Discussion: Christie To Critics Of Social Security Cuts: That's The Left Defending The Rich

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #235327

2

It’s the anti-American right underfunding the government since 1981

2 Likes
3

So Christie, a Republican, is in favor of citizens contributing a portion of their wages, for their entire working lives, into the SS fund. Then, upon retirement if they’ve planned well, worked hard, and been very successful in life he’d deprive them entirely of any return on those deposited funds if they earned above a certain income? This is going to be a GOP platform plank? Something he’d push hard and fight for if elected? What happened to rewarding success and hard work? What happened to letting people keep (or at least get back) what they had earned?

14 Likes
4

Hey dipshit, just remove the cap on SS tax and make capital gains subject to the tax. Problem solved for all time.

17 Likes
5

More likely the Left defending the poor. Again.

2 Likes
6

Really Gov?
That’s what you’re going with?
Start bailing water now-- though I’m sure you’re quite buoyant.

jw1

2 Likes
7

Christie is not a stupid man or maybe he is. He must know that if you deny older wealthier people social security retirement checks than they will demand that no social security funds should be taken by the government at all and the SS trust fund will dry up and than nobody will get SS and the program will be discontinued. This man is rotten to the core and is playing the same tricks republicans have been doing for decades. He obviously believes that if you work hard and earn a social security check that you shouldn’t get it for being wealthy. Doesn’t this go against every thing the republicans are for which is if you work hard and play by the rules you should get equal treatment.

6 Likes
8

@ Xyxox I agree with your superior solution. What I don’t quite get is that I consider myself very liberal, yet I can’t quite grasp why Christie’s proposal is an inherently bad thing. The point steviedee makes above doesn’t really seem to hold water to me. If you are retired, yet have $80,000 or more of income coming in per year in retirement, doesn’t it almost inherently mean that in most of your working years, you were making far more than the current cap on earnings subject to the SS tax? SS was supposed to be insurance against poverty, not a pension plan.

Now, I can buy an argument that this is a right-wing Trojan Horse and that if Democrats were to start backing it, much like many other ideas that started on the GOP side of the aisle (see, ACA), the GOP would sudden move to demanding means-testing at a much, MUCH lower income level. Beyond that, I can’t see the problem. Can someone point out what I am missing?

9

My guess is, is that Christie now realizes he is not going to be mounting a campaign for President (PPP just released numbers for NH…Christie is easily the most disliked potential candidate, and has dropped something like 16% since January). So he is being used (volunteering perhaps) as a trial balloon to float the notion of tinkering with Social Security, something every GOP candidate is going to be expected to do, as 2016 is pretty much the closing of the window on any such talk as the size of baby boomers in retirement becomes far too great for there to be any political will to go after it.

I suspect we will see Christie being used in this manner a few times in the upcoming months. The interesting thing to watch for is whose proposals most closely align with his “suggestions”. That will be the person that Christie is sending what few donors he had towards.

2 Likes
10

No, that’s not the left defending the rich, it’s everybody remembering what it’s like to cross a bridge in New Jersey.

11

Christie is trying to tank the eletion for republicans just like he did in 2012. Maybe he figures all his scandels will be behind him in 2020.

12

He’s very unpopular in NJ, and as a presidential contender HRC has been favored for a long time. As to changing an aspects of SS, you remember that when bush was re-elected he floated some proposals about privatizing SS, something he’d never brought up during the campaign, and he quickly dropped them. Other than raising the cap on earnings, I don’t think anyone much wants major changes

2 Likes
13

I thought he dropped in because she has wide, comfy chairs.

14

She’s a good listener when she has a troubled soul in front of her.

15

So Governor, just how much money will your proposal actually save?

Not enough to make SS “solvent” (according to your definition) - I can guarantee that much!
All it does is set the stage for future cuts, and you know damn well that’s exactly what you’re trying to do.

4 Likes
16

No, no no, it’s only Democrats that sow the seeds of class warfare. Everyone knows that!

17

“Knee-jerk reaction”? Am I reading TPM or Breitbart?

3 Likes
18

You know what? If these assholes can actually sell this, and the Left doesn’t defend against it (or, you know, make the true accusations themselves like they should have been since SS began), the fuck it.

If one side tries, and the other doesn’t…well, there’s a predictable result.

4 Likes
19

Yeah, the thought of eliminating SS for the top end was floated by Democrats in past elections and the Republicans screamed “Class Warfare!!” at the time.

I’m guessing Christy saw this as no more and no less of a wedge issue he’d be the first one out of the gate to use in the Republican field. What’s more, it allows him to raise his false flag about ‘helping the poor’ out of an imaginary financial pickle while “The Democrats” are opposed to his proposal… see how bad the Democrats are?

2 Likes
20

If you want to enhance Social Security, raise the cap. It’s pretty freakin’ simple. Don’t cut benefits, don’t change the retirement age, RAISE THE FREAKIN’ CAP.

Gov Weebles has already peaked on his run for the white house. It’s just not going to happen.

2 Likes