Budget Bill will devastate millions' social security benefits....

[Kang Colby]

Last edited Wed Oct 28, 2015, 10:19 PM - Edit history (2)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/houses-proposed-budget-bill-will-devastating-effects-millions-social-security-benefits/

This bill passed the House today, sadly with universal support from Democrats. This is sickening. The race to the bottom continues........but Defense spending will continue at all time highs.

In six months, benefits now being received by spouses, divorced spouses or children on the work record of a spouse, ex-spouse or parent who has suspended his or her benefits will be eliminated until the worker restarts his/her retirement benefit. I’ve never heard of a change in Social Security law that eliminates benefits for people already collecting, but this is what’s in this bill. This will cost millions of households tens of thousands of dollars. Worse, it will induce those who have suspended their benefits in order to collect higher benefits at 70 to restart their benefits at permanently lower levels in order to maintain their family’s immediate living standards.
...

We’ve been paying 12.4 percent of our income to Social Security since our first job in exchange for a variety of benefits … Now, with a couple of sentences, our government is reneging on what for many households can amount up to $50,000 in lifetime benefits.

EDIT: I realize now that a lot of DUers don't have familiarity with "file and suspend". I assume that is part of the reason passing this bill was possible as only folks getting ready to file for SS benefits are paying attention to this tragedy. This uber short article does a good job of explaining jow it works. http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2014/file-and-suspend-retirement-strategy.html

[angrychair]

1. Welcome

To the presidency of HRC! *queue hail to the chief*

* Queue flushing noise as the remaining middle class circles the bowl*

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. Bernie Sanders is voting to approve.

He says it's not bad.

[angrychair]

7. Once he actually votes

We can have that discussion.

[leftofcool]

3. Hillary still has a vote in the Senate?????????????

[TheProgressive]

5. Clinton is a corporatist - Just like Obama...

...she will destroy Social Security.

Oh, Senator Sanders will strengthen it. Wow.... what a concept.

[Agnosticsherbet]

6. Sanders is voting to approve, is he a corpratist?

[TheProgressive]

9. This is what Sanders says...

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday delivered a key endorsement to Congress's sweeping two-year budget deal, even though it includes major boosts in defense spending without tax increases that he has long criticized.

“This is not the budget I would have written,” Sanders wrote in a statement Wednesday. “But I will support it because it’s much better than across-the-board budget cuts, increased premiums for Medicare, cuts to Social Security and the constant threat we won’t pay our bills.”"


Once he is President, SS will be strengthen...

[Adrahil]

11. So... you don't think Obama would rather have it go the other way?

The GOP controls the House (by a lot) and the Senate (by less, but still a majority). The President cannot dictate terms. Don't fall into the Teapublican trap of believing you can get everything you want just by being tough. That's not the way politics works.

[TheProgressive]

12. I see you don't understand...

Obama caves most of the time.

A President Sanders would bring this to the people, fight for the people...

[Adrahil]

14. Ah I see.... Unicorn farts....

Because the other side will give us what we want if we are just tough enough.... Even when rhey control both houses of Congress....

Sheesh....

[TheProgressive]

16. A very profound post....

...not really...

[DJ13]

23. Unicorn farts

"Taste The Rainbow"

[Kang Colby]

13. Yet, this bill would not have passed the House without Democratic support...

The final vote was 266 to 167, with only 79 Republicans joining every Democrat in sealing passage.

[Adrahil]

17. It's a compromise. That's the way it works. Nt

[Kang Colby]

19. There was no need to compromise like this...

the bill would not have come close to passing without our support. I'm not suggesting a Republican bill would have been better - far from it. But section 831 of this budget bill is awful.

[onenote]

20. So was Bernie wrong in his assessment that this was better than the alternative?

I think Bernie got it right and did the right thing. He's been willing to vote his principles in the past, even if means being on the losing side. The fact he didn't do that here tells me that he believes that this was better than the alternative.

[Kang Colby]

27. For me, this isn't about Bernie one way or the other.

Nor is this GD-P. I'll call my father who is directly impacted by section 831 and tell him that it is OK, because a democratic primary candidate thinks its better than the "alternative."

We would be better to operate on CRs for another 100 years than help pass this crap.

[Agnosticsherbet]

18. Then shouldn't you commend Obama for leading Congress to the bill

Rather than condemn him and Justify Sanders.

I don't get condemning Clinton, since she had nothing to do with this.

If it did cut Social Security benefits, then Sanders approved it.

[TheProgressive]

21. A President Sanders would...

...outright reject the bill.

I did not commend Obama...

Clinton is a corporatist who will destroy SS just like Obama as offered... and he certainly
is supporting this bill.

[Agnosticsherbet]

22. So Sanders would vote for it before he votes aginst it.

That is convoluted logic right there.

[TheProgressive]

26. Are you exercising republican logic here?

Doesn't work with thinking people...

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. No I am pointing out your logic.

Sanders is voting for this, and somehow this bill proves Obama and Clinton are Corporatist, but Sanders comes out clean of the Corporatist taint.

[onenote]

29. If that's the case then his vote for it was dishonest

And I don't think Bernie's dishonest.

[TheProgressive]

32. It's to prevent a worse outcome...

Get it?

[BeeBee]

43. So, Obama and Hillary support it because they're corporatists but

Bernie supports it because it's better than the alternative?

OK, thanks.

[Downwinder]

4. Death by a thousand cuts.

Cut a little bit here and a little bit there and there is not enough to live on.

[Kang Colby]

8. This is a big gash....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-28/are-you-about-to-lose-50-000-in-future-social-security-benefits-

A potential $50,000 cut in lifetime benefits for some couples. Now, tell me what's good about that? How can anyone rationalize or support such a direct attack against the middle class and retirees? But, very few people can even understand section 831 of the new budget bill, so why does it matter? I guess that's what they think. This is one of the worst pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. More money for military, less money for seniors. Sickening.

[Downwinder]

15. Any cuts will reduce lifetimes.

[Doctor_J]

10. another few million voters will now give up on voting

Knowing full well that it's completely futile

[Hoyt]

24. Sounds to me that this changes recent rules that benefit wealthy. If true, I can't get excited

about this.

Again, I'm assuming this is true, from link:

"The budget legislation calls file and suspend an "unintended loophole," and there is evidence that Congress never meant to create the strategy. The 2000 law that allowed it was the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, aimed at encouraging older Americans to work if they wanted to. The Obama administration proposed closing the loophole last year, saying it was an "aggressive" claiming strategy that mostly benefits wealthier retirees."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-28/are-you-about-to-lose-50-000-in-future-social-security-benefits-

[Kang Colby]

31. File and suspend benefits anyone who uses that approach.

Sadly, people attack it because it's difficult to understand. I'm sure the 1% really cares about a few hundred extra dollars a month...but it means everything for a lot of people. Read the entire PBS article if you have a chance.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. The provision being ended only started in 2000 and it's called 'file and suspend'. It's a tad hinkey

although I'm certain it benefits people but I really don't think it is entirely fair. But anyone who has expected this particular provision since their first job started working 15 years ago. Additionally from what I have read the provision will not be ended for six months and will only apply to future retirees in the amended bill as passed, so no one now getting will not get.

[Kang Colby]

33. Anyone can file and suspend...

f&s isn't limited to the wealthy but the effects of this budget will disportionately impact the middle class. A few hundred extra bucks per month can make all the difference in the world for a lot of folks...that option is now gone once the senate passes this trash.

[Hoyt]

35. If that's true, there should be a few here who have used this relatively new provision.

I just don't believe this provision is used by very many, if any, poor people.

The well to do, grab their benefits.

[Kang Colby]

37. I know lots of folks who have used f&s, none of them are wealthy.

Understanding the right approach to social security is unfortunately complicated, but file and suspend made it a little easier to live off of social security...while not everyone can afford to live off social security...even fewer will be able to now. This is a sad day for America.

The wealthy just take max benefits at 70, no need to f&s.

[Hoyt]

39. It's not like those folks are without options. The spouse, or divorced spouse, can still

take the spousal benefits, without file and suspend. The working spouse can still take benefits at normal retirement age without offsets.

If I hear differently from poor people using this techinque, I'm open.

[Kang Colby]

40. Yeah, they have options....it's called lower lifetime benefits. n/t

[Hoyt]

41. Sorry, I don't approve of gaming the tax system, or Social Security.

I think that is what this is for most part.

[Kang Colby]

42. Making use of a legal option to

get back more money paid into social security earlier...is gaming the system? It is if it benefits ordinary working folks apparently. I think the consensus is that Americans don't deserve a retirement.

I don't doubt that you feel that way, because that is how you are supposed to feel. This was a good option for a lot folks to prevent having to work later in life by making use of some benefits earlier and saving the remainder for life after 70.

Oh well.

[Hoyt]

44. The AARP supports the accord.

http://blog.aarp.org/2015/10/28/how-the-budget-deal-would-blunt-medicare-cost-increases-tweak-social-security/

This kind of stuff is pushed by financial advisers. If the one who files/suspends wants to take advantage of the system, they need to take their benefits, continue to work and forgo the future 8% annual increase just like any other couple that can't afford to continue working.

I'm sorry, it just sounds like a scheme to me:

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2014/file-and-suspend-retirement-strategy.html


I hope Congress takes aim at similar LEGAL schemes that allow corporations to escape or defer some taxes.

[Kang Colby]

45. I'm sure AARP is tickled about the provision...

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2014/file-and-suspend-retirement-strategy.html

Oh well.

[bhikkhu]

28. Having read the article, it sounds like its closing a loophole

Anyone near retirement age probably knows that you can retire early and get a standard benefit, or wait until you're 70 and get an increased benefit. I think the intent there was to give people options, based on their health and capacity to continue working if desired, to make a choice and have some level of security either way. The loophole is that some people are able to collect spousal Social Security benefits to get by on rather than work, and are then able put off their own official retirement until age 70 to get an increased level of benefits. I don't think that was the intent of the law, and closing the loophole doesn't seem unreasonable.

[Kang Colby]

34. Hey...if its puts a few hundred bucks in the pockets of the poor

or middle class....it's a loop hole and must be closed nao!!!!

[llmart]

46. Having read all these posts I conclude.....

that most people do NOT understand Social Security law or how Social Security works. And I get that. It's a terribly complicated system. I agree with everything that Kang Colby says and here's why. File and suspend is oftentimes used by divorced women, often of traditional marriages where they took many years off to raise their children and be homemakers, or if they did work outside the home, the pay was nowhere near what men made (I'm speaking from experience here and for many of my 60-something, friends). One of my friends had researched file and suspend extensively (she's highly educated) and was looking forward to using this to increase what will be a meager benefit when she files. She was married for 20 years and then divorced, has two Masters degrees, but chose traditionally female careers in jobs that are essential but low paying, so getting that small boost to her monthly Soc Sec benefit would have helped her a little bit more. She'll still be struggling but not as much.

I can't believe that people on DU think this is "closing a loophole" or "not fair". The rich people have so many freakin' loopholes it isn't even funny and we should not even be comparing this to that. Save your outrage for them.

Because I filed early and receive a spousal benefit on my ex's record I didn't have the option to file and suspend, but I would be livid if this affected me. I'm livid because it affects people I know. Even with that I only get $936 a month. Try living on that.

[greymattermom]

36. isn't this just another marriage tax?

Unmarried couples living together can still do this, right?

[Kang Colby]

38. No...

You won't have a spousal claim...but it will impact children or other dependents that have a valid claim