Possible Social Security Fix

[astonmartin708]

Such a tall task given the money and media control of the two major parties. Anytime a third party threat enters the political scene the media backed by the two political parties go on the attack.

Well, nothing will get fixed with the status quo. You can only reach the top of the mountain by climbing… even if it looks insurmountable at the bottom.

 

[astonmartin708]

Mostly true. Elements of the Republican Party tried for years, mostly in the late 80’s and 90’s, to undertake common sense Main Street reforms. What they got for their trouble was endless attack ads scaring seniors to the polls to vote them out of office. Which happened enough the moderates on both sides won’t touch it now. Indeed, much of the modern day framework of anonymous attack ads supposedly unconnected to candidates found its genesis in this type of fear mongering/electioneering. What they also got was some colleagues in league with rogue elements of Wall Street looking to do things like privatize the operation. For every patriot Republican trying to reform SS and make it buoyant, there was a crank in a safe seat lobbing bombs or spinning fairy tales of a Wall Street take over who could get a better return and lower the tax rate. Seated next to them was a salad bar of Democrats looking to raise the rate and expand the number of beneficiaries because they couldn’t get their aging New Deal programs through traditional budget means. Some are still doing it. Though Obama’s people do get credit for conceding that reforms were needed, but they realized they didn’t have any political cover and started talking about taking any improvements from reforms and a portion be paid out to an expanded number of beneficiaries. Basically we need to spend 40% of proposed savings. Good plan there guys. Gore borrowed from both camps. He said Bush wanted to put Social Security at risk and that he had a “lock box” plan to reform it (which was an off the shelf plan proposed by Republican reformers two years prior defeated by the Dems in a party line vote including Gore himself) but that those savings such help expand payments above inflation and allow more people on the rolls before retirement. At least Gore wanted to ensure long term financial stability of the fund before we start paying for things Medicaid should be paying for but can’t get through Congress.

Tocqueville warned that one of the very few flaws in our system is that we can’t manage or restrain entitlements paid directly to voters. I’m afraid your answer is that our system just isn’t cut out for comprehensive entitlement reform. It may take a large group of Mattis like figures, unimpeachable in their patriotism and unquestioned in their disinterest in political ambition, to have a direct discussion with the American people about it. Literally a cadre of General Washingtons. And the context will be that we can no longer protect the nation if the current path continues. Such a conversation will have to be impeccably timed, but would likely come too late.

And if you are scoring at home. If you had taken all the new spending under Biden and put into SS, it would be solvent for the next 40 years. Enjoy those bridges and tax breaks for EV scamsters folks!

Lmao. We finally start to reach some middle ground and you come back with a “well actually”

Your party is just as much to blame as the Democratic Party is. There are reasonable people in both who want to fix some of these problems. Don’t act like you have the high ground. Everyone is in the same pit. The sooner you and others accept that, the sooner we can start to climb out.

 

[lawpoke87]

Lmao. We finally start to reach some middle ground and you come back with a “well actually”

Your party is just as much to blame as the Democratic Party is. There are reasonable people in both who want to fix some of these problems. Don’t act like you have the high ground. Everyone is in the same pit. The sooner you and others accept that, the sooner we can start to climb out.

I good first step would be for both parties to sign a pledge agreeing not to use any proposal made by either side for political purposes. Sadly, im convinced both parties care only about power so this will never happen. However, such a step would be necessary if we’re ever going to have an honest discussion about SS as well as other reducing spending in general

 

[HuffyCane]

I good first step would be for both parties to sign a pledge agreeing not to use any proposal made by either side for political purposes. Sadly, im convinced both parties care only about power so this will never happen. However, such a step would be necessary if we’re ever going to have an honest discussion about SS as well as other reducing spending in general

Would never happen. The purpose of political parties is to elect party candidates. Nothing more or less is tolerated. Each of those members you would propose sign such a document is a party member, accountable to the fundraising arm and the primary candidate grooming arm. Anyone signing such a document would find themselves cut off from money and primaried. And likely without colleagues for the remainder of their term. Congressmen have house payments too. They go along to get along. With a hope they one day get the chance to really cash in/make a difference.

This, amongst other reasons, is why I said you would need people outside The Process, but with impeccable national leadership credibility and unquestioned neutrality, to step forward. The idea of a junta of retired military officers going on CNN and saying we need to call our Congressman and the President and tell them to act and lay off 20% of the federal workforce and slash grants and discretionary spending because the Army doesn’t have the funds for gas or ammo and can’t fight for more than 189 days is not palatable but perhaps inevitable.

 

[aTUfan]

There are quite a few wealthy folks who I could say the same about outside of this social security conversation.

yes. Legalized by Congress.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Such a tall task given the money and media control of the two major parties. Anytime a third party threat enters the political scene the media backed by the two political parties go on the attack.

How bout not proposing something that hasn't happened since the 1850's. That has about as much promise as a liquidic flagellation. You saw what happened when they tried to do something with the no labels party. Maybe No Labels, or some other party, or two parties(centrist democrats & centrist republicans) will do something in the future. But it has no hope in the immediate term.