House Republicans attack Social Security on day one

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah its bill #666

You really need to cough up the legislation here.

I hope you realize that most people reading your topic have no idea what you or the article are talking about.

This has been discussed since day one. It's common knowledge. The GOP is undermining SSI-D (Disability) and wants to cut funds.
(So they won't have to "shut down the government! LoL!)

To continue to demand links is just silly. Enter "GOP attacking Social Security" in google, and it renders pages of menus.

Help yo self.

I figured that something like this would happen, and with the republican majority these types of things will only get worse. What I do not understand is that these same people do not mind spending trillions of dollars overseas on things that have little to no benefit for the United States, yet they want to mess with something like social security, the monies from which are spent here at home, and are re-infused into our economy. The republican wars in Iraq and Afhganistan are just the tip of the iceberg, and alone that money could have done so much at home. So how can anyone spend so much money overseas and then in the next breath say that government spending is out of control, and that it is the fault of the democrats? It seems to me that the republicans should look at their own projects and how much money they wasted. But so many of them, their friends, and their families got rich off of these wars. Cheney and Bush both have ties to the companies who got the big contracts overseas. Coincidence? I think not. But republicans ignore their own faults, always have and always will. They will never place the blame on themselves, and they sure as heck will not do anything to help the general population, ie the lower and middle class. Oh, and who was mostly responsible for the big bank bailouts that cost taxpayers so much money? So it is fine when they spend the money on the rich, but when it comes to the average citizen, those citizens are screwed. Can you imagine what the right would have said about Obama if he was responsible for some of the things the Bush administration was responsible for? But again, republicans have a double-standard, which is partly why I believe that party is composed of individuals who are dangerous to both freedom and democracy.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
This has been discussed since day one. It's common knowledge. The GOP is undermining SSI-D (Disability) and wants to cut funds.
(So they won't have to "shut down the government! LoL!)

To continue to demand links is just silly. Enter "GOP attacking Social Security" in google, and it renders pages of menus.

Help yo self.

That search term just brings back page after page of liberal talking points.

That's why the actual bill would be useful, or at least the excerpts from the bill in question.

Then a reasoned analysis supporting the conclusion that SS is being attacked rather than a diatribe repeating DailyKos talking points.

From everything I've read, the bill PROTECTS social security by eliminating shady accounting practices.

originally posted by: Jamie1
Can you at least try to explain, in your own words, how this evil scheme is attacking Social Security?

Try reading the references.

a reply to: Willtell

Way to go Nostradamus but I think most people on ATS new that along with Social Security they would try to dismantle to a greater degree healthcare reform....Most recall the time when Bush Jr. suggested we go to private companies for social security (401 K's) so don't pat yourself too much on the back....

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Jamie1
Can you at least try to explain, in your own words, how this evil scheme is attacking Social Security?

Try reading the references.

Those references link to an article from DailyKos.

That's why I asked for an explanation in the OP's own words.

My theory is that no explanation would be given how the bill attacks SS when what it does is eliminate shady accounting practices.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Tardacus

SS WAS NEVER just a retirement fund

It was and is also an insurance fund.

Children, for example, whose parents die can get insurance and SS support. Not a hell of a lot but some

Funny!

Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.

The Truth shall set you free.

a reply to: Jamie1

ya know Jamie, the mindset that you apparently maintain is one that I see over and over, and is most assuredly not one that I want for myself.. So please do me the favor of not trying to "educate" me. It is neither needed, nor desired.

Thank you.
ladyinwaiting

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Do you have a link to the bill?

(just kidding)

I'd like to point out the the Social Security fund is not going to 'short' in 2016 as stated in one of the OPs quotes.

Here is the information from the SSA Trustees -

I keep hearing that Social Security is about to go broke. What do the numbers show?

The Trustees' Report presents these data:

Social Security has $2.73 Trillion in trust fund reserves.

Social Security reserves are still growing and will continue to grow through 2020.

Beginning in 2021, program costs are projected to exceed income, shrinking the trust funds.

The trust funds will be exhausted in 2033, the same year projected in the 2012 report.

After 2033, income will cover 77% of scheduled payments.

That can't be right. I've heard that Social Security has been losing money since 2010.

Read the fine print. Starting in 2010, Social Security expenses exceeded "non-interest" income — primarily payroll taxes. But that ignores the interest Social Security earns on invested funds. If you take all income into account, Social Security had a surplus of $54 Billion in 2012 operations.

secure.marketwatch.com...

I'm getting really tired of the lies being spread by repugnuts about Social Security the most efficient medical and retirement administration in the country.

This rule change is just one of several - non-sexy but important - 'rule' changes the reugnuts are planning that will destroy the social safety net of the 98% and boost welfare to the top 2%.

Check out this one which they did yesterday...

Changing the rules by which economic impact is measured (chaning the rules in the middle of the game is how the wealthy take advantage of the rest of us).

The Congressional Budget Office is a civil service -

Since 1975, CBO has produced independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process. Each year, the agency’s economists and budget analysts produce dozens of reports and hundreds of cost estimates for proposed legislation. CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying the analysis.

www.cbo.gov...

The change on “dynamic scoring” — ardently sought since the 1990s by Republicans — could ease passage of major tax cuts by showing that their impact on economic growth would substantially reduce their cost to the Treasury. The move is widely seen as a way for Republican leaders to set ground rules for an ambitious overhaul of the entire United States tax code.

www.nytimes.com...

I want all you folks who hate government and taxes to remember these days as you rejoice in your self-righteousness. Remember - when you lose your job and there are no unemployment benefits. When you get in an accident and their is no disability, or health care or income because you can no longer work. When you have to pay to pave the road out in front of your house, and pay a fire department and police department to protect you. I want you all to remember.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Do you have a link to the bill?

(just kidding)

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Jamie1

ya know Jamie, the mindset that you apparently maintain is one that I see over and over, and is most assuredly not one that I want for myself.. So please do me the favor of not trying to "educate" me. It is neither needed, nor desired.

Thank you.
ladyinwaiting

You don't want my mindset because I don't want to simply read liberal op ed pieces and asked the OP for his own thoughts?

So far I've just seen people here asking why eliminating shady accounting is an "attack" on SS, and so far nobody has come up with any reasonable explanation.

Do you have one?

a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm getting really tired of the lies being spread by repugnuts about Social Security the most efficient medical and retirement administration in the country.

That's some lie eh?

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run program costs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Straight from the horse's mouth

Care to try again?

a reply to: xuenchen

That may be the first star I've ever given you. Yep. That was funny as hell! : )

It's not a bill.

It is H. Res 5

(q) SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY.—
(1) POINT OF ORDER.—During the One Hundred
Fourteenth Congress, it shall not be in order to consider
a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that reduces the actuarial balance
by at least .01 percent of the present value of future
taxable payroll of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund established under section
201(a) of the Social Security Act for the 75-year period
utilized in the most recent annual report of the Board
of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of
the Social Security Act.

(2) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to
a measure that would improve the actuarial balance of
the combined balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund for the 75-year period utilized in
the most recent annual report of the Board of Trustees
provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) of the Social Security
Act.

Pg: 30/31 from source, Section 3,q,1&2.

Goody, time for my handy dandy Shakespearian Insult quotes:

"Methink's throu art a general offense,
and every man should beat thee."

All's Well that Ends Well - Wm Shakespeare

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Jamie1
Can you at least try to explain, in your own words, how this evil scheme is attacking Social Security?

Try reading the references.

Those references link to an article from DailyKos.

That's why I asked for an explanation in the OP's own words.

My theory is that no explanation would be given how the bill attacks SS when what it does is eliminate shady accounting practices.

Well pardon me, a theory.

Here's a simple fact,

The OP referenced two articles, and both have further and more detailed citations.

originally posted by: Willtell
I WROTE AN OP ABOUT WHAT THE GOP WOULD DO TO THE ORDINARY Americans once they got in power but for some strange reason it seems to have been deleted. I wonder why?

My warning has come true. I knew it would.

An attack by the Republican Party on the nation's Social Security program took less than one full working day. Included in a new set of rules passed by the House of Representatives on Tuesday was a new measure making it more difficult to move funds between separate accounts maintained by the Social Security Administration. A seemingly technical provision on the surface, critics says it puts millions of disabled and elderly Americans at risk and sets the stage for further attacks aimed at the wider program.

www.commondreams.org...

"The GOP is inventing a Social Security crisis that will threaten benefits for millions and put our most vulnerable at risk." —Sen. Elizabeth Warren

What's a bigger priority for Republicans to attack even than Obamacare? Social Security. They proved it Tuesday when they included a new rule in their rules package governing the 114th Congress that will prevent it from authorizing what has been routine reallocations of funds between the two Social Security programs, the retirement fund and the disability program. Reallocating funds between the programs has been entirely non-controversial and routine—Congress has done it 11 times, from and to both programs when one needs shoring up. But now House Republicans want to end that, presumably with the aim of forcing a crisis in 2016, when Social Security trustees say the disability program will run short.

Republicans are continuing their game of trying to pit seniors against disabled people, telling retirees that their own benefits are threatened by the disability program and giving them more political room to start chipping away at Social Security as a whole. Now they're trying to force that to happen before the next election.

www.dailykos.com...#

I'll continue in the future to do " I TOLD YOU SO OP'S" when the GOP does what we all know they will do.

Such as put an anti-science climate denier Ted Cruz at the Helm of the Subcommittee that overseas NASA and science!

So, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was just named to be the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness as Republicans take over the Senate. This subcommittee (which used to be just Space and Science but was recently renamed) is in charge of oversight of, among other things, NASA.

www.slate.com...[/quo te]

They really got you with that false dichotomy. It's an illusion of choice. Grow up.

a reply to: Jamie1

It’s reasonable to me and many it's just that its not to you.


I explained it, in my OWN words two times.


You could lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink’
Do I have to explain this metaphor to you?