House Dems offer bill to expand Social Security

[mystery-ak]

House Dems offer bill to expand Social Security
By Naomi Jagoda - 01/30/19 01:19 PM EST

More than 200 House Democrats on Wednesday reintroduced legislation to expand Social Security by increasing benefits for recipients.

The bill was reintroduced on the birthday of former President Franklin Roosevelt, who signed the law creating Social Security in 1935.

"The time to act is now," Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Social Security subcommittee, said at a press conference.

Democrats have increasingly pushed for an expansion of Social Security in recent years. In the fall, more than 150 Democratic lawmakers formed a new caucus focused on expanding the program's benefits.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said that the panel was going to begin a series of hearings on retirement security next week.

more
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/427672-house-dems-offer-bill-to-expand-social-security

[libertybele]

Let's see....medicare for all and stop private health insurance and now expand social security.  That ought to bankrupt the country in no time.  Good thing all we have to do is print more money!   

[montanajoe]

The Congress will have to deal with SS eventually to head off the deficits coming down the road, seems to me the farther out the issue is addressed the less the young workers will end up paying in the long run to support the geezers...

[Jazzhead]

I could support an increase in SS benefits,  if coupled with reforms to make sure the system is solvent.   With the demise of private pensions,  the "three-legged stool" of retirement security is threatened.    SS is, for most of us,  the only source of retirement income security (unlike 401(k)s and private savings,  which can be depleted years before death).   

[Emjay]

Let's see....medicare for all and stop private health insurance and now expand social security.  That ought to bankrupt the country in no time.  Good thing all we have to do is print more money!   

Social Security is not a benefit.  It is an insurance program that was paid for for many years.  The current benefits to rightful recipient are disgracefully low.

[Bigun]

Social Security is, and always has been,   a government run ponzi scheme.  Ask Bernie Madof what happens to you if you run a private business based on that model.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I could support an increase in SS benefits,  if coupled with reforms to make sure the system is solvent.   With the demise of private pensions,  the "three-legged stool" of retirement security is threatened.    SS is, for most of us,  the only source of retirement income security (unlike 401(k)s and private savings,  which can be depleted years before death).

That is a socialist speaking.

Keep working is the best way to retain security.

No one should retire if still able-bodied and afraid the piggy bank will run dry before they die.

I am not responsible for your decisions in life.  You need to deal with that, not come to me to steal my own hard-earned money.

An excellent mechanism exists to prolong any viability of SS by stopping the senseless slaughter of the unborn, 61 million and counting, and let them mature to be value-adding contributors in our society and into SS.

As a double-dip bonus, those will be the ones you continue to talk about that are needed as workers in this country, so lessened need for foreigners working here.

[DB]

Social Security is not a benefit.  It is an insurance program that was paid for for many years.  The current benefits to rightful recipient are disgracefully low.

We've had this debate before... SS is not insurance nor is it any kind of investment. The money paid into SS goes straight into the general fund. There is no "lock box" or anything else that returns interest on the money paid in under it. It is a tax and nothing more. The money just shifts from the younger generations to the older generations. The younger generations pay far more under the SS tax than the older generations paid in. In 1953 it was 2.25%, in 1980 it was 8.1% and now it is 15.3%.

Most recipients get far more out than they put in. Don't claim that the money they put in earned money, it didn't.

[LMAO]

We've had this debate before... SS is not insurance nor is it any kind of investment. The money paid into SS goes straight into the general fund. There is no "lock box" or anything else that returns interest on the money paid in under it. It is a tax and nothing more. The money just shifts from the younger generations to the older generations. The younger generations pay far more under the SS tax than the older generations paid in. In 1953 it was 2.25%, in 1980 it was 8.1% and now it is 15.3%.

Most recipients get far more out than they put in. Don't claim that the money they put in earned money, it didn't.

You’d  be surprised how many people really don’t know what Social Security is. I’ve had people tell me that it’s money taken out of your check and put  into an account for you  like an IRA

[Jazzhead]

That is a socialist speaking.

Keep working is the best way to retain security.

No one should retire if still able-bodied and afraid the piggy bank will run dry before they die.

I am not responsible for your decisions in life.  You need to deal with that, not come to me to steal my own hard-earned money.

An excellent mechanism exists to prolong any viability of SS by stopping the senseless slaughter of the unborn, 61 million and counting, and let them mature to be value-adding contributors in our society and into SS.

As a double-dip bonus, those will be the ones you continue to talk about that are needed as workers in this country, so lessened need for foreigners working here.

Social security is not socialism.    The key to successful retirement is to both build wealth AND have income security.  Most employers these days assist with the wealth-building part by offering tax-favored 401(k) plans and, of course,  we can also build our private savings.  Wealth-building is a sound tactic if you die young.  If you don't, you run the risk of outliving your savings and dying in poverty.

For most of us,  though, the ability to acquire income security has been kicked to the curb with the demise of the private pension system.   What's left is Social Security - it's the only safety net many of us have.    SS has problems that need to be addressed - but they're easy to solve compared with Medicare.  And a boost in SS benefits could well help the larger economy.  Don't forget that  one of the key reasons employers used to offer pensions was to incent their older employees to retire so new blood - younger workers - could take their place.   You advocate working until you drop.  That's fine, if you're healthy and lucky enough to be able to do so.   But there's value in folks having the means to retire and leave the rat race.   Younger workers need their shot to realize the American dream.

Every modern nation has some kind of system to provide income security in old age.   Calling those of us "socialists" who see the value of SS in sustaining the middle class simply reveals your ignorance.     

[Mesaclone]

You’d  be surprised how many people really don’t know what Social Security is. I’ve had people tell me that it’s money taken out of your check and put  into an account for you  like an IRA

Ironically, this is precisely what it OUGHT to be. It should be turned into something akin to an IRA, in which willing participants choose where to place their retirement funds and the government "matches" up to 5% of that investment.

I actually don't object to making the investment mandatory...and yes, I stray from my generally Libertarian outlook in this...as long as individuals can decide where the money is invested. Making it a mandatory payroll deduction AND matching the funds forces the irresponsible among us to set aside retirement funds...ensuring the rest of us aren't on the hook for paying for their care in later years.

[Mesaclone]

Social security is not socialism.    The key to successful retirement is to both build wealth AND have income security.  Most employers these days assist with the wealth-building part by offering tax-favored 401(k) plans and, of course,  we can also build our private savings.  Wealth-building is a sound tactic if you die young.  If you don't, you run the risk of outliving your savings and dying in poverty.

For most of us,  though, the ability to acquire income security has been kicked to the curb with the demise of the private pension system.   What's left is Social Security - it's the only safety net many of us have.    SS has problems that need to be addressed - but they're easy to solve compared with Medicare.  And a boost in SS benefits could well help the larger economy.  Don't forget that  one of the key reasons employers used to offer pensions was to incent their older employees to retire so new blood - younger workers - could take their place.   You advocate working until you drop.  That's fine, if you're healthy and lucky enough to be able to do so.   But there's value in folks having the means to retire and leave the rat race.   Younger workers need their shot to realize the American dream.

Every modern nation has some kind of system to provide income security in old age.   Calling those of us "socialists" who see the value of SS in sustaining the middle class simply reveals your ignorance.   

Well said and, surprisingly, I agree with you on this. SS is here to stay...there is a national obligation to ensure our elderly are not starving to death or dying for lack of care. So the argument should move forward to ascertain how best to run a Social Security program. The answer, in my view, is to make it a mandatory private investment...we all must contribute to SS and we all have choice as to how and where we invest. And the Government should provide a "matching" fund to enhance the investment...the national benefits of such a program make that investment well worth it.

In a perfect world, people and families would care for their own...but we don't live in that world. So SS is something we must make work efficiently, arguing that it should go away is just hitting your head on a brick wall.

[edpc]

Kids with the parents credit card.

[Bigun]

You’d  be surprised how many people really don’t know what Social Security is. I’ve had people tell me that it’s money taken out of your check and put  into an account for you  like an IRA

{{{Sigh!!!}}}  Speaks volumes about the current degraded state of the electorate!

[Jazzhead]

Ironically, this is precisely what it OUGHT to be. It should be turned into something akin to an IRA, in which willing participants choose where to place their retirement funds and the government "matches" up to 5% of that investment.

I actually don't object to making the investment mandatory...and yes, I stray from my generally Libertarian outlook in this...as long as individuals can decide where the money is invested. Making it a mandatory payroll deduction AND matching the funds forces the irresponsible among us to set aside retirement funds...ensuring the rest of us aren't on the hook for paying for their care in later years.

But how does your proposal address the issue of income security (that is, the function performed by SS now)?    What you propose appears to be similar to 401(k) plans, which build wealth,  but do not provide income security.   Would you require that these mandatory investment accounts be converted to annuities? 

@Mesaclone 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Social security is not socialism.    The key to successful retirement is to both build wealth AND have income security.  Most employers these days assist with the wealth-building part by offering tax-favored 401(k) plans and, of course,  we can also build our private savings.  Wealth-building is a sound tactic if you die young.  If you don't, you run the risk of outliving your savings and dying in poverty.

For most of us,  though, the ability to acquire income security has been kicked to the curb with the demise of the private pension system.   What's left is Social Security - it's the only safety net many of us have.    SS has problems that need to be addressed - but they're easy to solve compared with Medicare.  And a boost in SS benefits could well help the larger economy.  Don't forget that  one of the key reasons employers used to offer pensions was to incent their older employees to retire so new blood - younger workers - could take their place.   You advocate working until you drop.  That's fine, if you're healthy and lucky enough to be able to do so.   But there's value in folks having the means to retire and leave the rat race.   Younger workers need their shot to realize the American dream.

Every modern nation has some kind of system to provide income security in old age.   Calling those of us "socialists" who see the value of SS in sustaining the middle class simply reveals your ignorance.   

It is pure socialism in its purest form.

The government-forced taking from the productive and giving to others is nothing but that.

And I noticed the silence regarding the solution I had mentioned.

I wonder why?

[ABX]

Social Security is not a benefit.  It is an insurance program that was paid for for many years.  The current benefits to rightful recipient are disgracefully low.

An insurance program is a voluntary, free market program that you freely choose to purchase and can opt for competing options.

Social Security is a government mandated entitlement program financed through confiscated funds (aka taxes, aka theft) that you are forced to participate in and you can't opt out of.

It has people manipulated to think it is not an entitlement by telling you that you paid into it (like you had a choice) but the same argument can be made for all entitlement programs as they all are supported by your tax dollars. Welfare... That's not an entitlement program, I paid into it through tax dollars. (Snark).... The only difference is they slap it as it's own line item.

Oh, and the best part, its liabilities are greater than its investment so it is paying out current returns through the investment(sic) of current contributes. That is the dictionary definition of a pyramid scheme.

But you better not touch my my Social Security....amiright?

[Jazzhead]

It is pure socialism in its purest form.

The government-forced taking from the productive and giving to others is nothing but that.

And I noticed the silence regarding the solution I had mentioned.

I wonder why?

What nonsense.   The peoples' elected representatives have decided to provide for a retirement safety net so that folks unwilling (like yourself) or unable to work into until the day they drop dead may instead retire with some modicum of security and dignity.       

There is no modern nation that does not provide some form of safety net for the aged.   We can debate the merits of account-based approaches like that favored by @Mesaclone, but to reject the idea of a safety net  as "theft" from the productive to the non-productive is poppycock, and an insult to our Constitutional Republic.  SS is not perpetuated by a totalitarian regime, but by the conscious choice of our elected representatives.   That you are against the very concept of SS as violating your utopian ideal of every man for himself is why your brand of selfish "conservatism" gives the responsible variety a bad name.

As for your "solution", it strikes me as pure hypocrisy.    You reject our elected representatives choosing to require workers to pay into a fund for their retirement, yet you have no issue with government forcing women to become brood mares against their will.   You may object to socialism,  but you don't seem to have a problem with drunk-on-religion fascism.         

[dfwgator]

@Mesaclone

Part of the problem is that people don't save in their 20s...Starting to save in your 20s makes a huge difference in the amount of money for retirement, compared with starting to save in your 30s.   Even worse,  many are using their 20s to pile up huge college debts. 

[Bigun]

What nonsense.   The peoples' elected representatives have decided to provide for a retirement safety net so that folks unwilling (like yourself) or unable to work into until the day they drop dead may instead retire with some modicum of security and dignity.       

There is no modern nation that does not provide some form of safety net for the aged.   We can debate the merits of account-based approaches like that favored by @Mesaclone, but to reject the idea of a safety net  as "theft" from the productive to the non-productive is poppycock, and an insult to our Constitutional Republic.  SS is not perpetuated by a totalitarian regime, but by the conscious choice of our elected representatives.   That you are against the very concept of SS as violating your utopian ideal of every man for himself is why your brand of selfish "conservatism" gives the responsible variety a bad name.

As for your "solution", it strikes me as pure hypocrisy.    You reject our elected representatives choosing to require workers to pay into a fund for their retirement, yet you have no issue with government forcing women to become brood mares against their will.   You may object to socialism,  but you don't seem to have a problem with drunk-on-religion fascism.       

Well, our resident big government apologist has spoken but I'm not buying!

[Mesaclone]

But how does your proposal address the issue of income security (that is, the function performed by SS now)?    What you propose appears to be similar to 401(k) plans, which build wealth,  but do not provide income security.   Would you require that these mandatory investment accounts be converted to annuities? 

@Mesaclone

Yes I would.

[Fishrrman]

Social Security ain't goin' nowhere.

It doesn't need to be "expanded" though... the "disability" tack is already abused I would like to see that aspect more vigorously policed.

But... want to see the Republicans shrink back to being a minority party quickly, even in "red" states?

Then... attack Social Security.
Remember what happened when Bush II tried to use some of his "political capital" from the 2004 election by bringing up the notion of Social Security "reform" (including mandatory private accounts)???

A lot of short memories in this forum.

Addendum:
I stopped paying into Social Security in 1978, and I don't collect it today...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

What nonsense.   The peoples' elected representatives have decided to provide for a retirement safety net so that folks unwilling (like yourself) or unable to work into until the day they drop dead may instead retire with some modicum of security and dignity.       

There is no modern nation that does not provide some form of safety net for the aged.   We can debate the merits of account-based approaches like that favored by @Mesaclone, but to reject the idea of a safety net  as "theft" from the productive to the non-productive is poppycock, and an insult to our Constitutional Republic.  SS is not perpetuated by a totalitarian regime, but by the conscious choice of our elected representatives.   That you are against the very concept of SS as violating your utopian ideal of every man for himself is why your brand of selfish "conservatism" gives the responsible variety a bad name.

As for your "solution", it strikes me as pure hypocrisy.    You reject our elected representatives choosing to require workers to pay into a fund for their retirement, yet you have no issue with government forcing women to become brood mares against their will.   You may object to socialism,  but you don't seem to have a problem with drunk-on-religion fascism.       

An unabashed, unbiased and unprincipled liberal expression once again.

It is a radical distortion of the Social Security System, as has been mentioned numerous times on this thread, that this is "our elected representatives choosing to require workers to pay into a fund for their retirement"

It is not a fund but a tax and you know it, and sane people do to, as it has no bearing whatsoever for what people put in vs what they get out, as they are unrelated to each other.

And what you call "drunk-on-religion fascism" is nothing more than the decency that God gave us humans to respect life, something which you apparently lack as you pompously proclaim a selfish whim to kill a being is more important than that being.

[montanajoe]

Social Security ain't goin' nowhere.
....

Yep, I think that folks often forget that people act and vote in their own self interest. No matter what the valid arguments against SS are that I philosophically agree with, I recognize that that argument was lost 80 years ago and the Country will never turn back.

I do think that were the baby boom generation not the bunch of spoiled brats that we are, that we would not be sticking the future generations with our bills and the politicians of our generation would be focused on leaving those after us better off than we were instead of worse off... 

[Smokin Joe]

Social Security is not a benefit.  It is an insurance program that was paid for for many years.  The current benefits to rightful recipient are disgracefully low.

Yep. Kick the illegals out and give a third of what we spend on benefits for them to the people who paid into Social Security. Build the wall, and everyone comes out ahead (except the social workers).