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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

progree

(10,890 posts)
10. Camel's nose under the tent. Yeah, at first it will just be $5,000. Hoover Inst and AEI, hmm.
Tue May 12, 2020, 12:46 AM
May 2020

Last edited Tue May 12, 2020, 01:47 AM - Edit history (2)

then pressure will mount in the future to up it to $10,000. Then $25,000, and so on and so on. Pretty soon you'll be able to borrow half or more of it away for any government-approved "good" purpose. And that list of good purposes will expand and expand.

I like Social Security the way it is -- it's for old age retirement and disability, and people can't borrow it away. Human nature being what it is, too many people would be borrowing too much from it and leaving themselves way short in old age or if disabled.

And the people who will be most hurt by this will disproportionately be the ones who need their Social Security income the most.

If we want a piggy bank that people can borrow from at any age, fine, but that should be a completely separate program.

Another great feature of Social Security the way it is, is the very low administration cost (2% IIRC). But if we start allowing borrowing, and then we have hardship cases, and then we get into HARP-style loan modifications and all the paperwork involved in that, no thanks.
Social Security should be Social Security, a social INSURANCE program. Not a fucking mortgage company.

The plan was developed by Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute and Joshua Rauh of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.


More evidence that it is a lousy idea. And by the way, anybody who thinks these organizations will be content with allowing just $5,000 of borrowing from S.S. is unarguably a complete fool.

Yes, I'm aware that people can opt to retire at 62 (or 63, or 64 etc.) in exchange for reduced lifetime monthly benefit amounts. But at least it's saved for old age, just 4 or 5 years earlier. And at least its a stream of monthly income, not what probably will evolve into an irresistibly tempting large lump sum. Whatever. That this option exists shouldn't be used as an excuse to justify more borrowing from the future (or just plain taking from the future). This illustrates how any opening can be used to justify a further opening.
ANYONE who falls for this is INSANE. Trust me, I would never in my life have thought Social Security BamaRefugee May 2020 #1
Trump INC thrives on fear Skittles May 2020 #4
But don't we already do that? And worse? You can collect SS at 62 and get reduced benefits forever. TreasonousBastard May 2020 #2
If I faced foreclosure I would want this option Cicada May 2020 #3
I read this as they can only get three months of whatever benefit they would qualify for later. House of Roberts May 2020 #5
The payback is at most 3 months benefits Cicada May 2020 #23
Not for this, but the option might help some. I'd prefer other solutions, but there is Hoyt May 2020 #6
LOL. "plan developed by the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution" -- PASS! PSPS May 2020 #7
American Enterprise Institute? Hoover Institution? Tactical Peek May 2020 #8
President Usurer LudwigPastorius May 2020 #9
Camel's nose under the tent. Yeah, at first it will just be $5,000. Hoover Inst and AEI, hmm. progree May 2020 #10
DIVIDE & Conquer - peel off support from dems based on fear and desperation nt msongs May 2020 #11
This is like Bush's "privatize Social Security" trial balloon dawg day May 2020 #12
Yes, just start with a small part of it in a private account. As the years go by those limits will progree May 2020 #13
House won't pass it. DOA. roamer65 May 2020 #14
that dog won't hunt. nt yaesu May 2020 #15
Can he do this? It seems like any change to SS would take Congressional action. LastLiberal in PalmSprings May 2020 #16
No, and yes it takes Congressional action. Trump would nowhere near have the votes for this kind yellowcanine May 2020 #26
Its a shit sandwich of a proposal. nt cstanleytech May 2020 #17
But what if... BigmanPigman May 2020 #18
Nonsense Traildogbob May 2020 #20
Giving to the rich through lowered taxes rainin May 2020 #19
This will backfire on trump duforsure May 2020 #21
I think the goal here is to drain the social security trust fund. honest.abe May 2020 #22
Short term money for long term loss. keithbvadu2 May 2020 #24
This is the worst kind of "payday" loan McCamy Taylor May 2020 #25
Good point, and yes it is. yellowcanine May 2020 #27
Social security benefits are actually capped DeminPennswoods May 2020 #28
The maximum is much higher than that. I know seniors who get a whole lot more (I'm not one of them). llmart May 2020 #29
Dead on arrival Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2020 #30
Ask anyone who has ever taken out a variable-rate mortgage with a balloon payment Aristus May 2020 #31
Pay day loan, government style. sarcasmo May 2020 #32
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Trump may let workers tak...»Reply #10