Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Obviously social security needs to take some kind of cut. (as will medicaid and the military)
It should respect that the money paid in belongs to the people who paid it. It should not cause people to starve. Everyone's cut should be commensurate with how much they paid in.
Does Ryan's plan meet those criteria?
He proposes to phase it out over about 70 years and privatize it at the same time. If he had phased it out over 100 years and eliminated it that would be only 1% per year. But he is not talking about eliminating it. It is probably safe to say that his cuts would be small. Maybe too small to help.
He is talking about reducing the benefits paid to the top 70% of people in the program and letting the younger people privatize what they get.
Will anyone starve? No those who would be at risk to starve are not getting a cut.
Does it respect that the money paid in belongs to the people who paid it in? Mostly. If you are in the bottom 30% it does. If you are in the top 70% there was never a trustworthy promise that you would get a certain amount for a certain amount of time (though there were false promises). Obviously some kind of cut is going to happen. The cut will either be planned or the system will just collapse. So the cuts to these people mostly respects that it is their money.
Are the cuts commensurate with how much a person paid in? No. Some people will have paid in more but will receive the reductions in benefits. Others will have paid in some but would receive no reduction in benefits.
Clearly the reduction in benefits needs to be applied to all people the same regardless of whether they are in the top 70% or the bottom 30%. Would this cause people to starve? No. not only should no one have expected that social security would be their only source of income, but anyone who would be at risk for starving would still have medicaid to rely on.
It would be a huge mistake - opening Pandora's Box - to make reductions in benefits to the top 70% and not to the bottom 30%. Right now the program is not supposed to be welfare. Making the cuts as he plans would turn it into a welfare program and once that door is open no one will be able to shut it.
Obviously he is afraid of the political backlash if he does not exempt the bottom 30%. But he has the upper hand and he needs to advance his plan from a position of strength. Every day that we wait more and more people will realize that the cuts must happen and that there is no choice. He does not need to give in.
It should respect that the money paid in belongs to the people who paid it. It should not cause people to starve. Everyone's cut should be commensurate with how much they paid in.
Does Ryan's plan meet those criteria?
He proposes to phase it out over about 70 years and privatize it at the same time. If he had phased it out over 100 years and eliminated it that would be only 1% per year. But he is not talking about eliminating it. It is probably safe to say that his cuts would be small. Maybe too small to help.
He is talking about reducing the benefits paid to the top 70% of people in the program and letting the younger people privatize what they get.
Will anyone starve? No those who would be at risk to starve are not getting a cut.
Does it respect that the money paid in belongs to the people who paid it in? Mostly. If you are in the bottom 30% it does. If you are in the top 70% there was never a trustworthy promise that you would get a certain amount for a certain amount of time (though there were false promises). Obviously some kind of cut is going to happen. The cut will either be planned or the system will just collapse. So the cuts to these people mostly respects that it is their money.
Are the cuts commensurate with how much a person paid in? No. Some people will have paid in more but will receive the reductions in benefits. Others will have paid in some but would receive no reduction in benefits.
Clearly the reduction in benefits needs to be applied to all people the same regardless of whether they are in the top 70% or the bottom 30%. Would this cause people to starve? No. not only should no one have expected that social security would be their only source of income, but anyone who would be at risk for starving would still have medicaid to rely on.
It would be a huge mistake - opening Pandora's Box - to make reductions in benefits to the top 70% and not to the bottom 30%. Right now the program is not supposed to be welfare. Making the cuts as he plans would turn it into a welfare program and once that door is open no one will be able to shut it.
Obviously he is afraid of the political backlash if he does not exempt the bottom 30%. But he has the upper hand and he needs to advance his plan from a position of strength. Every day that we wait more and more people will realize that the cuts must happen and that there is no choice. He does not need to give in.
