Trump wants to defund Social Security ?

They did, but it was a TEMPORARY tax cut that was for one year. Trump wants to cut it permanently. Facts matter

It is also very unclear as to how they would enact it, and exactly who gets the cuts. Will it be the recipient (you and I), or will the cut be to the employer portion. Will the cut for the employer be a deferral, which was what happened in the Obama cut, or will that one be permanent also.

Obamas tax cut only really cut the employees 2% for one year, and the employer never really got a “cut” they got a deferral, so the SS trust fund never really lost much. What the trump admin has proposed is a permanent cut, with no real details. Permanent cuts have really only one real purpose, and that is to defund the program.

 

trump has not ask for a permanent payroll tax cut...geez

 

We know, and you deserve credit for being honest. Though most Republicans have never fooled anybody about their real intentions either. Certainly nobody believed Trump about it even for a minute

 

Why does President Trump hate old people? Then again, wise or unwise, maybe it's an attempt to make it easier for businesses to stay afloat. And doesn't the shutdown itself impact SS funding? If employees are laid off and businesses closed, SS is not being funded because it's funded from payroll taxes.

 

Hyperbole notwithstanding the extremist Republicans have had 3 great agendas since the end of WWII.

A. Kill all the old people, everyone should die in the year after retirement

B. Kill all the challenged and the ill, the "useless eaters" should be "humanely" eliminated

C. Then we can get to work on the minorities

America is only for the young and healthy members of the Master Race

 

Oprah stated the goal of\ wanting all old people to die. Not one Democratic official in the United States disagreed.

 

How?

 

Goldman Sach's opinion is important because it's a bank that has always cared about the interests of all Americans, especially the poorest.

 

Maybe the most ignorant thing I've ever seen posted on this board. It couldn't be farther from the truth and tells us more about your mindset and helps us understand why your post a always so damn wrong about every and all thing republican.

 

odd because it was liberal NY, putting Chinese Virus patients back into old folks homes to spread the virus to kill

it’s the libs that welcome eugentics to weed our children with health issues via planned parenthood

and it’s minorities living in ghettos and being killed at mass in liberal cities

methinks you protest too much

 

"The term “Federal mandate” means any provision in statute or regulation or any Federal court ruling that imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments..."

I am suggesting you need a really big cup of coffee.

 

so court orders, laws can’t mandate the federal government to do anything? really...interesting...

also i used the term unfunded mandate

 

We are talking about federal mandates, and no, this is boring and childish.

You never had anything to say, and now you're mindlessly trolling.

 

Plus get people back to work, Google local news this morning had an interview with two local restaurants, one with three locations, complaining they can't open full hours because they don't have enough staff reporting back to work. Cut the additional unemployment they have been receiving and then cut the payroll tax. Of course the Dems will then go around with their hysterical LOOK THE REPUBLICANS HATE WORKING PEOPLE.

 

Privatization, or rather partial as has been proposed, adds a greater return over the long run and individual ownership of the money, YOUR money. If ONLY I had been able to invest at least part of my SS contributions into a 401k plan all these years...................

 

Sure looks that way.

Btw, killing that unemployment will shrink the economy 2% and throw many thousands more out of work.

Congrats, if we follow your advice we can bring back the Great Depression.

 

i said unfunded mandate.

with that said laws passed by Congress can mandate the federal govt do some thing...such as the SSA, which mandates the Executive Branch when to pay SS, how much, etc

 

Compared to a repeat of the Democrats 2007-2015.....................yea I'll take Trump and the Republicans.

 

Or put thousands back to work to get the economy growing again. How does keeping people not working and on government subsistence keep a Great Depression at bey? How does it grow the economy? When has that ever worked?

 

Their opinion is import because they know about the stock market. The stock market is import to anyone who has an investment based retirement account.

 

And NOWHERE, does this mention "Defunding Social Security." If anything, it will be paid as usual, but from somewhere else. The government is slick about moving money around. But, I see how extremist would only look at worst case scenarios in order to obtain new recruits to their cause.

 

Obama’s payroll tax holiday(s) have not depleted the reserve, thus, there were no swapping from non-marketable to marketable securities. Said tax cuts increased the debt by approx. $250 billion.

Trump’s proposal would swap approx. $500 billion from non-marketable to marketable securities, thus,
It would significantly alter the projected reserve depletion date. In the short term, said proposal would not increase the debt, meaning; it would eventually increase “Net Interest” payments by approx. $10 billion annually.

 

"Deadbeats on the welfare rolls". Yeah that sounds like retirees collecting SS. Alrighty then.

Pretty much. I dont mind it when the product is elastic and reacta normally to marker forces.

True. Which is why I dont mind a temp payroll tax cut with general revenue transfers to make up the difference.

I can't imagine why a big corp would argue against a corp tax raise. Boggles the mind......

One action alone won't kill it, but dont kid yourself, that's the end goal. Death by a death cuts.

Someone previous in the thread had a great idea about forcing a federal mandate for a retirement savings account with certain minimums, but allowing the individual the ability to invest the majority as they desire.

Which I honestly think is a good idea. Some people are better money managers then the unseeing SS investors, so I think they should be allowed to do their thing. But, to protect those who Arent good money managers, their would be low end minimums so that your not stuck with a bunch of retirees who lost their savings and now have to be supported by the state. Allow those who can to flourish, and protect those who can't.

 

the president has never suggested defunding SS.

also SS isn’t just for retirees...it funds SSI...so people that claim they can’t stand up for hours because they are obese can collect a check

 

Several infrastructure projects would actually generate better returns, both short and long term, such as: High speed rail.

Financed and owned by the contributors
Both short and long term economic impact
It would generate revenues/profits
Good for the environment

If all of the above are realistic, then why not swap “dormant” special issues to active marketables?

Note; For anyone’s info, several toll bridges and highways in the State of Illinois were financed by Canada’s Social Security Trust Fund.