Will Republicans end social security?

[sealybobo]

They won't admit it because it's not popular. That's why they slowly chip away at it.

I don't recall the day they raised the age to 67. Why? Because they did that shit secretly.

So what you are saying is gimme gimme gimme

And what you are saying is "go ahead and take away my social security. I'm stupid and will get over it."

People who dont want welfare are stupid. Got it

No, people who are anti welfare because they think they'll never need it, but then you find them first in line when they need it, and they justify their being in that line.

I don't mind them being in that line. I mind them being anti welfare and lacking empathy and them wanting to get rid of safety nets that they THINK they'll never need.

You're just making up your crap as you go

Nope. Same with anti abortion protesters. Guilty for getting abortions themselves. Most of them. Sorry they did it now but at the time it was their decision. They may not even realize if they had it all to do over again they’d do it again.

You guys want a government that says no abortions and no welfare. But if you qualify you take it.

I know a republican on disability. He unfriendly me on Facebook because he said liberals never did anything for him.

I had to remind the dumb fuck he’s on disability. Idiot

 

[Nova78]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.

 

[sealybobo]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.
View attachment 195112

Is it a myth or are you dumb?



Trump Budget Proposes Cuts From Safety Net He Promised to Protect

 

[sealybobo]

And now is when Republicans need to jump in and call us losers if we want our social security. Or stupid for expecting them. Meanwhile, the rich that have brainwashed these poor Republicans are fucking them over and these poor Republican smile when it goes up their butts.

Meanwhile, the rich just gave themselves a big fat tax break. So when they tell you we don't have the money for social security or for building roads and they either have to make cuts or raise taxes, thank these stupid poor/middle class Republicans we argue with every day.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You can't read can you?
Couple things....
1) Social Security and Social Security Disability is two different things.
2) Disability benefits are, without a doubt, the most abused system America has ever had. I would be very surprised if a single American 40 years or older doesn't know someone who gets disability who shouldn't. And the abuse percentages don't even touch reality.
Also what the article leaves out, is the plan includes increased funds to the individual states to pay for rehabilitation care, job training and other job seeking assistance for the MANY who receive benefits but are physically capable to work in a different field than they previously worked in.
ALSO - and this is important, it adds time limits for receiving benefits to conditions that react well to long term rehab care. An inflicted person can receive rehab care at no cost to them, obtain Medicare for other healthcare needs - and receive disability benefits for an extended period of time.... and then continue to receive benefits after they are well...and receive paid job training and job assistance till they get a job. BUT THEY NEED TO GET A JOB.

Now...of course your articles left that all out.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And BTW, I have R.A.
In both knees, shoulders, both hands and now in my upper back.
I have pain every single day. But it is manageable, and I have made efforts to either change the way I do any physical work, or someone else does it.
But I go to work everyday. I most likely could easily get on disability, RA is a virtual guarantee of obtaining benefits. But I don't need it. Maybe someday I will, but if that day comes..it will be advanced enough that I truly need the bene's and it will not be one where rehab works.

 

[sealybobo]

You can't read can you?
Couple things....
1) Social Security and Social Security Disability is two different things.
2) Disability benefits are, without a doubt, the most abused system America has ever had. I would be very surprised if a single American 40 years or older doesn't know someone who gets disability who shouldn't. And the abuse percentages don't even touch reality.
Also what the article leaves out, is the plan includes increased funds to the individual states to pay for rehabilitation care, job training and other job seeking assistance for the MANY who receive benefits but are physically capable to work in a different field than they previously worked in.
ALSO - and this is important, it adds time limits for receiving benefits to conditions that react well to long term rehab care. An inflicted person can receive rehab care at no cost to them, obtain Medicare for other healthcare needs - and receive disability benefits for an extended period of time.... and then continue to receive benefits after they are well...and receive paid job training and job assistance till they get a job. BUT THEY NEED TO GET A JOB.

Now...of course your articles left that all out.

The 1983 Amendments phased in a gradual increase in the age for collecting full Social Security retirement benefits. The retirement age is increasing from 65 to 67 over a 22-year period, with an 11-year hiatus at which the retirement age will remain at 66.

Presidential term: January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You can't read can you?
Couple things....
1) Social Security and Social Security Disability is two different things.
2) Disability benefits are, without a doubt, the most abused system America has ever had. I would be very surprised if a single American 40 years or older doesn't know someone who gets disability who shouldn't. And the abuse percentages don't even touch reality.
Also what the article leaves out, is the plan includes increased funds to the individual states to pay for rehabilitation care, job training and other job seeking assistance for the MANY who receive benefits but are physically capable to work in a different field than they previously worked in.
ALSO - and this is important, it adds time limits for receiving benefits to conditions that react well to long term rehab care. An inflicted person can receive rehab care at no cost to them, obtain Medicare for other healthcare needs - and receive disability benefits for an extended period of time.... and then continue to receive benefits after they are well...and receive paid job training and job assistance till they get a job. BUT THEY NEED TO GET A JOB.

Now...of course your articles left that all out.

The 1983 Amendments phased in a gradual increase in the age for collecting full Social Security retirement benefits. The retirement age is increasing from 65 to 67 over a 22-year period, with an 11-year hiatus at which the retirement age will remain at 66.

Presidential term: January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

yes, and was not changed during 16 years of having Democrat Presidents.

 

[sealybobo]

While Trump distracts us with illegal immigrant bullshit he's cutting social security, medicare, EPA, schools, tax cuts to the rich, bad deregulations. I know Michigan Republicans who defend bush on immigration but hate what he's doing to the water.

EPA is sitting on a study about the harmful effects of PFAS contaminants

So keep talking about illegals. Republicans love it.

 

[sealybobo]

You can't read can you?
Couple things....
1) Social Security and Social Security Disability is two different things.
2) Disability benefits are, without a doubt, the most abused system America has ever had. I would be very surprised if a single American 40 years or older doesn't know someone who gets disability who shouldn't. And the abuse percentages don't even touch reality.
Also what the article leaves out, is the plan includes increased funds to the individual states to pay for rehabilitation care, job training and other job seeking assistance for the MANY who receive benefits but are physically capable to work in a different field than they previously worked in.
ALSO - and this is important, it adds time limits for receiving benefits to conditions that react well to long term rehab care. An inflicted person can receive rehab care at no cost to them, obtain Medicare for other healthcare needs - and receive disability benefits for an extended period of time.... and then continue to receive benefits after they are well...and receive paid job training and job assistance till they get a job. BUT THEY NEED TO GET A JOB.

Now...of course your articles left that all out.

The 1983 Amendments phased in a gradual increase in the age for collecting full Social Security retirement benefits. The retirement age is increasing from 65 to 67 over a 22-year period, with an 11-year hiatus at which the retirement age will remain at 66.

Presidential term: January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989

yes, and was not changed during 16 years of having Democrat Presidents.

If poor and middle class liberals who like ss and medicare would show up and vote every 2 years this wouldn't be happening. This is how YOU win. And by YOU I mean your rich masters because I hardly see how you win if you have to work 2 more years.

 

[Papageorgio]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.
View attachment 195112

Is it a myth or are you dumb?



Trump Budget Proposes Cuts From Safety Net He Promised to Protect

Social Security or Social Security Disability Benefits?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.
View attachment 195112

Is it a myth or are you dumb?



Trump Budget Proposes Cuts From Safety Net He Promised to Protect

Social Security or Social Security Disability Benefits?

He doesn't seem to know the difference, and as usual, doesn't respond to factual replies...only more rhetoric...it is what sealybobo does in the Political forums.

 

[deanrd]

I knew it. Republicans hate the elderly. They want them to suffer and live homeless.

They too will one day be elderly.

For them to suffer the way they want others to suffer would be pure Karma.

There was a story about a man who was taking care of his elderly father. It became such a burden to him that one day he built a sled and took his elderly father and two sons deep in the forest. He told his sons that he was going to leave his father there with some food and some other supplies and let nature take it's course.

Deep in the forest, the two sons stopped and took the old man out of the sled and unloaded the supplies. The man told his sons they didn't need to do that, since he only built the sled to take his father into the forest.

His eldest son asked, "Why build another sled when we can you this one?" The father asked, "Use this one? Use it for what? The eldest son replied, "Use it for you when it's your turn".

The father reloaded the sled with the supplies and the old man and they all returned home.

 

[BluesLegend]

Will Republicans end social security?

Oh good lord not this 1970's Dem talking point.

 

[sealybobo]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.
View attachment 195112

Is it a myth or are you dumb?



Trump Budget Proposes Cuts From Safety Net He Promised to Protect

Social Security or Social Security Disability Benefits?

Well you see they've already raised it to 67 when all my life I thought it was 65. That happened in the 80's and I'm just now hearing about it. They probably did that shit while they had us arguing over jobs American's won't do. LOL

So god knows what cuts are being made today as we argue over illegal aliens no one really gives a fuck about.

 

[sealybobo]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.
View attachment 195112

Is it a myth or are you dumb?



Trump Budget Proposes Cuts From Safety Net He Promised to Protect

Social Security or Social Security Disability Benefits?

He doesn't seem to know the difference, and as usual, doesn't respond to factual replies...only more rhetoric...it is what sealybobo does in the Political forums.

If you think you can count on Social Security to prop up your retirement than the joke may be on you. The news media’s been so busy covering President Trump 24/7 that a really big story slipped through the cracks this summer: Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in by 2021 — just three years from now, and come 2034 or so — just 16 years away — payouts could be slashed by about 23%, unless tough steps are taken to bolster the rickety program.

Warning: Social Security faces a 23% cut

That's right retard. That means when I'm just about ready to retire, my payout may be cut by 23%. Will yours? The only difference between me and you is that you cheered for it to happen. You CHEERED when Trump gave the rich tax breaks they didn't need while cutting your retirement benefits. Why? Because for 40 years they've been telling you not to expect it. It won't be there. Sort of softening the blow. Not that you mind being mule kicked in the face by Republicans. When they do it you blame Democrats.

 

[deanrd]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.
View attachment 195112

Is it a myth or are you dumb?



Trump Budget Proposes Cuts From Safety Net He Promised to Protect

Social Security or Social Security Disability Benefits?

He doesn't seem to know the difference, and as usual, doesn't respond to factual replies...only more rhetoric...it is what sealybobo does in the Political forums.

If you think you can count on Social Security to prop up your retirement than the joke may be on you. The news media’s been so busy covering President Trump 24/7 that a really big story slipped through the cracks this summer: Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in by 2021 — just three years from now, and come 2034 or so — just 16 years away — payouts could be slashed by about 23%, unless tough steps are taken to bolster the rickety program.

That's right retard. That means when I'm just about ready to retire, my payout may be cut by 23%. Will yours? The only difference between me and you is that you cheered for it to happen. You CHEERED when Trump gave the rich tax breaks they didn't need while cutting your retirement benefits. Why? Because for 40 years they've been telling you not to expect it. It won't be there. Sort of softening the blow. Not that you mind being mule kicked in the face by Republicans. When they do it you blame Democrats.

Sorry, needy billionaires need tax cuts.

 

[sealybobo]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.
View attachment 195112

Is it a myth or are you dumb?



Trump Budget Proposes Cuts From Safety Net He Promised to Protect

Social Security or Social Security Disability Benefits?

He doesn't seem to know the difference, and as usual, doesn't respond to factual replies...only more rhetoric...it is what sealybobo does in the Political forums.

If you think you can count on Social Security to prop up your retirement than the joke may be on you. The news media’s been so busy covering President Trump 24/7 that a really big story slipped through the cracks this summer: Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in by 2021 — just three years from now, and come 2034 or so — just 16 years away — payouts could be slashed by about 23%, unless tough steps are taken to bolster the rickety program.

That's right retard. That means when I'm just about ready to retire, my payout may be cut by 23%. Will yours? The only difference between me and you is that you cheered for it to happen. You CHEERED when Trump gave the rich tax breaks they didn't need while cutting your retirement benefits. Why? Because for 40 years they've been telling you not to expect it. It won't be there. Sort of softening the blow. Not that you mind being mule kicked in the face by Republicans. When they do it you blame Democrats.

Sorry, needy billionaires need tax cuts.

And these poor republicans will cry class warfare if you dare try to undo what they've done.

Republicans say Social Security is going broke, and they propose changes that would cut benefits or otherwise undermine the program. Democrats shout "Republicans are trying to cut Social Security!" Then the Republicans, scared of a backlash from older voters, back off. And why do we keep going through this? Republicans will tell you it's because the program is in peril, and if we don't cut it back, it won't be there at all for future generations. Democrats will tell you it's because Republicans never liked the program in the first place, and would love to kill it. That may be an exaggeration, but the fact is that Republicans hate big government, and government doesn't come any bigger than Social Security.

It's also the most successful and beloved social program in American history. Most of us are too young to remember when growing old in America almost inevitably meant a miserable descent into poverty, but until the middle of the 20th century, that's what it was.

The current controversy revolves around a rule change Republicans made as soon as the new Congress was sworn in this month. Social Security is actually two separate programs, Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI), and the much smaller Disability Insurance program (DI). The disability program will be facing a funding shortfall next year, and to ensure that disabled people continue to get all their benefits, Congress would have to move some money from OASI into DI. This isn't anything new -- it's been done many times in recent years.
But House Republicans adopted a parliamentary rule barring the House from allowing that transfer unless it was accompanied by benefit cuts or tax increases. If it can't get worked out, people on DI could see their benefits cut substantially.

So why would Republicans insist on this? My guess is that they think forcing a mini-crisis over the Disability Insurance program's finances will allow for a debate on the program that will make it easier to do what they've wanted to do for a long time: cut it back somehow, either by reducing benefits, increasing the retirement age, or even partially privatizing it. The justification is always that the program is "going broke." But that's just not true.

When people say that, what they're usually referring to is that, according to the projections in the Social Security Trustees' latest report, in 2033 the program's trust fund will be exhausted. But even if there are no changes between now and then, the program would not be "broke." That's because it would still be taking in billions of dollars in taxes every day and paying them out in benefits. Even under this scenario, the program will still pay 77% of recipient's benefits after 2033, according to the report.
Which would be awful. That would be a large reduction in income for millions of seniors. But 77% is not nothing. The people who tell you that the program will be "broke" are hoping that, faced with that (fictional) nightmare, you might be willing to accept steep benefit cuts now.

But we don't have to -- the projected shortfall can be fixed with some very modest changes, like raising the payroll tax cap (right now you only pay payroll taxes on the first $117,000 of your wages, which means that the wealthy actually pay less as a proportion of their income than the rest of us) or gradually raising the payroll tax by a point in tiny increments over an extended period.
The point is, it wouldn't be hard to come up with some combination of changes that could take care of the shortfall without cutting benefits. But for that to happen, both parties would have to agree on that goal. And there's reason to wonder whether Republicans really want a Social Security that's strong and stable.

This was a 2015 article

Programs like Social Security and Medicare -- which provide vital benefits to millions of Americans and are hugely popular -- stand as a living rebuke to conservatives' small-government philosophy. When Republicans tell voters that government can't do anything right, they hope that the voters don't respond, "Well, the government is doing a good job keeping my grandma from having to eat cat food." The idea that the program is perennially in crisis, on the other hand, validates everything else that Republicans say.
Congress will probably work out the issue with Disability Insurance funding, just like they have in the past -- once the GOP starts feeling some political heat over it. But Republicans will be back for another attack on Social Security soon enough.


Opinion: Why is GOP going after Social Security? - CNN

 

[sealybobo]

Amazing a guy who makes $1 million dollars a year only pays ss tax on the first $117,000 he or she makes.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Will Republicans end social security?

Another urban myth created by ignorant Democrats.
View attachment 195112

Is it a myth or are you dumb?



Trump Budget Proposes Cuts From Safety Net He Promised to Protect

Social Security or Social Security Disability Benefits?

He doesn't seem to know the difference, and as usual, doesn't respond to factual replies...only more rhetoric...it is what sealybobo does in the Political forums.

If you think you can count on Social Security to prop up your retirement than the joke may be on you. The news media’s been so busy covering President Trump 24/7 that a really big story slipped through the cracks this summer: Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in by 2021 — just three years from now, and come 2034 or so — just 16 years away — payouts could be slashed by about 23%, unless tough steps are taken to bolster the rickety program.

Warning: Social Security faces a 23% cut

That's right retard. That means when I'm just about ready to retire, my payout may be cut by 23%. Will yours? The only difference between me and you is that you cheered for it to happen. You CHEERED when Trump gave the rich tax breaks they didn't need while cutting your retirement benefits. Why? Because for 40 years they've been telling you not to expect it. It won't be there. Sort of softening the blow. Not that you mind being mule kicked in the face by Republicans. When they do it you blame Democrats.

It's not Soc Sec cuts.... it's Soc Sec DISABILITY cuts....two completely different things.
And again, the Social Sec raise that happened.... was not reversed by two Democrat Presidents and the majority of those years with Democrat majority in the house.