Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Economy

This Won't Help Democrats

WSJ NEWS ALERT: Social Security Payments Won't Increase Next Year

The Social Security Administration said there will be no increase in benefits next year -- the second year in a row without an increase for more than 58 million retirees and disabled Americans. The announcement marks only the second year without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year was this year.

Categories > Economy

Discussions - 7 Comments

At the risk of appearing devil's advocate ... if the Republicans were the party in power, it wouldn't help them either.

And shouldn't conservatives applaud the holding flat of Social Security payments? Not because it hurts Democrats, but because it represents at least one entitlement that is not automatically increasing?

Maybe some social security should obtain an increase and they should hold the way on couples whose income is over a certain quantity. I do think that we all have to tighten our belts. Times are tough and without challenge.

Republicans should love this since they're always saying that social security should be eliminated. Think of this as just a natural way of defunding it. Also, the explanation for the lack of a COLA is the absence of inflation. That's a good thing. Trust me...all that gold that's being bought as a hedge against the nonexistent inflation will be the next bubble to burst.

Republicans should love this since they're always saying that social security should be eliminated.

What share of the Republican Congressional caucus has said that, and when? Which presidential candidate? We you thinking Barry Goldwater perhaps?

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1964/senator-margaret-chase

Um, where to begin....George W. Bush, Sharon Angle, Ron Johnson, Ken Buck, Rand Paul, Joe Miller, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Martha Roby, Dan Lundgren, Dick Armey, Tom Price... If you need more, just let me know. Granted, not all of these are currently serving in Congress, but all most likely will be starting in January, so I'm going to include them.

George W. Bush proposed an experimental program for private accounts to be the repository of payroll tax revenue. That does not constitute 'eliminating Social Security'. Richard Armey is no longer in Congress, at least five of the twelve people on your list have never been in Congress, and you offer not one single citation to a statement of any one of them that they are in favor of 'eliminating Social Security', much less than that is the policy of the Republican caucus, which has co-existed with Social Security for 70 years through five Republican administrations. You do not know what you are talking about.

I should say, "a repository of payroll tax revenue". IIRC, 10% of such revenues were to be earmarked for private accounts.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/15751