Beto advocates raising retirement age and means testing for SS

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

It is difficult for me to comprehend that a Democrat would advocate for means testing of social security or raising the retirement age, but here is a video of Beto doing just this.

Link to tweet

?s=21

This is why we need more waitresses and construction workers elected to government. Rich people hang out with other rich people who love their careers and sit behind desks all days and have zero comprehension that the term back breaking work is an actual thing.

[CentralMass]

1. Well that isn't a selling point

[Lefta Dissenter]

2. I'll be interested to hear

How he addresses this now - if his perspective has changed.

JUST LIFT THE STINKIN’ CAP ON PAYING IN, FOR PETE’S SAKE!!!

[Amimnoch]

66. heres updated, and actual history.

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

[Lefta Dissenter]

88. Thanks!

I appreciate the links and I’ll check them out!

[Amimnoch]

94. No problem :) you deserve more

than an outdated BS propaganda snippet that's been cherry picked by a group with a very distinct, and apparent agenda.

Actual record speaks a lot louder than first time campaign words, and his actual support and voting record very obviously doesn't support the discussion he was having with his constituents before his first term. Some don't want the FULL narrative out there.

This was answered in numerous threads now, but some want to keep attempting to push that disingenuous narrative.

There's also another speech he gave on Social Security just 4 months ago that I linked in this response to one of their early attempts at smear:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/128731858

[Hassin Bin Sober]

93. You can't update history.

By “actual history” are you saying the multiple videos of him advocating curing benefits and raising the retirement age false?

Or are you saying he has changed his position?

If so, when and why?

[pansypoo53219]

105. too little, too complicated. ILLIMINATE the cap(including investment income).

lower FICA. also fix the inflation rate to include food & gas.

[True Blue American]

115. Thank you!

[keithbvadu2]

3. Trip and stumble over your shoelaces.

Trip and stumble over your shoelaces.

[Lazy Daisy]

4. The worse attacks

always come from within. We don't need to raise the age, we need to raise the cap.

We've seen it before. We don't want the Democratic party of the 90's, we don't want policies that reach across the aisle and slowly chip away at the social safety net. We want the Democratic party of FDR, we want strong social safety nets for the average American.

[myohmy2]

37. +1

...

[True Blue American]

52. Perfect!

FDR Democrats!

[snowybirdie]

5. Every time

he speaks, I see him less and less a viable candidate.

[Amimnoch]

67. Old, and outdated speech that has no actions backing it.

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

Anyone got a clip of a H.R. Bill that he authored, co-authored, or voted for that would actually RAISE the age of benefit? Thought not. There isn't one.

[George II]

86. I see there is no date for that video in the OP, other than the date of the tweet.

Nor is there context, just a 44-second clip from somewhere.

This is the second time this has been presented as "current".

[Amimnoch]

90. There's at least 4 of these threads now.

All doing the same thing.. all either directly from, or referencing information from a certain candidates acolytes.

#anyonebutBS2020.

[lapucelle]

103. The pinned tweet on the account references a conspiracy theory

that's a popular Trump/Hannity anti-Democratic party talking point.

[shanny]

6. Doesn't sound like his kids

need to worry.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

10. That's the most annoying part. Bringing up kids as if the heirs to a $500 million dollar fortune...

... will have to rely on social security.

Their biggest threat is the Inheritance Tax.

[shanny]

16. Indeed.

Not a fan of millionaire politicians telling the rest of us we have to tighten our belts. Or eat our peas for that matter.

[Kurt V.]

7. That's not going to help.

[Amimnoch]

68. It's old. he never did action it, and actually has record contrary to those early comments:

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

If someone has a clip of a H.R. Bill that he authored, co-authored, or voted for that would actually RAISE the age of benefit, I'll change my mind on it.

[hedda_foil]

8. This is a 6-8 year old video from his first run for Congress inserted into a new tweet.

Beto's not my candidate but this is not even close to current.

[melman]

11. Time is a very flexible thing on DU

Some videos from as recently as seven years ago are dismissed as ancient history.


But then other video clips from decades ago are "OMG very disturbing!"

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

14. Obama tried for the grand bargain

In attempting to make his grand bargain, Obama offered up cuts to Social Security. With Beto getting support from some of Obama’s bundlers, it feels likely that his sentiments remain similar, even if he might be loath to publicly air them now.

There is no time that proposing cuts to social security benefits is acceptable from my perspective. Anyone who lacks the basic understanding of the lifeline that this is, or the issue that happens to government programs when means testing is used, is not someone I want on the national stage from my party.

[mobeau69]

17. Doesn't matter how old it is. This is the 3rd rail of politics and the 1st Commandment:

Thou shalt not fuck with Social Security.

[Amimnoch]

69. His actions have done the opposite since then,

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

There isn't a single bill that he's written, co-sponsored, or voted on that would actually raise the voting age. It was an early speech, and he's obviously progressed since.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Was it a good idea 6-8 years ago? No. It was a terrible idea.

[hedda_foil]

23. Absolutely awful.

He's massively charismatic but that doesn't mean he should be president.

[customerserviceguy]

33. There are people

busting Joe Biden's ass for stuff from decades ago. If that's fair (and I believe that time is not a barrier to calling someone to account for a prior position) then this is fair game for Beto to answer.

Only part of Gillibrand's problem is Al Franken. The other part is her A+ rating from the NRA when she was a lowly Representative, coming from an upstate NY Congressional District. That was a few years ago, too.

[Blue_true]

49. Bernie as recently as 2016 had a high rating from the NRA.

Every candidate has something that they must explain, not just Beto and Kirsten.

[thesquanderer]

91. No, Sanders NRA rating was low...

from https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/20/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-nra-report-card-d-minus-most-recent/ and https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27110/bernie-sanders/37#.XJ0KNOtKjOa

1992 - D
1994 - F (25%)
1996 - F
1998 - F
2000 - F (8%)
2002 - F (8%)
2004 - D+ (31%)
2006 - C- (38%)
2012 - D- (14%) - this was the most current rating available in 2016
2018 - (18%)

I guess their curves are different in different years (maybe due to how many gun-oriented votes there were, or his votes relative to others in congress?), since 25% got him an F in 1994 while just 14% got him all the way up to a D- in 2012.

Which isn't to say that Bernie might not have things that beg for explanation (tax returns!), but a high NRA rating isn't among them.

But one thing differentiating Sanders from many other candidates is--for better or worse--his positions have pretty much been the same forever.

[George II]

87. Thanks. It's a gross misrepresentation of his position on this issue.

[melman]

92. What's his position?

[George II]

95. This again? I believe someone has posted his position several times in this thread.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. He primaried an 8 term Democratic incumbent

i was wondering how he did it. Apparently by running to his right and advocating cuts to social security.

I was wondering why that republican pac spent $250,000 dollars to run negative ads against his Democratic incumbent opponent. Now you see why. They wanted another vote for social security and Medicare cuts.

[Autumn]

20. I didn't know that he replaced Silvestre Reyes, I thought it was a Republican.

Reyes was endorsed by Presidents Clinton and Obama.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. I call it a "reverse AOC"

[Tipperary]

12. Beto does not even sit behind a desk. He is not currently working at all.

And has not worked in some time. He is lucky to have a wealthy wife and to have some money of his own too, I imagine.

[VoicesAcrossAmerica]

13. Agreed

He can campaign full time without having to worry about money or paying for childcare or I fuess actually raising his own kids. Must be nice to be a rich white guy.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. He has his own money too. He was gifted/inherited a piece of a multi million dollar shopping mall.

[Renew Deal]

18. The whole waitress and construction worker idea a right wing anti-education cannard

Moving into congress is one thing, but being president takes a lot more governing experience than you get from most jobs. That’s why Trump, Yang, etc won’t work.

[Luciferous]

19. The more I read about him, the less I like him.

[dsc]

24. Yes this is a seven year old video

but what he says at the very end is the most disturbing part of this clip. Spending on Social Security had nothing, nada, nihil, not a God damned thing to do with us nearly defaulting on our debt. Social Security runs a surplus still. That is the opposite of debt. On top of that, the only reason we nearly defaulted was the GOP took a hostage, raising the debt ceiling which again, SS delayed us getting to. His profound ignorance, or his profound dishonestly should have been disqualifying then and if he believes anything like this now, it is disqualifying now.

[Demsrule86]

26. Boy it is wrong to insert a clip from 7 years ago into a current speech-dishonest

Whoever is behind this will not get my vote in a primary.

[brush]

38. 7 years is not long ago. Obama was president.

I sure don't like to see a Democratic candidate talking about raising the SS age and means testing.

That's something you expect from, sorry, repugs.

[Demsrule86]

43. You don't lie by making it seem it was in a speech that was just given.

[dsc]

42. I agree that it is wrong to post the clip in a way that makes one think

it was said in real time but 7 years ago isn't the stone ages and the things he claimed then were just plain factually inaccurate and frankly were mostly right wing talking points. He does owe primary voters an explanation of what caused his mind to change on this (assuming it did).

[Demsrule86]

44. He was running in TEXAS. For the first time...ask him. But my gues is they wouldn't

Need an old clip designed to mislead if a current one like this was available,

[aidbo]

45. I'm sure @clarknt67 will be disappointed you won't be voting for him..

[Demsrule86]

46. This person is a surrogate. It won't be hard to figure it out.

[aidbo]

48. A surrogate, lol! Do you consider yourself a Biden surrogate?

[lapucelle]

104. The twittering dissembler/conspiracy theorist is a surrogate.

Back in the day when he hoped for a real career as a political strategist, Scott Wooledge worked on Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and Kirsten Gillibrand's first senate campaign.

Scott tried writing for a while, chiefly as a diarist for DailyKos and HuffPo.

When that didn't pan out, he switched course and currently works as a "social media activist" on twitter where he is a relatively well known BS supporter.


https://www.huffpost.com/author/scott-wooledge

https://muckrack.com/scott-wooledge/articles

https://issuu.com/scottwooledge/docs/scottwooledge_f125ab8957122d

[Amimnoch]

71. This is a ridiculous attack. His words AND actions are contrary to this old speech.

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

In his years actually seated in congress, there is not one single bill that he's written, co-sponsored, or voted on that raises the age of benefit.

[aikoaiko]

25. That's disappointing. Still I want to hear more from all.

It appears most candidates have problems.

[Amimnoch]

72. His most recent positions, and actual actions are contrary to his early campaigning:

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

In his years actually seated in congress, there is not one single bill that he's written, co-sponsored, or voted on that raises the age of benefit.

[flyingfysh]

27. There is a much better approach

There is an income limit after which SS deductions are no longer made. Most people never see it, you have to get over $100,000 for this to happen. So at some point in the year, your paycheck becomes appreciably larger.

The simple solution is to just raise this income limit. Problem solved.

[customerserviceguy]

30. And at the same time

you boost the maximum benefit available to those paying that tax.

Do you really want to see some CEO who got paid millions of dollars a year to run a company into the ground (Carly Fiorina, I'm thinking of you) then getting $10K a month in Social Security benefits?

[TexasBushwhacker]

35. You can still have a limit on benefits

The benefits you are paid are not YOUR money. Current workers pay for rerired workers. It's always been that way.

[customerserviceguy]

36. Right now, under current formulas

Maximum amount subject to FICA taxation and maximum benefit are in lockstep. Raise the cap, and you raise the maximum benefit by a similar proportion.

Yes, I know how the system works, I will begin collecting my Social Security next month. And I know whose pockets it's coming out of. But to say that my benefits are not MY money is not the way to win an election.

[True Blue American]

53. That does not negate

The fact you paid YOUR money for 35, 40 years! If the money had not been stolen by greedy Congress people to finance debt there would be more than enough.

[TexasBushwhacker]

55. It would be more than enoigh if we did not have so much income inequality

If 90% of wages are subject to SS tax, it's pretty much funded in perpetuity. The problem is that for the last 40 years, more and more wages income has gone to people making more than the SS cap, currently around $120K. When someone making $12 MILLION contributes the same as someone making $120K, that's a problem. It used to be that the number of people making those huge salaries wasn't that many and the salaries weren't super huge. Seriously, why should a CEO make 300 times what his average worker makes. I could see 10x or even 20x, but not 300x. So they need to raise the cap AND make "super salaries" subject to SS tax.

But really the bottom 80% of Americans just need a fucking raise. A BIG ONE. You can't sock money away into a 401K (which employers don't have to match) if you're struggling to pay rent.

[True Blue American]

57. Solution

No cap on wages!

[TexasBushwhacker]

58. But without better income distribution

the bottom 80% of Americans will still be struggling.

The median household income is around $60K. Not individual - HOUSEHOLD. That means the median family can't afford to buy a house in most markets. In some they couldn't even if their income was doubled. I'm not talking a fancy house either. A basic house in a safe neighborhood should be achievable for a family with a median income. That needs to go up - NOW.

[itsrobert]

28. Feel the Desperation

More attacks on Beto from the Bernie Brigade. How low can they go? They post /tweet a video from years ago and make it seem like he said it today. Feel the Deception, Feel the Desperation.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. 7 years ago isn't ancient history.

That’s some heavy duty bashing he was doing there of the Democratic incumbent. Attacking him from the right on social security.

[itsrobert]

39. Spin it the way you wish.

But why the deception as this occurred recently? Nice try.

[aidbo]

47. The only reason we're even talking about Beto is because he beat..

..this democratic incumbent. And he beat the democratic incumbent by attacking him from the right. It might have been 7 years ago, but it is still highly relevant.

Besides, I don’t see anyone implying he said this recently. But it sure would be nice to know where he stands now on this issue.

[Amimnoch]

73. here. More recent, and his actual actions since being seated are contrary to that early speech.

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

In his years actually seated in congress, there is not one single bill that he's written, co-sponsored, or voted on that raises the age of benefit.

[aidbo]

97. Glad he has come around.

I’ll stick with the candidate who has always held social security in the highest regard.

[Amimnoch]

99. Roflmao. Alright.

I mistakenly believed you when you said you wanted to see something more recent. Given your sig, I should have known it wasn’t sincere.

You stick with yours, and I’ll happily stick with mine.. that works with the party, rather than badgers and criticizes it. One that evolves rather than one that’s inflexible and damages other’s with his “purity tests”.

I like that mine grows rather than remains the outside, unchanging, heckler that can only criticize those that actually “do” things.

[customerserviceguy]

29. We already have means testing for Social Security

It is called taxation of up to 85% of one's benefits, if one has other income, including that from tax-exempt bonds.

Before the early 1980's reforms, all Social Security income was tax free. The reforms of that time called for possibly taxing up to 50% of one's benefits, the theory being that half of a person's Social Security benefit was from their employer's share of FICA taxes, which the beneficiary never paid income tax on. The other half was a return of the beneficiary's own FICA taxes, which they were indeed subject to income tax on.

Also, the 1980's law exempted $32,000 of income for a married couple (for the purpose of figuring how much Social Security benefit to tax, and $25,000 for a single person. Those amounts were never indexed, and thirty-five years later, we have a lot of folks who planned diligently for their retirement being double taxed on the money they had taken from them as FICA taxes during their working years.

I was a tax accountant in the 1980's and I knew that this would eventually bite a lot of middle class people in the ass.

[exboyfil]

61. Good point

Also folks don't recognize the structure of how benefits are calculated. There are three tiers of percentages. In rough terms

The first $11,000/yr income has a 90% multiple ($9,900/yr in benefits)
From $11,000 to about $67,000 has a 32% multiple ($17,900/yr in benefits)
From $67,000 to about $128,000 has a 15% multiple ($8,500/yr in benefits)

The number does not quite line up to the stated maximum benefit of $2,900/mo ($34,800/yr).

Below is a link on how this is calculated.



Some things to remember.

Any work over 35 years is almost entirely lost to calculating Social Security (you can replace a lower adjusted year).

Those folks making near the cap are subsidizing the lower earners. As you progressively make more than the cap you are subsidizing the lower earners to a lesser and lesser extent as a percentage of your income.

Social Security is basically how the middle class earners support the poor in retirement. The high earners and wealth class do not participate nearly as much as a percentage of their income or wealth.

Why someone doesn't come along and propose a fourth tier on earnings above the cap I do not understand. I would set it at 5%. This represents an equivalent percentage drop as the 1st to the 2nd tier. I don't sweat the payouts to the high earners. They are paying for it on the front end.



https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf

[customerserviceguy]

117. Thanks for amplifying my analysis

Yes, a fourth tier is indeed needed if we are to substantially raise the cap. However, the closer it is to zero, the greater the chances that Social Security looks like a welfare-style program. If you tax top earners more, and they don't get anything from it (and 85% of that becomes taxable) then you undermine support for the system.

Five percent is too low for me to feel comfortable with, something closer to ten percent would be more politically palatable, and raising the cap rather than removing the cap is even more politically doable.

[exboyfil]

118. At least we need to start the discussion

Our politicians are letting us down in this regard. I could be talked up from 5%, but you still need to look at the huge drop from the 1st to 2nd tier.

You have to accept reality. SS is welfare for the lower earners.

[customerserviceguy]

119. That discussion

would involve many things needed to keep the Social Security System afloat. Back in the 1980's, we had reductions in some types of benefits, such as no longer paying for children of deceased workers all the way through college, etc. And we had tax increases, too, as well as the gradual ratcheting up of the age for full retirement benefits.

Any 'fix' for Social Security would involve most or all of the things that were done three and a half decades ago, but since some of those things are absolutely unacceptable to people from all parts of the political spectrum, we probably will not have that discussion until it's way too late, if at all.

I hear a lot of millennials grousing about having to pay for the Baby Boomers, the brunt of the 1980's changes were borne by the Boomers. We got hit with rising tax rates, rising caps, and rising full retirement ages more than any other generation. Had we been able to shut down Social Security reform, there wouldn't be a system to talk about today.

[exboyfil]

120. Yes I was one of the first federal workers to start

with Social Security right out of college. I think I have been near the 6.2% my entire working career. I left the federal job after less than a year.

I think there has to be a red line at 6.2%/6.2%. I don't want to see the withholding increased even though it won't impact me as much (from 5 to 12 years left to work depending upon how long my employer decides to keep me). I think any more is not fair to the next generation.

The first SS issue is retiring the Treasuries in the Trust Fund. Do we have the political will to pay the approximately $150B/yr for the next 20 years (this is an estimate) necessary to deplete that Trust Fund with payments to the current beneficiaries.

After that we either have to go with 60-70% of benefits, reduce the pay out (either through extending the age or lower payouts), increasing the cap, developing another tax stream like capital, or increasing the withholding amount. Another option is dramatically increasing immigration (assuming those immigrants are significant net taxpayers), but that also runs the risk of resentment by race (why are all these Latinos paying to keep all these Anglos in retirement).

[customerserviceguy]

123. I doubt the surpluses will last

for twenty years. Think about it, the median of the baby boom is 1957. That's when we'll see the biggest number of beneficiaries enter the payout part of the system. Their full retirement age is 66 and 6 months. So, about the middle of 2023, we will see them hit the system in droves.

That's assuming they wait until full retirement age. The next recession will probably send them scurrying into it sooner, if they lose their jobs. Technically, they're eligible this year for early benefits at 62. Those benefits will be greatly reduced, and if we get to the 60-70% that you mention, they'll be in deep financial trouble if they don't have something else to fall back on.

Race is indeed a factor in Social Security. Caucasian-Americans have a longer lifespan than African-Americans, so overall, they collect more from the system. Add to that the problem of immigrants bearing the burden of supporting boomers, and yes, you have some real risks here.

[USALiberal]

31. Fuck that, I paid SS for 40 years, and saved a lot of money...

Why should that cause my SS to be lower?

[True Blue American]

54. It shouldn't.

Problem is over the years many Democrats were bi- partisan. You can see what it gained us. Nothing.

Now, we have a new breed in the House saying,” Hell No, we are not going to take it any more!”yet many are critisizing them.

i just listened to AOC lay out those who are not listening to what needs tobe done. She is 100% right! That is why the elites hate her.

[madville]

32. If we are bringing up old history, what about the SS Act of 1983?

It raised the retirement age from 65 to 67 decades down the road and made a bunch of other negative changes. One of the primary sponsors was Edward Kennedy and (I hate to say it) Joe Biden voted for it. Democrats controlled the House at the time it was passed as well. Of course Reagan signed it.

[demmiblue]

40. That's not good. n/t

[OBrien]

41. Not this bullshit again from BS ers

[workinclasszero]

50. Beto's own words...............

"retiring at a later age"

"paying a greater percentage of their income into Social Security"

"and making other necessary adjustments"

[TexasBushwhacker]

56. Paying a greater % means the employers do too n/t

Dollar for dollar

[exboyfil]

63. So $15/hr, higher mandated healthcare withholding, and higher SS withholding

For the lower skilled workers, bring on the robots.

For the higher skilled workers, salary is a negotiation between employer and employee. A percentage of that additional withholding will be paid by the employee as well in the form of lower salary.

I say look at the cap first before increasing withholding.

[TexasBushwhacker]

70. The robots are coming no matter what

Because they can work 24/7/365.

[LuvNewcastle]

100. No sick days, no maternity leave, no vacations...

[TexasBushwhacker]

106. Yup

And bulldozers replaced men with shovels.

Robots are good for repetitive tasks. Jobs that are repetitive tasks for 40 hours a week are pure drudgery. It's not a question of keeping the robots away. It's a question of finding better jobs for the workers robots replaced.

[workinclasszero]

98. Well employers will just raise prices to cover it

Where do the workers go to get their increased portion covered?

No where...

[George II]

110. Do you know what his positions are TODAY? That's 7 years ago when he was running for Congress....

...in TEXAS.

For some reason you repeatedly misrepresent O'Rourke's positions on issues, like the 7-year old video here and also this, which you still haven't addressed:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128722101

"Beto voted against Medicare for all and a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage"

Accompanied by graphics listing CO-SPONSORS of bills and indicating O'Rourke was "not supporting" the bills simply because he didn't co-sponsor bills that, in fact, never came up for a vote! So why did you say he "voted against" those bills, knowing that isn't true and that the bills didn't even come up for a vote? Will you ever address this false representation of O'Rourke's positions and voting record?

[workinclasszero]

111. I put the man's own videos that he made using his own words...

coming out of his own mouth and you call that a misrepresentation??????? WOW!

You have a problem with Beto, not me!

So you say today Beto is different huh? How do I know this is his actual position on Social Security?

Seems like Beto is dangerously flexible on Social Security which is a life and death program for millions of voters in this country like me, for instance.

His views on SS are probably the reason Beto is fading in the race while Mayor Pete and others are passing him by.

Oh well that's what primary season is for.

Link to tweet

[George II]

113. It's from seven years ago, why not give us his positions TODAY? Not going to fit the narrative?

Nobody knows where or when that second one in the tweet was, except that it's in a bingo hall. And the writer lied about his in-laws' net worth.

And how about explaining why you said "Beto voted against Medicare for all and a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage" that you know is 100% false, proven by the graphics you supplied yourself in that OP? The fact is that there weren't even votes taken on those two bills (H.R. 676 and H. R. 15). WHY did you do that?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128722101

[melman]

112. "Do you know what his positions are TODAY?"

Do you? If so, why not just say what they are. Seems easy enough. Yet you don't do it.

You just keep saying it's already posted but won't say where, or you say 'good luck in your search" etc.

[George II]

114. They've been posted no less than ELEVEN times in this very thread! Didn't you see them?

You had to go right past a few of the instances in order to reach the post you responded to here.

[George II]

89. Seven years ago. This is almost as bad as saying he voted "against" bills....

....which never were voted upon just because he didn't co-sponsor them.

Remember this?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128722101

"Beto voted against Medicare for all and a 15 dollar an hour minimum wage"

[lapucelle]

107. More disinformation from a twitter conspiracy theorist.

I'm not sure what happened to Scott Wooledge (@Clarknt67) who worked on Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and Kirsten Gillibrand's first senate campaign.

Maybe he's auditioning to take over Sirota's job as "twitter attack dog". His twitter feed is full of anti-Democrat and anti-Democratic Party spew and his tweets have been featured on The Intercept.

[Amimnoch]

74. Yep. exactly. His actions and more recent speechs are in contrast:

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

In his years actually seated in congress, there is not one single bill that he's written, co-sponsored, or voted on that raises the age of benefit.

[True Blue American]

51. That one will go down

Like a Turd in punch bowl with the voters.

Think of all those doing manual labor having trouble making it to 65,or 67.

[exboyfil]

64. Even office workers

50 hrs/week in front of a terminal is not healthy. Also many individuals mental skills start to fail at an early age.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

122. I was that office worker.

From experience and observation, 50 hours in front of a computer is not quite that. There might be one or two mile-long walks per day, some getting around talking with other people, etc.

Compared to 40 hrs of real labor, the office is much easier on the body.

[INdemo]

59. Being from Texas and serving in the the House of Rep. from Texas,

has a voting Record of voting with the Republicans on many issues and now this
Social Sec. issue, it certainly appears that Beto O'Rouke meets the criteria for the label
Republican Lite

[Buzz Lightyear]

60. As of 2012?

Or is this his recent?

[Amimnoch]

75. More recent discussions, and actual history don't fit the BS narrative.

But, here's the more recent positions, and actual history:

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

In his years actually seated in congress, there is not one single bill that he's written, co-sponsored, or voted on that raises the age of benefit.

[exboyfil]

62. Needs based behavior

Once I hit 35 good years towards Social Security. retire and spend through the IRA/401(k) until 67. Work under the table if possible (this might include family arrangements like child care for grandkids).

[Amimnoch]

65. Before he was even a Rep. There was no bill, and he's supported bills since then.

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

Anyone got a clip of a H.R. Bill that he authored, co-authored, or voted for that would actually RAISE the age of benefit? Thought not. There isn't one.

[SHRED]

76. In my entire adult life I've never thought this

I'm 62.

Yuck.

[kimbutgar]

77. He just lost my vote in the primaries

I had heard he was repuke lite. This statement shows he is a libertarian not a progressive.

[lark]

78. OK, listening to this just now, Beto just eliminated himself from contention.

There are far more equitable ways to balance SS, make it cover everyone for all income and it's solvent forever. Funny he doesn't want to raise taxes on the rich this way, just hurt working class? He's totally dead to me with these comments. To tell the truth, he was never in my top 5 anyway, but with good policy pronouncements he could have ended up there, but this is bad for the working class rw oligarch lite policy and like I said - bye bye Beto.

[tinrobot]

79. Posted by "Clark feels the Bern"

Gee... I wonder which candidate feels threatened?

[LovingA2andMI]

80. Umm...No

Next Candidate Please...

[Locrian]

81. I'll still give him time to explain...

which I think he REALLY needs to do...
But at this point he's bottom of my list.

[Amimnoch]

84. He's already updated, and his actual record since this early, preelected campaign speech speeks for

itself.

There is this much more recent video, from only 2 years ago where he only discusses increasing benefits to meet more accurate cost of living measurements (using the consumer price index) than is currently used:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

He is on the record as being against privatization.

He has been rated 100% by the ARA. A politician doesn't get that rating by being for raising the age or reducing benefits.

He is a co-sponsor of H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act. -

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr1902
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1902

This bill would:
-use the consumer price index for determining increases (mentioned above)
- Across the board benefit increase.
- Increases the benefit for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce.
- Increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.
- Holds SSI, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries harmless

Just to name some of the top ones.

In his years actually seated in congress, there is not one single bill that he's written, co-sponsored, or voted on that raises the age of benefit.

[dalton99a]

109. +1

[secondwind]

82. I suspect Beto will not survive to the second round.

[PeeJ52]

83. Bye bye, Beto. I'm the first in my family to ever collect their social security...

and I'm only on year 2...

Oh, and the last 10 years of my employment history were a living hell trying to get hired and keep a decent job. You gotta be kidding in this gig economy. Maybe if you worked the same job until you reached retirement age like back in the 60s, but just try to get a job today when you're over 60 years old.

[George II]

85. When did he say that?

[LanternWaste]

96. The disinformation you're pushing could advertise you in many ways.

Being accurate is certainly not one of those ways.

I imagine this story will be re-edited again and thrown at the wall again before the end of the month.

Certainly says much for your agenda if not your objectivity.

[George II]

116. Not the first time this strategy (or is it tactic?) has been employed. See my post #110 here....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=41759

[Thekaspervote]

101. Oh come on... not this again... QUIT!

[lapucelle]

102. Somebody already tried this disinformative talking point.

Here's a video from 2017 where Beto discusses increasing SS benefits and using the consumer price index to determine benefits

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=934914503224927

Beto is on the record as being against privatization.

Beto has a 100% rating from the ARA. A representative doesn't get that rating if they favor raising the SS age or reducing benefits.

Beto co-sponsored H.R. 1902 - The Social Security 2100 Act a bill that would:use the consumer price index for determining increases, increase benefits across the board, increase benefits for lifetime low wage earners based on years in the workforce, and increase the threshold amount and rate for inclusion of social security benefits in income.

Welcome to DU. Have a donut.

[dalton99a]

108. +1. Such bullshit

[JCMach1]

121. Not against means testing for the wealthy

So shoot me