won't rise), am I to understand that you feel I shouldn't pay a penny more in FICA payments then I do now?

[limpyhobbler]

1. Most of us support raising the cap. We reject benefit cuts.

[elleng]

3. So some 'changes' are OK; I agree,

and I'll affirm that nothing should be off the table.

[limpyhobbler]

14. I disagree. Benefit cuts should be off the table.

I agree with the person who said this OP is pointless.

[elleng]

2. Good point.

[sabrina 1]

5. It's not a good point. SS has nothing to do with the Deficit, yet they have attempted

to force that lie on the public in order to privatize SS funds. The issue raised by the OP has zero to do with why people are opposed to the Grand Bargain.

[ProudProgressiveNow]

9. +1000 nt

[HiPointDem]

10. +1. the op is pointless.

[HereSince1628]

15. Exactly, there is no reason other than 'conservative' values to cut SS.

[sabrina 1]

4. Tying SS to the Deficit, pretending it had anything to do with the Deficit is

the problem. SS had nothing to do with the deficit and should not be mentioned at all in any discussion of reducing the Deficit.

That lie needs to be debunked as it is an excuse to try to privatize the SS fund.

[brush]

13. Exactly

SS is a paid benefit that is funded (and will send full benefits to seniors) until 2037 and does not add to the deficit in any way because, as I said, its paid for with money withheld from paychecks. The income cap can be adjusted up as was done in the 80s, maybe early 90s, that will fund it for 75 more years. I'm not sure what the poster of the OP is trying to do but it sounds that if the cap was raised he would not miss the few additional dollars withheld from his check. It's a great program that has worked well since President Roosevelt instituted it and the repugs need to keep their hands off the huge pile of money if represents, and that them and their Wall Street masters are salivating over. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it needs shoring up, adjust the cap up a tad.

[MotherPetrie]

6. Here's what I ask myself...

If BUSH were president, would I support it or be against it?

And whatever answer I come up with, is the answer I apply to the current administration.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Assuming that you're already over the cap, you should not pay more.

Once we start fiddling with Social Security in any way, shape or form, there will be other dramatic changes such as the 22% cut in benefits that the President's commission recommended, and seniors will be clusterfucked.

I certainly support raising taxes on those who are doing pretty well (I'm over the cap too), but in this climate of bipartisan salivation over the $2.6 trillion in the Trust Fund, touching Social Security in any way will turn into a disaster.

Social Security itself is in very fine shape. The projections that it will only pay 80% of promised benefits starting 25 years from now are based on cooked numbers, they assumes that the economy will stay as bad as it is today forever. If the economy recovers even partially, then it will pay 100% for at least as far into the future as has been modeled (75 years).

[forestpath]

12. +1

[HiPointDem]

8. what? everyone pays the same rate up to $110k. so not sure what you're talking about.

[forestpath]

11. Huh? It is not hurting BENEFITS that is the issue.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

16. Most are clear when posting... it's CUTS we oppose.

"Changes" I'm open to, like RAISING THE CAP.

[closeupready]

17. People here oppose weakening SS; we support strengthening it,

however, meaning we support lifting the income cap.