Trump says reforming Social Security and Medicare is 'the easiest of all things' as he appears open

[libertybele]

Trump says reforming Social Security and Medicare is 'the easiest of all things' as he appears open to cutting entitlement spending

President Donald Trump left the door open to overhauling Social Security and Medicare in a CNBC interview on Wednesday, calling any attempt to rein in entitlement spending "the easiest of all things."

Trump is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and he's touted a message of economic resurgence at the elite gathering of wealthy investors, business titans, and academics.

In the interview, the president said entitlement reform could happen at the "right" moment and appeared to credit the strength of the US economy for providing momentum to shrink spending on two of the nation's biggest government programs.

"At the right time, we will take a look at that. You know, that's actually the easiest of all things, if you look," he told CNBC's Joe Kernen.

Trump added: "We also have assets that we've never had. I mean, we've never had growth like this."

Trump's CNBC interview, however, provided few details and little clarity on what shape entitlement reforms could take. While it's proved resilient, the US economy is far from the best it's ever been, despite Trump's claims on Wednesday.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere defended the administration's position on entitlements, saying, "With no benefit cuts, President Trump is keeping his commitment to the most vulnerable Americans especially those who depend on Medicare and Social Security."..................

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-reforming-social-security-190352318.html

[Chosen Daughter]

Please no.  I don't trust Donald Trump to do that.

[Hoodat]

If Republicans had voted to do this in 2006, they never would have lost Congress or the White House.

[Chosen Daughter]

If Republicans had voted to do this in 2006, they never would have lost Congress or the White House.

Yeah, I want Donald Trump to cut my Social Security so he can pay off all the debt he signed up for.  Give mine to someone else who doesn't want to pay to have their own child.  Ivanka Trump Socialism paid family leave.  Billions.

[Hoodat]

Yeah, I want Donald Trump to cut my Social Security .  .  .

To hell with your entitlement.

Give mine to someone else

'Yours' comes from me.  I'm the one who pays it.

[Chosen Daughter]

To hell with your entitlement.


'Yours' comes from me.  I'm the one who pays it.

I've been paying into that all my working life.  Don't give me your BS.  I sacrificed to raise my own children too without the help of family leave.

[Hoodat]

I've been paying into that all my working life.

No you haven't.  You've been paying into the general fund your entire life.  There is no 'Social Security Fund'.  It's an entitlement just like AFDC, Food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

[Chosen Daughter]

No you haven't.  You've been paying into the general fund your entire life.  There is no 'Social Security Fund'.  It's an entitlement just like AFDC, Food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

General fund?  I am paying to secure Social Security.  As of 2019 it was 6.2% of my pay.  I will be lucky to use what I paid in before I die.  Since they keep raising the retirement age.  I work hard.  Physical labor,  not like the politicians in Washington D.C who get paid to do nothing.  (oh, sorry.  Probably you.)

https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/social-security-faqs/

[Hoodat]

General fund?  I am paying to secure Social Security.  As of 2019 it was 6.2% of my pay.

It's 12.4% of your pay.  Every bit of it goes into the general fund.  There is no trust fund.  Whether or not you ever get to collect is wholly at the discretion of government, just like AFDC, food stamps, etc.

[Chosen Daughter]

It's 12.4% of your pay.  Every bit of it goes into the general fund.  There is no trust fund.  Whether or not you ever get to collect is wholly at the discretion of government, just like AFDC, food stamps, etc.

Well I guess you proved my point that it isn't an entitlement.  I have given 12.4% to secure that money upon retirement based on my salary from the highest wage earning years.  It isn't your money and you don't give it to me.  Just because government thinks that they can borrow against it doesn't mean it is theirs.

Some people call it entitlement or a form of Socialism.  Ivanka Trumps family leave is socialism.  If people were to give into a "fund" like Social Security at 12.4% they might be able to take 8 weeks off to have a baby or care for a family member.  Otherwise everyone else is paying for them with the other portion of their salary they pay into Federal taxes.

See the difference?  One gets something for nothing paid for by everyone.  (socialism)  The other people collect at retirement after paying in during their life long work.

[Victoria33]

@Chosen Daughter

Remember I am old - many years ago, there was a Social Security Fund your money went into.  Then, and I would have to look up the year, the government took the money and spent it.  Now, there is no Social Security Fund with big money in it.  The money you pay goes in and gets spent to pay those on SS now.  When you retire, people paying in then will go to you.  The caveat to this is, at some point, there will be more on SS than are paying into it.  That is when it collapses.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Chosen Daughter

Remember I am old - many years ago, there was a Social Security Fund your money went into.  Then, and I would have to look up the year, the government took the money and spent it.  Now, there is no Social Security Fund with big money in it.  The money you pay goes in and gets spent to pay those on SS now.  When you retire, people paying in then will go to you.  The caveat to this is, at some point, there will be more on SS than are paying into it.  That is when it collapses.

Social Security trust funds were moved to the government's general funds by Lyndon Johnson in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam War. They've remained there ever since.   

By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 79% of program obligations. 

[Night Hides Not]

Please no.  I don't trust Donald Trump to do that.

For me, it's simpler and more correct to say "I don't trust Donald Trump."

He'll change his tune tomorrow. After all, didn't he say he'd eliminate the debt in 8 years, because he's the "King of Debt", i.e. he's the expert on creating, and by extension eliminating debt.

He simply raised this issue to distract from the impeachment hearings, which IMO was unnecessary. From what I've seen, no one outside of DC and cable news gives a rat's arse about it.

[libertybele]

Social Security trust funds were moved to the government's general funds by Lyndon Johnson in 1968 to help pay for the Vietnam War. They've remained there ever since.   

By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 79% of program obligations.

Another 14 years.  Joy!  We're retired, we've saved and have some other income other than SS, but when the time comes for cuts, we and a lot of others are going to feel it.

Good ole LBJ.  He's did more to destroy this country than any other president, incl. Bammy.

[libertybele]

Well I guess you proved my point that it isn't an entitlement.  I have given 12.4% to secure that money upon retirement based on my salary from the highest wage earning years.  It isn't your money and you don't give it to me.  Just because government thinks that they can borrow against it doesn't mean it is theirs.

Some people call it entitlement or a form of Socialism.  Ivanka Trumps family leave is socialism.  If people were to give into a "fund" like Social Security at 12.4% they might be able to take 8 weeks off to have a baby or care for a family member.  Otherwise everyone else is paying for them with the other portion of their salary they pay into Federal taxes.

See the difference?  One gets something for nothing paid for by everyone.  (socialism)  The other people collect at retirement after paying in during their life long work.

You are absolutely correct. SS is NOT an entitlement.  It is something that is mandated by Uncle Sam that you pay into.  However there are arguments on both sides. Some state that over the average person's working lifetime, they will pay into social security more than they receive and on the flip side the government claims that the average person receives more in social security once they retire than they've paid into.  I tend to believe that the average person pays more into social security than they receive.

The push now is for people to work to age 70 to receive a bigger benefit --- if that person only lives to 75 or 80, I find it very difficult to believe that they will receive more over that 5-10 year period than what they paid into all their working lives.  Secondly, if social security is only going to be able to pay a percentage of what they normally would pay out by 2034, then what's the point of working additional years?  Sure, the cut will be less to them, but they're are still paying into it for appx. another 5 years at age 70.

The problem are the illegals collecting that shouldn't, fraudulent disability claims and those who receive $$ who have never paid into the system.  The will also probably be determined to be the most needy and won't see a cut.  Just my opinion.

I feel like we've paid into the system all our working lives, we've saved in IRA's, 401k's and other savings accounts -- why in the heck are we going to see a cut in SS??  We will see a cut because of those that haven't paid into the system, nor have saved.

[Wingnut]

Anyone who thought or assumed they could retire on SS income alone is or was a moron.   
Retirement is a three-legged stool.
The three-leggeed stool is/was a metaphor for how the post-World War II generation looked at planning for retirement. The three legs represent an employer pension, employee savings, and Social Security. You need each one to build a strong retirement foundation. Without one, the three-legged stool would not function.

Granted today's stool probably still has three legs, but they would probably look more like a large column with two small kickstands.

Still, living for today will make you poor in your old age.   Blame yourself for poor choices.  It's not like we haven't known SS was a ponsi scheme since before that ass hole algore talked about a "lock box"

[libertybele]

Anyone who thought or assumed they could retire on SS income alone is or was a moron.   
Retirement is a three-legged stool.
The three-leggeed stool is/was a metaphor for how the post-World War II generation looked at planning for retirement. The three legs represent an employer pension, employee savings, and Social Security. You need each one to build a strong retirement foundation. Without one, the three-legged stool would not function.

Granted today's stool probably still has three legs, but they would probably look more like a large column with two small kickstands.

Still, living for today will make you poor in your old age.   Blame yourself for poor choices.  It's not like we haven't known SS was a ponsi scheme since before that ass hole algore talked about a "lock box"

Obviously you can't retire on social security alone.  The fact still remains that we are mandated to pay social security -- it's not even an option, it is of course taken directly out of our paychecks.

Again the problem arises from those getting $$ that have NEVER paid into the system. Yet, those who saved and who paid into the system are the ones that are going to see reduced benefits. 

Ponzi scheme or not -- it is OUR money, NOT an entitlement!

[Wingnut]

Again the problem arises from those getting $$ that have NEVER paid into the system. Yet, those who saved and who paid into the system are the ones that are going to see reduced benefits. 

Ponzi scheme or not -- it is OUR money, NOT an entitlement!

Thems are the breaks sometimes. But the people receiving the reduded bennies will all be on an equal field and should plan for it.  The best way to game the SS system is to live a long life and collect way more than you payed in without outliving your other savings that is. Take the money from the poor slobs who croaked before ever collecting a dime.  Actuarial science 101.

If my genes hold true to family history I should live tobe 93-95.  That is about when I will deplete my 401k and savings.  But hey, by then who cares.  I'll be sitting in a home with a droll cup and driving the nurses crazy.

[libertybele]

Thems are the breaks sometimes. But the people receiving the reduded bennies will all be on an equal field and should plan for it.  The best way to game the SS system is to live a long life and collect way more than you payed in without outliving your other savings that is. Take the money from the poor slobs who croaked before ever collecting a dime.  Actuarial science 101.

If my genes hold true to family history I should live tobe 93-95.  That is about when I will deplete my 401k and savings.  But hey, by then who cares.  I'll be sitting in a home with a droll cup and driving the nurses crazy.

  I have no doubts.

Longevity is only on one side of the family ... so I took my SS early ... 3 stents and a blocked artery that they can't do anything about because of other health issues -- I decided to collect while I'm still breathing.

[truth_seeker]

If I followed this "discussion," Social Security is Trump's fault, because his daughter Ivanka proposed family leave?

And it is Trump's fault, that Johnson tapped SS funds, making them NOT "Secure?

Since inception people have bitched, and politicians promised reforms.

GWBush tried, but was shot down fast.

Virtually ALL advanced nations have old age pension schemes.

If for every subject that comes up, you blame Trump for your dislike of the situation, yu are helping to illustrate TDS.

With an extra dose of scattered brains.

[Jazzhead]

Actually, as academic matter, it is very easy to fix these entitlements.  What's difficult is mustering the political will.   

[Jazzhead]

No you haven't.  You've been paying into the general fund your entire life.  There is no 'Social Security Fund'.  It's an entitlement just like AFDC, Food stamps, Medicaid, etc.

Correct. 

[roamer_1]

You are absolutely correct. SS is NOT an entitlement.  It is something that is mandated by Uncle Sam that you pay into.  However there are arguments on both sides. Some state that over the average person's working lifetime, they will pay into social security more than they receive and on the flip side the government claims that the average person receives more in social security once they retire than they've paid into.  I tend to believe that the average person pays more into social security than they receive.

That is probably true. But only if stuffed in a mattress. Calculated against principal and interest across a lifetime, as anyone with a lick of sense would enable, the numbers are entirely different.

[roamer_1]

Again the problem arises from those getting $$ that have NEVER paid into the system. Yet, those who saved and who paid into the system are the ones that are going to see reduced benefits. 

There is a third category that is always forgotten - Those who have paid their whole lives that die before collecting their retirement... And there is where the bucks are at.

Even those that do. Most men (who are still the ones likely to be bringing home the real bacon), especially those who make good money, are in dangerous and unhealthy environments, and tend to leave the planet early... If they can't collect till 65, and kick the bucket in the late 60s or early 70s (which many, many do)...

[Hoodat]

Ponzi scheme or not -- it is OUR money, NOT an entitlement!

It WAS your money.  It stopped being your money the moment your government seized it and then handed to someone else.  And any 'future obligation' to pay out money to you (money seized directly from someone else) can be eliminated with a simple majority vote.