Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marco Rubio’s Right on Social Security
National Review ^ | 05/15/2014 | The Editors

Posted on 05/15/2014 7:01:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: rubio; socialsecurity

1 posted on 05/15/2014 7:01:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Mario will say anything somebody pays him to say.
2 posted on 05/15/2014 7:03:05 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If the polls are correct and Mark Pryor manages to rise from the electoral dead by attacking Cotton for supporting SS reform, you can kiss any potential SS reform goodbye.

Terrified Pubbies will not go anywhere near it.

Eventually the “reform” will be Liz Warren’s idea to extend FICA taxes to every penny of income.


3 posted on 05/15/2014 7:04:10 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What a RINO joke


4 posted on 05/15/2014 7:04:16 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

RE: What a RINO joke

What about his SS proposal?


5 posted on 05/15/2014 7:04:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Undergirding these ideas is a positive conservative vision for Social Security. …
Is that anything like the so-called “conservative case for gay marriage” that was being bandied about last year?
6 posted on 05/15/2014 7:06:00 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

greece, here we come


7 posted on 05/15/2014 7:06:12 AM PDT by ghost of stonewall jackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

We in Florida have learned that Marco will say pretty much anything to get elected.


8 posted on 05/15/2014 7:06:18 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Shoot cops that shoot dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That those who put the most in should get the least back? and those who put in very little should see benefits skyrocket?

A brand new welfare scheme.

Not a conservative approach at all.


9 posted on 05/15/2014 7:07:30 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’d support those approaches on SS too. Good for Rubio, willing to express a complicated idea clearly on a sensitive issue.


10 posted on 05/15/2014 7:09:05 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
That those who put the most in should get the least back? and those who put in very little should see benefits skyrocket?

Luckily he didn't say either of those things, but don't let that stop you from getting hysterical. Is it your time of the month?
11 posted on 05/15/2014 7:11:24 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

I was going by what the article said


12 posted on 05/15/2014 7:13:23 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

BUMP!


13 posted on 05/15/2014 7:13:42 AM PDT by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Rubio’s making an unsupported assumption and attempting to buttress that weakness with a pure appeal to emotion with the “stick to the wealthy” two-tier plan.

The unsupported assumption is about the increasing lifespan continuing. With O’Care in place, I find that to be lacking in evidence. In addition, anything that assumes a straight line into the future better have a load of facts behind it.

The class-envy appeal to emotion is simply base politics with the two-tier plan. If the money is withheld at the same rate, I don’t see they have a leg to stand on for the payout to be different.


14 posted on 05/15/2014 7:14:01 AM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The statement is not in reference to him personally, it is just the truth.

What he really said and every congress person agrees ....."If you had died like you were supposed to at age 65 1/2 according to the SS Plan, we wouldn't be in this mess."

15 posted on 05/15/2014 7:16:37 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I just don’t include Social Security in the “Welfare State” and to think that 1400 dollars is a lot of money for working 50 years is quite insane. Sorry the reason that Social Security is a mess is because Congress raided the slush fund or whatever you call it. They should have to recoup all that money themselves. Thieves.


16 posted on 05/15/2014 7:17:53 AM PDT by napscoordinator (Governor Scott Walker 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Eventually the “reform” will be Liz Warren’s idea to extend FICA taxes to every penny of income.

I would just be glad when my Boss stops coming out in July and says to all of us, well I begin my “raise from now until the end of the year”....he finished paying the max to Social Security while the rest of us continue to pay for the rest of the year. Now I am not saying that he should pay more. All I am saying is he should shut the heck up.


17 posted on 05/15/2014 7:20:27 AM PDT by napscoordinator (Governor Scott Walker 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Imagine if the 15% of your income (7.5% from you and 7.5% from your employer) taken for FICA were invested in conventional investment instruments.

If you worked for 40 years between ages 20 and 65, you’d be a millionaire at retirement.

In just 20 years, I’m halfway there just applying 4% with employer matching to a 401K.


18 posted on 05/15/2014 7:23:53 AM PDT by Westbrook (Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
Luckily he didn't say either of those things, but don't let that stop you from getting hysterical. Is it your time of the month?

Maybe he didn't, but the article says: " He wants middle- and high-income Americans to see their benefits grow more slowly and the poor to see their benefits grow more quickly. "

How is that idea anything other than redistribution/welfare?

19 posted on 05/15/2014 7:27:02 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Eventually the “reform” will be Liz Warren’s idea to extend FICA taxes to every penny of income.

Yup. And then it'll be means tested on the recipients' end. Social Security is quickly becoming welfare.

20 posted on 05/15/2014 7:28:04 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Truly SS needs to be gutted. Anyone under 40 should be told they will not ever receive their benefits and no further increases to withholding but that they will continue to pay the tax.


21 posted on 05/15/2014 7:30:19 AM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

RE: Anyone under 40 should be told they will not ever receive their benefits and no further increases to withholding but that they will continue to pay the tax.

So, they will be paying for current retirees but won’t get anything when they reach retirement age?

What could go wrong???


22 posted on 05/15/2014 7:31:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (If at first you don't succeed, put it out for beta test.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Social Security was always intended to be general revenue. It was a designed as a Ponzi scheme and Congress was handed the money, they didn’t have to raid anything.


23 posted on 05/15/2014 8:15:22 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
None of these expanded brains address the problem of Congress spending the SS surpluses all of these years and now the system is on the verge of bankruptcy. In addition, they avoid addressing the reason (themselves and their economic policies) the economy is in the tank.

Shrinking labor force with 92 million Americans out of work? Imbeciles!

24 posted on 05/15/2014 8:22:41 AM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

Are you afraid to debate the actual content of the article without resorting to personal insults and attacks?


25 posted on 05/15/2014 8:46:50 AM PDT by MortMan (Avoid temporary variables and strange women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

Look it’s already socialism. It’s got Social right there in the title, and is a direct transplant by FDR of principles from the German Social Democrats going back to the time of Bismarck.

Social Security IS socialist already. The problem is that it’s structured in a way that is completely unsustainable to government finances. The government, in the American system, is the same as the citizens. There is not a separate entity called THE GOVERNMENT. There is only us. We have created this mess over a few generations and we have to fix it now.

When we have a program that a vast majority of people think is basically here to stay and beneficial, socialist or not, but that program is actuarially unsound it needs to be changed in a way that either the revenues into the system are increased (bad) or the funds paid out are decreased (bad). So between these two, the tweaks, and be clear about that we are talking about microscopic tweaks, not “skyrocketing” benefits for the poor and slashing benefits for those who paid in more, the tweaks ought to address the fact that life expectancy has increased enormously since the program was created, and to further acknowledge that there are so many policies designed to boost the asset values of the wealthy, that they have done very well through asset price inflation.

So raise the retirement age slightly and gradually, and reduce the growth rate of benefits to a chained-CPI for everyone except the lowest income segment.


26 posted on 05/15/2014 8:48:33 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

see my post just above. Not afraid of anyone when it comes to Social Security reform.


27 posted on 05/15/2014 8:50:17 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

So why not stop short of accusing someone who disagrees with you if they are menstruating?

The supposed strength of your argument is seriously undercut by the ad hominem qualities with which you present it.


28 posted on 05/15/2014 8:53:58 AM PDT by MortMan (Avoid temporary variables and strange women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

Because I see that guy on here all the time and he’s always bitching hysterically about things he shows zero understanding of. He’s a whiner.


29 posted on 05/15/2014 8:55:05 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Our money is being stolen. See how places liek galvenston, Texas are able to make much more money.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/

A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.

A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.

And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.


30 posted on 05/15/2014 8:57:24 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

So identify the hysterics, ridicule nonsensical portions of his argument, and present your own counter points.

By making the personal attack, you undermine your own argument.

By justifying it because “he’s a whiner”, you paint yourself in much the same light.

His original comment, BTW, is a slightly hyperbolic paraphrase of a quote from the article - which makes your response all the more damning to your case.


31 posted on 05/15/2014 8:58:57 AM PDT by MortMan (Avoid temporary variables and strange women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The two key planks to Rubio’s Social Security proposal are a gradual increase in the retirement age, tied to increases in American life expectancy, and a change to the growth of benefits.

I intensely dislike Rubio, but we do have to gradually raise the retirement age from 67 to 70 or 71

He wants middle- and high-income Americans to see their benefits grow more slowly and the poor to see their benefits grow more quickly.

No, we cannot means test Social Security without turning it into welfare. I don't mind Rubio coming out with a mixed bag that includes some good ideas, but I do not want him in our White House.

32 posted on 05/15/2014 9:03:05 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I just don’t include Social Security in the “Welfare State”

Anyone who has received more in Soc Sec than what he paid in (plus a reasonable rate of return) is at that point forward a welfare recipient. Ditto Medicare.

33 posted on 05/15/2014 9:04:27 AM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Sure roofers should work until they are 71. Yeah an A/C tech in their 60’s should crawl around attic in the summer. Keep ‘em working till they drop.


34 posted on 05/15/2014 9:05:42 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

When they decide to increase benefits for those who paid in little by taking from those who paid in more, it becomes a welfare system


35 posted on 05/15/2014 9:08:50 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

SS could use a bailout. One-time payment that pays out everyone’s accounts immediately. You then have the option (come tax-time) on whether or not you have SS taken out of your paycheck. If you do, it goes in an account that only SS can touch. If not, you keep your own money, and can put it in your own 401k or whatever.

Or, just get rid of it entirely. I’d be happy with that as well.


36 posted on 05/15/2014 9:43:06 AM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

“Is it your time of the month?”

-

Classy!/s

.


37 posted on 05/15/2014 9:48:48 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
I agree with you that SS is socialist in the sense that many people get back much more than they've ever put in. However, many people would have gotten much more back if they'd have invested that money in the market. In that sense, it's an insurance program. It's certainly been sold to the American people as an insurance program, not one of wealth distribution.

I also think it's a stretch to say the vast majority of people think it's here to stay. Most 40 to 50 year olds that I know would rather have all their contributions back and have the ability to invest that money themselves. Bottom line is, people do see it going away and want their money back.

38 posted on 05/15/2014 10:41:28 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon

Anyone who has received more in Soc Sec than what he paid in (plus a reasonable rate of return) is at that point forward a welfare recipient. Ditto Medicare.

Which makes VERY few Welfare recipients at least on the Social Security side. It is horrible that we only get an average of 1400 dollars after giving so much throughout our working years. I know I won’t get back what I put in. If you do, I quite frankly am glad that someone will that it least is conservative.


39 posted on 05/15/2014 10:43:52 AM PDT by napscoordinator (Governor Scott Walker 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: babble-on

We have created this mess over a few generations and we have to fix it now.

Didn’t President Reagan already fix Social Security? I have heard that forever. Why are we questing him? He made it so that widows do not get Social Security anymore. Kids stop getting Social Security when they turn 18 instead of 22. He raised the age to 67. If it was not going to work, why didn’t he do more. Now we have to revisit the mess?


40 posted on 05/15/2014 10:47:05 AM PDT by napscoordinator (Governor Scott Walker 2016 for the future of the country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Sure roofers should work until they are 71. Yeah an A/C tech in their 60’s should crawl around attic in the summer. Keep ‘em working till they drop.

For full benefits? Yes. For reduced benefits (which should still be pretty decent considering what skilled roofers/techs make), retire when they need to, or shift to a job that is less physical. Right now, the average person on social security is being supported by five active workers (5:1). That is projected to drop to 3:1 in 2040, and 5:2 by 2080. It's not sustainable unless we raise the age, probably to age 75 by 2080.

41 posted on 05/15/2014 10:47:11 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Yes, what he and Moynihan accomplished helped, but also created the huge problem of the untrustworthy trust funds. The trust fund approach masked the damaging accounting deficits we were creating, by making the annual cash flow deficits much smaller than the accrual deficits.

Yep, we have to revisit it. And I know it’s a blink of an eye but that was thirty years ago for a massive system.


42 posted on 05/15/2014 10:51:32 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sure Social Security needs to be “fixed.” But only after gold-plated government retirement/medical benefits programs are “fixed” first.


43 posted on 05/15/2014 10:52:20 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric Pode of Croydon
Anyone who has received more in Soc Sec than what he paid in (plus a reasonable rate of return) is at that point forward a welfare recipient. Ditto Medicare.

What do you think of life and health insurance?

I'm no fan of social security but it was sold as an insurance program and that is how many folks look at it.

44 posted on 05/15/2014 10:52:27 AM PDT by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

It is a socialized pension insurance scheme, but the benefits are absolutely already skewed in favor of those who have paid in the least, not to mention the taxability of the income for those who have other income in retirement further adding to the progressivity of the system.

But if you look at an actual opinion poll you’ll also see it’s one of the most popular programs of the government, including among 40-50 year olds. It’s not going away, but it needs to be adjusted, very slightly and very slowly, to put it on an actuarially sustainable footing.


45 posted on 05/15/2014 10:55:53 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Nope, they will have to fund their own retirement, which is most likely going to happen anyway, leaders should have the courage to be honest.


46 posted on 05/16/2014 3:11:55 PM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
SS funding must be behind the desperate push to "bring the illegals out of the shadows", to get more people paying income taxes, SS, and medicare tax.

What they do not factor in is that legalizing the legals will increase unemployment among current employed. It will open the gates to more illegals, because the newly legalized employees cost too much. The newly arrived illegals will then need to be legalized ... lather, rinse, repeat.

Eventually everyone will be on SSI disability (permanent unemployment benefits).

47 posted on 05/16/2014 3:20:44 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar
One-time payment that pays out everyone’s accounts immediately.

Sounds magical. Now all they need to do is create the money.

48 posted on 05/16/2014 3:29:14 PM PDT by nascarnation (Toxic Baraq Syndrome: hopefully infecting a Dem candidate near you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

It’s what they did with TARP. Yea, it’s pulling money out of nowhere. But it’s better to do that and get rid of a negative-running balance, then to let SS get even more into the red.

And of course, bonus points if we can pay off the (one-time) payment with permanent cuts elsewhere ;)


49 posted on 05/17/2014 5:36:22 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Svartalfiar

TARP was half a bil.
SS is 12 tril.


50 posted on 05/17/2014 5:40:14 PM PDT by nascarnation (Toxic Baraq Syndrome: hopefully infecting a Dem candidate near you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson