Another way of cutting Social Security payments, without "cutting Social Security"

As this article lays out, stop indexing SS retirement benefits to wage increases, above the rate of inflation.

That’s because, under current law, the Social Security benefits planned for future retirees will be higher than those paid out currently to today’s retirees. The initial value of each cohort’s benefits rises in line with average wages in the economy.

But a future government could instead save a ton of money simply by scrapping those expected rises. Instead, they could just freeze benefits at current levels — raising them in line with consumer prices, but no more.

This would have a huge effect on the Social Security budget. Romina Boccia, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute and an expert on the subject, describes it as “one of the most powerful changes Congress could adopt. It would almost entirely eliminate the unfunded liability.”

I take it as a given that “burdening” the “JCs” with a higher payroll tax is a non-starter.


Well there’s your problem.


The problem with this approach is it leads to a dramatic lifestyle decrease in retirement.


Not a problem, just a different viewpoint.


Not for the “JCs”, which is probably the objective.



The CATO Institute is only a marketing company.

There would be no real analysis done by the CATO Institute.

Who the CATO Institute hurts would never bother that sort of person. There is no conscience.

Didn’t they sucker some of us with the ME Generation crap? Me Me Me is a road to failure.


A different viewpoint is a BIG PROBLEM for some people, for true believers. Dare say that Climate Catastrophe is a political hoax! Just try it.

The Captain


The Cato Institute ranks #20 in the top 75 think tanks worldwide and #8 in the US.


It might call itself a think tank but it is a failed think tank.

Everything about supply-side economics backfired.

There is not one politician in American running on supply-side economics. It is not economics. It is garbage about tax cuts for wealthy people and a reduction in our industrial base because of mismanagement. Not to mention a massive trade deficit creator and budget deficit creator. It was idiotic and self centered.

Leaping to conclusions…

The Crew

In your opinion, yes. That does not make it ‘a failed think tank’.


1 Like

Agreed. It does all sorts of think tanky things. A lot of folks look to it as an enhancement to (or even substitute for) their thinking also.


The same can be said for those who wish to maintain the status quo.

Every major decision comes loaded with economic and financial repercussions.

1 Like

That seems to be the foundation of a lot of what goes on: tell the target audience what it wants to hear. Certainly works for Fox Noise. If what you are saying does not align with facts, say you are using “alternate facts”.


1 Like

You do not live in the US. But the period of supply-side economics was a 40 year failure for our nation.

I guess that took some thinking by the CATO Institute. We could just say the Institute is generally wrong all the time for 40 years.

Ranking number 20 is not bragging rights.

Mostly though the CATO Institute markets to suckers. Just like Fox News was set up to find suckers.

No politician in Amerian dares to call for supply-side economics now.

It is important not to dress things up as intellectual. Especially when the entire process is idiotic and wrong for decades on end.

No politician has to now. They just call anything not SSE radical socialism.


Losing battle for them.

More importantly and pertinent to our discussion, in economics the CATO Institute is a negative contributor to the well-being of our nation.

You polled them all?

The Captain

1 Like


No one here is going to state why suppy-side economics is a good idea. Yet any dopy idea those marketing firms can come up with some here are willing suckers.


Link please? Give us one name of an American in office who supports supply-side economics. You can not find one mention in the last ten years. Does not exist.

Give us a link. Or even a name. A single name. You can’t. It does not exist. They all ran away.

Why should I? I’m not the one who made the claim. Did you poll them all? I just want to be better informed. I have no interest in doing your research. You back your statements if you want to be believed.

The Captain