Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

still_one

(98,883 posts)
55. I am talking about our illustrious politicians. Bernie Sanders is not included in that group
Wed Oct 10, 2012, 04:48 PM
Oct 2012

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Oh ...well that would be called "raising taxes". L0oniX Oct 2012 #1
"raising taxes" ...not for the 98% L0oniX Oct 2012 #58
And we can't raise revenue without letting "leeches" engage in blood letting as well.... tokenlib Oct 2012 #2
The big question that people often don't address on this subject is, Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #3
Great idea, but needs to be coupled with abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #7
Welfare has means testing, The GOP will jump on that big time. FogerRox Oct 2012 #17
i must have missed this quote. but it makes sense. Robeysays Oct 2012 #25
Yet SS is means tested, at least to some degree Major Nikon Oct 2012 #35
Major. Means testing does not exist in SS FogerRox Oct 2012 #52
I'm well aware of how the benefit is calculated Major Nikon Oct 2012 #59
AIME. Good. Lots of folks here are severely misinformed FogerRox Oct 2012 #61
I have no illusions that SS needs to be "fixed" Major Nikon Oct 2012 #62
Improving benefits should be more than possible. FogerRox Oct 2012 #64
social security *has* means testing already. SS is taxed at 85% for those with more than $32K HiPointDem Oct 2012 #39
You misunderstand the term. Taxing income is very different from means testing. Bluenorthwest Oct 2012 #77
no, you misunderstand. social security benefits didn't use to be taxed. that began under reagan HiPointDem Oct 2012 #79
AIME formula. The answer is yes. FogerRox Oct 2012 #8
No you do not. The two issues are counterproductive. jwirr Oct 2012 #22
The problem with breaking the link between contributions and benefits Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #23
Some may wish to punish the uber rich. FogerRox Oct 2012 #30
+1. so many people so eager to mess with SS, so few eager to mess with income taxes. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #40
The problem is that once you disconnect payments from benefits for the rich you open the possibility dkf Oct 2012 #36
nope. Robeysays Oct 2012 #24
Absolutely not eridani Oct 2012 #28
Yes, I think that would be necessary. sabrina 1 Oct 2012 #65
By "anyone" I assume you mean Obama or Romney DURHAM D Oct 2012 #4
Yes, exactly. still_one Oct 2012 #54
Fix the economy and you fix Social Security. FogerRox Oct 2012 #5
+1. if those things don't get fixed you can kiss SS goodbye. also kiss your pensions and savings. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #41
Especially since . . . abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #6
In a worse case scenario- the ACA will make SS go broke about 7 months FogerRox Oct 2012 #16
TO paraphrase FDR FogerRox Oct 2012 #9
I would get rid of the cap completely etherealtruth Oct 2012 #10
Curious, for what purpose? FogerRox Oct 2012 #31
Then you need to raise payments to those who start paying more. Only fair. Logical Oct 2012 #11
the AIME formula figures benefits based on payments. FogerRox Oct 2012 #15
We cant talk about anything during "Election Season". nm rhett o rick Oct 2012 #12
Obama has said he favors this idea. Qutzupalotl Oct 2012 #13
President Obama addressed this at the AARP ProSense Oct 2012 #14
Because of the problems outlined in the comments. FogerRox Oct 2012 #18
I'd like to raise the cap so we can cut the %. truebluegreen Oct 2012 #19
Thats purpose of the Earned Income Tax Credit FogerRox Oct 2012 #67
I agree with almost everything you have said truebluegreen Oct 2012 #69
Well Biden did say it never happened. FogerRox Oct 2012 #70
Biden (love that man, always have) truebluegreen Oct 2012 #71
91% for 9 years ending in 1964. 70% did not start untill 1964. FogerRox Oct 2012 #72
I would assume that even if the law was signed in '63 truebluegreen Oct 2012 #73
Yes I know for sure. Thats why I said it. FogerRox Oct 2012 #74
thank you for the info. truebluegreen Oct 2012 #75
Because we want to keep focus on the Warren Buffet Rule? grantcart Oct 2012 #20
This is important. Fixing the economy won't necessarily be enough. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #21
You don't have to let the benefits rise correspondingly eridani Oct 2012 #29
Back that up, please do FogerRox Oct 2012 #32
The economy is important but it's not the only factor at work. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #34
we don't need to do a damn thing about social security today. not a damn thing. and if the HiPointDem Oct 2012 #43
CBO San Fran Fed are quite clear FogerRox Oct 2012 #50
a 25 year recession = worst economic depression since the BLack Plaugue FogerRox Oct 2012 #68
Here's a citation for you. bornskeptic Oct 2012 #44
Each year the Trustees release 4 scenarios, you have cited one. FogerRox Oct 2012 #47
try projecting 75 years to infinity if you want tricks. kind of how the post office prefunds their HiPointDem Oct 2012 #42
The job of an actuary is to provide a fiscallly conservative projection FogerRox Oct 2012 #48
The irony is PatSeg Oct 2012 #26
Sales taxes are heavily regressive.. Fumesucker Oct 2012 #37
True PatSeg Oct 2012 #56
Why hasn't either side talked any about the middle class tax increase coming on Jan 1. The doc03 Oct 2012 #27
Robert Reich: How to Fix Social Security Permanently Poiuyt Oct 2012 #33
Actually Bowles and Simpson recommended the exact same change os Reich: bornskeptic Oct 2012 #45
Thanks, that's a very informative source about the point I made concerning income inequality. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #46
It is sacred. Adjust the cap - its historically been at 90% FogerRox Oct 2012 #49
actually there is. it's what keeps ss from turning into something that can be categorized as HiPointDem Oct 2012 #51
Eliminating the cap would not turn SS into welfare. Jim Lane Oct 2012 #57
it would, actually, because the top 10-20% of wage earners would be paying for most of the program. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #63
Removing the income cap and placing a limit on benefits is means testing FogerRox Oct 2012 #66
they talk about it regularly here. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #38
I am talking about our illustrious politicians. Bernie Sanders is not included in that group still_one Oct 2012 #55
Because it would be fair. bamacrat Oct 2012 #53
"Anyone" does. elleng Oct 2012 #60
The same reason why they don't talk about raising the caps orpupilofnature57 Oct 2012 #76
Obama has, and occasionally still does. Bluenorthwest Oct 2012 #78
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why doesn't anyone talk a...»Reply #55