Exclusive — Donald Trump: ‘I Will Never Do Anything that Will Jeopardize or Hurt Social Security or

[mystery-ak]

Exclusive — Donald Trump: ‘I Will Never Do Anything that Will Jeopardize or Hurt Social Security or Medicare’

Matthew Boyle and Alexander Marlow 14 Mar 2024 Palm Beach, FL

PALM BEACH, Florida — Former President Donald Trump told Breitbart News exclusively on Wednesday evening that he will never touch Social Security or Medicare.

Asked during a 90-minute exclusive interview — his first print interview since locking down the Republican nomination for president for a third straight election — about cutting government waste, Trump pledged to never do anything to cut Social Security or Medicare.

“I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare,” Trump said. “We’ll have to do it elsewhere. But we’re not going to do anything to hurt them.”

Trump’s general election opponent, Democrat President Joe Biden, has in recent days attacked Trump after a CNBC interview in which Trump was talking about cutting waste and fraud in government spending. Biden has twisted quotes from Trump to make it appear as though Trump supported cutting the retirement programs that Americans have come to depend on when they enter later stages of life.

But Donald Trump, in his interview with Breitbart News at Mar-a-Lago on Wednesday evening, made clear he will never touch Social Security or Medicare.

“There’s so many things we can do,” Trump said. “There’s so much cutting and so much waste in so many other areas, but I’ll never do anything to hurt Social Security.”

In his CNBC interview this week, Trump had said, when asked about entitlement reforms, that he supports cutting waste and fraud — but he also made clear in that interview that he opposes cuts to Social Security and Medicare and that it is Biden and Democrats who represent a threat to these critical programs.

“So, first of all, there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting,” Trump told CNBC. “And in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements – tremendous bad management of entitlements – there’s tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do.”

Trump added in his CNBC interview that Democrat and Biden policies “end up weakening Social Security because the country is weak. I mean, take a look at outside of the stock market … We’re going through hell. People are going through hell.”

Biden twisted what Trump said to attack him and claim that Trump supports cutting Social Security. Biden’s campaign tweeted a clip, which cuts off part of the Trump quote, falsely claiming that Trump said in Biden’s campaign’s words that there “is a lot you can do in terms of cutting Social Security and Medicare.” Trump never said that, but nonetheless the Biden campaign ran with t

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/14/donald-trump-i-will-never-do-anything-jeopardize-hurt-social-security-medicare/

[LMAO]

Cutting fraud and waste in these programs will not make them sustainable

Plus, his other spending wishes are already a threat

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Well, Trump himself said he didn't believe that when DeSantis and others said the same thing, so why should anyone believe Trump now?

[cato potatoe]

This is not an option.  Social Security has to be “touched” because the trust fund will soon be depleted.  Make a proposal and stand by it.

[DefiantMassRINO]

No, Tangerine Mussolini will leave it to someone else to jeopardize or hurt Social Security.

[Hoodat]

'Doing nothing' jeopardizes Social Security.  And everything else.

[DB]

Only after the lie serves it purpose will he deny the lie.

I have a deep distain of people who operate that way to get ahead.

[The_Reader_David]

This is not an option.  Social Security has to be “touched” because the trust fund will soon be depleted.  Make a proposal and stand by it.

The "trust fund" is a myth.  Social Security has been funded from the general budget for years.  It simply provides an excuse for another tax on working peoples' earnings (though payment of this tax is tied to how much the person will receive in benefits).

The only fix is to gradually push the normal retirement age to where it was relative to life-span when the program was instituted:  when SS started the average life expectancy was 64, and benefits started at 65.  Doing this to people near current retirement age is a non-starter as it fails to keep faith with people who planned according to the current rules, but for people who are entering the workforce now, 77 should be normal retirement age for SS purposes.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Social Security is an demographically and actuarially unsustainable Ponzi scheme built upon generations of I.O.U.'s.

Dems will be coming for our 401-K's, our IRA's, and all private wealth actually.

[Fishrrman]

Cato cuts the potatoe with:
"This is not an option.  Social Security has to be “touched” because the trust fund will soon be depleted.  Make a proposal and stand by it."

You really want to lose... don't you?
Because this is HOW you lose.
The politicians will disband the military before they abolish Social Security.

Re David's proposal for a 77-year-old retirement age:
Pardon my poor English...
This is a joke, right...?
Oh, ok, now I get it...
Good joke...!

EDIT:
Gentlemen, there is a concept called "realpolitik".
Ever heard of it...?

[DB]

Cato cuts the potatoe with:
"This is not an option.  Social Security has to be “touched” because the trust fund will soon be depleted.  Make a proposal and stand by it."

You really want to lose... don't you?
Because this is HOW you lose.
The politicians will disband the military before they abolish Social Security.

Re David's proposal for a 77-year-old retirement age:
Pardon my poor English...
This is a joke, right...?
Oh, ok, now I get it...
Good joke...!

EDIT:
Gentlemen, there is a concept called "realpolitik".
Ever heard of it...?

There's also a thing called reality. In time, it always "wins".

[LMAO]

There's also a thing called reality. In time, it always "wins".

Yep

You can’t defeat math. You may be able to temporarily vote against it. But the law of economics and mathematics can’t be avoided

[Hoodat]

Social Security has to be “touched” because the trust fund will soon be depleted.

There is no 'trust fund'.  Never was.

Make a proposal and stand by it.

Exactly.  To his credit, Bush did that in 2006.  And the GOP Congress stabbed him in the back just before the voters voted them out for doing it.

[cato potatoe]

You really want to lose... don't you?
Because this is HOW you lose.
The politicians will disband the military before they abolish Social Security.

What are we supposed to win?  The program is running an enormous deficit, and will face a funding crisis in 2033 when the last of its treasury bonds are redeemed.  The democrats want an additional 12.4% tax on the high salaried and self employed, and that will turn us into a looter’s paradise.  Either the republicans come up with another solution or they are not worth supporting. 

[Fishrrman]

DB wrote:
"There's also a thing called reality. In time, it always "wins"."

Then you must have read "Fishrrman's credo", which I've been posting to this forum now and then for many years:
Reality is what it is.
It is not what we believe it to be.

I sense that "the reality" here is that no one who has the power to do so, will fix Social Security until it has actually "broken".
Why not?
Realpolitik.
Or in other words, no one will "touch the third rail" until the power is known to have been shut off.

[jmyrlefuller]

The "trust fund" is a myth.  Social Security has been funded from the general budget for years.  It simply provides an excuse for another tax on working peoples' earnings (though payment of this tax is tied to how much the person will receive in benefits).

It's actually backward. The trust fund has been funding the general budget for decades now, through the use of intergovernment bonds and loans. To the extent that the general fund is funding Social Security, it's through interest on the debt.

The only fix is to gradually push the normal retirement age to where it was relative to life-span when the program was instituted:  when SS started the average life expectancy was 64, and benefits started at 65.  Doing this to people near current retirement age is a non-starter as it fails to keep faith with people who planned according to the current rules, but for people who are entering the workforce now, 77 should be normal retirement age for SS purposes.

Here's the problem with that idea, though: Social Security was also conceived in 1935, when, even though the birth rate was low by the standards of the day, it was still 40% higher than it is today... and by the time of the baby boom in the 1940s and into the 1950s, there were enough children being born (and, with most childhood diseases that might kill such children being neutralized with antibiotics and vaccines) that, by the time those kids hit their peak earning years in the 1990s, THAT'S what drove the big surplus. It was a baby boomer bubble—and now, as virtually everyone warned at the time, that bubble has burst.

"Average life expectancy" is based on overall rate of death. Historically, a whole lot of children died before they ever reached the workforce or paid a dime into the system. An adult who reached working age could expect to survive several years beyond the "average life expectancy." As noted before, though, with the baby boom and antibiotics, vaccines, etc., children stopped dying. In other words, no, that "average life expectancy" didn't mean most Americans died before they could retire; most who made it to adulthood did see some degree of payout.

I suppose you COULD raise the age so that the average American will die before ever seeing a dime from the system... but if that's your plan, you might as well ditch the system outright.

I still say strict penalties on those who refused to have children is part of the long term solution.

[berdie]

The "trust fund" is a myth.  Social Security has been funded from the general budget for years.  It simply provides an excuse for another tax on working peoples' earnings (though payment of this tax is tied to how much the person will receive in benefits).

The only fix is to gradually push the normal retirement age to where it was relative to life-span when the program was instituted:  when SS started the average life expectancy was 64, and benefits started at 65.  Doing this to people near current retirement age is a non-starter as it fails to keep faith with people who planned according to the current rules, but for people who are entering the workforce now, 77 should be normal retirement age for SS purposes.

A full retirement age of 77 might work for some professionals. If one sits behind a computer.

But what about the workers we need? Such as plumbers, HVAC, electricians and many others that I could list that actually use their bodies. I could go on and on. They won't last until 77 imho. Heck, lasting to 65 is a stretch for these folks that expend their bodies to keep us cool, warm, have water and lights that work. Or empty the trash and repair and install appliances.

So, sorry, I can't agree. 77 is too old.

[berdie]

It's actually backward. The trust fund has been funding the general budget for decades now, through the use of intergovernment bonds and loans. To the extent that the general fund is funding Social Security, it's through interest on the debt.
 Here's the problem with that idea, though: Social Security was also conceived in 1935, when, even though the birth rate was low by the standards of the day, it was still 40% higher than it is today... and by the time of the baby boom in the 1940s and into the 1950s, there were enough children being born (and, with most childhood diseases that might kill such children being neutralized with antibiotics and vaccines) that, by the time those kids hit their peak earning years in the 1990s, THAT'S what drove the big surplus. It was a baby boomer bubble—and now, as virtually everyone warned at the time, that bubble has burst.

"Average life expectancy" is based on overall rate of death. Historically, a whole lot of children died before they ever reached the workforce or paid a dime into the system. An adult who reached working age could expect to survive several years beyond the "average life expectancy." As noted before, though, with the baby boom and antibiotics, vaccines, etc., children stopped dying. In other words, no, that "average life expectancy" didn't mean most Americans died before they could retire; most who made it to adulthood did see some degree of payout.

I suppose you COULD raise the age so that the average American will die before ever seeing a dime from the system... but if that's your plan, you might as well ditch the system outright.

I still say strict penalties on those who refused to have children is part of the long term solution.

Not everyone can have children.

[LMAO]

Changes are coming to these programs whether politicians like it or not

Kicking the can down the road until it becomes a major economic and fiscal crisis is not acceptable

[Hoodat]

It's actually backward. The trust fund has been funding the general budget for decades now, through the use of intergovernment bonds and loans. To the extent that the general fund is funding Social Security, it's through interest on the debt.

Uh, no.  Again, there never was a trust fund.  There was only a stack of self-written IOUs.  It would be like you being handed $10 to hold onto for someone else.  Except instead of holding it, you spend it, and then write down on a piece of paper that you owe yourself $10, sticking that piece of paper into your pocket, and then calling your pocket a 'trust fund'.

So it isn't a trust fund that has been funding the general budget.  It is taxes that have been funding most of the general budget, with money borrowed from outside of government, and since 2009 freshly printed money making up the rest.

This whole bullshit of the Social Security Administration lending that money to the other departments with the promise that those departments (who generate no income) would pay them back later, is just that - bullshit.  It's no different from you taking $10 from your kid's college fund and promising him that you would pay it back years later even though you are in a permanent state of unemployment with zero ability to generate income.

I still say strict penalties on those who refused to have children is part of the long term solution.

There is but one solution.  Just one.  And that solution is:

GET GOVERNMENT THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY !!


If you want to fix Social Security, then do that.  If you want to mandate that people put 14% of their income away for retirement, then do so.  But the money should go towards their retirement in an actual investment fund that holds value.  Under no circumstance should it go to fund a government $30+ trillion in debt that won't invest a dime of that money but will spend it the second it receives it.

[LMAO]

There will be some privatization of Social Security somewhere down the road. It’s not a matter of if, but when

[jmyrlefuller]

Uh, no.  Again, there never was a trust fund.  There was only a stack of self-written IOUs.  It would be like you being handed $10 to hold onto for someone else.  Except instead of holding it, you spend it, and then write down on a piece of paper that you owe yourself $10, sticking that piece of paper into your pocket, and then calling your pocket a 'trust fund'.

If there's no trust fund, why does everyone keep getting their checks when the government shuts down?

If you want to fix Social Security, then do that.  If you want to mandate that people put 14% of their income away for retirement, then do so.  But the money should go towards their retirement in an actual investment fund that holds value.  Under no circumstance should it go to fund a government $30+ trillion in debt that won't invest a dime of that money but will spend it the second it receives it.

That's Obamacare-style retirement, a disaster waiting to happen. "Oh, we won't actually pay for this service, but we'll mandate that you do." That might be worse than taxation. "You must buy this approved financial instrument."

Look. In the grand scheme of things, virtually nothing in our financial system holds real value. Cash, stocks, etc. The dollar disappears, and all that stuff is worthless unless it's physically tangible.

[Hoodat]

If there's no trust fund, why does everyone keep getting their checks when the government shuts down?

That's Obamacare-style retirement, a disaster waiting to happen.

Nonsense.

"Oh, we won't actually pay for this service, but we'll mandate that you do." That might be worse than taxation. "You must buy this approved financial instrument."

As opposed to "You must give the government 14% of your income and get nothing for it"?  I will take Option 2, please.  Instead of government confiscating that 14%, I get to put it in a 401(k) instead?  And then when I die, my family will get to keep what is left?  Sign me up! 

(Not sure where Obama came into that discussion, but he is vehemently opposed to giving the people an Option 2.  In essence, you and Obama are on the same side in that regard.)

Look. In the grand scheme of things, virtually nothing in our financial system holds real value. Cash, stocks, etc. The dollar disappears, and all that stuff is worthless unless it's physically tangible.

You clearly know nothing about wealth.  If the dollar disappears, then it is the dollar that becomes worthless, not the stocks.  There are a finite number of shares of Chevron, for example.  With a fixed supply, the value of those stocks is based solely on demand.  And demand comes from the amount of income or wealth that company generates.  That will be true either with or without a dollar.  So if the value of the dollar falls by 99%, the value of Chevron stock will remain unchanged.  Its just that if you want to buy a share with dollars, you will have to come up with 100 times more dollars than before.

[jmyrlefuller]

Nonsense.

As opposed to "You must give the government 14% of your income and get nothing for it"?  I will take Option 2, please.  Instead of government confiscating that 14%, I get to put it in a 401(k) instead?

You don't seem to get it. They're still confiscating that 14%, they're just handing it to a crony company to prop up their stock price. 

And then when I die, my family will get to keep what is left?  Sign me up!

Well, that makes sense. You want to give your children unearned, untaxed income. In other words, spoiling and corrupting them into little Donald Trumps. 

(Not sure where Obama came into that discussion, but he is vehemently opposed to giving the people an Option 2.  In essence, you and Obama are on the same side in that regard.)

Do you seriously not remember Obamacare? It was only a decade ago now. You were ordered to buy a government approved health insurance plan — or pay a penalty and get nothing. Your proposed mandatory retirement account would follow the same system.

You clearly know nothing about wealth.  If the dollar disappears, then it is the dollar that becomes worthless, not the stocks.  There are a finite number of shares of Chevron, for example.  With a fixed supply, the value of those stocks is based solely on demand.  And demand comes from the amount of income or wealth that company generates.  That will be true either with or without a dollar.  So if the value of the dollar falls by 99%, the value of Chevron stock will remain unchanged.  Its just that if you want to buy a share with dollars, you will have to come up with 100 times more dollars than before.

The dollar is fiat. Its intrinsic value is zero. We just pretend it has value so that people can use it to buy life's necessities.

[jmyrlefuller]

Uh, no.  Again, there never was a trust fund.  There was only a stack of self-written IOUs.  It would be like you being handed $10 to hold onto for someone else.  Except instead of holding it, you spend it, and then write down on a piece of paper that you owe yourself $10, sticking that piece of paper into your pocket, and then calling your pocket a 'trust fund'.

So those taxes we pay out of our paycheck for our entire working lives specifically to that trust fund... we were just writing IOUs the whole time?