Thread: Romney waging Class Warfare

And then, the economic road map of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee swerves off in an unexpected direction: means testing for recipients of Medicare and Social Security.

That means well-to-do Americans would eventually get a lesser share of benefits from those big government entitlement programs than they do now.

“We don’t need Social Security to provide retirement income for upper-income people,” says Glenn Hubbard, a top economic adviser to Mr. Romney and the dean of the Columbia University Business School here, in an interview.

“The nation can’t afford a very large program that’s across the board. What we can do is focus on people who really need help.”

The solution under Romneyomics? Future retirees who are well off would see their benefits rise at a slower pace than would be the case for current retirees – and at a slower pace than for their middle-income peers, says Mr. Hubbard. Likewise, higher-income Americans might be required to pay for private insurance or to pay an additional premium if they want to remain in the Medicare system.

It may seem an unorthodox proposal for the standard-bearer of the Republican Party, which likes to castigate President Obama for “class warfare” over his desire to end the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/47732208

While this does smack of rank hypocrisy because of "Class Warfare" statements, it also is sensible.

Too bad the GOP and the Democrats couldn't put aside their bullshit and just agree to some things like this.

Seems like a good idea to me.

Maybe if the media's first reaction wasn't to cry "hypocrisy" this country could actually get something done. Good ideas should be acknowledged as such, even if they're hypocritical or inconsistent with prior positions. And that door swings both ways.

Will the Dumbest Person in America think it is a good idea? It is a tax increase after all.

True Bunion ^^^^
About the only place where class/socio economic warfare/distinctions makes sense.

People who have healthy/viable retirement plans in place don't need SS. It should be looked upon as a last gap measure for folks who've not been able to salt funds away, or otherwise fallen on hard times at some point and forced to exhaust their retirement accounts (we were forced to dip heavily to keep up on a normal mortgage, utilities, insurance and college funding). I'm just now starting to be able put funds back into my account.

SS is gonna fail at some point it seems unless something is done to rectify the payment/benefit methods.

Originally Posted by OSECS

SS is gonna fail at some point it seems unless something is done to rectify the payment/benefit methods.

It will fail because the Baby Boomers are determined to leave a bloodless corpse of a nation as their legacy.

Isn't everyone promoting getting away from partisanship and not toeing the party line? Seems like this is exactly what most have been asking for... and from a potential GOP candidate no less.

I'd be curious to know what income level is "break even" for paying into SS.

On average, people making $XX,XXX per year (or who paid in $XXXXXX over a lifetime) end up drawing out about the same as they put in.

Anyone know $X?

Originally Posted by 4matic

Will the Dumbest Person in America think it is a good idea? It is a tax increase after all.

I haven't heard Obama's opinion yet but I'm sure he won't say anything because if he does, he'll have to agree with Romney.

Originally Posted by 4matic

It will fail because the Baby Boomers are determined to leave a bloodless corpse of a nation as their legacy.

Well I'm a baby boomer, and I have children, and I don't want them to be saddled with the shit that's potentially coming down the pike. I'd certainly like to know that if I needed SS it would be in place. As it is I'm doing everything in my power to be solvent when and if I ever retire, which I don't plan on doing. I love what I do for a living.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

I haven't heard Obama's opinion yet but I'm sure he won't say anything because if he does, he'll have to agree with Romney.

Higher taxes are the same thing as lower benefits for high wage earners. Either way it is a tax increase according to conservatives so in fact Romney is proposing higher taxes. Go Tea Party!

Originally Posted by OSECS

Well I'm a baby boomer, and I have children, and I don't want them to be saddled with the shit that's potentially coming down the pike. I'd certainly like to know that if I needed SS it would be in place. As it is I'm doing everything in my power to be solvent when and if I ever retire, which I don't plan on doing. I love what I do for a living.

So am I. I'll give them 6 months delayed/lower benefit right now to save the system. You will NEVER see compromise from the Tea Party on senior entitlements being the hypocrite fail bots that they are.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

I'd be curious to know what income level is "break even" for paying into SS.

On average, people making $XX,XXX per year (or who paid in $XXXXXX over a lifetime) end up drawing out about the same as they put in.

Anyone know $X?

Does it matter? It's class warfare, right? Be consistent.

Originally Posted by 4matic

Higher taxes are the same thing as lower benefits for high wage earners. Either way it is a tax increase according to conservatives so in fact Romney is proposing higher taxes. Go Tea Party!

Well if you're getting less service for the the same amount of tax, how is that not a tax increase ? Same net effect, is it not ?

Originally Posted by 4matic

So am I. I'll give them 6 months delayed/lower benefit right now to save the system. You will NEVER see compromise from the Tea Party on senior entitlements being the hypocrite fail bots that they are.

I agree with you, but it's easy from your/our shared opinion to give up what others have been banking on.

The money boomers get in SS will probably outstrip what they've paid in, isn't that generally accepted as being true, based on increased life spans?

Originally Posted by OSECS

I agree with you, but it's easy from your/our shared opinion to give up what others have been banking on.

The money boomers get in SS will probably outstrip what they've paid in, isn't that generally accepted as being true, based on increased life spans?

SS is actually ok with some minor tweaks. It's Medicare that is afu.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Well if you're getting less service for the the same amount of tax, how is that not a tax increase ? Same net effect, is it not ?

So if say a library closes for lack of funding that's a tax increase?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

So if say a library closes for lack of funding that's a tax increase?

It is. You are paying more for less service.

Originally Posted by 4matic

It is. You are paying more for less service.

Not really. The service is still there, it's just provided by another library...unless you're saying that all libraries close due to lack of funding.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Not really. The service is still there, it's just provided by another library...unless you're saying that all libraries close due to lack of funding.

Like ending oil company and farm subsidies are tax increases?

Originally Posted by 4matic

You are paying more for less service.

Actually, wouldn't it be paying the same for less service?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

Actually, wouldn't it be paying the same for less service?

Yes. Good one.

Originally Posted by 4matic

Like ending oil company and farm subsidies are tax increases?

True....

Originally Posted by 4matic

It will fail because the Baby Boomers are determined to leave a bloodless corpse of a nation as their legacy.

x1 billion

SS fucking works, when there were more earners than beneficiaries it ran a very large 2 trillion dollar surplus. Gov't being gov't took that money from the SS trust fund and used it for other shit which has long been forgotten about, essentially they lent themselves 2 trillion dollars. Eternal asshole Al Gore in perhaps his only good idea outside of creating the internet proposed a lock box, remember that shit from the 2000 debate where Al wanted to put everything in a lock box well maybe this time that would have been a good idea.

SS is just like the national post service in that gov't policy not the underlying straight up economics of the business is what is creating these large negative balances. 1970 was the last time the USPS took money from the taxpayers, 30k offices with a 99.9% delivery and not a single dime from Joe sixpack. But ABC you shit head they are bleeding money like those dolphins in the cove !!!

In truth the USPS in the four years it supposedly lost 18 billion actually had an operation profit of 700 mil, however in 2006 Bushy Jr. passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act which makes the postal service pre-pay benefits for every employee retiring in the next 75 years, so even employees who aren't even born yet. This monumentally stupid law which only fucks with the postal service and none of the other much larger less useful gov't bureaucracy costs the postal service about 6billion a year. Add in that the Office of Personnel Management has overcharged the post office by as much as $80 billion for payments into the Civil Service Retirement System and OH MY GOD THE POSTAL SERVICE IS FUCKED.

Originally Posted by 4matic

Like ending oil company and farm subsidies are tax increases?

Oil company tax breaks are reasonable and prudent, go look them up and explain which particular benefit you don't like.