http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012 ... b-woodward

Big fucking surprise!

well its either you reduce social programs now to a sustainable level or go on an sustainable level and then have to drastically reduce them in the future...


If you think about it...
What it is the socially progressive and fiscally responsible thing to do?




Raising taxes will work but as we have seen in the UK, massively increasing taxes on the rich really does not generate much income. Reason being is.... The world is a smaller place and capital flows seamlessly between 100's of countries.

Social Security is perfectly sustainable, and to pretend that it isn't is utterly stupid. Nix the wage cap. The lies going on about SS/Medicare are basically trojan horses for privatization.

*whine whine whine* -Tyler

How's getting married at and buying a house at, what was it...20 working for you?

Better than you.

According to Tyler 16 trillion in debt is not a big deal...

No worries it will be 20 trillion by 2016...

Wanna bet?

Bet that the debt will not reach 20 trillion by 2016?

Its 16.250 billion right now...

Clearly, you have no idea how Social Security works. Or why we are in a pickle when it comes to the deficit, and that certain people would profit immensely from austerity as the long recession continues at the expense of most.

Yes its all George Bush's fault and Obama is not to blame for single penny of it..
I actually agree with that but now its the 2nd term...

The wars have mostly ended and the stimulus has been long over..

Its simple the problem is you guys spend like idiots and don't tax enough...

I agree austerity would hurt the US but we have to look at the long term.

Creating a stable fiscal future for America should be high priority.

Simply put raising taxes for the rich or just slashing all spending will not fix the problem.
Hugely increasing taxes on the rich has been shown to not generate anywhere near the levels of revenues as expected as we have seen in the UK recently.
Massively decreasing spending leads the economy back into a recession.

Enough wasting time on Abortion and other issues that are not anywhere near as important...

I'm probably in the minority in thinking the Economy is not the most important issue.

There's really nothing we can do about it now. But yes, Iraq and the 2001 tax cuts didn't help.

Correct. Climate chaos is.

To the average person the economy is the most important issue...

I am an average person so its important to me.

I want the govt to create stability...

Well, humans are poor at reacting to slow-moving crises.

Like Social Security?

No, you Cato shills, not SS.

People keep saying SS plans across the world are sustainable and then reports keep coming out saying they are not...

All I know is that public sector pensions are not sustainable...
Here in Canada the retirement age for such workers has been raised and most new hires got far less generous benefits...

Similar changes need to be adapted in Amierca...

Remove the wage cap, and look at the Greenspan Commission reforms and the conditions of why/how they were enacted. It's perfectly sustainable with these obvious tweaks, and anyone that demonizes SS otherwise probably has ulterior motives.

Would you enact a benefits cap? What you are proposing is simply a tax increase on those who get nothing additional from SS to those who put in little but get much in return. Sounds like you have an ulterior motive in income redistribution.

Considering the median wage has declined in the last forty years as productivity has gone up, calling it "redistribution" is misleading. It's compensation for lost labor value.

simply put I think ending Social Security for those with enough to spare should be done.
I know in Canada, everyone gets some sort of Retirement pension... not sure about the US...


I am not a professional Fin Planner, but from what I know people who have some wealth who retire, don't really see Govt income as a source of retirement income.

Its more like icing on the cake...



About Govt spending, reduce pensions to all new hires and reduce payouts to current employees.
It is quite unfair to ask normal people who don't not have such benefits to pay higher taxes or have reduced services to pay for an overly generous govt pension.

Most people in the United States do not have pensions. Social Security is not a pension, though people look at it that way, and everyone gets it when they reach certain age thresholds, though I think they have to pay some minimum amount to collect (though I could be wrong on that) but that amount is outweighed by what they receive in return + COLAs until they die.

I have a 401k where my company matches my contributions up to 8% of my biweekly gross income. I also have to pay into Social Security.

Here in Canada everyone gets a base pension at 65 if they have been in Canada over 10 years.
If you worked for over 40 years, you get the full pension.


If you make under 60-70k in retirement you get an extra pension called Old Age Security, but that has been raised to 67 in the next few decades as that come straight out of govt revenues...

The age was raised because there is going to be a lot of old people soon, and the costs were going to cripple the govt in the future.


Changes like that I think can help fix the problems in the US.

People lived to 80 now, do people born who are young today need to retire at 65?