Seriously -- this is how Democrats can win it all in 2020 -- written by a Conservative!

Negative interest rates would destroy the economy, leaving it entirely dependent on central bank handouts! And, maybe that's the real idea behind these rate-cuts -- and has been all along.

Who would be STOOPID enough to leave their money in a bank that CHARGES THE DEPOSITOR TO HAVE IT THERE?!

Not me! As the old saying goes, "I may have been born at night -- but it wasn't last night...."

 

In which case Biden would be just jumping on the Warren bandwagon since she has already claimed that position for herself.

It would not be first time an occupant has been challenged. Teddy Kennedy challenged Carter as I recall. Why is the BLOTUS immune given that he makes Carter look like one of the Founding Fathers in comparison?

It is far easier to win a primary than a general election. Start the ball rolling on BOTH SIDES and DOUBLE our chances of FIXING the problem.

 

negative interest rates destroy the economy in the long term, but create a short term boom.

if they begin in early 2020 the economy would be robust into the presidential election, securing a Trump victory against the commies.

 

All I can say at this point, Te, is that Dizzy Lizzy Warren is doing a piss-poor job of getting this message out, IF she is indeed making it a pillar in her campaign. I don't honestly recall her talking about anything but giving welfare to illegal aliens, and supporting a half-dozen other 'loonie-tunes' far-Left initiatives.... Maybe you should get in touch with one of her 'people' and tell them to WAKE THE HELL UP!

No use in anybody trying to tell Trump to do, or not do, anything. He runs his own show, and he makes it up as he goes along -- frequently changing it substantially on a day-to-day basis....

 

kind of a low bar don't you think? That is like saying Obama was better than Bush. I think Warren is promising too much.The first two years at a community college I think suffices, I don't think the country needs free 4 year college, I don't like the forgiveness of student debt. I think a 1% tax on future earnings for every 25,000 of debt would be better as a political solution.

 

I doubt that. Americans, especially those who would be motivated by this know that once the Trust-funds are exhausted that Social Security converts to a pay as you go system. That is, absent reform, retirees see an abrupt 30% or so reduction in benefits. So, what you propose would be easily countered by demonstrating that what you are really asking for, is for all of us to floorboard the accelerator as we approach the cliff. The other interesting thing is that nearly every chart of wealth disparity that is attributed to any number of things can be recreated by using only age. Older Americans, Boomers and so forth, are a lot richer than Gen X and Millennials.



I think what you are claiming would be a sure-fire election winner, would instead look like greedy demand for a massive wealth transfer from much poorer Millennial's and Gen X'rs to much wealthier Boomers. Just look at the cars they drive, compared to Boomers, look at the houses they own, compared to Boomers, I think what you propose would badly explode in your face. The LAST thing Boomers want Gen X and Millennial's to have is clarity on how the SS system transfers wealth from the much poorer younger Americans to the much richer Boomers. If they are really motivated, they can choke off the fixes necessary to ease these trust-funds past the 1960 Boomer Bulge that is turning 59 this year. By 2045, that bulge is behind us and the system is righting itself, but from 2034 to 2045, its going to take some positive variance from assumptions to avoid the abrupt conversion to Pay as you Go (with about at 30% reduction from currently promised benefits) that IS current law.

I don't ever expect to see that abrupt adjustment, removing the cap on taxing SS earnings, pretty much puts us past the peak of the boomers.

We are approaching this from different perspectives, I'm looking for us to avoid that cut, you are looking for more generous benefits.

Trump is already fixing Social Security. The Trustees report forecasts an intermediate cost, high cost, and low cost scenario for all of the various factors.

The current projection that the Trust Fund will be dry by 2034 uses the intermediate cost assumption of unemployment at 5.5%. If we beat that, the fund lasts longer. The lowest cost scenario they show is 4.5%, but for the first time in a very long time, the unemployment rate has dipped below even 4%.

It looks to me like they need to revise their assumptions, because Trump is handily spanking even their most optimistic assumptions.

 

Actually the mandated reduction if the Trust Funds expire, is no longer 30%, as of the 2019 Trustees report it's 25%.

Social Security’s total cost is projected to exceed its total income (including interest) in 2020 for the first time since 1982, and to remain higher throughout the remainder of the projection period. Social Security’s cost will be financed with a combination of non-interest income, interest income, and net redemptions of trust fund asset reserves from the General Fund of the Treasury until 2035 when the OASDI reserves will become depleted. Thereafter, scheduled tax income is projected to be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through the end of the projection period in 2093. The ratio of reserves to one year’s projected cost (the combined trust fund ratio) peaked in 2008, generally declined through 2018, and is expected to decline steadily until the trust fund reserves are depleted in 2035.​

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/

 

@Pollycy

You got me digging. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2019/II_D_project.html

This is that 25% cut in benefits that hits if the trust funds exhaust (actually this shows 20%).



Now that only happens if we hit the zero line in this next graph. Estimate I assumes 4.5% unemployment (which Trump is easily beating and has been for his entire presidency.

Estimate II assumes 5.5% unemployment

Estimate III assumes 6.5% unemployment.



To summarize: At current unemployment rates, we are beating I and never deplete the funds.

At III or 6.5%, under current law, you are looking at a 20% benefit reduction before 2032.

So as you think through your hard money wish-list and higher interest rates, be sure to consider what that will do to the unemployment rate.

 

Going just by the first statement, you're talking about Warren, right? And the part about switching the SS COLA from CPI-W to CPI-E sounds like one of her many detailed plans as seen on her website.

 

Any of the Dem candidates would be a better president than Trump. My freaking dog would do a better job.

 

Um ... mid-80s? That's years before the baby boom began. The oldest of us is mid-70s. Where are you getting your numbers? An 85 year old would have been born in 1934, more than ten years before the end of WWII. I'm a boomer, and my own mother, if she were still living, would be 88.

As for how to achieve the things she talks about, I suggest you browse through her website. She has a plan for all of her talking points, most of which are very feasible.

 

It’s fairly obvious the issue is the echo system in which you reside. “Fair” resides within most D political policy. All one needs to is read and or listen to the candidates. “Fair” is the root of economic, trade, healthcare, tax, immigration, et. al. argument.

Your echo system marginalizes every argument: it’s not about this (fairness) it’s about that—identity politics, free stuff, socialism, yadda-yadda.

 

Not bitter, but definitely angry, as am I. You say that like it's a bad thing. Trump is angrier and more bitter than anyone in politics, but that's okay with you? Double standards really tick me off.

 

Trump is angry at the right people: those that have taken advantage of the U.S. for decades. But he doesn’t tell us the U.S. is a horrible place that needs the heavy hand of government to “fix” things.

 

"The right people" is a subjective term. "Right" in whose opinion?

Yeah. "I alone can fix it." "I am the chosen one." Trump may have a few things right (like NATO members needing to step up, and cutting off aid to Pakistan), but he is one of the ugliest people on the inside that the world has ever encountered, and in most things presidential, he is woefully incompetent. Tillerson was right.

 

Unfortunately, PF does not have a mechanism to "not like" a post. If they did, you would have mine now.
Mainly from the standpoint of calling yourself a fair-minded conservative while talking like someone who has no idea what that is.
You sound an awfully lot like a semi-socialist in conservative clothing to me.

 

But that isn't connected to the stock market but to a flattening of over all inflation rates and frankly a big cost of living adjustment naturally implies a high inflation rate and it is never enough to keep up/

 

Warren is an incompetent twit who has zero chance at beating Trump.

There is another Dem who could beat Trump... But won't get the DNC wink and nod.

 

I belive that the OP typosed. I think he meant that Trump is a proponant of the policies that CAUSED the great recession.

 

In the almost 11 years I've been an active poster here at PF, I've been consistent in my position as a rock-sold, right-wing fiscal Conservative -- and I've probably been put on 'ignore' than anybody else by the Left.

I'll ask YOU, then, what is 'fair' about a situation that's existed for the past 12 years where the government and the Fed have moved heaven and earth to rescue stock market gamblers, but totally SCREWED people on Social Security?!

How much has the almighty-god stock market gone up since 2009 -- thanks to 'quantitative easings', 'Operation Twist', crushed interest rates, and other central bank and governmental 'magic tricks'...? Now, during the same time period, what's been done for people on Social Security? Take a look below:


Well -- IS THIS FAIR?!

 

Sounds like just more sour grapes.

Trump is doing a great job regardless of whether you will admit it or not.

 

Wouldn't a large increase in social security hasten the day it goes bankrupt? 2035 is the year bandied around. Medicare hospitalization in 2026. Those years aren't that far into the future. One of the big reasons the Republicans were able to end 40 straight years of Democratic control of the House in 1994 was that the Democrats raised the amount of social security that was federally taxed from 50% to 85%. Big mistake, seniors vote which you alluded to.

I do agree the democrats need to stop their harping on racism, white privilege, reparations etc. I don't think that is going to influence anyone to vote Democratic that hasn't already made up their mind to do so. Instead I would suggest the Democrats concentrate on coming up with a candidate that would provide steady, reliable leadership which can be touted against Trump's helter skelter approach.

 

If Social Security looks like it's going to go 'bankrupt', the answer from working-class Americans and retirees will be -- LET THEM GET THE MONEY TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY FROM THE SAME PLACE THEY GOT IT WHEN THEY RESCUED THE STOCK MARKET!

The government and the Federal Reserve central bank came up with all the money needed to save those it thought were "too big to fail" in 2008 - 2009 -- so, if SS has trouble in the future meeting its obligations to people who have EARNED their benefits, then let the government and the Fed step up and FIX IT... just like they did for Wall Street! They found a way to do it for stock market gamblers -- so, they can damned well find a way to do it for retirees who have EARNED their retirement benefits! Sound fair...?!

 

Missed the point we will most of us be here for another 10 to thirty years, by the time we shuffle off this mortal coil. by that time our kids will be retiring.

 

I am not talking about the BLOTUS because he is a LOST CAUSE.

Former Tea Party Rep Joe Walsh has just announced his intention to challenge your BLOTUS in the GOP primaries. Why don't you contact his campaign and ask them to make it the primary focus of his campaign? Granted he is still an INSIDER and won't stop the GREED OBSESSED Wall Street Casino Bosses from LOOTING America but at least he might agree to lifting the cap on SS income contributions.

FTR none of the Dem's have had the opportunity to bring up SS reform because the stage has been way too crowded. Now that the DNC is doing some serious WEEDING OUT we can soon expect some more SUBSTANTIVE primary debate topics.

TBH the Dem primary debates can become snooze fests with policy wonks but rather that than the puerile insult food fights that your BLOTUS engages in.