Pence: ‘We’ve got to have a conversation’ about reforming Social Security

[Gunny]

Don't have a problem with the way Pence states this until he gets to the part about "piling on our grandchildren's backs". Give me a break. All the unnecessary spending Congress/WH is already doing isn't piling on our grandchildren's backs?

Social Security may need to be reformed, but so does the rest of the out of control government spending.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3843718-pence-weve-got-to-have-a-conversation-about-reforming-social-security/

[fj1200]

At least he's not shying away from the issue.

[SassyLady]

Don't have a problem with the way Pence states this until he gets to the part about "piling on our grandchildren's backs". Give me a break. All the unnecessary spending Congress/WH is already doing isn't piling on our grandchildren's backs?

Social Security may need to be reformed, but so does the rest of the out of control government spending.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3843718-pence-weve-got-to-have-a-conversation-about-reforming-social-security/
What about us? We are someone's grandchildren. We supported our grandparents while they were on SS.

[Kathianne]

What about us? We are someone's grandchildren. We supported our grandparents while they were on SS.

My grandparents never were on SDI. My parents were.

[revelarts]

Maybe we'd have a bit more for SS if we didn't send Ukraine 48 billion?

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

but that's crazy talk.

[fj1200]

What about us? We are someone's grandchildren. We supported our grandparents while they were on SS.

Your grandparents had 7* kids. Nobody has near that many nowadays.

*A guess. But my paternal grandparents had 7. Maternal side? 4

[fj1200]

Maybe we'd have a bit more for SS if we didn't send Ukraine 48 billion?

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

but that's crazy talk.

Maybe true, but wouldn't change a penny of an unsustainable government program.

[revelarts]

Maybe true, but wouldn't change a penny of an unsustainable government program.

Well It might if the pentagon could also find the few trillion it can't account for.
i think we might have it covered.


BTW what evr happened to the SS "LOCK BOX" Al Gore talked about, that was the only good Idea he had.
He should be talking about that rather than Climate Change.

[fj1200]

Well It might if the pentagon could also find the few trillion it can't account for.
i think we might have it covered.


BTW what evr happened to the SS "LOCK BOX" Al Gore talked about, that was the only good Idea he had.
He should be talking about that rather than Climate Change.

Would make no difference. Draining the SS "trust fund/lockbox" is an actuarial certainty.

[SassyLady]

My grandparents never were on SDI. My parents were.
Isn’t SDI is social security disability?

[Kathianne]

Isn’t SDI is social security disability? That was typo, SSI.

[SassyLady]

Your grandparents had 7* kids. Nobody has near that many nowadays.

*A guess. But my paternal grandparents had 7. Maternal side? 4

My maternal grandparents had 9.
My paternal grandparents had 8.

My parents had total of 9 .... I had 3 full brothers, 3 half brothers and 2 sisters.

I, on the other hand, only had one child. And she doesn't work so she's definitely not contributing to SS.

[Gunny]

At least he's not shying away from the issue.Ought to make him as popular as when GWB first floated the idea. At that point in time I was all for GWB's idea. Been awhile, so I'm sure it needed some tweaks here and there but I was game for the idea of investing that money myself. Who couldn't make a dollar work better than the US government (besides the US government)?

[Gunny]

What about us? We are someone's grandchildren. We supported our grandparents while they were on SS.That is a good point.

Especially at this point in time when I wouldn't bet a Confederate 3 dollar bill on the survival of this Nation as it is, never mind what it once was. It has always been an issue with me that we are supposedly paying off our forefathers' debt "for the sake of our grandchildren". Just another government, fearmongering lie. Appeal to one's fear for their family's future.

The government is supposed to be accountable to us, not the other way around -- the latter being the reality.

[Gunny]

Maybe we'd have a bit more for SS if we didn't send Ukraine 48 billion?

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts

but that's crazy talk.

Unrealistic talk. No such money would ever go to SS. Ethiopia maybe. Or China. Don't try selling your disagreement with support for people fighting for their freedom from oppression as a means to fixing a systemic government failure rotten to the core.

[fj1200]

My maternal grandparents had 9.
My paternal grandparents had 8.

My parents had total of 9 .... I had 3 full brothers, 3 half brothers and 2 sisters.

I, on the other hand, only had one child. And she doesn't work so she's definitely not contributing to SS.

^The long-term problem with SS in a nutshell.


Ought to make him as popular as when GWB first floated the idea.

Probably right but it should be talked about. I think the best path forward is a bipartisan solution out of the Senate.

[Gunny]

^The long-term problem with SS in a nutshell.



Probably right but it should be talked about. I think the best path forward is a bipartisan solution out of the Senate.I don't have a problem with talking about the issue. I don't have a problem with reforming SS going forward. I DO have a problem with punishing those who have spent their whole lives getting screwed over by it to begin with, by screwing them some more.

When the military went from "retirement = 50% of your base pay at the highest rank held" to "35% of your base pay based on a combination percentage of your last 3 years in service" they had a cut-off date and that was that. They didn't go and screw everyone who joined before Sep 80 out of their 50%. And no matter how you want to word it, it IS screwing people.

Be that as it may, as long as current politics rule, the discussion will never be had. Honestly anyway. The second Republicans say "let's discuss SS", the Dems/MSM start wailing from on high the narrative that "Republicans want to cut your SS benefits". It even came out in that fell-good vote against socialism the House held. A lot of the Dems who voted against did so because they couldn't add that current socialist programs are okay (you are free to make sense of that as you will :)).

[Kathianne]

I don't have a problem with talking about the issue. I don't have a problem with reforming SS going forward. I DO have a problem with punishing those who have spent their whole lives getting screwed over by it to begin with, by screwing them some more.

When the military went from "retirement = 50% of your base pay at the highest rank held" to "35% of your base pay based on a combination percentage of your last 3 years in service" they had a cut-off date and that was that. They didn't go and screw everyone who joined before Sep 80 out of their 50%. And no matter how you want to word it, it IS screwing people.

Be that as it may, as long as current politics rule, the discussion will never be had. Honestly anyway. The second Republicans say "let's discuss SS", the Dems/MSM start wailing from on high the narrative that "Republicans want to cut your SS benefits". It even came out in that fell-good vote against socialism the House held. A lot of the Dems who voted against did so because they couldn't add that current socialist programs are okay (you are free to make sense of that as you will :)).
I totally agree. Can't put the rug out from under people. There has to be a 'cut off' for the first move, maybe 50 0r 55. Then it needs to be phased in, again, people that close to retirement already have counted on to a degree-maybe too high of a degree.

There should also be some sort of safety net created to protect those that have disabilities that prevent them from going to full age.

[SassyLady]

In the SOTU speech Biden reiterated nothing will happen to social security and the entire house stood up and applauded.

[Gunny]

In the SOTU speech Biden reiterated nothing will happen to social security and the entire house stood up and applauded.Might be the safest and most popular answer, but again, not the correct one. For better or worse the program needs an overhaul.

A good start would be getting that message into the heads of the people instead of using it as a partisan wedge. The Republicans are as guilty for not getting a clear message out as the Dems are for using as another fearmongering cudgel.

[fj1200]

... the entire house stood up and applauded.

Yay! Socialism wins. Next Stop: Argentina, circa 100 years ago (https://latinaer.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40503-019-0076-2).

[Kathianne]

Yay! Socialism wins. Next Stop: Argentina, circa 100 years ago (https://latinaer.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40503-019-0076-2).

Yep, as things stand today.

However, I do think there's something to the 'sticking with it' and repeating. It's how these programs developed and how they will eventually devolve. Bottom line, that which is not sustainable, will not be sustained.

Along the way, reality is going to have to be told to the public, (has started), and be repeated over and over. Appealing to their kids and grandkids is the best way to connect-along with reassurances that the rug will not be pulled out.

The above is dealing with those at or closing in on retirement.

There's the whole explaining to the younger set, though they are more concerned about being screwed today AND in the future. Truth is, they will be, though there has to be some way to return payments made-probably without interest over years and years in amounts likely so small as to be irrelevant.

[Gunny]

Yep, as things stand today.

However, I do think there's something to the 'sticking with it' and repeating. It's how these programs developed and how they will eventually devolve. Bottom line, that which is not sustainable, will not be sustained.

Along the way, reality is going to have to be told to the public, (has started), and be repeated over and over. Appealing to their kids and grandkids is the best way to connect-along with reassurances that the rug will not be pulled out.

The above is dealing with those at or closing in on retirement.

There's the whole explaining to the younger set, though they are more concerned about being screwed today AND in the future. Truth is, they will be, though there has to be some way to return payments made-probably without interest over years and years in amounts likely so small as to be irrelevant.

The transition is what is key. What to offer? I'm still of the mind that the government instead of the taxpayer bite the bullet on this one and use taxpayer dollars it has earmarked for its spending black hole. I realize taxpayer/government is chicken-egg (that costs a fortune now, btw), but the fact is, the government's taking it anyway and not very likely to give it back.

This IS a problem created by government.

Back to going forward, then what? Stop taking SS from the younger crowd and tell them to invest wisely? Or do we pull an Obamacare and force them under threat of penalty to invest? If the latter, it's just SS with a different coat of paint and the government relieved of responsibility of COLA.

What do we do with those still in need who didn't invest wisely? Tell them to move to San Francisco or LA?

I'm all for personal responsibility. At the same time, reality dictates I not act like it exists in any great measure.

[fj1200]

Yep, as things stand today.

However, I do think there's something to the 'sticking with it' and repeating. It's how these programs developed and how they will eventually devolve. Bottom line, that which is not sustainable, will not be sustained.

Along the way, reality is going to have to be told to the public, (has started), and be repeated over and over. Appealing to their kids and grandkids is the best way to connect-along with reassurances that the rug will not be pulled out.

The above is dealing with those at or closing in on retirement.

There's the whole explaining to the younger set, though they are more concerned about being screwed today AND in the future. Truth is, they will be, though there has to be some way to return payments made-probably without interest over years and years in amounts likely so small as to be irrelevant.


The transition is what is key. What to offer? I'm still of the mind that the government instead of the taxpayer bite the bullet on this one and use taxpayer dollars it has earmarked for its spending black hole. I realize taxpayer/government is chicken-egg (that costs a fortune now, btw), but the fact is, the government's taking it anyway and not very likely to give it back.

This IS a problem created by government.

Back to going forward, then what? Stop taking SS from the younger crowd and tell them to invest wisely? Or do we pull an Obamacare and force them under threat of penalty to invest? If the latter, it's just SS with a different coat of paint and the government relieved of responsibility of COLA.

What do we do with those still in need who didn't invest wisely? Tell them to move to San Francisco or LA?

I'm all for personal responsibility. At the same time, reality dictates I not act like it exists in any great measure.

I don't disagree with either of you. Figure out the transition, educate the younger folks and make the plan better for them (or at least educated on the eventual do-nothing outcome), and hope some cooler heads prevail in Congress when trying to come up with a solution.

[Kathianne]

The transition is what is key. What to offer? I'm still of the mind that the government instead of the taxpayer bite the bullet on this one and use taxpayer dollars it has earmarked for its spending black hole. I realize taxpayer/government is chicken-egg (that costs a fortune now, btw), but the fact is, the government's taking it anyway and not very likely to give it back.

This IS a problem created by government.

Back to going forward, then what? Stop taking SS from the younger crowd and tell them to invest wisely? Or do we pull an Obamacare and force them under threat of penalty to invest? If the latter, it's just SS with a different coat of paint and the government relieved of responsibility of COLA.

What do we do with those still in need who didn't invest wisely? Tell them to move to San Francisco or LA?

I'm all for personal responsibility. At the same time, reality dictates I not act like it exists in any great measure.

I believe that SS needs to be phased out, both individuals and companies can and do a better job already-which is basically demonstrated by the baby boom that between SSI and own retirement funds, live much better than nearly any other age group. That's NOT happening with SSI payments, overgenerous that they are today.

It cannot be done overnight. IMO, the funds cannot just be confiscated and not returned-which is what most fear. All monies need to be returned-at least. For those now just entering and paying into, their 'returns' 50 years from now won't be worth diddly, yet should be returned.