Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 21, 2013

The last time we made significant changes to Social Security -- including adjustments to benefits -- was the 1983 Social Security amendments. At the time, Social Security had less than a year's worth of solvency, and a bipartisan agreement to put Social Security on sound financial footing was essential.

That legislation, negotiated by President Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill, focused on what was needed protect Social Security for the long term. Reagan understood that Social Security is a separately funded program unrelated to problems in the rest of the budget, and he clearly stated that: "Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit."

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

danni

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Most posters here know all this but just in case I thought a refresher course was in order. I think the posters on DR are divided between those who know that we were lied to about SS taxes, the rich wanted us to pay more income taxes so they pretended that SS taxes were really for our retirements when, in reality, they were really used to replace the income taxes that the wealthy didn't want to pay. Today, we will either let them get away with it or demand that they pay high enough taxes to pay for the wars they started unnecessarily. I say they should pay much more so that the money we paid in every week for all those years, for our retirements, remains as what it was intended to be when we paid it in.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-21 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

they were really used to replace the income taxes that the wealthy didn't want to pay.

Bingo.

Now the bills are coming due and the wealthy are squealing like the greedy little piggies they are at the idea of having to pay it back.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2013-02-21 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit."

That needs to be repeated over and over and over. You think the wing dings will listen to St Reagan's words?

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2013-02-21 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Naw, Reagan is a RINO these days... practically an unAmerican Sosh'list who let millions of illegals into the country and even was against government shutdowns and, get this, thought we should pay our bills, lmao!

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-21 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Danni, have you ever found his grave so you can piss on it?"

I'm asking y'all to listen to what he said. Are you saying that he was insincere? That he was really bamboozling the American middle class?

#6 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-21 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Are you saying that he was insincere?"

no, and I doubt anybody here will either.

Few argue the separation of SS from the general budget...other than those of the highest wealth who understand co-mingling it benefits them.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-21 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"other than those of the highest wealth who understand co-mingling it benefits them."

And they control a portion of Congress which wants us to accept cuts which are not financially necessary by SS accounting because to fund the owed benefits and reduce the deficit at the same time will require tax increases on those wealthiest, I suggest, as did Ronald Reagan, that we tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income. I also suggest that we eliminate tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs, breaks that give big refunds to companies that pay no income taxes, etc. The rich folks who opposed the Iraq invasion should realize that their bretheren who did support it are going to cost them big bucks. Unnecessary wars need to have consequences for those who sell them and support them.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-21 07:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

40 years ago it was true.

DR liberals are like the crazy uncle who complains that he can't buy a car for $900, like back in the old days.

#9 | Posted by uglyblinddate at 2013-02-21 08:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, I am puzzled because I specifically remember agreeing with you about something. Tell me if I am wrong.
You once posted, (As I remember) and I agreed wholeheartedly, that both parties in the 90's (Dem prez, Pub congress) ended the Social Security lock box. They raided this once set-aside budget item. That was after Reagan's time, and he desperately depended on the elder vote.
Am I wrong?
I oppose privatization as a rule of SS, but at the same time would prefer the government put this money in interest bearing accounts. It would make more money for Social Security than the dismemberment it has gone through at the hands of both parties.
Full disclosure, to be fair, I would prefer SS deductions were put directly into bank accounts with no access (private or government) or taxes until the time benefits are due. It would be cheaper than our present system.

#10 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-21 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2013 World Readable

 

Advertisement