The Ryan budget, Part I: Social Security
House Republicans today released a budget plan drafted by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, that claims to cut government spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade, lower the top tax rate on the wealthiest of Americans to 25 percent, cut the debt by $4.4 trillion, raise real GDP by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, restore Social Security and Medicare to solvency and bring the unemployment rate down to 4 percent by 2015.
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (AP photo)
Other than that, it doesn’t really promise much.
Given the importance of this debate, I thought I’d start a series of posts looking into those and other claims. And I want to begin with Ryan’s plan for saving Social Security, in part because it’s pretty quick and simple.
You see, the much-ballyhooed “Path to Prosperity” doesn’t even address the issue. Here are its recommendations regarding Social Security (p.47):
“– Force policymakers to come to the table and enact common-sense reforms to keep the program solvent for current beneficiaries and make it stronger for future generations. Social Security must be reformed to prevent severe cuts in future benefits.
— Set in motion the process of reforming Social Security by establishing a requirement that in the event that the Social Security program is not sustainable, the President, in conjunction with the Board of Trustees, must submit a plan for restoring balance to the fund. The budget then requires congressional leaders in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to put forward their best ideas as well.
– Move the conversation to solutions that save Social Security, thus providing the space to forge a bipartisan path forward and ensure that Social Security remains a key part of retirement security for the future.”
In effect, it is merely a plan to someday force other people to come up with a plan. To my mind, that falls a little short of bold and forthright.
In the budget document, Ryan does attempt to set the parameters for debate over Social Security’s future, and he makes two essential points.
First, he takes tax hikes off the table as any part of the solution. More specifically, he opposes any attempt to levy Social Security taxes on income above the current FICA ceiling — set at $106,800 in 2010 — claiming that such a move “would create a significant drag on economic growth, job creation, productivity and wages.”
Second, Ryan dismisses the notion that Social Security has a trust fund it can draw upon to pay future benefits, saying the claim is “derived from dubious government accounting.”
“From 1983 to 2011, the trust fund collected more in Social Security taxes than it paid out in Social Security benefits,” he acknowledges. “But the government borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other government programs unrelated to Social Security.”
In other words, he argues, the $2.6 trillion paper surplus doesn’t exist. The funds that working Americans thought they had been socking away through their weekly FICA taxes in preparation for retirement have already been spent on other things, and the idea that FICA taxes were truly separate from income taxes, with the revenue being set aside for separate purposes …. well, that was merely an unfortunate illusion.
Sorry about that. You were betrayed; get over it and suck it up.
However, there’s a fundamentally important contradiction between Ryan’s two points, a contradiction that strikes at the heart of fairness and equity.
If the Social Security surplus really doesn’t exist, if it was just an illusion that government has no obligation to honor, then the extra FICA taxes that working and middle class Americans have been paying for the past 28 years were also an illusion. In effect, since the money was being siphoned off to fund general government, those taxes were just an income tax by another name. That’s the real effect of Ryan’s claim.
However, if you accept that harsh reality, how do you justify exempting income above $106,000 from those taxes? If the money really isn’t going into Social Security, then why do working and middle class Americans have to pay it while more affluent Americans are largely protected?
Ryan and his GOP colleagues can’t have it both ways. They can’t justify the income cap on FICA taxes by claiming that the revenue is being set aside for Social Security, and then turn around and claim that it wasn’t being set aside for Social Security after all. There’s no consistency to those positions.
Well, let me take that back. There is one consistent thread between those two claims. The argument in favor of preserving the FICA cap protects upper-income Americans at the expense of the middle and working classes. Likewise, the argument that there is no Social Security surplus, and that benefits will have to be cut as a result, also favors upper-income Americans at the expense of the middle and working classes.
The path to prosperity indeed.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
318 comments Add your comment
Adam
April 5th, 2011
3:22 pm
LWM: I’m placing bets that if the economy recovers enough and the GOP RECOGNIZES that, then the argument will be “The tax cuts saved the economy, so we should keep them!” in stark contrast to their argument that they absolutely had to have them continued now because the economy needs to recover and THEN we can let them expire.
TaxPayer
April 5th, 2011
3:23 pm
jm,
Medicaid spending as % of GDP per Ryan Roadmap:
2020 – 1.6
2040 – 1.3
2060 – 1.1
2080 – 1.0
You mean that prescribed “growth” rate.
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
3:23 pm
jm
And how do the rich NOT benefit…? It would seem to me a bunch of homeless and destitute old folks hanging about would certainly put a crimp in the lifestyle. That line of logic is simply more of the limited vision of those who cannot see beyond their own pocketbook when it comes to the concept of social stability.
Secondly, if it weren’t for the working classes producing, where would the rich get their money?
Granny Godzilla
April 5th, 2011
3:25 pm
I see Mr Ryan’s budget also includes a couple of nifty little gifts to wWall Street….
TaxPayer
April 5th, 2011
3:25 pm
Hell, they’ve got Medicaid in place forever, through the year 2090.
I’m sure those in hell would love for forever to end in 2090.
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:26 pm
TaxPayer – % of GDP does not mean Medicaid spending declines in real, inflation adjusted dollars. Good grief man.
Doggone/GA
April 5th, 2011
3:26 pm
“Secondly, if it weren’t for the working classes producing, where would the rich get their money?”
“If there were no customers, there would be no NationWide” (from advertisement on TV)
The dumb get dumber
April 5th, 2011
3:27 pm
Granny -
And where all all your complaints of Odumba’s gifts to Wall St?
Left wing management
April 5th, 2011
3:27 pm
jm: “If home buyers hadn’t defaulted on their loans, there would not have been the recession we had.”
Are you tripping?
The house of cards collapsed because it had to, it had a time-bomb inside it. The adjustable junk mortgages started resetting at higher rates after initial low interest introductory terms expired and the music stopped with the seemingly automatic home appreciation the whole ponzi scheme was predicated on, from which point it simply spiraled out of control.
C’mon bubba, keep up now.
mm
April 5th, 2011
3:27 pm
jm,
Educate yourself.
Just because they don’t talk about on Fox News and Rush doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Adam
April 5th, 2011
3:28 pm
Doggone: Sometimes I feel many companies only see the customer/company relationship in the abstract. It’s good to think about but it doesn’t really MEAN anything, not like cold cash does.
Doggone/GA
April 5th, 2011
3:28 pm
“And where all all your complaints of Odumba’s gifts to Wall St?”
I guess you weren’t around back then. The complaints flew thick and fast
WOW
April 5th, 2011
3:28 pm
The Odds on Obama
By Mark Penn (Huffpissed writer)
If in the next year America sees a strong president firmly leading the country to solve its big problems and “winning the future,” it won’t matter who the Republican opponent is, he will win. And if they don’t see that, a billion dollars or more won’t stop the tide.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/05/the_odds_on_obama_109456.html
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
3:28 pm
Thirdly–$106,800 constitutes “rich?” Comfortable middle class, maybe, but rich?
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:29 pm
josef nix 3:23 – sorry, I’m not going to respond. To suggest that old folks lying on the street is their plan, and that that would put a crimp in their “lifestyle” is such a disgusting idea as to not really merit a response more than what I’ve just written.
as for your second point. It’s funny, it generally seems the truly wealthy could be dropped in any scenario and do just fine. so that argument doesn’t work either. And for the rubes that inherited their money and don’t actually know how to run a business, it would be nice if a recession would wipe them out, but D’s seem to prefer bailing them out.
Dave R.
April 5th, 2011
3:29 pm
“Dave R: If the GOP ever DOES get the Senate and the House at the same time, they might have to actually GOVERN instead of punting to the President like they are doing right now.”
Please. Nice rhetortic, but sadly lacking for any proof.
Doggone/GA
April 5th, 2011
3:29 pm
Adam – true, but I used that quote (it’s become a favorite) because of the MANY times I’ve been called an idiot for saying that very same thing…whenever someone asks (more or less) “which came first, the business or the customers?”
TaxPayer
April 5th, 2011
3:30 pm
jm,
Just why do you think GDP dollars is used as a reference.
WOW
April 5th, 2011
3:30 pm
josef nix
If you have a job, you are rich in the eyes of the wealth envy left wingers.
“I see Mr Ryan’s budget also includes a couple of nifty little gifts to wWall Street….”
You mean like BP, GE and GM that are Obama’s biggest donors?
Mighty Righty
April 5th, 2011
3:31 pm
Jay, you know there isn’t a Social Security Trust Fund. Never has been. The money collected has always been income to the General Fund beginning with FDR. To pretend otherwise is simply ignorance or dishonesty.
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:32 pm
Well MM, if you want to end the DOE, the State Department, and others the DVA, the DHS, among others, go ahead. You’ll have lots of R supporters.
But to argue that all those expenses are “military expenses” is such a specious argument as not merit more than an absolute dismissal.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 5th, 2011
3:32 pm
Why Doggone, dont you know that the Messiah Ryan has the answer: The problem with the corporate income tax is that corporations are not taxpayers – they are tax collectors.
Taxes on corporate income are borne by shareholders, employees and customers. Investors pay the cost in diminished returns. Workers pay the cost in lower wages. And consumers pay the cost in higher prices.
Why cut the taxes and the money just trickles down to the workers and not to CEO and special shareholder wealth.
Dave R.
April 5th, 2011
3:32 pm
Don’t be so modest, Doggone. You’ve been called an idiot for sooooo many other gems as well.
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2011
3:34 pm
TaxPayer
April 5th, 2011
3:20 pm
The Dumb get Dumber. It would appear that you have a bright future ahead of you given there is no place left for you to go but up.-taxpayer
Aaaaah yes. More hyperbole, no rationale argument, just more rhetoric. Why is it some libs have such a problem understanding the difference between fact less rhetoric and hyperbole vs. a rational, reasoned argument backed up with facts?
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:34 pm
TaxPayer – as a % of GDP is used as a reference point to show that we can get government spending under control relative to the size of our economy. THAT METRIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUANTITY, QUALITY, OR AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAID SERVICES. Such services would instead be completely preserved and funding increased every year, albeit at a slower pace than preivously
Adam
April 5th, 2011
3:34 pm
I didn’t have to provide proof for my assertion that the House GOP keeps punting to the President. It’s fairly obvious with all these bills that they know won’t pass the Senate, and with all this ridiculous rhetoric that Obama should “lead,” suggesting falsely that he is not leading. Not to mention any plan he has provided so far, they are either ignoring, not listening to, or genuinely not keeping up enough to know that he HAS provided a plan. Perhaps they too read too many conservative ditto blogs.
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:35 pm
mm wants to cut and / or eliminate the TSA. What a joke.
Adam
April 5th, 2011
3:35 pm
Well said Keep Up
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
3:36 pm
jm
Rather long for a no answer, I’d say…
Did I say at any point that that was their plan? You said the rich don’t “benefit” and, as is often the case for those who think only in terms of what’s jingling in their pockets, the social benefits from which all profit does not seem to enter into the equation. WITHOUT social security, that secenario and that crimp are not so far fetched…that “crimp in lifestyle” is not, you know, just money.
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:36 pm
Adam 3:34 – you have your facts backward. The POTUS is completely MIA in this debate and threw his debt commission under the bus. Leadership, HAH!
WOW
April 5th, 2011
3:37 pm
“Why cut the taxes and the money just trickles down to the workers and not to CEO and special shareholder wealth.’
Keep never took ECON 101 nor has he ever been in charge of a budget. Keep doesn’t realize that the CEO makes the big decisions within the company.
TaxPayer
April 5th, 2011
3:37 pm
jm,
Are you saying that the analysis given by the CBO in that link of yours is faulty because they used GDP in their table for the Medicaid outlays that I quoted. It sounds like you’re now trying to disown the results in your own link. It even sounds now as though you were for your linkee before you were against it.
Dave R.
April 5th, 2011
3:38 pm
“Not to mention any plan he has provided so far, they are either ignoring, not listening to, or genuinely not keeping up enough to know that he HAS provided a plan.”
Perhaps you’d like to provide us with a list of Hope & Punt’s current plans in Congress for us to peruse . . .
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:38 pm
josef nix 3:36 – I just find your line of thought disgusting. What do you mean by the non-monetary “crimp in lifestyle”?
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:39 pm
TaxPayer – nope. the point is, government spending gets under control relative to the size of the economy. Which is desperately needed. why don’t you go perp some fraud somewhere else
Mother Therese
April 5th, 2011
3:39 pm
Good News! Don’t worry about the U.S. budget, according to one of the GOP’S and Washington’s D.C. favorite newpapers:
895 billion was spent on Defense
520 billion on other Government discretionary items (No, entitlements are in this category). I suspect nothing the taxpaying public needs is in this category.
While only:
720 billion was spent on Social Security and 491 billion on Medicare.
Here’s the good news; we can easily fund SS and Medicare with all the extra money we have in our Defense spending and Discretionary Spending budget. We could easily cut 30% from our defense budget since we don’t patrol our borders. Plus since we are in an Economic Depression we could use the governments 520 billion Discretionary fund to help rebuild the Middle class of this country and our aging infrastructure.
I don’t understand why our government is having such a hard time with the budget when you look at the real numbers in the Federal Budget it is a no brainer.
Maybe our elected officials don’t know about this pot of gold. Please let them so know so they will not have to do something dumn like cut entitlements.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 5th, 2011
3:39 pm
Keep never took ECON 101 nor has he ever been in charge of a budget. Keep doesn’t realize that the CEO makes the big decisions within the company.
Another statement of ignorance without fact or knowledge of the truth. More childish noise without content. tick…tick…tick…
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
April 5th, 2011
3:40 pm
Dave
As I said on the previous thread, any sensible and tangible cuts in federal spending will have to be offset by the private sector picking up the slack. While the economy is slowly improving, it is not stable enough to enact the cuts that Ryan is proposing without damaging the economy. I think there’s a need to reduce spending, but I’m not willing to tank the economy for the sake of cutting spending. When sanity prevails, we all benefit. His plan is not sane to me with the current state of the economy.
WOW
April 5th, 2011
3:41 pm
“Another statement of ignorance without fact or knowledge of the truth. ”
So what business have you owned and operated, Keep? LOL
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:41 pm
Mother Therese – you are the epitome of dumb, as your 3:39 post proves.
Paul
April 5th, 2011
3:41 pm
This does get frustrating.
Rep Ryan’s contention there is no SS trust fund because the money’s been spent on other things is…. well, I think he knows better.
In years in which SS takes in more than it pays out, the SS Administration buys Treasuries. US Treasury bonds. There is a fund that grows because of interest. In years there’s less coming in then going out, bonds are redeemed. Seems simple.
What’s frustrating is seeing how Ryan constructs all this. It’s inherently contradictory, as Jay pointed out.
It’ll be a needless distraction. Like I said, Rep Ryan must know better. So, what’s his reason for putting it the way he has?
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
3:41 pm
WOW
And in the eyes of the wealth envy right wingers? Seriously, many go parroting the policies from which they do not stand to benefit financially so as to be thought of as “one of the gang.”
It’s all so reminiscent of back in high school the kids who wanted to be part of the “cool kids” clique and would suck up with whatever it was they thought that clique wanted to hear.
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:42 pm
ok i’m out things to do. burn our country liberals, then we can all be equally poor!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 5th, 2011
3:44 pm
wow…..glad that you acknowledge your complete ignorance in making your prior statement of my experience without knowing the facts.
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
April 5th, 2011
3:45 pm
Thirdly–$106,800 constitutes “rich?” Comfortable middle class, maybe, but rich?
It depends on where you live. That would definitely be rich in one of these places
http://www.faqs.org/shareranks/2641,Cities-with-Lowest-Per-Capita-Income
Probably not so “rich” in these places…
http://www.localdatabase.com/top-lists/income/highest_percapita/
Paul
April 5th, 2011
3:45 pm
Rep Ryan has a degree in economics.
He should know better.
If he picked up one or two government accounting classes along the way -
Left wing management
April 5th, 2011
3:47 pm
Adam: “I’m placing bets that if the economy recovers enough and the GOP RECOGNIZES that, then the argument will be “The tax cuts saved the economy, so we should keep them!” in stark contrast to their argument that they absolutely had to have them continued now because the economy needs to recover and THEN we can let them expire.”
Definitely. That has been the cynical reading all along – meaning, the one that’s almost 100% guaranteed to be right as an explanation of Republican strategy. There was even talk that the benefits from the tax cut / “mini-stimulus” last Christmas should run out more or less smack dab in the 2012 election season, meaning the economy should start to lose wind again. Of course, if it can get sucker-punched in the mean time, i.e. through a shutdown, all the better. They can count on further sinking poll numbers for Obama. That’s for the super-cynical explanation. Now if they go so far as to play Russian roulette with the debt ceiling this summer, then the bullet goes off in all our heads, theirs included.
jm: Concerning tax subsides to industries like solar and wind.
Yes, certainly, as it’s the proper role of government to provide a boost to fledgling industries, particularly when there are good reasons geopolitically, not to mention environmentally, to do so.
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
3:47 pm
jm
Obviously you are taking offense where none was intended. Social instablity puts a crimp in all our lifestyles. Believe me, when I’m out strolling about the neighborhood enjoying the good life, the sight of the shopping cart and bag ladies puts a “crimp” in that enjoyment. Multiply that by what would be there without a solid social security (and not just the government program with capital s’s) and before long I’d be locked into the same golden ghettoes characteristic of third world countries. I don’t want that.
TaxPayer
April 5th, 2011
3:48 pm
jm,
You seem to be having difficulties accepting your own linkee, your perper of fraud. Here is the text from your linkee, fraudulent one:
A detailed analysis of your proposal for Medicaid is beyond CBO’s capabilities for
long-term modeling. After discussions with your staff, CBO analyzed a modification
to the Roadmap based on an assumption: Beginning in 2011, total Medicaid spending
grows with the sum of the rate of population growth and the average of the
growth rates of the CPI-U and the CPI-M. Under that assumption, federal spending
for Medicaid under the Roadmap is projected to fall slightly, from less than 2 percent
of GDP in 2020 to just under 1 percent in 2080 (see Figure 3 on page 11).8
Notice their use of the word, “fall”, fraudulent one. Now go perp yourself, jm.
WOW
April 5th, 2011
3:48 pm
“wow…..glad that you acknowledge your complete ignorance in making your prior statement of my experience without knowing the facts.”
So what business have you ever owned and operated, Keep?
It’s a pretty easy answer and since you seem to think you know how a business should run, enlighten us all about how you ran said business. If the CEO and shareholders are irrelevant and should not get a dime, tell us how decisions should be made?
Mother Therese
April 5th, 2011
3:49 pm
JM, Did’nt you read the D.C. papers yesterday? I did! Do your research and get the facts before calling people names.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 5th, 2011
3:49 pm
Part of Messiah Ryan’s plan is an acknowledgment that Obama has proposed:
Reduce inefficient spending by $178 billion, following guidance from Defense Secretary
Robert Gates. Reinvest $100 billion of these savings into key combat capabilities, and put
the rest toward deficit reduction.
Oh wait…he did not give credit to Obama for that one did he?
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
3:49 pm
SoCo
Point well made.
Did you see the same thing in that list of lowest that I did?
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
April 5th, 2011
3:49 pm
Rep Ryan has a degree in economics.
He should know better.
He’s also a politician… Don’t forget that.
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
April 5th, 2011
3:52 pm
josef
I noticed there were no MS, AL, KY, or WV cities on that list. Kinda took me by surprise given the general welfare of parts of the population in those states.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 5th, 2011
3:52 pm
wow, i choose to ignore your silliness. But when you answer my prior questions to you to show me where Dr. Tiller is a murder in statute or court case and where the definition of sue and sew mean the same, I’ll reconsider……otherwise you’re just silly worthless noise. I mean fair is fair.
getalife
April 5th, 2011
3:53 pm
Did we expect anything different from the gop?
Surprised they documented this before an election.
Are people going to vote to take money from themselves to give to corporate donors?
cons will.
If we want to collapse the economy again to lose your jobs, this will do it.
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
3:54 pm
SoCo
I noiced that, too. But go and look at how many of those are Indian communities…
Hamilton
April 5th, 2011
3:56 pm
There are variables, but the notion that business is crippled by tax rates is not entirely supportable. Here’s a link to taxe rates over the last half century. Remember the halcyon days of the 1960s?
http://www.mymoneyblog.com/historical-federal-tax-rates-by-income-group.html
Dave R.
April 5th, 2011
3:56 pm
“If we want to collapse the economy again to lose your jobs, this will do it.”
Yeah, because government spending is so intertwined with the private sector. Right.
And what has Hope & Punt proposed? $8 billion? Good cover!
WOW
April 5th, 2011
3:58 pm
“wow, i choose to ignore your silliness.”
Ok, so you haven’t a clue as to how a business is run. Thanks for proving my point, Keep!
jm
April 5th, 2011
3:59 pm
jonix 3:47 – no one wants that and no one is going to throw grandma on the street
Taxpayer 3:48 – fall as a % of GDP does not mean total spending falls, or even spending per patient. go study some econ
BlahBlahBlah
April 5th, 2011
3:59 pm
Sorry Hamilton, tax rates are not a fair metric unless you account for changes in what is allowed to be deducted from income.
Take a look at taxes collected as a percentage of GDP. Regardless of the rates, we have rarely collected more than 20%. Yet the Democrats want 23-25% spending rates indefinitely. It’s a plan that can’t possibly succeed.
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
April 5th, 2011
3:59 pm
josef
I completely missed that. Damn……
Del
April 5th, 2011
4:00 pm
Of course the party of irresponsibility has offered up nothing in the form of a plan. Why they couldn’t even pass a budget when they controlled both chambers of Congress. Hopefully, the Republicans will stand firm against these idiots in the White House and in congress who deny the financial crises this country faces.
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
4:01 pm
jm
“jonix 3:47 – no one wants that and no one is going to throw grandma on the street”
But doesn’t that cost money? And if we continue to scr*w the social security programs, that’s where she’s going to wind up if we don’t think ahead…
josef nix
April 5th, 2011
4:02 pm
SoCo
You know what they say, out of sight, out of mind…
Paul
April 5th, 2011
4:02 pm
Keep up 3:49
“Oh wait…he did not give credit to Obama for that one did he?”
That might’ve been a political calculation to gain Republican support for cutting Defense. About the only way some might go along is if they say it was SecDef Gates’s idea.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 5th, 2011
4:02 pm
Why look, Messiah Ryan has channeled Jimmy Carter…but this time it must be true.
And it encourages the development of American-made renewable and alternative energy sources, including nuclear, wind, solar, and more, affirming the position that environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually exclusive goals.
____________________
wow… and you choose to dobule down on your post of acknowledged ignorance. lol. My point ws that you were ignorant and I did indeed prove that.
Southern Comfort (aka The Man)
April 5th, 2011
4:05 pm
josef
And that’s wrong on so many levels. But we live in the day and time of “every man for himself, other’s be damned” type thinking, so what else should we expect?
Get Real
April 5th, 2011
4:05 pm
At least the Republicans have the guts and the man berries to deal with the problem head on… whine all you want libbies, where is the democratic solution and leadership to reduce the $14 trillion debt that this country currently faces. I’ll tell you where, it is doesn’t exist. The democrats could not even pass a budget before the 2010 election as they were scared to….what a bunch of whimpy assed losers…….
Paul
April 5th, 2011
4:06 pm
SoCom
Oh yeah, how could I forget?
getalife
Thanks for keeping you-know-who tied up downstairs while this thread spun up.
’tis your good deed for the day –
—————————————————————————————–
Have I missed it, or has anyone taken issue with Jay’s conclusion?
“Ryan and his GOP colleagues can’t have it both ways. They can’t justify the income cap on FICA taxes by claiming that the revenue is being set aside for Social Security, and then turn around and claim that it wasn’t being set aside for Social Security after all. There’s no consistency to those positions.
Well, let me take that back. There is one consistent thread between those two claims. The argument in favor of preserving the FICA cap protects upper-income Americans at the expense of the middle and working classes. Likewise, the argument that there is no Social Security surplus, and that benefits will have to be cut as a result, also favors upper-income Americans at the expense of the middle and working classes.”
Dave R.
April 5th, 2011
4:07 pm
“That might’ve been a political calculation to gain Republican support for cutting Defense. About the only way some might go along is if they say it was SecDef Gates’s idea.”
Or, maybe because Ryan’s plan cuts $1 TRILLION from defense over the next 10 years, that $100 billlion pales in comparison.
Jay
April 5th, 2011
4:07 pm
Did you even read the column, Get Real? The Republican plan for saving Social Security is … someone else ought to come up with a plan.
WOW
April 5th, 2011
4:10 pm
“wow… and you choose to dobule down on your post of acknowledged ignorance. lol. My point ws that you were ignorant and I did indeed prove that.”
That doesn’t even make any sense, Poop!
Del
April 5th, 2011
4:11 pm
“someone else ought to come up with a plan.”
Actually, that’s been Obama and the Democrats plan.
Left wing management
April 5th, 2011
4:11 pm
A person making 70k per year would have to work approximately 14,000 years to make the income of one of the hedge fund managers who claimed $1b in income last year. That means that a person making 35k would have to work approx. 28,000 years to make that same amount.
We need to drastically raise taxes on the super rich.
Dave R.
April 5th, 2011
4:12 pm
” The Republican plan for saving Social Security is … someone else ought to come up with a plan.”
No, Jay. The Ryan Plan for saving SS is to be determined later with input from others. Reading compehension is your friend.
Paul
April 5th, 2011
4:13 pm
Dave R
Do you have a link for that? I read in DefenseNews that his budget preserves the DoD budget for 2012. That means he’s what, got to come up with $900 billion over ten years in addition to the Gates proposal? Or am I missing something?
carlosgvv
April 5th, 2011
4:15 pm
“while more affluent Americans are largely protected”
Protecting the wealthy who run Big Business is the number one priority of the Republicans. Sometimes this is painfully obvious, sometimes it is disguised in legal doublespeak. In return, they recieve huge financial bribes to fund their election and re-election campaigns. To them, it’s a marriage made in heaven. To ordinary Americans, it’s a marriage made in hell. Large amounts of brainwashing and propaganda keep their simple voters thinking the Party actually cares about them. Only in a dumbed-down America could so many people be duped.
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2011
4:16 pm
getalife
April 5th, 2011
3:53 pm
Did we expect anything different from the gop?
Surprised they documented this before an election.”-getalife
getalife,
What planet are you living on? “Surpised they documented this before an election?” What??? The next election is almost 2 years away. Almost 2 years buddy. If you think we’re too close to an election to discuss anything than we might as well just never discuss anything because its always going to be 2 years from an election whether midterm or presidential. Good grief!
Del
April 5th, 2011
4:16 pm
“We need to drastically raise taxes on the super rich.”
The problem there is that those poor souls only making 70k and 35k will be poorer souls making a lot less than that.
Granny Godzilla
April 5th, 2011
4:17 pm
someone else ought to come up with a plan
vs
to be determined later with input from others
mmmmmmm, looks like a duck…..
jay11
April 5th, 2011
4:17 pm
Do not let yourselves be spoonfed by the media. Our politicians are only interested inlooking in our direction when deciding who will be making the sacrifices. We know who our politicians really represent. Recently congress passed the extension to the ruinous Bush tax cuts (which the republicans are anxious to make permanent) and not one of them threatened a “government shutdown” when they passed it!!
The social security program really amounts toa compulsory savings program of OUR money for OUR retirement. Instead of keeping these funds safeguarded, collecting interest our representatives put it all in the general fund so they could spend it ( in other words, they stole it!,greed! greed! greed!).
Now that there is more money going out to retirees and less coming in due to the economy (fewer payroles, therefore less ss payrole taxes) this ponzi scheme is starting to collapse faster than a Madoll scam and that is why our politcians want to slash ss because they will have to find the money elsewhere and pay interest on the debt as well. GET IT!!
Get Real
April 5th, 2011
4:17 pm
Jaybo
I did read YOUR column and YOUR assessment of Ryan’s plan. I stand by what I said, where precisely is that democratic budget again? Maybe you know where it is, is it in Pelosi’s G5 or perhaps Reid left it in his saddlebag at the cowboy poet club or then again maybe it’s in Obama’s golf bag
Paul
April 5th, 2011
4:18 pm
Well, Dave R,
I just finished a search of the word “defense’ in Ryan’s plan. It just incorporates the very, very limited Gates proposal and goes on to justify why not another dollar can be cut.
He gets an F for that.
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2011
4:19 pm
So we’re 14 trillion in debt and its growing by billions literally every day.
The dem solution? They have none.
Their strategy? Criticize real solutions by complaining with the usual slogans- hurting the poor, tax breaks for the wealthy, the wealth envy card, blah, blah, blah.
Truth
April 5th, 2011
4:19 pm
Why can’t I exempt myself from social security taxes and any future social security payments? I can take care of myself.
I have a personal disability contract and I save for retirement. I sure could save the 14% (I am Self Employed) and invest it myself.
jay11
April 5th, 2011
4:20 pm
Definition of the dirty word “ENTITLEMENTS” –Any program paid for with American taxpayer dollars for services to and a direct benefit for same taxpayers AND NOT used for pork, earmarks, or graft.
NO WONDER OUR POLITICIANS THINK IT IS A DIRTY WORD!!
jm
April 5th, 2011
4:20 pm
jonix – by the way, what was frustrating to me is to think the wealthy would want to just “throw” the poor out on the street. that is anything but the intent, and would not be the result.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
April 5th, 2011
4:21 pm
Get Real…did you look at the comments on page 1. Jay posted the link to Obama’s 2012 budget proposal. Is the problem that you were reading another blog?
Rational
April 5th, 2011
4:21 pm
Jay makes sense by saying the plan for Social Security isn’t really a plan. It is a plan to make a plan. I am disappointed in Ryan as I expected better from him. Even saying something to the effect that it is “unfixable” would be better than saying someone else needs to fix it, but my plan makes it solvent again. Saying it is unfixable would force him and others to look seriously at it and figure out a new system or figure out a way to get the government out of retirement planning all together. That is the typical dodging you would expect from any politician. Guess my youth and wanting to believe that somebody, somewhere could come up with a solution for even the most basic of our problems got the better of me and caused me to hope he would be different.
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2011
4:21 pm
So the Dems are okay with us borrowing 40 cents for every dollar that we spend?
They are okay with imminent bankruptcy. Well at least we know where you stand now.
jay11
April 5th, 2011
4:22 pm
Most of the Bush tax cuts are for the very wealthy.
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2011
4:23 pm
The Obama administration’s projected deficit for FY 2011. 1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS. Nuff said!
jm
April 5th, 2011
4:23 pm
jonix 4:01 – no. social security can and should be strengthened for the poorest among us through means testing. I would increase benefits for the poorest to ensure “grandma isn’t on the street”, eliminate them for the upper class, and reduce them for the middle class.
As I’ve said before, lower the safety net, but strengthen it.
Corey
April 5th, 2011
4:23 pm
Riddle me this: Why will the Republican leadership never again debate Mr. Obama while the camera’s are rolling? See healthcare debate 2009 Obama vs GOP Leadership. Remember when Mr. Cantor pulled out a stack of papers and Mr. Obama stated, “I see you brought your props.”
Thulsa Doom
April 5th, 2011
4:24 pm
Here comes the Democratic strategy. Get ready for it!!!
1) Blame Bush
2) Bash Palin
3) Scream Racism
jm
April 5th, 2011
4:24 pm
back to work
Del
April 5th, 2011
4:27 pm
If Obama was a leader he would have laid out a budget that addressed the deficit and dealt with entitlements that could be sent over to Congress for debate. Then it could be set side by side with the Ryan proposal for comparison. Of course that’s just not going to happen, so the libs are only commiserating with one and other attempting to divert attention away from their leaders incompetency.