No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

[owebo]

Who will defend Social Security?

Not me...

 

[jc456]

Who will defend Social Security?

From what?

 

[Dschrute3]

More drama queen gayness. Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet, and the haters are claiming he's destroyed Social Security. They're completely hooked on that Democrat fake news propaganda. They can no longer think independently and critically. They've become lost causes.

 

[Lakhota]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

We warned them. They can't say we didn't warn them. They didn't believe but to be honest the American people will not only take the cuts theyll blame liberals.

The American people have been sleeping and are controlled by the corporate media. Not only that they think it's liberal

Yep, and it's sadly ignorant to watch.

 

[Dschrute3]

And when Donald Trump doesn't 'destroy' Social Security, will the hater wingnuts admit they were just spewing more Democrat fake news bullshit? Somehow i doubt that's gonna happen. They're just too dishonest.

 

[jc456]

propaganda

 

[jc456]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

We warned them. They can't say we didn't warn them. They didn't believe but to be honest the American people will not only take the cuts theyll blame liberals.

The American people have been sleeping and are controlled by the corporate media. Not only that they think it's liberal

Yep, and it's sadly ignorant to watch.

You still don't get that the rich people are all Democrats but that's OK you think the Russians hacked the servers

 

[sealybobo]

And when Donald Trump doesn't 'destroy' Social Security, will the hater wingnuts admit they were just spewing more Democrat fake news bullshit? Somehow i doubt that's gonna happen. They're just too dishonest.

Major cuts at first with the ultimate plan of ending these programs.

Stop not believing Republicans when they tell you what they want to do.

 

[sealybobo]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

We warned them. They can't say we didn't warn them. They didn't believe but to be honest the American people will not only take the cuts theyll blame liberals.

The American people have been sleeping and are controlled by the corporate media. Not only that they think it's liberal

Yep, and it's sadly ignorant to watch.

You still don't get that the rich people are all Democrats but that's OK you think the Russians hacked the servers

Trumps team is who's who of right wing billionaires.

Im waiting for trump to appoint a koch brother to something.

 

[Dschrute3]

And when Donald Trump doesn't 'destroy' Social Security, will the hater wingnuts admit they were just spewing more Democrat fake news bullshit? Somehow i doubt that's gonna happen. They're just too dishonest.

Major cuts at first with the ultimate plan of ending these programs.

Stop not believing Republicans when they tell you what they want to do.

Let me know when Social Security is 'destroyed.' Till that happens, i'll continue to call bullshit on hater Democrat Fake News.

 

[Toro]

Ftr I voted to destroy SS.

It was my #1 issue!

 

[flacaltenn]

I GAVE YOU THE FUCKING SOURCE IN THE LINK.. Go back and find it. Right out of Page 12 of most EVERY SSAdmin annual report. It's in the "fine print". After all the 10 pages of happy BS fiction about the phony surplus accounting. Those words I'm putting in front of you mean -- there is NOTHING OF VALUE LEFT in the SS Trust Fund. Nothing but the whims of Congress and fucking MOUNTAINLOAD of existing debt.

Funny that 2 -- will ya??

If a registered company on the NY Stock Exchange pulled that Bullshit accounting trick in their yearly report, the entire Executive staff would be in jail..

It's a fucking loan! Don't you get that? Government pays interest on the loan. Government pays interest to China and other holders of U.S. debt.

What interest rate do the trust funds' assets earn?

Nothing of value was ever PUT into the SS Trust Fund. If the Congress had been honest about it -- they would have taken the SS Surplus and purchased EXISTING bonds on the open market. Thus PUTTING something of value into the TFund. And relieving some debt. But they used the surplus to HIDE debt. Debt that was never covered. So the initial money is GONE.

2nd theft was KNOWING decades in advance that SS was gonna run deficits. And at the times of those deficits, NEW debt would have to be issued to cover the shortfalls. So with nothing of value in the TF to make checks with -- NEW taxpayers and their kids will have to pony up to pay for the money that was STOLEN from their parents.

If they had "INVESTED" in REAL bonds, Those bonds would have been booked ONCE. Held their initial value and interest, and could be SOLD today ON THE MARKET to raise real cash for the SS deficit. But -- they scammed you.. TWICE....

SSA says so.. Pg 12 of the link I gave you.. CBO agrees.. You "need to read the prospectus carefully" for everything you "invest" in..

Please repost the link.

Private pensions invest in these securities and no one complains. The point that these securities aren't marketable is a red-herring. They have a put option in them. Making a putable bond marketable is done only by a sucker. Who would we sell the bond to if the issuer couldn't repay it? Today the system has about a dime of assets for every dollar of unfunded obligation, and you are worried about the dime?

The links are at post #34.. Bonds were NEVER PURCHASED.. There is nothing to "put" or to shove. The quotes from SSA are REAL.. There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Trust Fund to pay bills with. All that phoney "interest" is reincorporated into NEW debt principal. It's a book-keeping sham.

For every current "SS deficit" dollar -- FUTURE taxpayers are paying double interest and principle on the stolen surplus.

"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."

It is a truly stupid statement as the following adaptation will display :

"Neither the redemption of bonds held by China, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."

I think it is a clip that deals with Trust Funds where the obligations are government obligations. Social Security isn't.

That makes no sense whatsoever -- especially for an economist. When China buys our debt, THEY get an asset. A REAL fungible asset with interest. When the Treasury SELLS that asset to China (to cover ANY SS income shortfall) , the taxpayers who were robbed of the SS Surplus get to PAY for the money that WAS STOLEN FROM THEM -- with double interest.

Are you OK? Really? You thought that "fixed it"???

 

[owebo]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

We warned them. They can't say we didn't warn them. They didn't believe but to be honest the American people will not only take the cuts theyll blame liberals.

The American people have been sleeping and are controlled by the corporate media. Not only that they think it's liberal

Yep, and it's sadly ignorant to watch.

You still don't get that the rich people are all Democrats but that's OK you think the Russians hacked the servers

Trumps team is who's who of right wing billionaires.

Im waiting for trump to appoint a koch brother to something.

Kochs are the enemy.....

 

[flacaltenn]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

We warned them. They can't say we didn't warn them. They didn't believe but to be honest the American people will not only take the cuts theyll blame liberals.

The American people have been sleeping and are controlled by the corporate media. Not only that they think it's liberal

Yep, and it's sadly ignorant to watch.

You still don't get that the rich people are all Democrats but that's OK you think the Russians hacked the servers

Trumps team is who's who of right wing billionaires.

Im waiting for trump to appoint a koch brother to something.

Kochs are the enemy.....

The Kochs are too principled to work in a pirate administration with Captn Hook. They've only been interested in clawing back the liberty and freedom that we USED to have in this country. Not some populist mini-meltdown that USES the powers and EXPANDS the powers of the Fed Govt.

 

[owebo]

We warned them. They can't say we didn't warn them. They didn't believe but to be honest the American people will not only take the cuts theyll blame liberals.

The American people have been sleeping and are controlled by the corporate media. Not only that they think it's liberal

Yep, and it's sadly ignorant to watch.

You still don't get that the rich people are all Democrats but that's OK you think the Russians hacked the servers

Trumps team is who's who of right wing billionaires.

Im waiting for trump to appoint a koch brother to something.

Kochs are the enemy.....

The Kochs are too principled to work in a pirate administration with Captn Hook. They've only been interested in clawing back the liberty and freedom that we USED to have in this country. Not some populist mini-meltdown that USES the powers and EXPANDS the powers of the Fed Govt.

Last I heard, they funded hillary.....there goes that GOP'er love.....

 

[sealybobo]

And when Donald Trump doesn't 'destroy' Social Security, will the hater wingnuts admit they were just spewing more Democrat fake news bullshit? Somehow i doubt that's gonna happen. They're just too dishonest.

Major cuts at first with the ultimate plan of ending these programs.

Stop not believing Republicans when they tell you what they want to do.

Let me know when Social Security is 'destroyed.' Till that happens, i'll continue to call bullshit on hater Democrat Fake News.

No, you'll defend anything the GOP does and that includes fucking you over.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

Because something needs to happen.

You jerks on the left don't realize that Social Security does not even benefit those who need it the most.

An average paycheck of 1000/month.

That's security.

 

[sealybobo]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

Because something needs to happen.

You jerks on the left don't realize that Social Security does not even benefit those who need it the most.

An average paycheck of 1000/month.

That's security.

Are you kidding me? Without that $1000 a month they're screwed.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

Because something needs to happen.

You jerks on the left don't realize that Social Security does not even benefit those who need it the most.

An average paycheck of 1000/month.

That's security.

Are you kidding me? Without that $1000 a month they're screwed.

I think he meant peoe use social security lime a pension, but still its not. Its supplementary income and you should have other forma.

Also hes saying its not enough and you could have more if you make some adjustments

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

It's a fucking loan! Don't you get that? Government pays interest on the loan. Government pays interest to China and other holders of U.S. debt.

What interest rate do the trust funds' assets earn?

Nothing of value was ever PUT into the SS Trust Fund. If the Congress had been honest about it -- they would have taken the SS Surplus and purchased EXISTING bonds on the open market. Thus PUTTING something of value into the TFund. And relieving some debt. But they used the surplus to HIDE debt. Debt that was never covered. So the initial money is GONE.

2nd theft was KNOWING decades in advance that SS was gonna run deficits. And at the times of those deficits, NEW debt would have to be issued to cover the shortfalls. So with nothing of value in the TF to make checks with -- NEW taxpayers and their kids will have to pony up to pay for the money that was STOLEN from their parents.

If they had "INVESTED" in REAL bonds, Those bonds would have been booked ONCE. Held their initial value and interest, and could be SOLD today ON THE MARKET to raise real cash for the SS deficit. But -- they scammed you.. TWICE....

SSA says so.. Pg 12 of the link I gave you.. CBO agrees.. You "need to read the prospectus carefully" for everything you "invest" in..

Please repost the link.

Private pensions invest in these securities and no one complains. The point that these securities aren't marketable is a red-herring. They have a put option in them. Making a putable bond marketable is done only by a sucker. Who would we sell the bond to if the issuer couldn't repay it? Today the system has about a dime of assets for every dollar of unfunded obligation, and you are worried about the dime?

The links are at post #34.. Bonds were NEVER PURCHASED.. There is nothing to "put" or to shove. The quotes from SSA are REAL.. There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Trust Fund to pay bills with. All that phoney "interest" is reincorporated into NEW debt principal. It's a book-keeping sham.

For every current "SS deficit" dollar -- FUTURE taxpayers are paying double interest and principle on the stolen surplus.

"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."

It is a truly stupid statement as the following adaptation will display :

"Neither the redemption of bonds held by China, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public."

I think it is a clip that deals with Trust Funds where the obligations are government obligations. Social Security isn't.

That makes no sense whatsoever -- especially for an economist. When China buys our debt, THEY get an asset. A REAL fungible asset with interest. When the Treasury SELLS that asset to China (to cover ANY SS income shortfall) , the taxpayers who were robbed of the SS Surplus get to PAY for the money that WAS STOLEN FROM THEM -- with double interest.

Are you OK? Really? You thought that "fixed it"???

Sounds like you don't understand the quote either.

The Treasury Dept does not pay Social Security benefits. It is a Trustee which collects them. It lends excess (and there hasn't been much) to the government just like every brokerage in America does. When Social Security owns a bond, that bond is owned by Social Security and is no different from the bond owned by China or Japan.

I would agree with you if Social Security were a government program rather than a government run program. If it were a government program, the benefits would be available to all Americans. The benefits would be equal. They aren't. The system requires participation, where you have to pay to collect. The promises of the program are not liabilities of the government as a whole.

The system is no different than say the state requirement to buy auto insurance. Those insurers are simply better run, and did not give away free cash.

You have a very ideological view of the system that seems disconnected from facts. I can't fix that.