House Republicans attack Social Security on day one

a reply to: Jamie1

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?

If your ego chooses to believe what you wrote here, then you go right ahead. In reality, I don't want your mindset because it represents the values -or to be more accurate, the lack of values in our society that I disdain most.

The OP gave his own thoughts, quotes, and links in the original post. To ignore that is nothing short of mob-mentality harassment.

This is OT enough as it is. So good evening, Sir.

originally posted by: Willtell
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?

Yes, eliminating accounting practices that allow for raiding the SS fund for the benefit of the SS disability fund is what you think is an "attack" on SS.

This change doesn't increase or decrease the money available, nor does it increase or decrease the obligations.

The only "attack" was on Republicans for making the change that threatens the status quo of manipulating the accounting of the funds.

a reply to: Jamie1

"Accounting practices" brought the economy down, globally. The republicans can do much damage with "accounting practices".

what have the Republicans actually DONE to get rid of it?

They all want to get rid of it, Paul Ryan for one example, I think part of his "Ryan plan" included cutting social security. And don't forget Bush tried to sell swapping it for privatization, but he couldn't get support for it.

originally posted by: Jamie1

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.

This might be of some use to you.

Procedures of the United States House of Representatives

H.Res.5 — 114th Congress:

(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.

The GOP is using the House Rules to prevent introduction of legislation that would have the effect of reallocating payroll tax revenue from the Social Security retirement trust fund (Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund) to the Social Security DI trust fund (Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund).

This sort of reallocation has absolutely nothing to do with "shady accounting" or one fund "attacking" the other. It's nothing new and you can read about it here if you care to. Here's a relevant excerpt:

The current Social Security tax is 6.2 percent of wages up to $117,000 in 2014, paid by both employers and employees. Of this total, 5.3 percent of covered wages goes to the OASI trust fund, and 0.9 percent goes to the DI trust fund. This allocation reflects the decision of policymakers in 1994, when they last reallocated taxes between the programs.
Congress has reallocated payroll tax revenues many times in the past — and in both directions. This is a traditional and historically noncontroversial step.

Using a narrow definition of “reallocation” — one in which the total payroll tax rate remained the same but the split between OASI and DI changed — there have been six such instances (in 1970, 1980, 1983, 1994, 1997, and 2000). Three of those changes shifted funds from OASI to DI, and three shifted funds from DI to OASI.

Using a broader definition — one in which the total tax rate changed and the OASI and DI rates changed in opposite directions (one increasing and the other decreasing) — there were an additional five instances (in 1968, 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1984). Three of these shifted funds from OASI to DI, and two from DI to OASI.

That's the 11 times the Daily Kos article is referring to. Everyone knows that the disability trust fund is projected to have a shortfall in 2016 which would lead to automatic benefit cuts of about 19% for the approximate eleven million recipients — barring legislation. For the last half a century, reallocation to resolve a deficit in either trust fund would have been a more or less perfunctory task.

Technically speaking, they haven't attacked Social Security yet (and yes, DI is an integral part of Social Security that has existed since 1954), but they know that by ensuring that a "routine" reallocation is impossible, they're ultimately forcing the passage of legislation favorable to their agenda.

Echoes of the Debt Ceiling Debacle.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Jamie1

"Accounting practices" brought the economy down, globally. The republicans can do much damage with "accounting practices".

Which accounting practices would those be?

originally posted by: xuenchen
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.

You could have just provided the link. You clearly had it a week ago when you started the thread entitled "The House Just Made It Harder for Politicians to Steal From Social Security Retirement Fund"

a reply to: theantediluvian

Oh *THAT* one.

Shiver Me Timbers.

Looks like Carlin was onto something, that they would even suggest going after social security is lame. Why not go after the atomic arsenal, we have too many weapons of mass destruction as it is.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Jamie1

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?

If your ego chooses to believe what you wrote here, then you go right ahead. In reality, I don't want your mindset because it represents the values -or to be more accurate, the lack of values in our society that I disdain most.

The OP gave his own thoughts, quotes, and links in the original post. To ignore that is nothing short of mob-mentality harassment.

This is OT enough as it is. So good evening, Sir.

There is not one word in the OP by the OP that explains why this change is an "attack" on SS.

And to ask for an original thought is "mob mentality" and "harassment?"

So asking somebody to explain their argument is equivalent to the people who burned down businesses in Ferguson?

Seriously?

a reply to: Jamie1

Derivatives.
"In finance, a derivative is a contract that derives its value from the performance of an underlying entity. This underlying entity can be an asset, index, or interest rate, and is often called the "underlying".[1][2] Derivatives can be used for a number of purposes - including insuring against price movements (hedging), increasing exposure to price movements for speculation or getting access to otherwise hard to trade assets or markets.[3]"

a reply to: Jamie1

Yes, eliminating accounting practices that allow for raiding the SS fund for the benefit of the SS disability fund is what you think is an "attack" on SS.

This change doesn't increase or decrease the money available, nor does it increase or decrease the obligations.

The only "attack" was on Republicans for making the change that threatens the status quo of manipulating the accounting of the funds.

This is not correct.

The goal is strictly to force obligations to be decreased for one or the other (or both).

that they would even suggest going after social security is lame

They want to eliminate Social Security, retirement, unions, education, voting, labor laws and every other thing that keeps most of us from being slaves.

It's completely obvious that the Republicans want to bankrupt most Americans so we will have no choice but to become slaves in an aristocracy where they will never have to work and will live like kings. Republicans are evil traitors and not worthy of the human race.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Looks like Carlin was onto something, that they would even suggest going after social security is lame. Why not go after the atomic arsenal, we have too many weapons of mass destruction as it is.

First, Carlin was spot on half way through when he said TBTB don't want a critical thinking.

Second, this OP lacks any critical thinking, thus proving Carlin correct.

The change protects SS from being raided. It's not going after SS.

Here is some more social security comedy!

Although its not really going to be funny if social security gets taken away.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Jamie1

Yes, eliminating accounting practices that allow for raiding the SS fund for the benefit of the SS disability fund is what you think is an "attack" on SS.

This change doesn't increase or decrease the money available, nor does it increase or decrease the obligations.

The only "attack" was on Republicans for making the change that threatens the status quo of manipulating the accounting of the funds.

This is not correct.

The goal is strictly to force obligations to be decreased for one or the other (or both).

Where are you coming up with this conclusion?

I mean, other than what liberal blogs are telling you.

Can you explain why you think this is true?

How some may see the comedy of republicans and thier fear of socialism and equality.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Jamie1

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.

This might be of some use to you.

Procedures of the United States House of Representatives

H.Res.5 — 114th Congress:

(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.

The GOP is using the House Rules to prevent introduction of legislation that would have the effect of reallocating payroll tax revenue from the Social Security retirement trust fund (Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund) to the Social Security DI trust fund (Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund).

This sort of reallocation has absolutely nothing to do with "shady accounting" or one fund "attacking" the other. It's nothing new and you can read about it here if you care to. Here's a relevant excerpt:

The current Social Security tax is 6.2 percent of wages up to $117,000 in 2014, paid by both employers and employees. Of this total, 5.3 percent of covered wages goes to the OASI trust fund, and 0.9 percent goes to the DI trust fund. This allocation reflects the decision of policymakers in 1994, when they last reallocated taxes between the programs.
Congress has reallocated payroll tax revenues many times in the past — and in both directions. This is a traditional and historically noncontroversial step.

Using a narrow definition of “reallocation” — one in which the total payroll tax rate remained the same but the split between OASI and DI changed — there have been six such instances (in 1970, 1980, 1983, 1994, 1997, and 2000). Three of those changes shifted funds from OASI to DI, and three shifted funds from DI to OASI.

Using a broader definition — one in which the total tax rate changed and the OASI and DI rates changed in opposite directions (one increasing and the other decreasing) — there were an additional five instances (in 1968, 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1984). Three of these shifted funds from OASI to DI, and two from DI to OASI.

That's the 11 times the Daily Kos article is referring to. Everyone knows that the disability trust fund is projected to have a shortfall in 2016 which would lead to automatic benefit cuts of about 19% for the approximate eleven million recipients — barring legislation. For the last half a century, reallocation to resolve a deficit in either trust fund would have been a more or less perfunctory task.

Technically speaking, they haven't attacked Social Security yet (and yes, DI is an integral part of Social Security that has existed since 1954), but they know that by ensuring that a "routine" reallocation is impossible, they're ultimately forcing the passage of legislation favorable to their agenda.

Echoes of the Debt Ceiling Debacle.

Thank you!

Great post. I appreciate your effort to help me understand the issue better.

originally posted by: Willtell
If you die your kid or wife can get some money

LIFE INSURANCE. That $10 a paycheck is tough to afford, but (as we were told when Obama forced the cost of the ACA onto all of us who pay taxes) "some things are too important NOT to budget for."

Here is what I see happening. Ever since The New Deal was enacted, there were those on the right who wanted to get rid of Social Security, a national government INSURANCE PROGRAM. Their cry was that it was Communism. Post WW2 Americans called these extremists “kooks” and relegated them to a political and cultural sideshow.

After the election of Ronald Reagan, this extremist ideology grew and gained cultural and political power. Unfortunately, a creeping corporatism and oligarchy paralleled this extremist rise. So now the “financial industry”, Wall Street, is waiting for all insurance programs to be privatized.

The first step towards dismantling the government INSURANCE PROGRAM is splitting off the disability insurance part from the retirement insurance part. Young Americans will expect to be weaned off govt insurance for retirement and disability, but just as SS has been around for decades, it will take decades to dismantle.

Future generations of workers will be forced to buy PRIVATE retirement and disability insurance from Wall Street.

When They Say, "Privatization gets rid of the inefficiency of big government," The TRUTH is...

Administrative costs for Social Security are very low - less than 1% of the program's budget. Diverting money to the stock market would incur the very high costs of brokers' commissions, mutual fund management fees, and other expenses inherent in buying and selling stocks and bonds.

Small investment accounts are very expensive to administer. Commissions and fees could easily burn up as much as 15 cents out of every dollar of a worker's annual investment as they do in some countries with privatized systems.

Wall Street brokers and fund managers would stand to make billions of dollars a year thanks to privatization, so it's no surprise that they strongly support the privatization movement!

source