It’s always fascinating that Republicans only know how to cut programs that help many millions of people rather than improve them. Why? Because it’s easy and makes headlines. Of course the other reason is they don’t care about everyday people and want government to help big business and cut taxes for the rich.
It’s always fascinating that Republicans only know how to cut programs that help many millions of people rather than improve them. Why? Because it’s easy and makes headlines. Of course the other reason is they don’t care about everyday people and want government to help big business and cut taxes for the rich.
We’re in for quite a spectacle. The GOP underestimates the people’s wrath if they mess with Social Security,Medicare, and other social support programs.
The republicans and Trump will never cut social security they will defund it. Bush took hoe many millions from the fund 1.3 billion? It happens. Meanwhile propaganda has already started about “not needing social security”. Not one person I know believes Republicans want to defund it. This should have been a major campaign issue. Harris should have started every speech with if you elect trump say goodbye to social security and then show proof of how they have tried to cut social security
Social Security is supported by a trust fund. That trust fund is invested exclusive in United States sovereign debt. Treasuries. The SS Administration thus lends money…all its money…to the United States government. The US government uses that money to cover its deficits.
Last month in spite of having this captive buyer, demand was weak at the regularly scheduled Treasury auction. Prices had to be cut from the posted openings in order to move the thirty and ten year offerings thus raising the yields on the instruments and all forms of market interest rates accordingly. This was in spite of a recent Fed rate cut. This means that the bond market was pushing back against the moves of the Federal Reserve. Thus for the moment, interest rates are going to hang. Job reports were good. Inflation reports not so bad. The Fed factors all of that stuff in to account. So this reflects pure wariness of investors. Big investors. Banks. Pension funds. Perhaps the guy who places orders for the SSA. With higher employment, he’s got more to work with after all.
Social Security as pensions go is not a good deal. But it has other purposes. Public assistsnce to the elderly and disabled. I get negligible SS. But that is all besides the point. There are so many ways those in government could ruin it. But we have it. It is an institution. We have to defend it or we are lost. That said, the Government does not fund Social Security. Social Security funds government. There are better returns in the market. And Social Security is being exploited for that purpose. There is an inherent conflict of interest. SSA needs to invest for returns. Treasury tries to borrow cheap…to cover for the fiscal decisions of Congress. The incoming President and Congress aim to cut taxes and swell the deficit. They will use the SS Trust Fund for this purpose. And if the ends don’t meet it is the institution and those who participate in it, working, disabled and retired, who will pay the price. No doubt there are needed reforms. But reforms are out of the question. It is an abused child. The question is whether it will survive.
Excellent Points Tyler. SSA was never intended as the sole retirement vehicle and the life expectancy was around age 65 when the program started, so it wasn't the monster it is today.
Trump will demand loyalty from all Federal employees and the military so we can expect the service levels to drop like they did in the USPS. The turnover rate in the USPS has been abysmal since DeJoy took over, not to mention that it now takes days to get a letter across town.
My wife usually mails her Christmas cookies in the Priority Mail Medium Flat Rate Box (FRB1) that I seem to recall costing $10 a couple years ago. Due to circumstances last month the original batches got stale so the replacements weren't ready to mail until two days after Christmas. We wanted to get them mailed before Jan 1st when the then rate had been raised to $16 (and was projected to go up 4.1% to $16.65. Unfortunately, I dropped a glass bowl that shattered and sent broken glass into all the cookies and cookie dough on the counters.
Buying all the supplies and making fresh batches meant I didn't get to mail them until Jan 2nd. That's when I found the projected increase wasn't 4.1%, it was 20.6% at $19.30 for what I remember paying $10 a few years ago.
We'll see if that package gets fresh cookies across the country as fast as and reliably as they used to be. The fate of the last, supposed 2-day delivery, is becoming too typical. I forgot to leave my set of car and house keys with my daughter when she dropped us off at the airport (in her car). We mailed them 2-day priority on Dec 12th from Florida to Maine but didn't get them until Dec 26th, 5 days after we got back to Maine from Florida. Tracking showed they went from Gainesville to Jacksonville FL in 1 day, to Kansas City in 5 days, Omaha, NE in 5 days, Springfield, MA in 1 day, Scarborough, ME in 1 day, and to our daughters house less than 9 miles away on the 14th day (2 weeks for 2 day priority). Wish we could get frequent flyer miles or tourist decals for the Flat Stanley trip our package took.
"...In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation.
If the costs of this retiree health care mandate were removed from the USPS financial statements, the Post Office would have reported operating profits in each of the last six years. This extraordinary mandate created a financial “crisis” that has been used to justify harmful service cuts and even calls for postal privatization. Additional cuts in service and privatization would be devastating for millions of postal workers and customers..."
When I had my business I frequently used FedEx for flat rate boxes because they were less expensive. Trump wants to privatize USPS. Biden didn’t get rid of DeJoy.
My neighbor told me first class stamps are now 75 cents. I rarely use a stamp and bought Forever stamps several years ago.
Unfortunately, presidents don't have the authority to replace the postmaster general. That responsibility is up to a bipartisan board of governors, whose members are appointed by presidents. This arrangement has not served the citizenry well.
Social Security is the greatest anti poverty program in US history.
Charity begins at home. They get tax deductions, plus if propely applied, it increases the GDP and tax revenues. If Social Security is sliding toward a "default" it is because Congress and a succession of presidents would sell their families for a few votes. The default of Trust Funds is supposed to apex in 2034 due to the increase of birth rates of baby boomers. After 2034, birth rates of later generations flatten and the funds can be solvent.
Social Security protects workers, widow(er)s, orphans and disabled people and is a major investment for many of us.
Please donate to create an endowment to slow down the rate. If everyone who donates to say, universities, which aren't really charities, the trust funds would be secure.
Here's an ABA article for tax and estate lawyers I published a few years ago. December 01, 2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING
Social Security—Maybe Charity Should Begin at Home
By Daniel F. Solomon
For most of its history, Social Security was a terrific bargain: our parents and grandparents most probably received significantly more benefits than they paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund comprises the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds (OASDI, collectively).
In most cases, because our family units could rely on these benefits, they were able to enjoy enough financial independence to send people like us to school so that we could become lawyers—productive and, in some cases, wealthy, members of society. For 75 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has helped enable American soci- ety to achieve far beyond the aspirations of its founders, ultimately providing more than subsistence to retirees by also protecting widows, orphans, and disabled people. The dignity provided to needy beneficiaries surely far outweighs the economic value of the funds.
However, financial experts have long predicted a future insolvency of the funds. A majority of Americans have invested in the funds, recognize their social utility, and do not want to burden their heirs. Although there have been legislative attempts to “fix” the system, there is no consensus how to do it. The Congressional Research Service reported:
For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, “Social Security Reform” (October 2002).
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the “Greenspan Commission” after its chairman) was appointed by the Congress and President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to a short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the OASI Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. Congress rendered a compromise that extended the retirement age from 65 to 67, through a deal that raised payroll taxes and trimmed benefits enough to keep Social Security solvent. See Jackie Calmes, “Political Memo: The Bipartisan Panel: Did It Really Work?” New York Times, January 18, 2010. However, the legislation addressed only the immediate problem and did not address the long-term viability of the fund. See also Rudolph G. Penner, “The Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reforms of 1983,” in Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency, David Abshire, Editor. Washington: Center for the Study of the Presidency, pp. 129–31.
The George W. Bush administration commission deliberated on the issue and then called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (“individual” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.
President Barack Obama reportedly strongly opposes privatization or raising the retirement age but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program. He has appointed a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is to report and offer another fix.
Current estimates predict that payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084. 2010 OASDI Trust- ees Report, Figure II.D2, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/ trTOC.html.
Although the congressional plan was to ensure solvency through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, there is a private means to help: to also consider the humanitarian and charitable nature of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which has been possible since a legislative fix in 1972. Before then, bequests naming Social Security or a trust fund as a beneficiary could not be accepted, which caused problems in administration of some estates. Money gifts or bequests may be accepted for deposit by the managing trustee of the OASI and DI funds. Section 170(c)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code lists the U.S. government among the educational or charitable organizations to which donations are acceptable. Gifts must be unconditional, except that the donor may designate to which fund the gift should be donated. If no fund is designated, the gift is credited to the OASI Trust Fund.
However, SSA has not publicized its charitable persona. Although the agency has received some gifts and bequests, they have been insignificant and not given consideration in a possible fix. The concept has been so unimportant to the experts that the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin does not specify how much the administration has received in gifts and bequests. Total revenue from gifts to the trust funds has been quite small. From 1974 to 1979 the most received in any one year was $91,949.88. During that period, the average annual amount was only $39,847. In 1980, almost two-thirds of the gifts were less than $100. The median gift size was $50. One person, for example, donated $13.11. She arrived at that amount by applying 5.85% (the employee tax rate then in effect) to her benefit amount and donated it to help “‘shore up’ the sagging, dwindling Social Security fund.” However, the 2010 Social Security Trustees Report lists them as about $98,000 (www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/III_ cyoper.html#2). Compared to many other charities, this is a paltry amount.
Apparently, SSA has never done a feasibility study nor marketing research to determine how an aggressive campaign could raise funds to support Social Security, or how gifts and bequests could reduce the current estimates of impending doom. According to some estimates total deductions taken for all charities next year would be $413.5 billion. Estimates for fiscal year 2011 are that SSA will spend $730 billion. That amount is already covered through “contributions” (taxes), but it is reasonable that charitable contributions to the trust fund could significantly lessen taxpayer exposure for impending doom, if not return the fund to solvency.
As lawyers, we have the capacity to remind our families, our clients, and the public at large that there is a way to contribute to help endow future generations in the pursuit of the same kind of social stability that Social Security provided to our parents and grandparents.
Very interesting! I was unaware of this. I personally believe the answer is to raise or preferably eliminate the cap on taxable wages, and also to remove the utterly ridiculous amount of tax loopholes.
If we raise the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour in all states it would bring in billions in FICA money as there is the employer match along with the employees contribution. This ain't chump change.
I’ll be damned if I know how SS works. All I know is that a Man must be just before he can be charitable. That applies doubly to such a vast and ambitious involuntary collective for the dispensation of private and public benefits.
I have a law degree. I’ve taken graduate courses in economics. I used to be pretty good at difEQ and integral calculus. I am familiar with the science of actuarial statistics. Or used to be. Likewise financial mathematics. But I don’t have the foggiest notion of how Social Security benefits are calculated. I’ll bet that goes for all but a few Americans.
Your article offers proof that what people do not understand they will not be willing to support.
The mathematics of how the SSA goes about collecting money, on the other hand are quite simple and most people have no trouble understanding that. It is (currently) 7.5% of their paycheck if they work for others for a living, whilst an equal payroll tax is levied on their employer. This, take note, is a tax on a form of expenses rather than income. Which is why a business can lose money, and go under, and still owe money to the federal government. Of course, such debts have priority in Bankruptcy. And it is a Crime not to pay this tax, or at least take funds set aside for that purpose and run off with them. Nevertheless, the SSA often gets stiffed, and there is a loss rate associated with the whole sum of these components when it comes to collections, and projections, and bar graphs, et cetera.
In the case of a self employed person like myself, this math, and its economic consequences are even easier to understand. The Self Employment Tax to benefit the SSA is 15% of my net business earnings ….before Tax, which is to say, Federal and State Income Tax. NPBT. So it is a flat income tax. And it alone has kept me mired in poverty all my life. Go figure what that is for someone making under $50K a year self employed. Then write to me and explain how you think it contributes to the social welfare of America to take $7,500. I need to live on out of my hands. Oh, I know. I get to deduct half of it against my Income Tax liability of anywhere from $4-8K. And I get to deduct my $5K property tax bill right off the top ! To the extent of the business use of the home deduction that does take a college degree and a day to figure.
From what you wrote in 2011, I now understand there is no stable, let alone just, relationship between what workers are required to pay in to SS and what they can reasonably expect to get back. Indeed the figures you used suggest to me a hyperbolic curve asymptotically approaching zero, for to deliver any benefits, this whole ramshackle street car named Desire needs to maintain a stable equilibrium, and it is not. It is still heading towards insolvency despite delivering less.
Perhaps the public assistance objectives for the SSA would better be achieved through a different source of revenue. But the FIT and the Estate and Gift Taxes are abominations. Perhaps it would be better to consider a broad base consumption tax that covered service transactions as well as sales of goods. A business tax with the economic incidents of a VAT without the sales tax kick in the butt to the consumer. One that was freed of any burden placed on the individual working taxpayer. There is such a thing. But in any case, there must needs being to my way of thinking, a more well defined relationship between what the taxpayer pays in and what he can expect to get back over time, for better or for worse. And that has to be competitive and fair. A defined benefit pension plan.
The government has to be just before it can be charitable.
You're way off. It;s social insurance. Not a retirement plan per se. If you can't work due to diablity, you're covered. If you get sick, Medicare may kick in. If you die, your family may be covered based on your earnings record.
You can ask for a copy of your earnings record and an assessiment of what you and your family may earn. Benefits widow(er)s, orphans, the entire faimy of wage earners. On average a $ million in potential family disability benefits. Typically based on 35 years of wages; anyone should be able to calculate the PIA (primary insurance rate).
I don't know what kind of law you practice, but it sounds like you don't do estates, PI, Workers' Comp, etc because they all have a relationship.
Ah yes. I see. Social Security “Insurance” is disability insurance. Check. Insurance against living too long ? No. Insurance against failing to earn enough to retire on ? No. Insurance against failure to marry well or losing a spouse one way or another upon whose income or retirement savings you have grown to rely ? Well, that’s a stretch. But I’ll give you a maybe. But above all, what Social Security is not, according to you, is a forced retirement savings plan ??
I have been a steady recipient of SS benefit statement summaries for more than ten years now, and am able to read. I find your assertions short on substance and long on insult. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out the weaknesses in your scholarly ABA published sales pitch for charitable giving to the Social Security Trust Fund.
you’re on the right track Tyler, especially about the Park Congress part. Congress is for seeing the potential collapse of Social Security Medicare in the next decade and I’ve done nothing to fix it. Talk, talk talk.
As a person who has done very well, I have never understood why there’s a cap on Social Security deductions ? I think every penny of every earnings should be taxed without a ceiling. They keep waiting to do something and I fear that it’s gonna be too late or they gonna cram something down as a temporary fix to kick the can down the road once more.
Sorry, not Park Congress just Congress part I’m tired and I should have recheck the work cause I’m voice texting and I didn’t go back to check it, but Congress has seen and forcing the collapse for decades
"...After the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 revenues fell by 6% in real terms. This promoted a tax increase that passed the House in late 1981 and the Senate in mid-1982 called the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. This act was an agreement between Reagan and the Congress that raised revenues for the following years.
Following that increase, there were 3 other tax increases from 1983 to 1987 for other various reasons. In total, the US lost over $200 billion in 2012 chained dollars due to the original tax cut in the first four years and around $1 billion for the second tax cut.
Revenues grew from 1982 to 1987 by a total of $137 billion in revenue which adds up to roughly $64 billion in net revenue lost because of the cuts..."
Sandra thank you very much for speaking up on this website but you’re totally incorrect. They have no intention of cutting Medicare. They have no intention of cutting Social Security.
But the crazy thing is the Congress has known about the potential collapse of Social Security and Medicare for three or four decades when is supposed to collapse in 2034 and the other a few years later and they have done nothing to fix it and then they’re gonna blame somebody else for their failure
They already have messed with Social Security, Medicare, and other social support programs starting about 45 years ago... slowly. But the GOP continued to get voted in. SMH. My grandparents had no complaints about their Social Security or Medicare and were able to live on those benefits. When I was in college in the early 80s, it was mentioned that those benefits will probably not be as good when it's time for us to retire. Now I know why that was said.
Republicans long have asked to "sunset" all benefits. That "all" includes stuff like Medicare, VA, Black Lung, food stamps, etc , The Republicans are in denial that SS is not part of the budget. You have to understand SS is NOT a retirement program although there is a retirement trust fund that will "default" in 2033 according to the trustees. Ever wage earner who is fully and currently insured also has disability coverage that is on average worth about $ 1 MM. If the programs were sunsetted, they'd have to be renewed on an annual basis, and given politics, would die .
In a 2000 book he co-wrote called “The America We Deserve,” Trump called Social Security a “huge Ponzi scheme” that American workers are forced to pay into. He added that for future retirees under 40 at the time, “we can also raise the age for receipt of full Social Security benefits to seventy,” because “we’re living longer.”
In December 2004, just before a Republican push to partially privatize the program, Trump was asked on MSNBC’s “Hardball” whether he’d support individual retirement accounts and answered: “I sort of think I would. Something has to be done. Social Security is a huge problem right now, funding it.”
In 2012, Trump praised proposals by Ryan, then the Republican vice presidential nominee, to convert Medicare into a “premium support” system that would cap spending for future retirees and give them vouchers to buy insurance plans.
“I think Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney will save Medicare. I know they will. And people are starting to understand it. They’re going to be very happy with what’s going on, but they’re going to be very, very unhappy if Obama gets in,” Trump told Fox News at the time, reflecting on the 2012 presidential race. “I think actually if Obama gets in and if Obamacare isn’t ended, I really think Medicare will be a thing of the past.” (President Barack Obama ran against the Ryan plan and won re-election; seven years after he left office, Obamacare and Medicare still exist.)
By 2015, when Trump ran for president, he sought to position himself in the Republican field as the rare candidate who wouldn’t cut those programs. “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican, and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” he said as he was launching his campaign.
By 2020, it was clear Trump was trying to break the system. He offered a "payroll tax cut" designed to result in significant revenue losses for Social Security, but also to eliminate employee payroll taxes for good. That would kill both the retirement and disability programs.
Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget endorsed Social Security cuts to the tune of billions of dollars for disabled seniors. His budget would have made changes to Social Security Disability Insurance, slashing the maximum amount of retroactive benefits for disabled workers from 12 months to six. According to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, that could lead to a $7,500 average cut for a worker injured in a car crash. The budget also called for reducing Supplemental Security Income benefits for those who live with other SSI recipients.
“The Trump proposal would cut SSI by more than $8 billion over the next decade, shrinking benefits for roughly a quarter of a million children with disabilities by between 38 and 66 percent. It would also increase SSI’s administrative costs and improper payments”.
They had a plan to eliminate chid's benefits. CBO Eliminate Supplemental Security Income Benefits for Disabled Children. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/54742 (2018)
Background
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides cash assistance to people who are disabled, aged, or both and who have low income and few assets. In 2018, 15 percent of SSI recipients, or 1.2 million people, are projected to be disabled children under age 18, receiving an average monthly benefit of $686. To receive benefits, those children must have marked, severe functional limitations and usually must live in a household with low income and few assets.
Thanks for this thorough analysis. Many Trump voters receive SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Cuts to Medicaid will hurt this popülation of voters......will he still cut this program? Democrats can push this message, a plan for affordable housing, and a need for wage increases as we resist the new administration.
It didn't work. They wouldn't lisaten. They slit their own throats. The NYT and Meidastouch highlighted my home town, New Castle Pa, where Trump won more than 2 to 1. The local newspaper would not publish anything I sent them. The reason is that hate Trumps reason.
I have to admit there’s a vast amount of reading and bibliographies posted here based on the depth of reading material that I see here
Reading is not action. History is not action it’s history. If there’s some action that I’ve missed where Congress has attacked and made an attempt to save Social Security and Medicare please let me know. They have not moved the date where they think social Security will be defunct 2034 and I’ve been hearing that date since 2000 and what have they done to change that this is Congress this is not by political party. This is Congress and both parties have been in control on various times to have addressed this and fixed it
Daniel have you seen any actions that confirm the sunsetting issues?
Congress has been in control of Social Security and Medicare’s budget for decades and has literally done nothing to ensure its future even when they know I have predicted that Social Security will go out of business by 2034
1. It will not "go out of business." Even in default, it will still pay approximately 83% of benefits.
2. Ryan, GWB thought they had a mandate to privatize the system. Submitted many proposals. I posted some of the recent ones re SSI. Virtually every Republican in Congress during that era voted to privatize SS and Medicare.
3. Democrats are not a unified party. Never have been. Big guys have big money donors who honestly believe that the 6.2 % match is the only impediment to geometrically increase the GDP. Starting in the 70's people like Bush, and his uncle Pres II wanted to get control of the trillions in the trust funds. Were on record. At one point, they wanted the Savings and Loan insutry involved. I attended many house committee hearings -- spoke to people who ran SS who felt they had a "mandate" to privatize everything. I documented the attempt by Repubicans to force the disability fund into default. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol36/iss1/4/
4. I don't know anything about you, but I bet you will be a loser if the Heritage group takes contol. The people who will lose the most are those who have been paying their FICA but are not in pay status. They could lose their contributions.
By the way, Peggy you're shaking your head and you shouldn't be
the reason that the GOP gets elected from time to time it is but believe it or not there are people that don't think like you and don't want what you want. They see things from a different perspective and that perspective is not expressed here.
Michael, they understand but they are going to try anyway because they think and they are loud at that ,that they have a mandate. We ave to demonstrate how wrong thy are and pound on the to wake people up. Right now we are like sleepwalking. We need our leaders to use the megaphone!!
Once Trump gets his way and requires a loyalty oath from all military and civil servants, you will see a mass exodus from vital departments that service Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many others. This is exactly what happened with the USPS when Trump put Louis DeJoy in as Postmaster General.
Michael, I wish you were correct, but I fear that you are not. My 91-year-old evangelical mother has voted Republican all her life, mostly because my father told her she must. (That's how it works in an evangelical household.)
I've made this observation about how Mom thinks about life in these United States. Mom has a "blind spot" regarding Republicans. They get only the credit, never the blame; Democrats get only the blame, never the credit. When U.S. culture is going the way she wants, even when Democrats created that good fortune through beneficial legislation in the face of opposition, she credits the Republican party or its president. When life is difficult because of hardships created by Republicans, she blames "the government."
The curious thing is the people they hurt so much continue to support them. For decades. How do they frame it so these folks buy into it? Their lives have not improved a wit, yet they are sure the R's are on their side. The only outlet it gives them is for their grievance and who they think are the source for all of their woes. And yet somehow the Democrats have abandoned them.
The Youtube channel of "Tennessee Brando" (who is part of the Midas Network) continues to talk about this very issue. His channel recently reached 500K subscribers on YouTube. I recommend the viewers here subscribe to channels that speak the truth, and also to HIT THE LIKE BUTTON on every one that they watch. Do it right away. Subscriptions and "likes" increase the visibility of their work, and we need to promote these to compete against the likes of Joe Rogan.
I'm sure there are others that readers will suggest. We can't all march (I'm currently in a boot) and we don't all have unlimited funds to donate, but it is very easy to hit the subscribe button and run a few of the videos.
Actually, it’s other way around Ellen. Republicans want less government and less control not more Democrats want more control and more government. That’s the basis of the two parties existence. Republicans want more capitalism Democrats warrant more socialistic programs which rely on government.
What programs have the Republicans cut just curious? Michael during the cycle it is the Democrats that didn’t care about every day people and that’s why they lost. They cared more about Ukraine. They cared more about illegal immigration and that’s why they lost.
If you understand, the basic overall differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, the Republicans want less tax less government intervention while the Democrats want more government and more socialized programs that's as simple as I can make it. But let me know when they cut it or defund it
Sure, that’s the well known high-level difference. But it doesn’t capture the reality that GOP spending cuts are a charade for billions in corporate welfare/giveaways, notably for oil and gas and oil companies and trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
It’s always fascinating that Republicans only know how to cut programs that help many millions of people rather than improve them. Why? Because it’s easy and makes headlines. Of course the other reason is they don’t care about everyday people and want government to help big business and cut taxes for the rich.
We’re in for quite a spectacle. The GOP underestimates the people’s wrath if they mess with Social Security,Medicare, and other social support programs.
As the saying goes, the Republicans know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Davis, they should know the price of laying. Is up to us and our legislators and leaders. Put pressure on them.
Like hens? 😌
👌
The republicans and Trump will never cut social security they will defund it. Bush took hoe many millions from the fund 1.3 billion? It happens. Meanwhile propaganda has already started about “not needing social security”. Not one person I know believes Republicans want to defund it. This should have been a major campaign issue. Harris should have started every speech with if you elect trump say goodbye to social security and then show proof of how they have tried to cut social security
Social Security is supported by a trust fund. That trust fund is invested exclusive in United States sovereign debt. Treasuries. The SS Administration thus lends money…all its money…to the United States government. The US government uses that money to cover its deficits.
Last month in spite of having this captive buyer, demand was weak at the regularly scheduled Treasury auction. Prices had to be cut from the posted openings in order to move the thirty and ten year offerings thus raising the yields on the instruments and all forms of market interest rates accordingly. This was in spite of a recent Fed rate cut. This means that the bond market was pushing back against the moves of the Federal Reserve. Thus for the moment, interest rates are going to hang. Job reports were good. Inflation reports not so bad. The Fed factors all of that stuff in to account. So this reflects pure wariness of investors. Big investors. Banks. Pension funds. Perhaps the guy who places orders for the SSA. With higher employment, he’s got more to work with after all.
Social Security as pensions go is not a good deal. But it has other purposes. Public assistsnce to the elderly and disabled. I get negligible SS. But that is all besides the point. There are so many ways those in government could ruin it. But we have it. It is an institution. We have to defend it or we are lost. That said, the Government does not fund Social Security. Social Security funds government. There are better returns in the market. And Social Security is being exploited for that purpose. There is an inherent conflict of interest. SSA needs to invest for returns. Treasury tries to borrow cheap…to cover for the fiscal decisions of Congress. The incoming President and Congress aim to cut taxes and swell the deficit. They will use the SS Trust Fund for this purpose. And if the ends don’t meet it is the institution and those who participate in it, working, disabled and retired, who will pay the price. No doubt there are needed reforms. But reforms are out of the question. It is an abused child. The question is whether it will survive.
Excellent Points Tyler. SSA was never intended as the sole retirement vehicle and the life expectancy was around age 65 when the program started, so it wasn't the monster it is today.
Trump will demand loyalty from all Federal employees and the military so we can expect the service levels to drop like they did in the USPS. The turnover rate in the USPS has been abysmal since DeJoy took over, not to mention that it now takes days to get a letter across town.
My wife usually mails her Christmas cookies in the Priority Mail Medium Flat Rate Box (FRB1) that I seem to recall costing $10 a couple years ago. Due to circumstances last month the original batches got stale so the replacements weren't ready to mail until two days after Christmas. We wanted to get them mailed before Jan 1st when the then rate had been raised to $16 (and was projected to go up 4.1% to $16.65. Unfortunately, I dropped a glass bowl that shattered and sent broken glass into all the cookies and cookie dough on the counters.
Buying all the supplies and making fresh batches meant I didn't get to mail them until Jan 2nd. That's when I found the projected increase wasn't 4.1%, it was 20.6% at $19.30 for what I remember paying $10 a few years ago.
We'll see if that package gets fresh cookies across the country as fast as and reliably as they used to be. The fate of the last, supposed 2-day delivery, is becoming too typical. I forgot to leave my set of car and house keys with my daughter when she dropped us off at the airport (in her car). We mailed them 2-day priority on Dec 12th from Florida to Maine but didn't get them until Dec 26th, 5 days after we got back to Maine from Florida. Tracking showed they went from Gainesville to Jacksonville FL in 1 day, to Kansas City in 5 days, Omaha, NE in 5 days, Springfield, MA in 1 day, Scarborough, ME in 1 day, and to our daughters house less than 9 miles away on the 14th day (2 weeks for 2 day priority). Wish we could get frequent flyer miles or tourist decals for the Flat Stanley trip our package took.
Seriously, I do appreciate what the Postal Workers have to try to over come but the USPS seems to have been sabotaged worse than ever by the would be privatizers, rather effectively as hinted at by https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis-and-how-to-fix-it/
"...In 2006, Congress passed a law that imposed extraordinary costs on the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required the USPS to create a $72 billion fund to pay for the cost of its post-retirement health care costs, 75 years into the future. This burden applies to no other federal agency or private corporation.
If the costs of this retiree health care mandate were removed from the USPS financial statements, the Post Office would have reported operating profits in each of the last six years. This extraordinary mandate created a financial “crisis” that has been used to justify harmful service cuts and even calls for postal privatization. Additional cuts in service and privatization would be devastating for millions of postal workers and customers..."
When I had my business I frequently used FedEx for flat rate boxes because they were less expensive. Trump wants to privatize USPS. Biden didn’t get rid of DeJoy.
My neighbor told me first class stamps are now 75 cents. I rarely use a stamp and bought Forever stamps several years ago.
Unfortunately, presidents don't have the authority to replace the postmaster general. That responsibility is up to a bipartisan board of governors, whose members are appointed by presidents. This arrangement has not served the citizenry well.
Social Security is the greatest anti poverty program in US history.
Charity begins at home. They get tax deductions, plus if propely applied, it increases the GDP and tax revenues. If Social Security is sliding toward a "default" it is because Congress and a succession of presidents would sell their families for a few votes. The default of Trust Funds is supposed to apex in 2034 due to the increase of birth rates of baby boomers. After 2034, birth rates of later generations flatten and the funds can be solvent.
Social Security protects workers, widow(er)s, orphans and disabled people and is a major investment for many of us.
Please donate to create an endowment to slow down the rate. If everyone who donates to say, universities, which aren't really charities, the trust funds would be secure.
https://www.ssa.gov/agency/donations.html
Here's an ABA article for tax and estate lawyers I published a few years ago. December 01, 2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING
Social Security—Maybe Charity Should Begin at Home
By Daniel F. Solomon
For most of its history, Social Security was a terrific bargain: our parents and grandparents most probably received significantly more benefits than they paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund comprises the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds (OASDI, collectively).
In most cases, because our family units could rely on these benefits, they were able to enjoy enough financial independence to send people like us to school so that we could become lawyers—productive and, in some cases, wealthy, members of society. For 75 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has helped enable American soci- ety to achieve far beyond the aspirations of its founders, ultimately providing more than subsistence to retirees by also protecting widows, orphans, and disabled people. The dignity provided to needy beneficiaries surely far outweighs the economic value of the funds.
However, financial experts have long predicted a future insolvency of the funds. A majority of Americans have invested in the funds, recognize their social utility, and do not want to burden their heirs. Although there have been legislative attempts to “fix” the system, there is no consensus how to do it. The Congressional Research Service reported:
For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, “Social Security Reform” (October 2002).
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the “Greenspan Commission” after its chairman) was appointed by the Congress and President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to a short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the OASI Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. Congress rendered a compromise that extended the retirement age from 65 to 67, through a deal that raised payroll taxes and trimmed benefits enough to keep Social Security solvent. See Jackie Calmes, “Political Memo: The Bipartisan Panel: Did It Really Work?” New York Times, January 18, 2010. However, the legislation addressed only the immediate problem and did not address the long-term viability of the fund. See also Rudolph G. Penner, “The Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reforms of 1983,” in Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency, David Abshire, Editor. Washington: Center for the Study of the Presidency, pp. 129–31.
The George W. Bush administration commission deliberated on the issue and then called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (“individual” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.
President Barack Obama reportedly strongly opposes privatization or raising the retirement age but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program. He has appointed a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is to report and offer another fix.
Current estimates predict that payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084. 2010 OASDI Trust- ees Report, Figure II.D2, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/ trTOC.html.
Although the congressional plan was to ensure solvency through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, there is a private means to help: to also consider the humanitarian and charitable nature of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which has been possible since a legislative fix in 1972. Before then, bequests naming Social Security or a trust fund as a beneficiary could not be accepted, which caused problems in administration of some estates. Money gifts or bequests may be accepted for deposit by the managing trustee of the OASI and DI funds. Section 170(c)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code lists the U.S. government among the educational or charitable organizations to which donations are acceptable. Gifts must be unconditional, except that the donor may designate to which fund the gift should be donated. If no fund is designated, the gift is credited to the OASI Trust Fund.
However, SSA has not publicized its charitable persona. Although the agency has received some gifts and bequests, they have been insignificant and not given consideration in a possible fix. The concept has been so unimportant to the experts that the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin does not specify how much the administration has received in gifts and bequests. Total revenue from gifts to the trust funds has been quite small. From 1974 to 1979 the most received in any one year was $91,949.88. During that period, the average annual amount was only $39,847. In 1980, almost two-thirds of the gifts were less than $100. The median gift size was $50. One person, for example, donated $13.11. She arrived at that amount by applying 5.85% (the employee tax rate then in effect) to her benefit amount and donated it to help “‘shore up’ the sagging, dwindling Social Security fund.” However, the 2010 Social Security Trustees Report lists them as about $98,000 (www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/III_ cyoper.html#2). Compared to many other charities, this is a paltry amount.
Apparently, SSA has never done a feasibility study nor marketing research to determine how an aggressive campaign could raise funds to support Social Security, or how gifts and bequests could reduce the current estimates of impending doom. According to some estimates total deductions taken for all charities next year would be $413.5 billion. Estimates for fiscal year 2011 are that SSA will spend $730 billion. That amount is already covered through “contributions” (taxes), but it is reasonable that charitable contributions to the trust fund could significantly lessen taxpayer exposure for impending doom, if not return the fund to solvency.
As lawyers, we have the capacity to remind our families, our clients, and the public at large that there is a way to contribute to help endow future generations in the pursuit of the same kind of social stability that Social Security provided to our parents and grandparents.
Very interesting! I was unaware of this. I personally believe the answer is to raise or preferably eliminate the cap on taxable wages, and also to remove the utterly ridiculous amount of tax loopholes.
Eliminating the cap on taxable wages would have a huge impact!
Republicans reject it. We may never have a responsible Congress again. All I ask SS is they publicize it. I am told that they get some donations....
Like a broken record, you can guess what I think.
If we raise the Federal minimum wage to $15 an hour in all states it would bring in billions in FICA money as there is the employer match along with the employees contribution. This ain't chump change.
Informative. Thanks.
I’ll be damned if I know how SS works. All I know is that a Man must be just before he can be charitable. That applies doubly to such a vast and ambitious involuntary collective for the dispensation of private and public benefits.
I have a law degree. I’ve taken graduate courses in economics. I used to be pretty good at difEQ and integral calculus. I am familiar with the science of actuarial statistics. Or used to be. Likewise financial mathematics. But I don’t have the foggiest notion of how Social Security benefits are calculated. I’ll bet that goes for all but a few Americans.
Your article offers proof that what people do not understand they will not be willing to support.
The mathematics of how the SSA goes about collecting money, on the other hand are quite simple and most people have no trouble understanding that. It is (currently) 7.5% of their paycheck if they work for others for a living, whilst an equal payroll tax is levied on their employer. This, take note, is a tax on a form of expenses rather than income. Which is why a business can lose money, and go under, and still owe money to the federal government. Of course, such debts have priority in Bankruptcy. And it is a Crime not to pay this tax, or at least take funds set aside for that purpose and run off with them. Nevertheless, the SSA often gets stiffed, and there is a loss rate associated with the whole sum of these components when it comes to collections, and projections, and bar graphs, et cetera.
In the case of a self employed person like myself, this math, and its economic consequences are even easier to understand. The Self Employment Tax to benefit the SSA is 15% of my net business earnings ….before Tax, which is to say, Federal and State Income Tax. NPBT. So it is a flat income tax. And it alone has kept me mired in poverty all my life. Go figure what that is for someone making under $50K a year self employed. Then write to me and explain how you think it contributes to the social welfare of America to take $7,500. I need to live on out of my hands. Oh, I know. I get to deduct half of it against my Income Tax liability of anywhere from $4-8K. And I get to deduct my $5K property tax bill right off the top ! To the extent of the business use of the home deduction that does take a college degree and a day to figure.
From what you wrote in 2011, I now understand there is no stable, let alone just, relationship between what workers are required to pay in to SS and what they can reasonably expect to get back. Indeed the figures you used suggest to me a hyperbolic curve asymptotically approaching zero, for to deliver any benefits, this whole ramshackle street car named Desire needs to maintain a stable equilibrium, and it is not. It is still heading towards insolvency despite delivering less.
Perhaps the public assistance objectives for the SSA would better be achieved through a different source of revenue. But the FIT and the Estate and Gift Taxes are abominations. Perhaps it would be better to consider a broad base consumption tax that covered service transactions as well as sales of goods. A business tax with the economic incidents of a VAT without the sales tax kick in the butt to the consumer. One that was freed of any burden placed on the individual working taxpayer. There is such a thing. But in any case, there must needs being to my way of thinking, a more well defined relationship between what the taxpayer pays in and what he can expect to get back over time, for better or for worse. And that has to be competitive and fair. A defined benefit pension plan.
The government has to be just before it can be charitable.
You're way off. It;s social insurance. Not a retirement plan per se. If you can't work due to diablity, you're covered. If you get sick, Medicare may kick in. If you die, your family may be covered based on your earnings record.
You can ask for a copy of your earnings record and an assessiment of what you and your family may earn. Benefits widow(er)s, orphans, the entire faimy of wage earners. On average a $ million in potential family disability benefits. Typically based on 35 years of wages; anyone should be able to calculate the PIA (primary insurance rate).
I don't know what kind of law you practice, but it sounds like you don't do estates, PI, Workers' Comp, etc because they all have a relationship.
Ah yes. I see. Social Security “Insurance” is disability insurance. Check. Insurance against living too long ? No. Insurance against failing to earn enough to retire on ? No. Insurance against failure to marry well or losing a spouse one way or another upon whose income or retirement savings you have grown to rely ? Well, that’s a stretch. But I’ll give you a maybe. But above all, what Social Security is not, according to you, is a forced retirement savings plan ??
I have been a steady recipient of SS benefit statement summaries for more than ten years now, and am able to read. I find your assertions short on substance and long on insult. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by pointing out the weaknesses in your scholarly ABA published sales pitch for charitable giving to the Social Security Trust Fund.
you’re on the right track Tyler, especially about the Park Congress part. Congress is for seeing the potential collapse of Social Security Medicare in the next decade and I’ve done nothing to fix it. Talk, talk talk.
As a person who has done very well, I have never understood why there’s a cap on Social Security deductions ? I think every penny of every earnings should be taxed without a ceiling. They keep waiting to do something and I fear that it’s gonna be too late or they gonna cram something down as a temporary fix to kick the can down the road once more.
Sorry, not Park Congress just Congress part I’m tired and I should have recheck the work cause I’m voice texting and I didn’t go back to check it, but Congress has seen and forcing the collapse for decades
Now you speak some real truth.
Bush took 1.3 billion out of the fund
Just follows the old strategy employed by Reagan's cronies "cut nothing but taxes and regulations."
Reagan's tax cuts were somewhat reinstated though they were never called tax increases, though, more like just restoring some taxes cut too much.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_tax_cuts
"...After the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 revenues fell by 6% in real terms. This promoted a tax increase that passed the House in late 1981 and the Senate in mid-1982 called the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. This act was an agreement between Reagan and the Congress that raised revenues for the following years.
Following that increase, there were 3 other tax increases from 1983 to 1987 for other various reasons. In total, the US lost over $200 billion in 2012 chained dollars due to the original tax cut in the first four years and around $1 billion for the second tax cut.
Revenues grew from 1982 to 1987 by a total of $137 billion in revenue which adds up to roughly $64 billion in net revenue lost because of the cuts..."
There are a lot of factors that enter into a revenue equation. Unfortunately, it’s not black and white like you seem to want to demonstrate here.
Jim sounds nuanced to me. You can not argue against his reasoning, so you throw up a red herring. Nice try.
The scariest thing is that they turn it/then over to profiteers!
Who Tend to run business at a lower cost and more efficiently I suppose you’re gonna tell me that the government doesn’t waste money ?
Sandra thank you very much for speaking up on this website but you’re totally incorrect. They have no intention of cutting Medicare. They have no intention of cutting Social Security.
But the crazy thing is the Congress has known about the potential collapse of Social Security and Medicare for three or four decades when is supposed to collapse in 2034 and the other a few years later and they have done nothing to fix it and then they’re gonna blame somebody else for their failure
I said defund. Not cut
The overriding concern that I mentioned here is that they've seen this coming for a long time and they've done nothing to fix it
And to me an easy fix would be simply to eliminate the cap on Social Security no matter how much you make you pay your 7 1/2%.
The cap was explained to me years ago. I didn't understand it then and understand it less now.
They already have messed with Social Security, Medicare, and other social support programs starting about 45 years ago... slowly. But the GOP continued to get voted in. SMH. My grandparents had no complaints about their Social Security or Medicare and were able to live on those benefits. When I was in college in the early 80s, it was mentioned that those benefits will probably not be as good when it's time for us to retire. Now I know why that was said.
Republicans long have asked to "sunset" all benefits. That "all" includes stuff like Medicare, VA, Black Lung, food stamps, etc , The Republicans are in denial that SS is not part of the budget. You have to understand SS is NOT a retirement program although there is a retirement trust fund that will "default" in 2033 according to the trustees. Ever wage earner who is fully and currently insured also has disability coverage that is on average worth about $ 1 MM. If the programs were sunsetted, they'd have to be renewed on an annual basis, and given politics, would die .
In a 2000 book he co-wrote called “The America We Deserve,” Trump called Social Security a “huge Ponzi scheme” that American workers are forced to pay into. He added that for future retirees under 40 at the time, “we can also raise the age for receipt of full Social Security benefits to seventy,” because “we’re living longer.”
In December 2004, just before a Republican push to partially privatize the program, Trump was asked on MSNBC’s “Hardball” whether he’d support individual retirement accounts and answered: “I sort of think I would. Something has to be done. Social Security is a huge problem right now, funding it.”
In 2012, Trump praised proposals by Ryan, then the Republican vice presidential nominee, to convert Medicare into a “premium support” system that would cap spending for future retirees and give them vouchers to buy insurance plans.
“I think Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney will save Medicare. I know they will. And people are starting to understand it. They’re going to be very happy with what’s going on, but they’re going to be very, very unhappy if Obama gets in,” Trump told Fox News at the time, reflecting on the 2012 presidential race. “I think actually if Obama gets in and if Obamacare isn’t ended, I really think Medicare will be a thing of the past.” (President Barack Obama ran against the Ryan plan and won re-election; seven years after he left office, Obamacare and Medicare still exist.)
By 2015, when Trump ran for president, he sought to position himself in the Republican field as the rare candidate who wouldn’t cut those programs. “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican, and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,” he said as he was launching his campaign.
By 2020, it was clear Trump was trying to break the system. He offered a "payroll tax cut" designed to result in significant revenue losses for Social Security, but also to eliminate employee payroll taxes for good. That would kill both the retirement and disability programs.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trumps-plan-defund-social-security/
Trump’s fiscal 2021 budget endorsed Social Security cuts to the tune of billions of dollars for disabled seniors. His budget would have made changes to Social Security Disability Insurance, slashing the maximum amount of retroactive benefits for disabled workers from 12 months to six. According to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, that could lead to a $7,500 average cut for a worker injured in a car crash. The budget also called for reducing Supplemental Security Income benefits for those who live with other SSI recipients.
As president # 45, Trump tried and failed to cut SSI benefits drastically. Some Republicans wanted to replace the entire system. See. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Trump, House Republican Cuts to SSI Would Harm Children With Disabilities, Sept. 18, 2017, Kathleen Romig and Guillermo Herrera. https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/trump-house-republican-cuts-to-ssi-would-harm-children-with-disabilities
“The Trump proposal would cut SSI by more than $8 billion over the next decade, shrinking benefits for roughly a quarter of a million children with disabilities by between 38 and 66 percent. It would also increase SSI’s administrative costs and improper payments”.
They had a plan to eliminate chid's benefits. CBO Eliminate Supplemental Security Income Benefits for Disabled Children. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/54742 (2018)
Background
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides cash assistance to people who are disabled, aged, or both and who have low income and few assets. In 2018, 15 percent of SSI recipients, or 1.2 million people, are projected to be disabled children under age 18, receiving an average monthly benefit of $686. To receive benefits, those children must have marked, severe functional limitations and usually must live in a household with low income and few assets.
Thanks for this thorough analysis. Many Trump voters receive SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Cuts to Medicaid will hurt this popülation of voters......will he still cut this program? Democrats can push this message, a plan for affordable housing, and a need for wage increases as we resist the new administration.
It didn't work. They wouldn't lisaten. They slit their own throats. The NYT and Meidastouch highlighted my home town, New Castle Pa, where Trump won more than 2 to 1. The local newspaper would not publish anything I sent them. The reason is that hate Trumps reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbiVRnVumVA
Great source for Fickle Finger of Fate Award nominees.
Perhaps a special class of Trump Fickle Finger Fate Awards that includes people that didn't bother to vote.
I would say Darwin Awards but those only go to people who eliminate or alienate only themselves
And yet the Harris campaign out spanked Trump three to one
I was able to waste $2 billion in 100 days
Do you think resisting administration that has no intention of cutting Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security is going to help you?
It’s up to Congress and it has been up to Congress for decades
I have to admit there’s a vast amount of reading and bibliographies posted here based on the depth of reading material that I see here
Reading is not action. History is not action it’s history. If there’s some action that I’ve missed where Congress has attacked and made an attempt to save Social Security and Medicare please let me know. They have not moved the date where they think social Security will be defunct 2034 and I’ve been hearing that date since 2000 and what have they done to change that this is Congress this is not by political party. This is Congress and both parties have been in control on various times to have addressed this and fixed it
Daniel have you seen any actions that confirm the sunsetting issues?
Congress has been in control of Social Security and Medicare’s budget for decades and has literally done nothing to ensure its future even when they know I have predicted that Social Security will go out of business by 2034
1. It will not "go out of business." Even in default, it will still pay approximately 83% of benefits.
2. Ryan, GWB thought they had a mandate to privatize the system. Submitted many proposals. I posted some of the recent ones re SSI. Virtually every Republican in Congress during that era voted to privatize SS and Medicare.
3. Democrats are not a unified party. Never have been. Big guys have big money donors who honestly believe that the 6.2 % match is the only impediment to geometrically increase the GDP. Starting in the 70's people like Bush, and his uncle Pres II wanted to get control of the trillions in the trust funds. Were on record. At one point, they wanted the Savings and Loan insutry involved. I attended many house committee hearings -- spoke to people who ran SS who felt they had a "mandate" to privatize everything. I documented the attempt by Repubicans to force the disability fund into default. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol36/iss1/4/
4. I don't know anything about you, but I bet you will be a loser if the Heritage group takes contol. The people who will lose the most are those who have been paying their FICA but are not in pay status. They could lose their contributions.
Lower taxes for the rich.!!!
Well. Those benefits are better now than ever and bigger now than ever.
By the way, Peggy you're shaking your head and you shouldn't be
the reason that the GOP gets elected from time to time it is but believe it or not there are people that don't think like you and don't want what you want. They see things from a different perspective and that perspective is not expressed here.
I thought the voting morons would deny them a victory based on that alone. But hate won out, and MAGAts believed the orange turd.
Michael, they understand but they are going to try anyway because they think and they are loud at that ,that they have a mandate. We ave to demonstrate how wrong thy are and pound on the to wake people up. Right now we are like sleepwalking. We need our leaders to use the megaphone!!
Once Trump gets his way and requires a loyalty oath from all military and civil servants, you will see a mass exodus from vital departments that service Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many others. This is exactly what happened with the USPS when Trump put Louis DeJoy in as Postmaster General.
Michael, I wish you were correct, but I fear that you are not. My 91-year-old evangelical mother has voted Republican all her life, mostly because my father told her she must. (That's how it works in an evangelical household.)
I've made this observation about how Mom thinks about life in these United States. Mom has a "blind spot" regarding Republicans. They get only the credit, never the blame; Democrats get only the blame, never the credit. When U.S. culture is going the way she wants, even when Democrats created that good fortune through beneficial legislation in the face of opposition, she credits the Republican party or its president. When life is difficult because of hardships created by Republicans, she blames "the government."
Its is going to be more than a spectacle.
Yet “many millions of people” and “everyday people” elected them! Go figure.
Who will object if it’s only the poorest and sickest who may not vote and have the quietest voices? I hope we all do.
The curious thing is the people they hurt so much continue to support them. For decades. How do they frame it so these folks buy into it? Their lives have not improved a wit, yet they are sure the R's are on their side. The only outlet it gives them is for their grievance and who they think are the source for all of their woes. And yet somehow the Democrats have abandoned them.
The Youtube channel of "Tennessee Brando" (who is part of the Midas Network) continues to talk about this very issue. His channel recently reached 500K subscribers on YouTube. I recommend the viewers here subscribe to channels that speak the truth, and also to HIT THE LIKE BUTTON on every one that they watch. Do it right away. Subscriptions and "likes" increase the visibility of their work, and we need to promote these to compete against the likes of Joe Rogan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnfmYD2L8FI
Tennessee is very plain spoken and upon recently hitting the milestone subscribers mentioned he lived in a very red town of 9000 people.
There are other worthy channels on YouTube:
"Belle of the Ranch" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmOEaAgWgD8
Brian Tyler Cohen's No Lie : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzS5MAX008U
Glenn Kirshner's Justice Matters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzvXiX93c_o
Marc Elias' Democracy Docket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyPCBn4ZiQU
Tim Miller's The Bulwark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJDQAkcw8A
I'm sure there are others that readers will suggest. We can't all march (I'm currently in a boot) and we don't all have unlimited funds to donate, but it is very easy to hit the subscribe button and run a few of the videos.
Yup. Cut programs and take away rights... they don't do anything positive.
Actually, it’s other way around Ellen. Republicans want less government and less control not more Democrats want more control and more government. That’s the basis of the two parties existence. Republicans want more capitalism Democrats warrant more socialistic programs which rely on government.
What programs have the Republicans cut just curious? Michael during the cycle it is the Democrats that didn’t care about every day people and that’s why they lost. They cared more about Ukraine. They cared more about illegal immigration and that’s why they lost.
If you understand, the basic overall differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, the Republicans want less tax less government intervention while the Democrats want more government and more socialized programs that's as simple as I can make it. But let me know when they cut it or defund it
Sure, that’s the well known high-level difference. But it doesn’t capture the reality that GOP spending cuts are a charade for billions in corporate welfare/giveaways, notably for oil and gas and oil companies and trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy.
If the people had an wrath trump would either be in prison or sequestered in Palm Beach.