Are Republicans Trying to Destroy Social Security?

[mystery-ak]

March 4, 2023
Are Republicans Trying to Destroy Social Security?
By Brenton Smith

Following his State of the Union Address, President Biden has been on the attack over the GOPs’ many proposals to reform Social Security. Before you react to the talking points, you should ask: Is there any validity to Biden’s concerns?

To even the casual observer, Biden’s apprehensions concerning the GOP’s Social Security reform proposals appear to ignore one basic fact -- and likely the most important one. There is not a Republican plan or even lone Republican member of Congress pushing reductions to benefits on the scale that Social Security is scheduled to reduce checks going to seniors on its own when the trust fund is exhausted.

That is zero.

In its fact sheet, the Biden administration claims that congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried to privatize Social Security. In reality, the last time a Republican put forward a plan to privatize Social Security was more than a decade ago.

The fact is that the last proposal from the GOP scored by the Social Security Administration to overhaul the program’s finances was introduced in the waning weeks of the 114th Congress by a retiring congressman. That was nearly 10 years ago.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/03/are_republicans_trying_to_destroy_social_security.html

[Maj. Bill Martin]

It's not just Biden and the Democrats trying to peddle that lie about Republicans.  It's Trump as well.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It's not just Biden and the Democrats trying to peddle that lie about Republicans.  It's Trump as well.

@Maj. Bill Martin

What the hell are you talking about?  What "lie" is Trump "peddling"?   

Pence has come out in support of cuts to Social Security.  And, DeSantis has a Congressional record of supporting them (the genesis of "wheelchair off a cliff") that he's trying to run from.

Mike Pence breaks with Trump on Medicare and Social Security
NBC News, Feb 22, 2023

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that cuts to Medicare and Social Security should be "on the table for the long term," differentiating himself from former President Donald Trump as he considers a run for the Oval Office.

"We're looking at a debt crisis in this country over the next 25 years that's driven by entitlements, and nobody in Washington, D.C., wants to talk about it," Pence said on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

Trump has long positioned himself as a defender of Medicare and Social Security, and he is doing so again as he seeks a return to the presidency. While his annual budgets included proposals to reduce Medicare spending, they primarily targeted provider payments rather than benefits. His efforts to limit Social Security spending were aimed at cutting disability benefits, not checks for retirees.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/mike-pence-trump-medicare-social-security-rcna71778

DeSantis says GOP will not ‘mess with Social Security,’ as Democrats and Trump slam his past support for privatization
CNN, Mar 2, 2023

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday distanced himself from his past support for privatizing Social Security and raising the retirement age as potential future political foes seize on his previous ideas for the popular retirement program.

“We’re not going to mess with Social Security as Republicans,” DeSantis told Fox News. “I think that that’s pretty clear.”

As a congressman, DeSantis voted for nonbinding budget resolutions that would have made age 70 the new threshold for seniors to collect their federal benefits. A recent CNN KFile review review of DeSantis’ comments during his 2012 congressional campaign found support for privatizing Social Security as well.

DeSantis has largely avoided engaging with Trump and didn’t previously respond to questions about his past positions. His new book, “The Courage to Be Free,” glosses over his early political career and his nearly three terms in Congress, instead focusing largely on the cultural fights that have defined his first term as governor and fueled his ascent in the GOP.

DeSantis’ pivot marks the second time he has appeared to change his position to more closely align with Trump’s. The governor recently voiced opposition to American intervention in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, after repeatedly voicing support in the past for sending “defensive and offensive” weapons to Ukraine to deter Russian aggression.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/02/politics/ron-desantis-social-security-privatization-trump/index.html

[LMAO]

Whether any party or candidate “wants” to touch Social Security and Medicare or  not it’s not going to  matter

Economics and math will force it.

[LMAO]

From the article….

We're looking at a debt crisis in this country over the next 25 years that's driven by entitlements, and nobody in Washington, D.C., wants to talk about it," Pence said on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

Not only do they not want to  talk about it, but we have a republican nominee who would rather demagogue the issue and adopt Democrat talking points

[catfish1957]

This might make many of you hate me, but this ponzi scheme should have never been envisioned in the first place.

And I for one resent the fact so much of my money, plus employer match was put in this farce, that could have been saved and invested in a much more prudent manner.  I once back calucated that if I get an overall 1% return after tax, I'll be lucky.

I saved enough where I don't need it, and when I do get it shortly, it will be a slap that this piddance will be now double taxed, and at its incremental higher  rate on the tax tables.   Many in the day of FDR should have been burned at the stake for duping the public in thinking that good old fashioned hard work, saving, and investing could be subsituted to a socialist system destined to suffer demographic failure. 

It should be destroyed, but a nation now reliant on entitlments, and the cowardly pandering pols will never let that happen.

Yeah, call me cold and heartless, but I don't care.

<Rant Off>

[Smokin Joe]

We can go back and forth on Medicare and Social security, both of which most recipients have paid into, and at this point in the programs, done so for decades.


But the sacred cow blocking the streets, the REAL "entitlement" program out there is Welfare along with Medicaid, in all it forms.

Not a whisper of reducing or modifying that leviathan, or coming up with programs that provide a reasonable transition to work and self-sufficiency (despite the alleged shortage of workers). Instead it's being given to even to illegals, who are becoming our most common import.

Those of us who have paid into Social Security and Medicare for over half a century have supported them, too, with bits of out paychecks, often not being able to afford the very services for ourselves our tax money has bought others who WON'T work.

When you figure out a way to justify that, then you can start talking about Social Security cuts.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Whether any party or candidate “wants” to touch Social Security and Medicare or  not it’s not going to  matter

Economics and math will force it.

The key point from the American Thinker article is this:

To even the casual observer, Biden’s apprehensions concerning the GOP’s Social Security reform proposals appear to ignore one basic fact -- and likely the most important one. There is not a Republican plan or even lone Republican member of Congress pushing reductions to benefits on the scale that Social Security is scheduled to reduce checks going to seniors on its own when the trust fund is exhausted.

The vast majority of the plans/proposals I've seen all talk about future reductions, not shrinking the checks on which many currently-retired seniors now rely.  That's off the table.

So you could limit/reduce future eligibility, raise the cap on Social Security payroll deductions, reduce future COLA, make all or some of the former income-dependent, etc., or any number of things that would help keep the program afloat without pushing seniors off the proverbial cliff in a wheelchair.  But that image is one Democrats - and Trump - like to demagogue against Republicans who are trying to be responsible, and they use it because it is effective politically.

I have nothing but contempt for any of them, because they are going to end up being the reason that drastic changes will have to be made in the future instead of more limited ones now.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We can go back and forth on Medicare and Social security, both of which most recipients have paid into, and at this point in the programs, done so for decades.  But the sacred cow blocking the streets, the REAL "entitlement" program out there is Welfare along with Medicaid, in all it forms.

Social Security is the largest of the entitlement programs.  And as a group, far more is paid out in benefits than was paid into it by those receiving the benefits.  So the "I paid into it" argument is true, but only to the extent you ignore the reality that the amount you are receiving is greater than what you paid in, even adjusting for inflation, investment, etc.

Now, the reality is that the government made that promise, and the people who relied on it for their retirement are now too old to make up for lost income if the "paid in/paid out" was brought more into balance.  So we have to fulfill that promise made to them.   But that does not mean we should continue indefinitely, at current levels, programs that amount to Ponzi schemes that isn't truly self-funded, but only stays afloat because of the Ponzi-aspect of new employees funding retirees.  That is particularly true when the ratio of workers/retirees is far out of whack to what it was when the programs were first enacted.

Not a whisper of reducing or modifying that leviathan, or coming up with programs that provide a reasonable transition to work and self-sufficiency (despite the alleged shortage of workers). Instead it's being given to even to illegals, who are becoming our most common import.

I don't think you're going to find much disagreement here on reducing those programs.  My personal believe is that all of those programs should be funded on the state, not federal, level.  That would end overnight the ability to finance them with deficit spending, and force us to face head on the taxes v. welfare debate.

[Smokin Joe]

Social Security is the largest of the entitlement programs.  And as a group, far more is paid out in benefits than was paid into it by those receiving the benefits.  So the "I paid into it" argument is true, but only to the extent you ignore the reality that the amount you are receiving is greater than what you paid in, even adjusting for inflation, investment, etc.

Now, the reality is that the government made that promise, and the people who relied on it for their retirement are now too old to make up for lost income if the "paid in/paid out" was brought more into balance.  So we have to fulfill that promise made to them.   But that does not mean we should continue indefinitely, at current levels, programs that amount to Ponzi schemes that isn't truly self-funded, but only stays afloat because of the Ponzi-aspect of new employees funding retirees.  That is particularly true when the ratio of workers/retirees is far out of whack to what it was when the programs were first enacted.

Yes, changes will have to be made. It can't continue to accrue new people drawing more than the base of people paying in is paying. Those changes, however, need most to come as you say, on those who are working now, not those who are of 'full retirement age'. I will keep working as long as I am able, simply because that is my only chance to restore the nest egg I had that was shattered. But in just a couple of months, I will be at 'full retirement age'. Pulling the rug out from under a slew of us who have made it this far would be pretty rotten, and ill received at best.
I have been paying into the ponzi scheme since I was 14, and would love to kick back and enjoy a couple of years before I cannot.

I don't think you're going to find much disagreement here on reducing those programs.  My personal believe is that all of those programs should be funded on the state, not federal, level.  That would end overnight the ability to finance them with deficit spending, and force us to face head on the taxes v. welfare debate.

At least funding welfare at state and local levels would increase the chances of the people handing it out knowing what sort of people they were dealing with, and cutting fraud down. When the cart full of steaks at the store will be paid for by EBT while cash customers wince at the price of cheap burger, something is wrong. We have the most obese poor people on the planet. The skinny ones are either paying their own way or on meth.

[Hoodat]

Social Security should be privatized on an individual basis.  Whichever Party does this will reap the rewards for years to come.

[Hoodat]

From the article….

We're looking at a debt crisis in this country over the next 25 years that's driven by entitlements, and nobody in Washington, D.C., wants to talk about it," Pence said on CNBC's "Squawk Box."

Not only do they not want to  talk about it, but we have a republican nominee who would rather demagogue the issue and adopt Democrat talking points

Yep.

[Fishrrman]

LMAO predicts:
"Whether any party or candidate “wants” to touch Social Security and Medicare or  not it’s not going to  matter"
And then adds...
"Economics and math will force it."

You've just shown why reform remains impossible until SS collapses (IF it indeed "collapses"), or is on the precipice of collapse.

So long as it IS NOT, no one is going to do anything to seriously tamper with it.

The retirement age isn't going to be raised further.
Question: in which direction is life expectancy currently trending in the United States?

I can see some slight cuts in benefits, and a modest increase in the payroll tax (upon both employers AND employees). The goal should be to "push insolvancy back" at least another 10-15 years, or more.

I read an interesting comment re SS on another forum several days back.
The poster said that much of the problem with SS is due to "the bulge" created by the Baby Boomers, and that once they had passed from the scene, SS would begin to right itself.

Every time the Pubbies raise this issue, they get stomped in the next election.
Who here remembers the comments about G.W. Bush having "political capital" after the 2004 elections? Who remembers his remarks suggesting SS "reform" in 2005?
Who remembers what happened in the elections of 2006?

A lot of short memories around here.

[Kamaji]

We can go back and forth on Medicare and Social security, both of which most recipients have paid into, and at this point in the programs, done so for decades.


But the sacred cow blocking the streets, the REAL "entitlement" program out there is Welfare along with Medicaid, in all it forms.

Not a whisper of reducing or modifying that leviathan, or coming up with programs that provide a reasonable transition to work and self-sufficiency (despite the alleged shortage of workers). Instead it's being given to even to illegals, who are becoming our most common import.

Those of us who have paid into Social Security and Medicare for over half a century have supported them, too, with bits of out paychecks, often not being able to afford the very services for ourselves our tax money has bought others who WON'T work.

When you figure out a way to justify that, then you can start talking about Social Security cuts.

The recipients didn’t pay into anything other than the general revenues. Read the tax code carefully, and that becomes blatantly obvious.

[Hoodat]

I can see some slight cuts in benefits, and a modest increase in the payroll tax (upon both employers AND employees). The goal should be to "push insolvancy back" at least another 10-15 years, or more.

No.  The goal should be to get rid of insolvency altogether.  Cut government out of the equation.  Privatize it for each individual.

[Fishrrman]

Hoodat wails:
"No.  The goal should be to get rid of insolvency altogether.  Cut government out of the equation.  Privatize it for each individual."

Fishrrman 100% absolutely-fearless prediction:
That isn't going to happen.
Not in your remaining lifetime.
Or long afterwards...

[LMAO]

There is a danger that as Trump and his supporters go left on federal spending, the other GOP candidates could also go left just to appeal to his base of supporters.

If/when that happens, and there's no brakes from either party on spending, we will have to put up with many more years of inflation and crashes

[Kamaji]

There is a danger that as Trump and his supporters go left on federal spending, the other GOP candidates could also go left just to appeal to his base of supporters.

If/when that happens, and there's no brakes from either party on spending, we will have to put up with many more years of inflation and crashes

That's already happened, and not solely because of Trump's malign influence.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

There is a danger that as Trump and his supporters go left on federal spending, the other GOP candidates could also go left just to appeal to his base of supporters.

If/when that happens, and there's no brakes from either party on spending, we will have to put up with many more years of inflation and crashes

I don't trust him in a second term at all.  He's throwing fiscal conservatives under the bus already.