After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits – Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives

[g5000]

After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits – Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives​

From your link:

After already passing in the House of Representatives,...


Remind us which party controls the House, dumbass. Nothing comes up for a vote without the Speaker's say-so.

Nothing.


...the push for a vote in the Senate comes from Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer while Republican Sen. Rand Paul wants to add an amendment to the bill gradually raising the age of retirement to 70.


A REPUBLICAN wants to raise the retirement age.

So tell us again, you partisan hack, your fairy tale again how the Democrats are rushing the bill.

It takes a special kind of idiot to read the Gateway Pundit.

 

[0311]

The Gateway Pundit strikes again.

GateWayFuckNuts. Didn't happen. FuckNuts tried to avoid paying off Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman by claiming bankruptcy, the judge killed that. Just as the trial was set to open, FuckNuts settled out court to prevent their lies about both Women becoming public. GateWay lied about them and the story cutting benefits is a lie. It is what they do.

 

[Theowl32]

After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits – Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives​

After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits - Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives

After repeatedly accusing the president-elect of wanting to cut Social Security, Democrats new bill would do just that.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

21 Dec 2024 ~~ By Samuel Short, Western Journal.

Democrats have been caught doing the very thing they’ve been accusing President-elect Donald Trump of doing: Cutting Social Security.

On Wednesday, the U.K. Daily Mail reported Senate Democrats are trying to push through a Social Security reform bill they want to see signed by President Joe Biden before Trump takes office.
The Social Security Fairness Act aims to repeal provisions that reduce payouts to public sector employees like police officers, firefighters, teachers, and post workers. The Mail cites The Committee for a Responsible Budget in their article, and that group states this would make Social Security insolvent six months earlier than current projections by giving increased benefits to 3 million people who paid into their state or local pensions that did not pay Social Security.
The CRFB also states, “As a result, we estimate a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033 would see their benefits cut by an additional $25,000 over their lifetime.”
The think tank says if Social Security runs out of money under this bill, as much as $400,000 in benefits would be lost for the average couple. CRFB states the cost for the bill over the next decade — citing the Congressional Budget Office — would be $190 billion.
~Snip~
“It speeds the bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in 2034. This will speed it up by a year or so. It’s $200 billion added to a program that is already short of money,” he said, following up by commenting, “If you’re going to add to its mandate by expanding it, you should pay for it.”
Schumer tried to pose the effort on X in the most altruistic fashion last week, saying, “It would ensure Americans are not erroneously denied their well-earned social security benefits simply because they chose at some point to work in their careers in public service.”
~Snip~
In July, Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries invoked to boogeyman that is Project 2025 to say Trump would be the end of Social Security.
He claimed, “Trump’s Project 2025 will end Social Security and Medicare as we know it.”
Despite looking to address excessive government spending, Trump stated earlier this month, “We’re not touching Social Security.”
Under Democrats’ bill, cuts will be made, and insolvency will be sped up.
It is unclear whether Democrats actually think this is helpful, or if they just want to create a massive disaster later — perhaps for the president-elect to “deal” with.
That all being said, there may be a far less conspiratorial explanation for this latest move from the Democrats.
Hanlon’s Razor states we, “shouldn’t attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

See Also:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5051994-senate-social-security-bill/

**********​

Public workers get holiday cheer as Schumer pushes vote to boost their Social Security

Public workers cheered after Sen. Majoriy Leader Schumer schedules Senate vote on a bill to boost their Social Security.

www.usatoday.com

Commentary:
These people have not paid in to social security and they are supposed to get benefits? They have benefits from their pension. Then every one should be given the max SSI payment regardless of how long they work or when they choose to retire, if you pay in to SSI.
The pensions of all public sector workers is outrage that we also pay for. Most are getting their full salaries as though they are still working…. Teachers unions and all public sector unions have made sure their members are taken care of after retirement. So no, they should not receive full SS Benefits….
If you haven't paid in to the systems you should not be collecting SS. Also SS should not be used to provide benefits for people that have never paid in. It was never designed for that. The government pays a larger portion than the employee. And the benefit payout is guaranteed by the taxpayers.

 

[g5000]

View attachment 1063270

That's Trump's M.O.

 

[0311]

These worthless leftist traitors already raped medicare to fund their "green" agenda, so no surprise here.

Perhaps you can explain how the "Democrats" push this bill through both the Republican Controlled House and the Republican Controlled Senate?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Gateway Pundit strikes again.

But the social security fairness act is real ans what OP says is exactly what they want to do, so gateway pundit has nothing to do with this.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The bill prevents cuts in SS benefits.

It allows people who haven't paid into the system to receive social security, thus shortening the life of the fund

 

[ThisIsMe]

If they worked in a private enterprise and paid social security and then got a government job not paying SS they are still owed SS from the private job, especially if they worked decade in the private sector first.

But what if they worked for the government their entire careers?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits – Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives​

After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits - Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives

After repeatedly accusing the president-elect of wanting to cut Social Security, Democrats new bill would do just that.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

21 Dec 2024 ~~ By Samuel Short, Western Journal.

Democrats have been caught doing the very thing they’ve been accusing President-elect Donald Trump of doing: Cutting Social Security.

On Wednesday, the U.K. Daily Mail reported Senate Democrats are trying to push through a Social Security reform bill they want to see signed by President Joe Biden before Trump takes office.
The Social Security Fairness Act aims to repeal provisions that reduce payouts to public sector employees like police officers, firefighters, teachers, and post workers. The Mail cites The Committee for a Responsible Budget in their article, and that group states this would make Social Security insolvent six months earlier than current projections by giving increased benefits to 3 million people who paid into their state or local pensions that did not pay Social Security.
The CRFB also states, “As a result, we estimate a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033 would see their benefits cut by an additional $25,000 over their lifetime.”
The think tank says if Social Security runs out of money under this bill, as much as $400,000 in benefits would be lost for the average couple. CRFB states the cost for the bill over the next decade — citing the Congressional Budget Office — would be $190 billion.
~Snip~
“It speeds the bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in 2034. This will speed it up by a year or so. It’s $200 billion added to a program that is already short of money,” he said, following up by commenting, “If you’re going to add to its mandate by expanding it, you should pay for it.”
Schumer tried to pose the effort on X in the most altruistic fashion last week, saying, “It would ensure Americans are not erroneously denied their well-earned social security benefits simply because they chose at some point to work in their careers in public service.”
~Snip~
In July, Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries invoked to boogeyman that is Project 2025 to say Trump would be the end of Social Security.
He claimed, “Trump’s Project 2025 will end Social Security and Medicare as we know it.”
Despite looking to address excessive government spending, Trump stated earlier this month, “We’re not touching Social Security.”
Under Democrats’ bill, cuts will be made, and insolvency will be sped up.
It is unclear whether Democrats actually think this is helpful, or if they just want to create a massive disaster later — perhaps for the president-elect to “deal” with.
That all being said, there may be a far less conspiratorial explanation for this latest move from the Democrats.
Hanlon’s Razor states we, “shouldn’t attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

See Also:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5051994-senate-social-security-bill/

**********​

Public workers get holiday cheer as Schumer pushes vote to boost their Social Security

Public workers cheered after Sen. Majoriy Leader Schumer schedules Senate vote on a bill to boost their Social Security.

www.usatoday.com

Commentary:
These people have not paid in to social security and they are supposed to get benefits? They have benefits from their pension. Then every one should be given the max SSI payment regardless of how long they work or when they choose to retire, if you pay in to SSI.
The pensions of all public sector workers is outrage that we also pay for. Most are getting their full salaries as though they are still working…. Teachers unions and all public sector unions have made sure their members are taken care of after retirement. So no, they should not receive full SS Benefits….
If you haven't paid in to the systems you should not be collecting SS. Also SS should not be used to provide benefits for people that have never paid in. It was never designed for that. The government pays a larger portion than the employee. And the benefit payout is guaranteed by the taxpayers.

On that point, you are in error. Employees receiving state pensions do not contribute to SS through FICA. They make contributions to their state employee pensions. You don't pay anything towards their pensions.

For example, I contributed to my Kentucky state pension for 10 years. When I decided to retire, I received my contributions to the state pension fund back in lieu of a pension. Had I received a pension, those contributions that I made to the pension fund with my own money would have counted against me for my SS benefit I received for work other than for the state. Money that I paid income tax on when I received counted nothing towards my SS because they did not withhold FICA.

Like me, these people also had jobs that paid into SS, but also had jobs that did not contribute. I started when I was 17 and contributed all the way until 2007. From 2007 through 2018, I had a state retirement and contributed nothing. From 2018 to 2022, I was a military contractor and paid into SS and Medicare again for those 4 years. When I retired, my SS benefit was reduced because I had no SS income for those 10 years. The same applies to these people. What they are eliminating an additional penalty for having a separate retirement,

These people may be retired military, have taken a state job, like teaching, and when they became eligible for SS their state retirement payments count against their SS simply because they have another income source. They get their state retirement, and military retirement, but SS is reduced because of the state retirement, even though it is already reduced because they did not contribute for those years they were paying into their retirement funds.

They are not really giving these employees anything except eliminating a penalty that made no sense to apply in the first place.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It allows people who haven't paid into the system to receive social security, thus shortening the life of the fund

Wrong. It does not pay people who did not contribute,

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This entire thread is filled with misinformation. This bill eliminates a penalty that prevented people from drawing the SS benefits they would have been entitled to if they did not draw a state pension that did not contribute to SS.

There are very few people who fall into this category. I almost fell into it, but because I was aware of it, I structured my retirement out of the penalty. If you read my previous post, I explained it all in detail. The issue is very complicated and cannot be explained with bumper stickers complaining about people getting benefits from SS without contributing, because that is a bald-faced lie.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wrong. It does not pay people who did not contribute,

It eliminates government offsets and WEP.

In the first paragraph of WEP it says "
If you work for an employer who doesn’t withhold
Social Security taxes from your salary, any retirement
or disability pension you get from that work can reduce
your Social Security benefits.".

So, if you eliminate this provision, it means you can now receive full SS benefits if you had a job, government or not, that didn't withhold social security taxes.

also I found this online:

Are you counting on a public pension and Social Security? Perhaps you had two careers. In one job, you were a government employee whose earnings were exempt from the Social Security payroll tax. You also worked in the private sector, paying into the Social Security system. Recent legislation will ensure that when you retire, you'll get your public pension, and your full Social Security benefit.

You Can Now Collect a Public Pension and Full Social Security Benefits

If you receive a public pension from federal, state or local government, you can now count on collecting full Social Security benefits in addition to your pension.

www.kiplinger.com

So, even if you worked part of your time at a job that did withhold taxes and part of your life in a job that didn't, this appears to say it doesn't matter. You'll get your full benefits either way. .

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It eliminates government offsets and WEP.

In the first paragraph of WEP it says "
If you work for an employer who doesn’t withhold
Social Security taxes from your salary, any retirement
or disability pension you get from that work can reduce
your Social Security benefits.".

So, if you eliminate this provision, it means you can now receive full SS benefits if you had a job, government or not, that didn't withhold social security taxes.

also I found this online:

Are you counting on a public pension and Social Security? Perhaps you had two careers. In one job, you were a government employee whose earnings were exempt from the Social Security payroll tax. You also worked in the private sector, paying into the Social Security system. Recent legislation will ensure that when you retire, you'll get your public pension, and your full Social Security benefit.

You Can Now Collect a Public Pension and Full Social Security Benefits

If you receive a public pension from federal, state or local government, you can now count on collecting full Social Security benefits in addition to your pension.

www.kiplinger.com

So, even if you worked part of your time at a job that did withhold taxes and part of your life in a job that didn't, this appears to say it doesn't matter. You'll get your full benefits either way. .

You get your full benefits based on your contributions. It is not based on the money you made while contributing to that other pension. I know exactly what I am talking about as I retired under almost these exact same circumstances.

I retired on SS when I reached age 62 because I was unable to work any longer due to my health. My SS benefit was calculated on my contributions from 1978 to 2007 and from 2018-2022. The amount of my income for those periods I contributed determine my benefits, and not the period from 2007-2018 I was employed as a public school teacher and did not contribute to SS or Medicare.

Medicare is an entirely different ball of wax when it comes to disability. At the time, I was not eligible for SS disability because I lacked contributions for at least 5 of the last ten years, or 20 out the pervious 40 quarters. I was later determined to be disabled in March 2024 and had the qualifying amounts so I became eligible for Medicare 1 year later, and it starts March 2025, which is 8 months early for me, as I would not normally start until I turn 65 in November 2025. I am covered by the VA but now have to pay for my Medicare Part B like everyone else.