Home | About | Donate

These 156 Lawmakers Support Expanding, Not Cutting, Social Security. Does Yours?


#1

These 156 Lawmakers Support Expanding, Not Cutting, Social Security. Does Yours?

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Legislation that would expand benefits for Social Security recipients while giving millions of seniors a tax break was re-introduced in the U.S. House on Wednesday, with support from over two-thirds of the Democratic caucus—and, its backers hope, from large swaths of the grassroots resistance movement.

Rep. John Larson's (D-Conn.) bill, the "Social Security 2100 Act" or H.R. 1902, bears more co-sponsors than any other previous proposal to expand Social Security.


#2

I am pleased to see some suggestions that will help Social Security. When Buxh was talking about private accounts for SS money, I looked into other countries who had privatized their retirement and they did NOT earn what they would have received if they had stayed in their government's retirement plans. The two suggestions I read about then that would help our SS system were raising the cap on income subject to payroll taxes (I wonder why stop at $400,000) and


#3

And raising the payroll tax 1 1/2% above what it is now. I also remember when the COLA was exchanged for ???? a few years ago, adjusting it to show less of a rise than people experience in their real lives, but I forget how they did that or what they called it.

This support is great news.


#4

And here is a serenade from a nation to those of the political class who think they are thinking legitimate thoughts about cutting social security...


#5

One or more of D-Party apologencia who regularly post here might have to acknowledge that the election of Trump turned out to be a spine-stiffener for their typically meek and corporate-subservient party.

Next thing you know, they'll turn to Bernie for leadership.


#6

My wife did something really stupid when she married me, er, that didn't come out well at all, but the problem was, her ex had vastly more lifetime earnings than me. So, her pre-marriage soclal security check would have been 2.5 times as much as she's getting now. It would be nice if Congress wasn't so cheap as to penalize people like crazy when they get married.

As far as extending social security down to age 60, yes, we have a highly intelligent 60-something friend who was a real risk for suicide because she couldn't get the jobs that a dumb 20 year old could get. Then she couldn't pay their rent. Then she lived in her car with her cat, in summer fortunately. There's a trucker pull-off with rest rooms ten miles north of here that she could use every night.

When no wrinkles are a prerequisite to employment, the old lose out.


#7

As suggested elsewhere, since according to SCOTUS korporations are now 'people', IMHO they should also contribute 6.2% of net earnings into the Social Security Trust Fund, with this rate being increased to 7.4% by 2042.  This would in effect be an 'Alternative Minimum Tax' on Korporations, with the benefits going where they will do the most good for the entire economy – to Seniors, who for the most part spend their benefit payments, not just sit on them.


#8

They changed the name too. COLA means just that: the cost of living. They played around with the numbers and, Voila!, the CPI, the Consumer Price Index was born. It grossly understates the real increases in the cost of living. When Dems had the Presidency and the Congress., they did nothing about it. In fact, the whole operation was a Clinton thing.


#9

Taxing SS benefits is an especially egregious ripoff. It is so scandalous. The Dems have held the Presidency and Congress and never did anything about this which I believe was started under Reagan, but of course, the Dems could have filibustered this tax, but didn't.


#10

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Good one.


#11

I hear about this on Common Dreams but no where else-----Are Democrats really pushing this????Or is this something under the radar to keep progressives happy but disappears when they actually run for office. Hillary Clinton gave a pathetic answer to this question when she was running--

Progressives need to create a simple agenda and see who supports it.
-campaign finance reform(and this isn't about public money for candidates--its banks and the health care industry not paying off politicians)
-A National healthcare system for all
-Raise the minimum wage to $15 in two years
-Increase the payout on social security checks

Age discrimination is rampant in this country by all kinds of companies----if this is what these companies are going to do then the retirement age should go down to 55. In fact better companies give retirement at age 52-so maybe this should be the standard. But it is clear the government looks the other way as all kinds of age discrimination goes on.

If these policies were followed we would have a booming economy.


#12

I am not sure that FICA 6.2% would need to be increased to 7.4%. Simply because if you remove the cap, the man who earns $50,000 will pay 6.2% on his earnings and the man who earns ten million pays 6.2% on his ten million.
Everyone pays 6.2% on their full earnings, as it should be.


#13

There is no reason WHATSOEVER to raise the rate at which Workers are Taxed.

There is no reason WHATSOEVER to leave a Donut Hole between $127K and $400K, not Contributing, if anything, the threshold could START at a point where the Lower Income Workers could be left alone, with the burden carried by all those workers AND Investors who are more successful, with NO Upward Cutoff.

That even the Relatively Conservative Measures, listed in this article, are supported by a MERE 2/3 of DEMOCRATS, continues to expose the Mendacity of their claim to be a true Opposition Party.

All this while the US Military STILL gets to suck up on our Tax Dollars to the tune of almost $2 Million A MINUTE, and Wall Street purchases are STILL not yet subject to Sales Tax.


#14

Headline sez: "These 156 Lawmakers Support Expanding, Not Cutting, Social Security. Does Yours?"

I don't have a lawmaker. I have a 'Republican™'.
And a couple of Clintonite senators who are not germane to this article.


#15

Having had to job hunt at age 56 last summer I know what you mean!


#16

Unfortunately it seems every time the govt gives a SS COLA increase the extra money is taken right back in a premium increase in Part B. +1 -1=0 to recipient.


#17

It either proves they have stiffened spines or that they are great at putting forth progressive proposals at the precise time it is clear they will go nowhere (with Republicans in control of Congress). Why didn't they propose this in 2010, when Dems controlled both houses of Congress? Oh, that's right, they were busy pushing the Heritage Foundation-approved Obamacare (i.e., a Republican plan).


#18

Ironically, it proves both. They grow a spine when:

A) it's good political theatre
B) the opposition paints itself into a corner.

But as for actually following through with anything but corporate-approved fiddling around the edges, see A above.


#19

Yes, there should be NO cap. Period.


#20

My thought exactly.