Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[Thinker101]

Gee, let's try the Democrat plan...

 

[Orangecat]

Good one! lol!!!
#LOLGOP #TooFunny #CLASSIC

Word of advice:
Sometimes it is better to remain silent than remove all doubt.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Total bullshit. One of the main quotes is from Joe Biden.

Republicans of course won’t be honest about their desire to end Social Security and Medicare.

To seek to ‘privatize’ Social Security and Medicare is to seek to end both; the seek to subject funding for Social Security and Medicare to a vote every five years is to seek to end both; to seek to ‘sunset’ Social Security and Medicare is to seek to end both.

The American people know the truth – they don’t believe Republicans’ lies.

 

[francoHFW]

Before you open that trap of yours dipshit, just a reminder of cuts to Medicare. I hope you get T-boned by a drunk illegal.

Remember the $716 billion in Medicare 'cuts'?

www.nbcnews.com

your link says that your charge is total baloney, Ignoramus LOL

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Its worked just fine for about 80-years with occasional tweaks, but thanks anyway.

It worked great when we died much younger. Not so much today.

 

[francoHFW]

Or just let the other guy do nothing and the whole thing collapses. "I told you so".

that Medicare is going to die Is AARP's number one myth...

 

[francoHFW]

Republicans of course won’t be honest about their desire to end Social Security and Medicare.

To seek to ‘privatize’ Social Security and Medicare is to seek to end both; the seek to subject funding for Social Security and Medicare to a vote every five years is to seek to end both; to seek to ‘sunset’ Social Security and Medicare is to seek to end both.

The American people know the truth – they don’t believe Republicans’ lies.

we hope.

 

[odanny]

Biden refused to name them, but here's the names of some of the loudest ones...



Do the USMB rightwing Republican-voters agree w/this attack on social security?

What's your position on this matter?

Going back to George W. Bush, I've always wondered why Republicans continue to vote against their own best interests. Perhaps there is no better evidence of this than what you are posting about here.

 

[odanny]

I am 100% in favor of getting rid of both programs as quickly as possible. I don’t believe either program is Constitutional or even Moral.

Lol. Upside down world.

 

[francoHFW]

The biggest attack on social security to date is taxing it. I think MarcATL has raised a concern on Social Security and he should call on his Democrat Party to sponsor legislation to eliminate tax on SS.

Already obstructed by the piece of crap party...

 

[LeftofLeft]

Already obstructed by the piece of crap party...

Stop taxing my Social Security.

 

[Nostra]

they can't wait to "reform" medicare and Social Security, the scumbag liars

 

[Nostra]

Republicans of course won’t be honest about their desire to end Social Security and Medicare.

To seek to ‘privatize’ Social Security and Medicare is to seek to end both; the seek to subject funding for Social Security and Medicare to a vote every five years is to seek to end both; to seek to ‘sunset’ Social Security and Medicare is to seek to end both.

The American people know the truth – they don’t believe Republicans’ lies.

 

[BackAgain]

Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security​

A few have. But the thread headline is otherwise intentionally false.

What else is new, though?

 

[kyzr]

It worked great when we died much younger. Not so much today.

True. SS was based on certain assumptions, which are adjusted from time to time.
The actuaries can still make it work by raising the retirement ages and the cap.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can anyone tell the class how Sweden saved their equivalent to social security?

Allowing the PERSON TO INVEST THEIR MONEY HOW THEY SEE FIT.

What a motherfuckong concept.

You can go risky or secure based on your confort level and age. They got an aberage annual return of about 10% after doing this.

This is true. Under the Swedish model people have indivdidual accounts and there are options to control how those funds are invested. However the accounts are STILL mandatory with deductions set by the government.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

It worked great when we died much younger. Not so much today.

Life expectancy in the 1930's was an age in the late 50's. Yes, based on average life expectancy we are living longer now into our 70's. However one of the biggest driving factors to that is improvements in infant mortality rates impacting the aggregate numbers. High infant mortality rates pulled down the average and infants that died didn't pay into social security.

The true measure his "how many months of benefits". If you look at "Average Life Expectancy" then we are living 20 years longer. But when you look at "Average Months of Drawing Benefits" that comes out to about 4-years longer.

WW

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Life expectancy in the 1930's was an age in the late 50's. Yes, based on average life expectancy we are living longer now into our 70's. However one of the biggest driving factors to that is improvements in infant mortality rates impacting the aggregate numbers. High infant mortality rates pulled down the average and infants that died didn't pay into social security.

The true measure his "how many months of benefits". If you look at "Average Life Expectancy" then we are living 20 years longer. But when you look at "Average Months of Drawing Benefits" that comes out to about 4-years longer.

WW

Correct, but that's why the only reasonable solution to this is to make contributions higher if we want these programs. If we want these programs (and most Americans do) they simply have to be funded. That's it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True. SS was based on certain assumptions, which are adjusted from time to time.
The actuaries can still make it work by raising the retirement ages and the cap.

Well if we raise the cap then it's only fair we increase the amount those people could collect. Otherwise it would be just another "tax the rich" scheme to solve our problems. And if they paid more and collected more, then it would be a net zero gain.

Raising the age doesn't help either as there are many jobs people barely make it to retirement age now. My father was a bricklayer and had to retire at the age of 62. However his union had a great retirement plan many don't have. My cousin has his own remodeling business. He's struggling to work now in his mid 60's. He just can't do some of those things any longer. His employees have to do the heavy work.

When Commie Care started my employer (like many small businesses) dropped our healthcare coverage. I was in my mid 50's at the time. So I started looking for another company to work for. In spite of my great attendance record, great driving record, I only got one reply, and that was a dud. If you are out of work at an older age, nobody wants to hire you. Sure, we have laws against that, but who wants to hire lawyers, sue companies and try to prove discrimination? I wouldn't want to work for anybody that doesn't want me there anyway.

So raising the retirement age would solve one problem and create several more in it's place. For physically challenging jobs, it would only move them from SS retirement to SS disability. It's not a solution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Going back to George W. Bush, I've always wondered why Republicans continue to vote against their own best interests. Perhaps there is no better evidence of this than what you are posting about here.

Republicans are trying to come up with ideas to extend the programs. Democrats are kicking the can down the road until these programs crash and burn.