How GOP Social Security Cuts Will Hurt You

Have we reached saturation yet?
Trump was a racists
then he was a woman hater
then he was a loose canon
then he wasn't attending security briefings
then the Russians rigged the election
and now he wants to take away our Social Security

Just wondering..........how soon before the loons claim he's demanding the right to sleep with your bride on her wedding night?
Eventually, even the most whacko left-wing nut job still start to question the litany of absurd accusations.

In the meantime..........Hillary is still a corrupt, self-centered, money-gurbbing, lying looser.

 

Everything I heard that was applying to those of us approaching retirement age. And it is the congress that this falls on and that principle is in all their proposals. Mine has already been raised once you know, its 66 now.

So if we are all living longer and working longer why should it not be raised SLOWLY over the next few decades. Else you will have to increase the contributions those persons are making to cover those additional years of benefits.

 

What proposed cuts to those at the bottom?

The more you pay into SS the more your benefit its a retirement plan you know. Raise the amount of income subject to contribution then raise the amount of benefit to the contributor. Its only fair you know.

 

Yep, its a simple concept. The reason there is a limit on SS contributions is because SS benefits are capped and maxed at a certain level. If you increase the amount of income subject to taxation, you need to increase the amount of vested benefit. That's how a real pension operates.

 

OMFG there you go again the old BS made up S .... about "free" phones again. Do you guys ever get tired of repeating FAKE stories!,

 

I think Trump will present his own fixes. We will have to wait and see what he comes up with.
DONALD TRUMP
"If we are able to sustain growth rates in GDP that we had as a result of the Kennedy and Reagan tax reforms, we will be able to secure Social Security for the future. As our demography changes, a prudent administration would begin to examine what changes might be necessary for future generations. Our goal is to keep the promises made to Americans through our Social Security program.”

 

I heard somewhere that if you are already 49, you are safe, but if you under 49 you may get screwed.

 

I agree, that was my point, to raise the amount of income subjected to contribution. Right now it stops at $118K, which makes no sense to me

 

Snopes does a nice job showing how silly your claims about Trump's position on Social Security are:

Trump has consistently said he's against cutting benefits, while acknowledging that the system needs fixing:
~
"Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it. Get rid of the fraud. Get rid of the waste and abuse, but save it. People have been paying it for years. And now many of these candidates want to cut it. You save it by making the United States, by making us rich again, by taking back all of the money that’s being lost."
~
In Years Past The Trumpster Extraordinaire once supported raising the Social Security retirement age to 70. Is that still your plan?"
~
"Yeah, not anymore because now what I want to do is take money back from other countries that are killing us and I want to save Social Security. And we're going to save it without increases. We're not going to raise the age and it will be just fine."
~
"I'm going to save Social Security. You have tremendous waste, fraud and abuse. We have in Social Security thousands of people over 106 years old. You know they don't exist. There's tremendous waste, fraud and abuse, and we're going to get it. But we're not going to hurt the people who have been paying into Social Security their whole life and then all of a sudden they're supposed to get less. We're bringing jobs back."
~
"And it's my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is."
~
"We’re going to save your Social Security and we’re going to save your Medicare. We are going to save it because we’re going to make our country rich again, we’re going to bring back our jobs. We’re not going to let our jobs go. And we’re going to be able to afford. You’ve been paying in it for a long time and a lot of these guys want it to be knocked to hell. It’s not going to happen, OK? Remember that. It’s not going to happen."
~
And yet you post your scurrilous claims of ignorance, when Donald The Great has been so clear.

Sad!

Trump told Ryan. "there's no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, 'We're going to cut your Social Security' and the Democrat is saying, 'We're going to keep it and give you more.'"

Maybe those Rooskie Mind-Rays are confusing your thinking?

http://www.snopes.com/trump-social-security/

 

When are people going to realize that SOCIAL SECURITY is just that a fall back program for people who don't have the means to support themselves. People who use Social Security for as their only means of retirement are just plan stupid.

 

I would say with today work ethic of the younger generation more and more people would be willing to hire someone who shows up every day to work.

 

What president to date has created the most defect debt? You people have not had a problem with defect spend that last 8 years.

 

Obamastash

ObamaPhone

 

It seems to me that this is not the time for Republicans to attack Social Security, but that might not stop them. Trump won, but he isn't in favor of cutting Social Security. Republicans maintained control of Congress, but lost seats in both the House and the Senate in the election. IMO, that does not signal that the American people are behind cutting Social Security (as if they ever would be.)

However, the Republican leadership, like Paul Ryan, may just float this idea out there for a while and then make a much bigger push in 2018 to cut Social Security, since the electoral map favors Republicans. They could make a claim for a mandate in 2018, if they increase their numbers in Congress then.

Of course, lots depends on what the economy does between now and then…. and we're overdue for another recession.

 

You might have started your reading by looking at the date, which was six years ago. Perhaps you didn't look at the date, or you made the mistake of assuming that everyone else was too stupid to notice that your link is far out of date.

Nor does you response address the post you were resonding to in any way.

The poster's observation that Trump's tax and infrastructure proposals will mushroom the Federal deficit are well known, widely shared and widely reported. Trump never talked about deficits or fiscal discipline as a candidate.

The link in the OP does accurately reflect the potential impact of Mr Ryan's proposals.

Of course, the Trumpsters will cheer against their own interests and won't realize that they've been punked until after the house falls on them. That's the way it was with George W Bush. So it will be with Trump.

 

Liberals have long had a misunderstanding of the nature of Social Security. By paying into Social Security, you are not entering into a contractual agreement with the Federal Government that guarantees you a specific return on your investment. When you pay into Social Security, you are plain and simply paying a tax. That is what the court ruled in Flemming v Nestor back in 1960.

On it's current track, SSA will run out of money around 2034. After that, the projected revenues will cover about 79%. Leaving a shortfall of 21% per year. By 2089, it will be down to covering 73%, and a 27% shortfall. Steps have to be taken now to keep the program solvent. Otherwise the program will fail everyone in the future. Is that really what you want?

 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2016/VI_F_infinite.html#

The "too stupid" people would have missed the other link or refused to look at it.. The "too stupid" people would not realize that yes one link was from years ago but the data/information in it is still very relevant as the issue has not changed.

"Well know and widely" shared by Progressive non thinkers... Whoopie doo.

Oh and then "Trumpsters" a childish term to insult and try to illicit an emotion rebuttal to be reported to the mods... No thanks.

This information https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ backs up the information in the previous link you took issue with your "too stupid" comments.

You are welcome.

 

But sometimes it doesn't work out that way. Lower income people spend their money on survival and usually don't have the means to retire. The right wants no increase in min wage, no unions, and no support for college education. Then they say it is the fault of the less advantaged because they don't pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

if it was REALLY their money, it wouldn't be an IOU that ends upon death even if they never collected a penny of THEIR money that you claim it is... so its not REALLY THEIR money is it... and thats the whole reason you SHOULD privatize social security... follow me here...

imagine... every paycheck you get... the portion taken out of YOUR earnings, and your employers match, gets put into an IRA account owned by YOU... not promises from the government, but directly owned, in whole, by you... you have 100% ownership of that money... rather than this social security promise that so far is panning out to be running low because we don't have a high enough population paying into it to cover the exits...

so what would happen if you died under this "private" method... well, your heirs would get 100% of YOUR money... rather than the government being glad you died before you even received any of YOUR money... see how much different that becomes quickly? imagine generations of people suddenly being given whats left of their parents money? that would do to lift more folks out of poverty than the government is doing...

YOU earned the money, why shouldn't YOU get ownership of it? rather than an IOU that so far has involved raising the retirement age to 67 for millions of americans, and in the future might become 70, or they might once again lower benefits to americans? why shouldn't YOU get what YOU earned and compel the government to stop writing IOU's with YOUR earnings... simply put it in a 401k so YOU get ownership...

next you'll tell me this will enrich billionaires... simple solutions... rather than banks being able to control this money, you have the government manage the index fund by default... this will make "management fees" 0.00% cost to the holder of that particular lets call it the "American 5000" fund... the government will absorb the cost of managing this simple index fund of 5000 american companies, which will be ultra low to manage anyhow since it will be a simple index fund... so now your billionaires didn't make any money directly off this 401k... but YOU did... welcome to wealth...

so please, what other worries do you have? I personally would love to see an account this like be a combination of a 401k and ROTH IRA... I think we should be able to put the money in tax free, and take it out take free... wouldn't that be a blessing for millions of americans... and just to set you at ease about billionaires abusing this, lets cap deposits into these accounts at lets say $10,000 a year... thats a healthy enough amount to cover a wide range of the middle class without extending into the wealthy... so now even the guy flipping a burger can OWN his OWN money, and retire a millionaire as long as he keeps working that minimum wage job his entire life, in fact he would end up with more moeny this way, than social security would provide... or would you like to run the numbers and challenge me on this? I would love that challenge, because you'll be shocked...

P.S. this also means, YOU would gain voting rights at all of those "American 5000" companies since YOU are now a shareholder... sure some folks might say its an index fund so you don't technically get the voting rights, but we could quite easily modify that so once a person has one full share of each of the 5000 companies (which won't take but a few years for most) they should gain the voting right for that share... that means YOU could now vote for the CEO's and reject them if they don't live up to YOUR expectations... now combine that with millions of others who think like you and reflect your values, that you could now DIRECTLY impose on CEO's of those companies as a voting shareholder... so now if you want companies to pay people more, instead of provide more stock price benefits, you can pass up that higher stock price for higher employee pay...

imagine that... capitalism being the greatest chance of socialism... and yet you probably foofoo'd the notion of privatizing social security like this...

what a missed opportunity to create wealth for the low and middle class, without creating it for the upper class... you just don't get economics do you?

 

The problem is that it will never happen. I would support a plan something like you mention. Even a money market paying interest would be better than what we have now. But the government will never allow it and it doesn't cover disability payments to legitimately disabled people. And government cost will have to be addressed.

 

no don't go with a money market... the reason I want a 401k/IRA hybrid is because I want to place more restrictions than those accounts have... like I don't want folks to be able to pull money out to buy homes, I don't want them using it for college... I want it to be a "true" retirement account... now I LOVE the fact at age 50 you can start withdrawing from a 401k penalty free as long as you're officially "retired" in declaration if anything... so I don't want to raise the age, because some folks will be able to retire early, no reason we shouldn't let them so we can free that job up for someone younger who needs to move up the ladder, and some folks with multiple working incomes in a household, may choose to exit early as well...

so as long as we make them "true" retirement accounts... I would love a tax free in and out style account thats privatized and ownership is claimed 100% by the owner... and in death passes down to their heirs... this style of account would easily let someone accumulate in excess of a million dollars working even a minimum wage job over a 40 year span... and once they hit retirement, they could just live off the annual earnings in interest, never actually touching the base money, which means when they die off, their heirs would all inherit a million dollars, below the death tax rates... which means generation after generation would get propelled up and out of poverty... and all we had to do was privatize things...

don't say it will never happen... thats the thinking of partisanship... say it CAN happen we it SHOULD happen... and then start talking to those in your political spectrum about it, and add your own twists, and then reach across the aisle and say, look, this is right for americans, lets do it...

P.S. oh and to touch upon disability, when I've run the numbers and worked through it... currently we cap social security deduction at what 112,500 on income? if we simply lifted that cap and used payments above that amount, it would fund disability entirely... so you can bounce things around and quite easily do all of it, and create ownership of wealth... only question is, will either side allow the other to do it, because it will be seen as a win for one, and a loss for the other... and neither side wants to be the one to take the loss, you feel me... and thats why it'll never happen... because one side can't take the "win"...

 

That's why we already have IRAs and 401ks, so people can save money tax advantaged in addition to SS, money they can later leave to heirs.

To convert completely to a system like this for retirement funding has problems:

1) What if you have never been lucky enough to contribute, for example due to disability, or your contribution has been cut short due to illness or job loss?
2) What if you run through your savings too quickly once retired?
3) What if the market crashes right when you retire?

With any of those cases, the typical GOP answer would be "tough luck".

That's why I think it is important to have a system with several layers. SS provides one layer as a basic income that people can rely on no matter how unlucky they were or how bad decisions they made. This ensures that people will not starve on the street.

Even in 401k accounts people often go for annuities, which are not so different than SS. You get a monthly income, but you forfeit the principal. Your heirs won't get the money. However, you get monthly payments, even if you are lucky to live to be 110 years old. Of course, if you die right after signing the annuity, you are out of luck, but that's how insurance like programs work.

P.S.: I like the idea of the government administering an index fund. They actually do it already with the TSP for government employees, which is a well-run plan. In addition, you would have to force people to contribute, just as they do with payroll taxes at the present. I wouldn't be against part of payroll taxes going to such a system.

 

Conservative Republicans (with the exceptions of Eisenhower and Nixon) have been trying to kill Social Security since 1935.

 

'

Now that you've shared your cartoons, here are the facts.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/myth-obama-phone/story?id=17507339

 

It is not a relatively easy thing to do, and it doesn't solve the problem. Eliminating the Social Security cap still requires increasing the FICA payroll tax by at least 2%.

You can read Ryan's vision here:

https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_assets/pdf/ABetterWay-HealthCare-PolicyPaper.pdf