Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

UCmeNdc

(9,601 posts)
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 06:06 PM Oct 2013

Why Democrats Might Cave On Social Security Cuts

Also speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) explicitly offered up trading some of the short-term cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act, known as the sequester, for long-term Social Security and Medicare cuts. He argued that Republicans had the tactical advantage on such an exchange.


snip

"Social Security is gonna run out of money in 20 years," Durbin (D)-IL said. "The Baby Boom generation is gonna blow away our future. We don't wanna see that happen."

Snip

Social Security will not run out of money in 20 years. The program currently enjoys a surplus of more than $2 trillion. Social Security will, however, be unable to pay all benefits at current levels if nothing is changed. If a 25 percent benefit cut were implemented in 20 years, the program would be solvent into the 2080s.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/democrats-social-security-cuts_n_4132087.html

Increase the Social Security payroll cap and the program will be in the black forever.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Democrats Might Cave On Social Security Cuts (Original Post) UCmeNdc Oct 2013 OP
we dont need to cave on anything mgcgulfcoast Oct 2013 #1
The sooner the better Turbineguy Oct 2013 #2
If you notice, Durbin actually REJECTED… regnaD kciN Oct 2013 #3
There will be no big concessions from either side grantcart Oct 2013 #4
No. Willing to trade defense cuts for higher taxes on the wealthy on point Oct 2013 #5
What is the holdback about increasing the payroll cap?? riversedge Oct 2013 #6
Agreed. nt snappyturtle Oct 2013 #7
the thirty year old phobia over the "tax and spend liberal" charge.. tokenlib Oct 2013 #8
No one wants to bring up this idea UCmeNdc Oct 2013 #9
The addition of 3% to Medicare tax is in fact, increasing the payroll okaawhatever Oct 2013 #10

Turbineguy

(37,369 posts)
2. The sooner the better
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 06:10 PM
Oct 2013

that way there will be plenty of money to raise it when Paul Ryan approaches his time to collect.

regnaD kciN

(26,045 posts)
3. If you notice, Durbin actually REJECTED…
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 06:11 PM
Oct 2013

...the idea of SS cuts in exchange for reductions to the sequester.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
4. There will be no big concessions from either side
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 06:21 PM
Oct 2013

but the Democrats are particularly not going to concede any major points on Social Security.

For the next year it is all about setting up the next House election and the Democrats would love to make the election all about the GE.

tokenlib

(4,186 posts)
8. the thirty year old phobia over the "tax and spend liberal" charge..
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 06:44 PM
Oct 2013

Common sense is out the door..all we can do is cut, cut, cut ..

okaawhatever

(9,462 posts)
10. The addition of 3% to Medicare tax is in fact, increasing the payroll
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 07:17 PM
Oct 2013

cap and there isn't a new cap at 10 or 20 million. That's a huge chunk for the one percenters. There is a great deal of revenue coming in to help shore up Medicare and the ACA. While SS needs to be dealt with, Medicare was in worse shape so the one percenters are paying more, so I imagine we'll have to wait until next election cycle to see any other increase.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why Democrats Might Cave ...