John Kasich to seniors who want to keep their Social Security: “get over it”

[WhiteTara]

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/john-kasich-to-seniors-who-want-to-keep-their-social-security-get-over-it/22786/comment-page-1/#comment-40620

Even as Ohio governor John Kasich has been quietly hanging around the five percent mark in republican primary polls, some observers have suggested he may be the last one standing due to the fact that he comes off like a reasonable moderate in the debates while being one of the few 2016 GOP candidates who isn’t regularly spewing insults at various groups of Americans. But Kasich may have stepped in it this week when he told a concerned senior citizen that he planned to cut Social Security benefits and that seniors should simply “get over it.”


Just a reminder of what we are really fighting against.

[Kalidurga]

1. I guess he didn't pay attention to Paul Ryan tanking Mittens with those kind of remarks.

[WhiteTara]

2. This is still who our "enemy" is

and still their plan. I just thought we needed a reminder of the real battle.

[FreakinDJ]

4. Get over it - its Hillary's plan too

[Hiraeth]

13. Yes. Bernie is the only one, as I know of, who doesn't want to mess with SS.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Yep. Everyone else is just dangerous to the little guy.

[Hiraeth]

21. I wish he would say it more often and more emphatically. I think this alone will win it for him.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. It would certainly help with older voters!

[Hiraeth]

28. Isn't that the largest voting bloc? I could be wrong. I think it surpasses all other demographics.

[SheilaT]

50. No. Because older people die off at a faster

rate than younger people, and it depends on where you chose to draw the lines.

According to a quick look at the Census Bureau website there are about 40m people in this country 65 and older. 49m age 62 and over.

Meanwhile, there are 113m between the ages of 18 and 44, which includes both Millennials and GenXers. Only 31m are under age 24, so if you're comparing 18-24 year olds to 65 plus, than yes, the older group outnumbers the younger. And as we know, older people are more likely to vote.

But the Boomers are definitely beginning to fade from the landscape

Here's a link to where I pulled the numbers from: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf and scroll down to page 2.

[Hiraeth]

54. For this election cycle? Older voters are the largest demographic. This election. How many voters

do you think will die between now and election day?

[SheilaT]

57. I haven't a clue how many older voters will die off between now and election day,

and don't feel like googling it, but I'm sure putting in "How many people over the age of 65 die every day" will get you the answer.

Here's the thing: There are more than three as many people in this country between the ages of 18 and 44 as over age 65. And again, the old ones are dying off faster.

This is in the context of a thread about protecting Social Security, and the young voters need to understand how important it is to protect SS for them.

I'm 67, and when I was 25 there were people my age saying that SS wouldn't be there when we get old. I argued then, and I argue now that you absolutely cannot buy into that nonsense. Or, to put it another way, for at least half of the time SS has been with us, people have been working on convincing us that it's not here to stay. Or that it should be privatized because people could do better by investing in the stock market by themselves. Which anyone with a 401k knows isn't true.

The other thing people do not understand is that SS is a pay as you go scheme. The money any of us put into it is not our own personal amount, waiting to be returned to us, but has been used all along to pay benefits to those already collecting.

In any case, we cannot be underestimating the younger block of voters.

[Hiraeth]

68. People who will be eligible to draw SS within the next 4-8 years (presidential cycle) should pay

very close attention to how they cast their vote.

[brett_jv]

60. Kinda hard to say that without stipulating how you're breaking down age groups ...

At what age does 'older voters' begin? What are the dividing lines in terms of age for all the other demographics?

I mean, for sure, if you break things up like 18-27, 28-37, 38-47, 48-57, 58 and above ... then YEAH, 'older' voters are indeed probably the largest voting demo.

[Hiraeth]

69. People who will be eligible to draw SS within the next 4-8 years (presidential cycle) should pay

very close attention to how they cast their vote.

[klook]

115. Many voters in their 30s and 40s

have parents who depend on Social Security, or will very soon. Many of them have the presence of mind (and heart) to want their parents to get the SS benefits they've earned, even if the younger voters expect to get screwed out of it themselves.

Personally speaking, I want my damned Social Security, which I've been working for all my life -- and I want my kids, nieces and nephews, and every other American who's paid into Social Security to get their hard-earned benefits.

[Ferd Berfel]

33. Including Hillary

BTW Bernie does, in fact, want to mess with SS - to EXPAND IT!

[rhett o rick]

101. Really, really, why that S S S Socialist.

[cui bono]

65. and who won't compromise on a woman's right to choose

Hillary is not as good a feminist as Bernie.

.

[Glamrock]

92. Not true.

Bernie wants to expandexpand Social Security....and I'm all for it.

[Hiraeth]

102. I stand corrected. Expand = mess.

[Dustlawyer]

123. OH, he wants to mess with it alright! He wants to INCREASE IT!!!

[Hiraeth]

124. Shame on him!! (see reply #102 above))

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. If Hillary's fans really want to win,

they should find a better candidate.

[LeFleur1]

19. Does it Give 'You People'

a big kick to lie like that. Shameful.

[Hiraeth]

22. ?

[Politicalboi]

76. Hillary is going to cut it

It's not shameful, but the truth. Get over it. Hillary lies about EVERYTHING.

[Hoyt]

30. Could you provide a link indicating Clinton plans to cut Social Security?

[2naSalit]

34. +1

[NJCher]

44. Google this

On DU or on the web. It was posted here about a week ago. One article was about Obama and Bill Clinton's plan for SS, which was to change it, and not for our benefit.

There was another article posted along with that. If you can find that post, it will get you started.


Cher

[sulphurdunn]

48. She has stated

that she will definitely not cut social security benefits. She has definitely stated through her campaign spinners that she has not ruled out such cuts. Such statements come from spending so much time with hedge fund managers, I suppose. There are a reasons why so many people mistrust her.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/02/05/huff-post-hillary-clinton-refuses-rule-out-any-and-all-benefit-cuts-social

[Hoyt]

49. I think it is foolish for any politician to say they would never do something. She's made it clear

that she will increase SS for spouses who stayed home, etc. But, if the economy got bad enough, I could see the need to consider cutting SS -- don't expect it to happen, and it would adversely impact me directly, and it would be bad. But, things could get bad enough somewhere down the road. Personally, they can take every penny of my SS if they provide me housing, food, transportation, healthcare, etc. In fact, if I ever end up in a nursing home, that is exactly what happens. So yes, there are scenarios where I can see the unthinkable would be necessary or the right thing to do. I don't expect those things to happen, but she's being honest about our future under certain circumstances.

I feel safer with someone like Clinton steering the economy, than any of the other candidates. As far as hedge fund managers go, Alan Grayson owns a hedge fund and he endorses Sanders.

[sulphurdunn]

53. Sanders showed Alan the error of his ways.

If things get bad enough to require SS cuts for the good of the country, it should only be after the suffering has worked its way down from the top rather than up from the bottom.

[Politicalboi]

77. 100%

The top must go first. They've been under taxed now for decades.

[AdHocSolver]

81. The only real way to save Social Security is to bring currently outsourced jobs back to the U.S.

Working Americans pay Social Security taxes. Workers in China do not pay Social Security taxes, Workers in India do not, workers in Indonesia do not, workers in Malaysia do not.

There is a valid way to sustain Social Security far into the future. It is called raising revenue by bringing jobs, especially manufacturing jobs, back to the U.S.

Another Clinton promoted NAFTA which started the drain of American jobs to low-wage countries, promoted and signed off on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which enabled Wall Street and the banks to rip off the middle class, "reformed" welfare, and brought the U.S. to the brink of economic collapse.

Draining Social Security is NEVER the "right" thing to do. It is totally unnecessary. It only favors the wealthiest of the one percent.

Austerity is a policy for economic disaster. Instead of taking money out of Social Security to give more tax breaks to the one percent, close the tax loopholes and use that money to give jobs to Americans to rebuild infrastructure, provide low cost education to Americans to be able to do the work that is available when the jobs created are kept in the U.S., and provide health care to all at affordable prices.

If Clinton even suggests reducing Social Security benefits as a possible policy, it shows, at best, her total lack of understanding of how economies work.

[usaf-vet]

84. Raise the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes

Currently capped at $118,000. Which means U.S. Senators and Representative don't pay SS taxes on any of their salary above $118k . That means nearly $60,000 / yr is free of SS tax. Raise the cap to $1,000,000 or $10,000,000 or $100,000,000. Whatever it takes to "save" Social Security.

[Hoyt]

90. Unless you say benefits are frozen, increasing the cap is only a partial solution. And

we need that 13% tax for other things.l a ke healthcare, education, welfare, etc.

[Hoyt]

89. The days of a Nationalistic economy are over. We better learn to

live in the global economy.

[AdHocSolver]

98. The global economy is as real as the tooth fairy.

The term "global economy" was coined by the corporate elite to imply that there is competition among international businesses for the production and distribution of goods.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

By means of mergers and acquisitions, the largest corporations have reduced the "competition" to a shadow of what it used to be 40 to 50 years ago.

The bottom line: Competition has largely been eliminated and the largest corporations control all major national economies by effective control of national and international trade.

The alternative to reining in corporate domination of economies by competition was through government regulation of business.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act removed effective regulation of banking and Wall Street, which led to the fraud and meltdown of the U.S. economy.

The passage of NAFTA led to effective deregulation of trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico with regard especially to environment and labor issues. This removes government influence on economic issues and gives enormous power to corporations

The proposed TPP trade agreement would eliminate government influence and regulatory abilities on trade with Asia, and has correctly been referred to as NAFTA on steroids.

[Hoyt]

113. Yeah, let's trade amog ourselves working for, and buying from, small businesses. See how we

like that, not to mention the rest of the world that deserves a share.

[AdHocSolver]

114. Having numerous small to medium size businesses rather than one huge mega-corporation...

...provides an economy with more jobs for more people than one large mega-corporation, and spreads the wealth to more people.

Such an economy also provides more upward mobility to workers, and allows workers to negotiate better pay and working conditions, or they can move to another company for a better opportunity. You know, like it used to be in this country before the jobs were outsourced.

In other words, it forces companies to be competitive as to pay and benefits in hiring workers, like they used to be before outsourcing closed hundreds of thousands of small to medium size businesses.

Moreover, the workers in Vietnam who earn a couple of dollars a day manufacturing shirts in Vietnam that sell for $35.00 a piece in the U.S. are not sharing in the business boom.

On the contrary, if the Vietnamese sweatshops wanted to sell their inventory, and couldn't sell their entire output to U.S. mega-stores, they would be forced to raise wages in their own countries so that their own people could afford to buy what they manufactured. That would grow their middle class to higher wage levels so that they would be able to afford to buy products made in the U.S.

[FreakinDJ]

63. Need to ask Hillary how she is going to "Fund" her Social Security Plan

But what she calls “false innuendos” reflect concerns based on her own past statements as well as those of her husband while he was president and she was first lady.

When she was running for president in 2008, she endorsed in at least three debates the idea of a bipartisan commission in which she would have few red lines.

In a September 2007 MSNBC debate, Clinton held up the 1983 bipartisan deal between President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill as a model for how Social Security’s long-term solvency problems needed to be addressed. That was the deal that gave us the increase in the retirement age from 65 to 66 now and 67 by 2027, as well as an increase in the payroll tax.

She also put a heavy emphasis on “fiscal responsibility.” Specifically responding to a question of whether she would support lifting the cap that now exempts earned income above about $118,000 from Social Security payroll taxes, Clinton said, “Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.”


“The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry That Defined a Generation,” both Clinton and Gingrich “were closer than anyone realized” to a deal that would have radically changed Social Security as we know it. “They both believed that any effort to update Social Security would require government to incorporate some measure of choice, and that meant some form of privately managed account,” he wrote. “… In the House, Clinton hoped to bypass the party’s liberal leadership and reassemble the coalition of suburban “New Democrats,” who tended to be socially liberal but fiscally conservative, and “Blue Dogs,” largely rural, southern conservative Democrats, who passed the balanced budget bill. …. Just weeks before the State of the Union address, the administration started signaling that it would support some form of privatization. ‘Given that we have to work with the Republicans, it’s hard to see a plan passing without some individual account piece,’ a Clinton adviser told Business Week.”


https://ourfuture.org/20160209/why-hillary-clintons-five-words-on-social-security-matter

[eridani]

78. It was the Pete Petersen dogwhistle in the first debate that tipped me off

Straight from the Catfood Commission of 2010. Something to the effect of we need to consider the poorest seniors. That was exactly what they said in 2010, and what it means is that we will cut Social Security, and then replace the money lost to the cuts for those in the bottom quintile.

[Chef Eric]

126. Some of us have calibrated bullshit detectors.

George Bush once said that the U.S. had "no plans" to invade Iraq. We all know how that turned out.

When the Hillary Clinton campaign said that she had "no plans" to cut Social Security, many of us started wondering why the Clinton campaign would use such strange, Bush-esque terms.

I find it particularly troubling that Clinton has such close ties to Ed Rendell, a Democrat-in-name-only who for several years has been actively collaborating with Republican Alan Simpson to cut Social Security.

[Live and Learn]

46. +10,000 nt

[WhiteTara]

52. link please

[NCjack]

61. How do we get over it? Wages are too low. Healthcare is insufficient. Starvation and suicide? Do

tell me that cutting taxes for the rich is the answer. The 1% have store that cash in off-shore banks.

[Hortensis]

83. I rate this pants on fire, FreakinDJ.

HRC has discussed raising the age of eligibility in future but has pledged not to cut benefits.

But back to this hard-right ass:

"He initially said young people would see "a lot" lower benefit, before correcting himself to say perhaps not "a lot," but some amount."

In fact, the Kochs and others Kasich has worked with for decades intend to eventually destroy Social Security, preferably by repeal or reinterpreting the Constitution to make it unconstitutional.

BTW, IMO you really have a nerve pretending moderate progressive liberal Hillary supports the same things these ultra-far-right conservatives do. If done cynically, it's inexcusable, if done ignorantly, it is also inexcusable.

[noiretextatique]

109. Did you see the post about Bill and Gingrich?

And how close they came to cutting social security? I consider Hillary a center rightie, with a tinge of moderate on social issues. She is a fan of the grand bargain, and has already offered up a possible constitutional ban on late-term abortions.

[Hortensis]

121. Kaisich's campaign manager's husband

had to resign after running Ohio's charter school system into the ground as a profit center for business to milk dry. Many schools earned F's. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

At this point, it’s nearly impossible to trust anything the Ohio Department of Education has to say on charter school performance, the subject of so much chicanery last year that in November the federal government froze a giant $71 million charter school expansion grant to Ohio.

And it just gets worse. The latest news? A Jan. 29 letter from ODE to federal regulators sent in an attempt to win back the grant reveals that Ohio has nearly 10 times as many failing charter schools as it first reported to the U.S. Department of Education in its 2015 charter-school-expansion grant application.

Why would Kasich be so close to such people? For one thing, he believes in charter schools as a step to privatizing education. At least. His very long-time associate in ALEC, Charles Koch, intends to do away with compulsory education laws in America altogether, following that with elimination of all funding for public education.

But don't wait for Kaisich to admit to this -- he's running as a moderate.

[noiretextatique]

138. Kasich is a religious nut

He only appears moderate because of the lunatics he's running against.

[Hortensis]

140. Yes, BUT he is also telling people he is moderate.

That's his position -- the moderate conservative option. Not only that, but over the past few years he has taken publicly moderate positions that he can point to delude voters into believing him. And they do. So far...

[Kalidurga]

71. I always thought Kasich was the most dangerous

Because he is so unremarkable in the way he speaks and he seems sane.

[WhiteTara]

72. You are so right. He's banal evil. nt

[Punkingal]

91. Yes he is...

I remember what a prick he was when he was in Congress. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[True Earthling]

94. OP is wrong - Kasich to cut SS for high income seniors only

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7734559

[rockfordfile]

108. Kasich is a right wing scumbag

[True Earthling]

93. OP is totally misleading... Kasich's plan is to cut SS benefits for HIGH INCOME seniors only

Article linked by OP makes it sound like Kasich wants to cut SS for ALL recipients...not true...

Kasich wants to trim benefits for high-income Social Security recipients

http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2015/12/17122015---kasich-des-moines-register.html

John Kasich is preparing a Social Security revamp that would trim benefits for high-income seniors and lower the starting level of benefits.

The Ohio governor sketched the broad outline of a plan he indicated was in its final stages during an hour-long meeting today with the Des Moines Register editorial board. The group’s endorsement is highly coveted by presidential candidates competing in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses.

“What you’re going to have to do is that high-income seniors are going to get less. It would have to happen very soon,” Kasich told the journalists in a meeting that was webcast live.
That means Americans earning more than an as-yet undecided amount would have their benefits scaled back.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/republican-debate-transcript-full-text/index.html

“If you’ve had wealth throughout your lifetime, when the time comes to be on Social Security, you’ll still get it. It will just simply be less. And for those people who depend on that Social Security, they’ll get their full benefit. That’s the way it will work. And we don’t have to monkey around with the retirement age.”

[happyslug]

103. And that was treated as a threat to Social Security by FDR.

FDR, pointed out that unless the rich and middle class get the benefit the benefit will be under funded. Thus FDR opposed any income cap, for it would lead to Social Security being underfund. FDR pointed out that welfare is underfunded because the rich and middle class did not see themselves ever using that benefit.

That is the reason the fight has always been over the issue of capping the benefit. Everyone knows that if Social Security is income based the support for Social Security will decline to the support welfare has , I.e. no support. That lack of support will permit Congress to merging Social Security into welfare without any increase in money for welfare and Social Security taxes being eliminated. Thus killing Social Security.

FDR knew the above and so do most politican on both side of the issue. Thus this is were the war to kill and save Social Security is being fought.

[True Earthling]

106. Under Kasich's plan high income seniors would receive less SS.. it would not go to zero

He wants to means test benefits. I have no issue with that. I doubt that such a plan would lose support. The only ones who might not like it are the 1%...but it depends on Kasich's definition of "high income".

[happyslug]

111. That is still the first step to kill Social Security.

Means testing is the test for welfare. If you mean test Social Security you also start on the short road to make Social Security nothing but welfare. Welfare has no support among the middle class for they see it as money going to people who do not want to work. FDR and the politicans of his time period and today know that if you mean test Social Security it losses most of the support it needs from the middle class. Without that support Social Security becomes another welfare program that the middle class will refuse to pay taxes for.

Thus ANY means test will lead to merging Social Security into welfare, workout any increase in welfare funding and Social Security taxes being eliminated.

This is like the old story on the nose of the Camel in the tent. Next it is the whole Camel inside the tent.

[True Earthling]

134. SS benefits are already means tested..higher wages subject to SS tax are replaced at a lower rate

then benefits are subject to a progressive tax based on income...

“Why Aren’t Social Security and Medicare Means Tested?”

https://www.ced.org/blog/entry/why-arent-social-security-and-medicare-means-tested

But to begin, some backup for the (to some) surprising assertion. The notion that Social Security (Medicare discussion to follow) is not means tested flows from a fairly simple view of the program’s cash benefits. Retirees who earned comparatively higher wages receive higher benefits than those who earned lower wages, the reasoning would go, therefore the program cannot possibly be means tested. Furthermore, the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax that funds the program is capped – and therefore the tax is regressive, and so the overall program must be pro-rich and anti-poor.

But as some understand, that simple reasoning misses two key aspects of the program’s operations. First, the program’s benefit formula favors lower-wage workers. Benefit amounts are based on the lifetime earnings history. The first dollars of a worker’s wages are replaced at a 90 percent rate. Earnings in a second bracket (mechanically like an income-tax-rate bracket) are replaced at a 32 percent rate. And any earnings above that level are replaced at only a 15 percent rate. Thus, although higher-wage workers receive more dollars in absolute terms, they receive less back in Social Security benefits per dollar of tax paid over their lifetimes. At the extremes, the difference in the implicit rate of return on those contributions is enormous.

The second key program feature is that a fraction of Social Security benefits can be subject to income taxation, on a progressive basis – and then the income tax that applies to those included benefits itself is progressive. Once a beneficiary’s total income (including half of Social Security benefits) exceeds $25,000 ($32,000 for a married couple), the first dollar of benefits begins to be taxable, up to inclusion of one-half of benefits. And once income (including half of Social Security benefits) exceeds $34,000 ($44,000 for a married couple) the portion of benefits included in taxable income begins to rise further, up to a maximum inclusion of 85 percent of benefits. This provision is designed to have no effect on the low-income elderly, while gradually increasing its impact as total incomes rise.

The Social Security Administration estimates that the average beneficiary in 2013 received an annual benefit of $15,528. If that person had no other income, he or she would owe no income tax – on Social Security benefits or anything else (although that person certainly would not enjoy a luxurious lifestyle based on that benefit). As incomes from whatever source rise above the $25,000 threshold noted above, benefits progressively become subject to tax, at income tax rates that start at 10 percent and rise according to the total amount of taxable income. Tax is calculated after a $3,900 personal exemption and a $7,600 standard deduction (for single persons of age 65 or older). Thus, a beneficiary with a taxable income of $11,500 (from taxable Social Security benefits or any other source) would owe no income tax, with tax beginning to accumulate above that level only at the bottom-bracket 10 percent rate.

The theoretical maximum annual benefit in 2013, for a lifelong maximum wage earner retiring at the full eligibility age, was $30,396. If that person also received other income of roughly $40,000, the full 85 percent of that person’s benefit would be subject to income taxation. At the absolute upper end of the scale, a beneficiary in the highest income tax rate bracket with 85 percent of benefits subject to tax would pay tax on benefits at the margin at a rate equal to about 34 percent (that is, 85 percent of the 39.6 percent top-bracket tax rate). And to get into that top income tax rate bracket, that taxpayer would need to have a taxable income, after the personal exemption and any standard or itemized deductions, of over $400,000.

In other words, the income tax due on Social Security benefits is quite progressive, with benefits for probably most of the elderly not subject to tax at all, but with more than a third of benefits paid back in income tax by the most well-off. Taking into account the lower benefit-formula conversion rates that apply to high-wage retirees, their after-tax returns on their lifetimes of payroll tax contributions, measured in investment terms, would be quite modest – if not in some instances negative (further reflections on that fact later). So Social Security is means tested in reality, if not in name.

[happyslug]

137. Actually the rate was set by FDR

FDR set up Social Security with the concept to help lower income earners. Thus the tendency to favor lower income people, but that only apply to the people on the bottom end, it is NOT for the vast majority of people on Social Security. It is not a true means test, but a favor toward the lower end. 90% of the people are above the group getting that "extra" money.

That 90% of Social Security recipients income is based on how much each person paid into Social Security. It is the bottom 10% that get some extra money, not much more than they paid into Social Security but a little bit. The other 90% of recipients get income based on what they earned in income.

As to income tax that was another "improvement" by Reagan, prior to Reagan all Social Security was income tax free based on a 1949 Supreme Court decision. Reagan made the change that made Social Security taxable. It was a long battle, but part of the package that increased the retirement age to 67, increase Social Security taxes (that produced the huge overpayment into Social Security that started under Reagan), and drop the age of survivors benefits from age 22 to todays age 18.

That was the first attempt to cut Social Security, it was suppose to be the last cut, but as we see it was not.

[liberal_at_heart]

119. Tell that to my husband's friend who children just lost their SSI. Democrats are just as

dangerous to SS as the Republicans are. They are just more sneaky about it. They spend trillions on war, give tax breaks to corporations, refuse to talk about tax increases and then cave to cuts to social services when there isn't enough tax revenue for social services.

[malaise]

8. Send him this

[DamnYankeeInHouston]

59. Wow.

[tk2kewl]

3. There's is only one candidate for president who will not cut SS

[ghostsinthemachine]

25. And who might that be? He asks...

Knowing the answer already....

[NCjack]

55. It's Bernie! Let's send him another donation now. If he is not elected, many of us will be living

4 families in a house for 1. That's because CEOs, banksters, and capitalists will need new raises so they can "create" more jobs.

[Koinos]

79. Will senior citizens' taxes go up to pay for "free college"?

Just asking. I could use a link to his proposal and its impact on pensions and taxes for seniors.

[NCjack]

80. Not as much as failing to educate these kids. /nt

[Koinos]

82. You didn't answer my question.

But I didn't expect you to be specific.

We have to keep all people in mind, not just college-age persons.

How about lowering the interest rate on existing student loans? Or, radically, how about forgiving student loans?

How about not taxing aging parents who have already given their all financially and have sacrificed their retirement savings to help their own children get through college?

Finally, does everyone have the right disposition and ability to attend college?

Does every young person go to college in Europe? Or just the brightest and best?

How about the bigger picture?

[NCjack]

86. I don't have numbers. Yes, all (including senior citizens) will pay taxes

for college education of others. All will pay taxes for special needs (including senior citizens). Not sure how you and I got into a discussion of who is appropriate for college. My feeling is that tradecraft should provide a comfortable standard of living. Trade schools should be available for those who can't afford them. And my experience is that as a scientist, my cousins who are in the trades over their lives matched my lifetime earnings. Plus, they had a lot of time for family, fishing, vacations that I didn't have because of extra work and continuing education requirements. Europe appears to me puts people on a track between academics and tradecraft too quickly, especially because learning appears to accelerate and peak in the early 20s for most. They lose some smart, driven people who matured too late. And, they lost some on the academic track who were put on it too quickly. If I had been born in Europe, I would have been shunted to a tradecraft and disappointed my whole life for missing a career in science -- which I am deeply grateful to the State of Texas for providing a high school system that gave my an extra year to show my stuff and the University of Texas for an almost free education. Almost free because I was able to work as a laborer during the summer to pay most of my way. If my parents and uncles had not provided gifts, it would have taken 20% longer to get through debt free. In Texas, the Republicans have increased costs such that my path would not work today. The bigger picture: It's not what most of us want to hear. So, here is the sleeping time bomb. USA needs a population policy that is in sync with sustainable resources. We are currently overpopulated. Tax policy is not going to save us.

[Koinos]

96. Thank you.

I enjoyed listening to your story and I appreciate your zeal in attaining your goals.

In Europe, some liberal arts courses are taken in secondary school. That helps to prepare young people with critical thinking skills and knowledge of history, civics, and culture. Consequently, some who attend trade schools have already learned more about American history than many Americans know even after college.

Truthfully though, I and many seniors like myself cannot afford any more taxes. We are barely making it right now. Interest paid on paltry savings is almost zero. Social security has had few cost of living increases. Medicare premiums and deductibles go up every year. Housing costs, for those who do not own free and clear, are growing out of reach. I won't even talk about food and utilities.

I think we need affordable college, not free college. And we need to help those who are saddled with life-long student debt. You have probably read in the news how this or that senior is having student loan payments taken out of his or her social security, as meager as it might be.

In the event that free college is adopted, it might also help to penalize students who squander their "free education" by dropping out or failing to earn acceptable grades in their studies. Not everyone who attends college is serious about college. You were. That is obvious from your account. But I think that unproductive students should be required to repay the money they have wasted, especially if seniors who have given their all for their own children are compelled to pay once again by doing without necessities.

Candidates who write off the elderly and cater only to young people, are not doing themselves or the people they intend to serve any good.

[happyslug]

105. Actually two, Trump has said he supports Social Security.

That is one of the reason Trump has the support he does have AND the opposition from the Republican elite.

[zalinda]

5. And about 8% of Democrats crossed over

and voted for Kasich in Ohio. Go figure.

Z

[WhiteTara]

6. Compared to the rest, he almost sounds sane

and it hides his evil nature.

[jpak]

7. K&R

Kasich can go fuck himself

yup

[AxionExcel]

9. Another Repube blurting out the reality of the true Repube agenda

[NCjack]

56. Capt. John Kasich, US Tea Party, is especially mean to weak defenseless. If he gets power over you,

he will create and use secular laws to knock you over and step on your neck until you submit to his beliefs. Killing SS, Medicare, and ObamaCare is in his plan.

[True Earthling]

95. Kasich's plan is to cut SS only on HIGH INCOME seniors

http://takeastand.aarp.org/candidate/john-kasich/

I have a plan to fix it that doesn't even require raising the retirement age. If you've had wealth throughout your lifetime, when the time comes to be on Social Security, you'll still get it. It will just simply be less. And for those people who depend on that Social Security, they'll get their full benefit. That's the way it will work. And we don't have to monkey around with the retirement age. And how do I know that? I've done all this before. This is not a theory. Do you have to take on entitlement programs to balance a budget? Yes. It doesn't mean you have to cut them. It means you need to innovate them, the way we do things in the 21st Century.

[happyslug]

107. See my comment below, that will be the kiss of death of Social Security.

More details below but Welfare has almost no support, while Social Security has massive support is do to the fact the middle class do not see themselves getting on Welfare, but do expect to get Social Security. Thus the middle class want Social Security fully funded, but say they do not want their taxes going to people on welfare.

Thus the fight is over how to destroy or maintain middle class support for Social Security. The right wants Social Security to become more welfare in nature and thus kill the middle glass class support for Social Security.

[LarryNM]

117. Just Another Disastrous Means Tested Approach

turning Social Security into another welfare program with all the problems that creates.

[jtuck004]

10. "their Social Security" Trying to steal something someone has already worked for.n/t

[Shoulders of Giants]

11. Instead of telling seniors to "get over it" we could raise the income cap.

Simple solution, but that would cost rich people money, so it won't happen.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. Kasich, sane in comparison to the

others.

But every bit as bad, policy-wise.

[Gene Debs]

15. If seniors can get over it, Kasich should be able to get over having his pension taken away, right?

[LarryNM]

118. +1,000 n/t

[MisterP]

16. fortunately there's one candidate who stands up for Social Security

the other choices are "do we work until we're 70 and sell it to Blackrock" or "do we work until we're 71 and sell it to Bain"

[maindawg]

17. Kasic has been at war with poor people

His entire career He also proposed to make people on medicare pay a premium. He hates unions and believes that 7 dollars an hour is a living wage. He's is also a Dominionist as are Cruz and Rubio. While Mitt is a morman. These assclowns are determined to get a fundamentalist into our executive office so they can make the church a part of our government. What better way to keep the masses under control than the church?

[2naSalit]

36. Yup.

A person I used to know who lived in the Persian Gulf countries for many years while her husband built the refineries in that region told me, "If you want to gain absolute control over a large population in a hurry, start a religion."

[zentrum]

18. Don't forget—Obama said

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)

…that he'd prefer Trump over Cruz. That Cruz was even more dangerous.

I know this post is about Kasich—but the same principle may apply. With Trump, you can really see the monster coming, whereas with these "reasonable" Repubs, the knife can go in unnoticed.

[hopemountain]

32. yes, they present the calmer exterior

to cover the diabolic ulterior motive. this comes from years of denial to break glean the human character of any emotion or compassionate thoughts. only anger, fist pumping, and finger wagging are allowed.

[Cryptoad]

23. Wow,,,,,,

18 post and yet none of the 4th way neos have chimed in on how its all HRC fault!
Did I awake in a time warp?

[2naSalit]

37. Yes, and now

you can never go back to sleep or they will return!

[zentrum]

66. Funny you should subvert

……the purpose of this thread, on the very day there's an article in a local New York paper, The WestView News, which says that CNN reports that Hillary loses to Kasich by 6.5 %, while Bernie beats him by 6%.

No doubt this is why Bush's Brain, Rove, is working so hard, backstage to get Kasich to be the nominee.

[Cryptoad]

85. Meaning less stats.

to compare General Election polls.... all the analyst will tell u that.

[houston16revival]

24. Time to print

those

"Slash Social Security - Support the 1%"

signs?

[djean111]

27. Trump is not as dangerous than Kasich. Bottom line. n/t

[FlaGranny]

129. Yes and No

I believe Trump would not be as dangerous to Social Security and healthcare and even jobs, but he scares the bejesus out of me on foreign affairs.

[djean111]

130. That's why Hillary scares the bejesesus out of ME.

Also, I believe she will "incrementally" go after Social Security and healthcare - that is what the Third Way intends.

[FlaGranny]

144. Agree. n/t

[notadmblnd]

29. Sanders would tear his ass up in a GE.

nt

[sadoldgirl]

31. And Kasich is the man the repug

establishment wants. If there is an "open"
(brokered) convention, they will try to give
him the front spot.

I don't think that the Donald will do more
than scream "Unfair", but Cruz?? He has
a stronger point to make, since he is a
senator already.

[vkkv]

35. I'm a Lefty, but I thought this quote seemed familiar. The piece is from Oct. 2015. Kasich = idiot

[WhiteTara]

40. I thought we needed a reminder

of what we are fighting against.

[B Calm]

38. Didn't he try making Ohio another right to work for less state?

[WhiteTara]

39. Yes!

[B Calm]

42. That's not moderate in my book, more teabaggery!

[WhiteTara]

43. Indeed

His entire career He also proposed to make people on medicare pay a premium. He hates unions and believes that 7 dollars an hour is a living wage. He's is also a Dominionist as are Cruz and Rubio. While Mitt is a morman. These assclowns are determined to get a fundamentalist into our executive office so they can make the church a part of our government. What better way to keep the masses under control than the church?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7733535

Another poster added this.

[RATM435]

41. Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton "Expand Social Security"

[WhiteTara]

45. here is her platform

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Social_Security.htm

[B Calm]

87. She is against raising the cap on the wealthy and the ARA give her good ratings.

[glinda]

47. Every penny they can steal. Don't they have enough? It is a sickness.

[liberal N proud]

51. Get over it?

[Fritz Walter]

58. Them's fightin' words!

[libodem]

62. I thought he was the only reasonable one

I flip him the bird.

[Dawson Leery]

64. All three are just as bad as the other.

[wolfie001]

67. A leftover from the Reagan Screw-olution

These pigs should just go out and "buy the farm" already. Bastards!

[seanjoycek476]

70. Typical GOP idiot

Utter pricks, the lot of them.

[Vinca]

73. Get over it, grandma. Fancy Feast is too good for a burger anyway. Try store brand cat food.

[JDPriestly]

74. I don't trust Hillary Clinton with my Social Security either.

If she had to choose between fighting a war and Social Security for seniors, war would be the priority. That's my opinion.

Like it or not, that's my opinion.

She does not know and will never know what it is like to live on Social Security rather than on her millions.

[WhiteTara]

75. If the choice is her or Kascih

she sure as hell gets my vote! Okay, her or any repuke.

[LiberalElite]

88. Kasich is just as bad as the other clowns, but without the overt insanity nt

[True Earthling]

97. I like Kasich's plan

but we should also raise the SS taxable wages to $1,000,000. Currently the rate is 6.2% up to $118,000. I would propose we keep the tax at a rate of 6.2% up to $118,000 then tax 1% of wages from $118,000 - $1,000,000.

Kasich wants to trim benefits for high-income Social Security recipients

http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2015/12/17122015---kasich-des-moines-register.html

John Kasich is preparing a Social Security revamp that would trim benefits for high-income seniors and lower the starting level of benefits.

The Ohio governor sketched the broad outline of a plan he indicated was in its final stages during an hour-long meeting today with the Des Moines Register editorial board. The group’s endorsement is highly coveted by presidential candidates competing in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses.

“What you’re going to have to do is that high-income seniors are going to get less. It would have to happen very soon,” Kasich told the journalists in a meeting that was webcast live.
That means Americans earning more than an as-yet undecided amount would have their benefits scaled back.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/republican-debate-transcript-full-text/index.html

“If you’ve had wealth throughout your lifetime, when the time comes to be on Social Security, you’ll still get it. It will just simply be less. And for those people who depend on that Social Security, they’ll get their full benefit. That’s the way it will work. And we don’t have to monkey around with the retirement age.”
The universe is a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying purpose.

[WhiteTara]

100. He gets life time retirement funds from us the taxpayers

and he probably get SS too.

[red dog 1]

104. Kick!!!

This does not surprise me.
Kasich is as much an asshole as Trump & Cruz are!

[bearssoapbox]

110. Kashits is a smooth talking snake oil salesman

He cut funding to schools, counties, cities, towns, libraries, everything but the rich and big business. Our 2 local libraries that my wife use never had to ask for a funding levy until Kashits cut funding by 30%.

The (very)few good things that he's done is only so he looks reasonable and not quite as insane as the rest of the reTHUGliCON/Teabaggers.

I don't trust him as far as I could throw an elephant.

[smirkymonkey]

122. Fuck him!

Evil bastard.

[cer7711]

112. Arrogant Oligarch Scumbag

What was it they used to shout in the 60s? "Up against the wall!"

Let's pelt this ilk with rotten eggs and tomatoes.

(Apparently, one of Trump's great fears . . .)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-tomato-throwers-beware

[lastlib]

116. People who want to keep their Social Security to Ka-sick:

"You wanna be President? Get over it!"

[littlewolf]

120. the SCOUS has ruled no one is entitled to SS.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/newswire/supreme-court-has-ruled-nobody-has-an-earned-right-to-social-security-benefits/




Most Americans have probably never heard of the 1960 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Flemming v. Nestor. It is one of several important facts about Social Security that are unknown to the public. The essence of the ruling is that nobody has an “earned right” to Social Security benefits, no matter how much money they have paid into the program.

The court upheld the denial of benefits to Nestor even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was receiving benefits. In it’s ruling, the Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a “contractual right.” This Court ruling was specific and without conditions. It made it legal for the government to deny benefits to people, no matter how much money they had contributed to the program.

The government has a moral obligation to repay the Social Security money, but it does not have a legal obligation to repay any of the $2.8 trillion that it owes to the trust fund. If the government chooses to cut Social Security benefits, or even to terminate the entire program, the American people have no legal recourse. Section 1104 of the Social Security Act specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” This means that the future of Social Security is totally in the hands of Congress and the President. If the President and Congress should choose to cut benefits, or eliminate the whole Social Security program, they could do so, and there is nothing the public could do about it, except to vote to remove the politicians from office at the next election.

[happyslug]

128. And any State can drop out of Social Security.

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

People forget that when Social Security was set up there was a question if the Federal government could set it up or was it a power reserved to the States? To get around that issue Congress wrote Social Security as a State program, with each state giving its power to set up social security program to the state.

Now the U.S. constitution clearly gives Congress the power to tax, thus Congress did not need nor asked the states to give the Federal government that power. On the other hand it was questionable if the federal Federal government could set up a social security program payout on its own.

Thus the Social Security Act had the Federal Government set up a Social Security TAX, but then required every state to give the state's power to set a social security payout program to the federal government. Every state did do, for without the grant of power to the federal government no one in the state could get Social Security but everyone in the state still had to pay the Social Security Tax.

That remains the law today. Every state can withdraw its grant of power to the federal government and this stop anyone within the state from getting Social Security, but the Social Security Tax will still be collected in that state.

Given the support you have for Social Security in the middle class no state will ever forbid its residents from collecting Social Security as that program is set up today but each state retains that power. If you separate the middle class from ever having to rely on Social Security, and Social Security becomes a welfare program for the poor, I do see states withdrawing its permission for the federal government to send Social Security to its residents in an effort to get the poor to move out of state. The states have cut welfare and justified such cuts as an effort to prevent the poor from other states from moving into their state do to what the right wing called "to generous welfare grants" of that state (you read of this extensively in the 1980s and early 1990s as one reason for "welfare reform&quot . The "to generous" amounts could to be as high as $174 a month (yes that is $174 a month, and $68 dollars for each additional child, many states paid and pay even less).

Sorry if you mean test Social Security you will kill it by making it a welfare program and then every state will be looking for a way to drive recipients out of they state. In effect you kill Social Security and that is the plan of the GOP elite.

[littlewolf]

135. I did not know that … good gravy …. eom

[WhiteTara]

131. That is amazing and you're right, probably no one has heard

about this. We must be VERY careful with this election.

[littlewolf]

136. we learned about it in civics class ..

my class was amazed.

[Hortensis]

141. That's a huge "except," though, and in fact

almost no one is denied benefits, certainly not under anything we would consider normal conditions. That is undoubtedly the reason there hasn't been pressure to amend this law.

We certainly can and should consider that it is our fund, that we paid our money into it as a form of investment in our and our fellow citizens' security, and that we are fully entitled to the expected returns on our investment of OUR money.

[littlewolf]

142. agreed

but this gives a future gov't precedent
and that is what is scary ….

[Hortensis]

143. True. What is unfortunate is that we can change

this precedent any time and so often sit passive. Every election, every 2 years and every 4, we get to decide whether to make big change or continue as is.

[allan01]

125. the dont give a shit who they hurt.

[yardwork]

127. No wonder he's ahead. Wait.

[RoccoR5955]

132. Put a fork in him

It's over for him when he says that.

[WhiteTara]

133. Well, it's been a pretty quiet piece of news

that is just now getting some attention...I saw a cartoon about it so the word is getting out, but he's being touted as the answer to the Trump/Cruz debacle and he seems "sane" so he may have a Lazarus moment.

[restorefreedom]

139. there are only two candidates who plan to protect social security

the two who will face off in the general

bernie v trump