The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: libertybele on January 23, 2020, 02:28:02 am
-
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 (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-reforming-social-security-190352318.html)
-
Please no. I don't trust Donald Trump to do that.
-
If Republicans had voted to do this in 2006, they never would have lost Congress or the White House.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/ (https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/social-security-faqs/)
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. 9999hair out0000
-
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"
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
:rolling: 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.
-
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.
-
Actually, as academic matter, it is very easy to fix these entitlements. What's difficult is mustering the political will.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)...
-
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.
-
Trump is an idiot. He has said all along he would not touch Social Security. In an election year, expressing the desire to FIX Social Security and Medicare is a guarantee for him not being elected.
Seniors are the ones that vote, and he better retract these comments or he is kaput.
And the fact is, many people in America are living on the minimum payout of Social Security. I have known a number of folks doing so, and living to an old age by the way.
When Social Security was started in the mid 30s, life expectancy was 59, and they based the age 65 on the German Railroad Retirement Program. So, the average person was dead before being able to collect a dime. Now, the average person is living to be 78, and we have lowered the age to collect to 62(although a reduced amount).
The time has come to end the early ability to collect Social Security. Presently, it is age 67 to collect full SS. I say push that back to age 70, and open up the ability to fund individual accounts.
Trump with his big mouth better zip it on Social Security and Medicare.
And frankly, I bitterly resent the fact that refugees that never paid a dime into the system receive a greater sum than folks that paid into Social Security all their lives. Just plain wrong. Again, I am tired of Washington and their endless ability to ignore the American people.
-
Please no. I don't trust Donald Trump to do that.
Soooo... do you trust Pelosi? I do trust Donald Trump on this. He's been right on nearly everything. The democrats have jumped on this like vultures on a carcass. But he will do it without harming current recipients and being fair to future recipients.
-
Trump is an idiot. He has said all along he would not touch Social Security. In an election year, expressing the desire to FIX Social Security and Medicare is a guarantee for him not being elected.
Seniors are the ones that vote, and he better retract these comments or he is kaput.
And the fact is, many people in America are living on the minimum payout of Social Security. I have known a number of folks doing so, and living to an old age by the way.
When Social Security was started in the mid 30s, life expectancy was 59, and they based the age 65 on the German Railroad Retirement Program. So, the average person was dead before being able to collect a dime. Now, the average person is living to be 78, and we have lowered the age to collect to 62(although a reduced amount).
The time has come to end the early ability to collect Social Security. Presently, it is age 67 to collect full SS. I say push that back to age 70, and open up the ability to fund individual accounts.
Trump with his big mouth better zip it on Social Security and Medicare.
And frankly, I bitterly resent the fact that refugees that never paid a dime into the system receive a greater sum than folks that paid into Social Security all their lives. Just plain wrong. Again, I am tired of Washington and their endless ability to ignore the American people.
I couldn't agree more and Trump stating this during an election year isn't going to win over more voters; in fact he's likely to lose quite a few. Trump is very good with the economic side of things -- surely he can come up with a way to keep SS solvent. First order of business -- NO SS for illegal, refugees, etc. That is a no brainer.
-
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!
I agree with all you say. :laugh: If the government wanted more tax money they should have just said that....not sold it as a "retirement supplement". When sold in that way, it's not an entitlement.
And I'm real sorry about the younger people that are "paying" for this. That was the deal when I went to work. So call your representative and botch them out. I wasn't even a glimmer when this started out..won't take the blame...just want my money out. And so will they when the time comes.
-
Upon reading the article from leftist yahoo, I see no statement that Trump intends cutting any benefits.
Futher I see no other specifics.
It is an fake news, article designed to negatively depect the Presidents intention.
As usual the gullible TDS #nevertrump faction posts the article, then uses it as their basis for their daily rantings.
-
Upon reading the article from leftist yahoo, I see no statement that Trump intends cutting any benefits.
Futher I see no other specifics.
It is an fake news, article designed to negatively depect the Presidents intention.
As usual the gullible TDS #nevertrump faction posts the article, then uses it as their basis for their daily rantings.
Really??? I posted it to 'discuss' --- I didn't see it as a one of Trump's wisest decisions -- even at that, like I stated previously, Trump is great on economic issues -- I think he'd be able to come up with a way to keep SS solvent. If that sounds like I'm part of the TDS #nevertrump faction -- so be it.
-
RinVa wrote:
"By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 79% of program obligations."
2034?
That's a good ways' off yet. A lifetime in politics. Don't worry me one little bit.
79% of obligations?
That number is really pretty GOOD, considering how much debt OTHER federal programs rack up.
When it gets to that point, something can get worked out to "close the remaining 21%".
-
IMHO, it's just red meat for consumption by the base. I agree with the other Briefers, even he is not stupid enough to touch this, particularly during an election year.
-
By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted.
There is no trust fund. 100% of current 'obligations' are met by taking money away from someone else.
-
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. 9999hair out0000
9999hair out0000
Cut payments to illegal immigrants yes, but leave my SS alone.
-
Trump is an idiot. He has said all along he would not touch Social Security. In an election year, expressing the desire to FIX Social Security and Medicare is a guarantee for him not being elected.
Seniors are the ones that vote, and he better retract these comments or he is kaput.
And the fact is, many people in America are living on the minimum payout of Social Security. I have known a number of folks doing so, and living to an old age by the way.
When Social Security was started in the mid 30s, life expectancy was 59, and they based the age 65 on the German Railroad Retirement Program. So, the average person was dead before being able to collect a dime. Now, the average person is living to be 78, and we have lowered the age to collect to 62(although a reduced amount).
The time has come to end the early ability to collect Social Security. Presently, it is age 67 to collect full SS. I say push that back to age 70, and open up the ability to fund individual accounts.
Trump with his big mouth better zip it on Social Security and Medicare.
And frankly, I bitterly resent the fact that refugees that never paid a dime into the system receive a greater sum than folks that paid into Social Security all their lives. Just plain wrong. Again, I am tired of Washington and their endless ability to ignore the American people.
I read he is walking it back now.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-tries-to-walk-back-entitlement-comments-as-democrats-pounce/ar-BBZgTTw?ocid=spartanntp (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-tries-to-walk-back-entitlement-comments-as-democrats-pounce/ar-BBZgTTw?ocid=spartanntp)
-
Bookmark.
-
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.
The full extent of Lyndon Johnson's harm to the country may never be known. We have not had a decent Democrat president since Truman. Obama may have been the worst after LBJ.
Some of the posters here are so irritating. Every time I come back for a visit, I get riled up. Especially the old women. With the harm the democrat party is attempting right now; with the total move to socialism of that party, I cannot even imagine whining about anything Donald Trump does. Trump has actually been a great President and I honestly think he was chosen by God.
And, back to the subject, I do trust Donald J. Trump to find an equitable solution to the SS problem. Everybody had better pray that he's re-elected. I shudder to think what would happen if any of the current crop of democrats were elected.
-
Yet another instance of Fake news,, p3ddled by Trumps opponents.
MSN. Shumer.
Read thelinked article for yourself.
-
Come on,
Trump is not cutting Social Security.
About half of Oregon is on some kind of a free ride for illegals.
Free, Free, Free
They even raised our heating bill and gave the money to liberal illegals.
-
The full extent of Lyndon Johnson's harm to the country may never be known. We have not had a decent Democrat president since Truman. Obama may have been the worst after LBJ.
Some of the posters here are so irritating. Every time I come back for a visit, I get riled up. Especially the old women. With the harm the democrat party is attempting right now; with the total move to socialism of that party, I cannot even imagine whining about anything Donald Trump does. Trump has actually been a great President and I honestly think he was chosen by God.
And, back to the subject, I do trust Donald J. Trump to find an equitable solution to the SS problem. Everybody had better pray that he's re-elected. I shudder to think what would happen if any of the current crop of democrats were elected.
I just saw that Caro is publishing another biography on LBJ this year. I think it’s due out in Spring?
-
Emjay...And, back to the subject, I do trust Donald J. Trump to find an equitable solution to the SS problem. Everybody had better pray that he's re-elected. I shudder to think what would happen if any of the current crop of democrats were elected.
He will not be re-elected if he continues speaking any smack on Social Security or Medicare. Foolish. I am sure his handlers cringed big time.
And Emjay, trust him at your peril. To assume he would not cut Social Security is foolish. I can easily see cuts being part of the solution. What burns me, is that he has spoken in the past of increasing payouts for Social Security. He is giving the Dems ammo as a flip flopper on this and you can bet they will use this in ads in the general election. I can hear it now....Trump has vowed to fix Social Security at Davos by making cuts and taking Medicare benefits away from our seniors. You do not want this unstable man behind the curtain to destroy two essential programs for our seniors.
WHAT A DUMB F*&^!!!! To say I am pissed over this is an understatement. I go out there selling Trump to everyone, and this stupid jack *ss unloads my sales kit. He keeps this up, and I just might not bother voting, and if I do not vote, that is three votes, minimum in my household alone, and hundreds if I just shut up.
-
WHAT A DUMB F*&^!!!! To say I am pissed over this is an understatement. I go out there selling Trump to everyone, and this stupid jack *ss unloads my sales kit. He keeps this up, and I just might not bother voting, and if I do not vote, that is three votes, minimum in my household alone, and hundreds if I just shut up.
(http://www.blogcommanderbill.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/can_you_hear_me_now_lg.gif)
No really @jafo2010 , RESPECT. That you can be critical shows you are not just singing along, as so many do.
:beer:
-
The Social Security budget needs to be cut. Thirty percent of current outlays go to persons below retirement age. Social Security should be for retirement only. And it should go into an actual retirement account - one that the taxpayer gets to choose.
If ANY President did this, I would make it my personal crusade to repeal the 22nd Amendment and make that person President for Life. This country would experience growth greater than the Reagan years.
-
The Social Security budget needs to be cut. Thirty percent of current outlays go to persons below retirement age. Social Security should be for retirement only. And it should go into an actual retirement account - one that the taxpayer gets to choose.
If ANY President did this, I would make it my personal crusade to repeal the 22nd Amendment and make that person President for Life. This country would experience growth greater than the Reagan years.
Actually it should be gone. It is not within the aegis of the feds
-
Actually it should be gone. It is not within the aegis of the feds
What do you want to do with the money that people have paid in?
-
What do you want to do with the money that people have paid in?
That money has already been spent, just like every other tax. Not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand. You seem to have this silly idea that the government has your money and will faithfully give it back to you with interest.
-
Actually it should be gone. It is not within the aegis of the feds
Word.
-
If Trump were smart, and that is suspect for me, he would talk about broadening the Social Security Program and increase benefits for USA citizens.
What we have right now is refugees receiving a far greater sum, never having paid one dime than the average Social Security recipient. This is wrong. So, to begin fixing this f*&^ing nonsense, END REFUGEES coming to the USA. Those refugees that are not citizens are given a set period of time to receive benefits, and those benefits end. Let them work 40 quarters just like USA citizens to be eligible for Social Security, and let that payout be based on what we citizens receive, and not some inflated sum way beyond what Americans receive. I can tell you, that burns my *ss big time. And I know a number of people like this, receiving big money and never having paid a dime into the system. It's wrong.
-
What do you want to do with the money that people have paid in?
That is the tricky part. I don't think you can just overturn it. I think it needs to be taken out of the hands of the fed and, for instance, placed in a trust run by the governors combined, supplemented by federal dollars until the current obligations (to the old and disabled strictly) are fulfilled by attrition... Sunset at that time...
As to the rest, and ongoing, I think that needs to be according to the state, with both federal and state credits for those taking care of the elderly (thinking family care and corporate retirement matching)... and similar programs through county and religious organizations...
Something similar in medical. It is the jurisdiction of the states respectively, not the feds, and of religious charities historically. I think it needs to go back that way, with relief as needed... If a guy has an ailing mother in his house, his burden is increased, and I think helping him is better than any government could do - both in care and in cost.
But that also means that all governments need to keep their mitts out of medical and charity and actually allow dedctions, 100%, for anything related to anyone for their participation, as much as is possible.
-
That is the tricky part. I don't think you can just overturn it. I think it needs to be taken out of the hands of the fed and, for instance, placed in a trust run by the governors combined, supplemented by federal dollars until the current obligations (to the old and disabled strictly) are fulfilled by attrition... Sunset at that time...
As to the rest, and ongoing, I think that needs to be according to the state, with both federal and state credits for those taking care of the elderly (thinking family care and corporate retirement matching)... and similar programs through county and religious organizations...
Something similar in medical. It is the jurisdiction of the states respectively, not the feds, and of religious charities historically. I think it needs to go back that way, with relief as needed... If a guy has an ailing mother in his house, his burden is increased, and I think helping him is better than any government could do - both in care and in cost.
But that also means that all governments need to keep their mitts out of medical and charity and actually allow dedctions, 100%, for anything related to anyone for their participation, as much as is possible.
I would be in trouble here in Washington State. They would surely take my retirement and give it to the illegals.