Republicans in congress say big cuts coming to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These programs are already bare bones for the past 30 years. The age keeps increasing due to increased life span, and the benefits keep declining, and the cost of living adjustments are rarely adjusted. At least Trump pledged to make Social Security benefits tax exempt which would be a huge help for seniors. It never made any sense to me how seniors are expected to pay taxes twice- once for the benefit and second after they receive the benefit which isnt even a benefit. It's a tax refund that one is paying taxes on.

They are getting back much more than they paid in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do it! I am a democrat and say if the GOP is really focused on bringing down the federal debt and spending we have to get rid of social services. It doesn’t affect me at all. And since the majority of Americans voted for this I guess this is what they wanted.

They'll poison pill it the way they did with the last tax cuts. Major cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid that won't go into effect until 2029 or so, and greater restrictions on eligibility and lower benefits not presently benefitting now (i.e., raise the age for folks born after 1970 to get it). That's how they'll pay for their tax cuts now.

Sure, then they can blame Trump's successor for what happened on Trump's watch. And they think we are too stupid to notice.

And sadly, they are correct…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you understood how Social Security works, you’d be shocked. It’s not self-funded; it’s a pay-as-you-go system where younger workers' taxes pay for current retirees. This setup closely resembles a Ponzi scheme, relying on new contributors to sustain payouts, with no personal savings account for your future. The system disproportionately benefits baby boomers, who are retiring in record numbers and collecting far more than they paid in, while younger generations face higher taxes and the risk of reduced benefits. This imbalance is unfair and unsustainable. For the good of the country, it’s time for boomers to acknowledge the need for reform. Raising the retirement age, adjusting benefits for wealthier retirees, and expanding the tax base are necessary changes to ensure future generations aren’t left holding the bag. Let’s fix this now—before it’s too late.

It’s not a Ponzi scheme because there is no fraud involved.

I think these people calling Social Security a ponzi scheme don’t know that it is insurance and would probably be equally shocked to know how the insurance industry works.

These are probably the same people who decry ACA, but then get seriously ill and run to ACA as a life line.

And start a Go Fund Me to pay their medical bills while crying about other people taking handouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If social security is truly self funded why have everyone get paid out whatever they put in and then stop it all together. Then moving forward make it optional.

Most people are not smart enough to plan for retirement. That’s why we need mandatory social security.
Do we have to repeat the lessons of the Great Depression again?

This.
People can’t plan ahead, which also why 40?% can’t come up with 400.00 in an emergency.
If you gave them 1K, they’d spend it and still wouldn’t have the 400.00 in an emergency

This is extremely out of touch. Too many people are without the means and guidance to plan for retirement, especially in early adulthood when they might not have steady employment.

Yes, they would spend that $1000 instead of putting it in an emergency fund. They would use it to pay bills.

This is another reason why we need SS. It allows every working person some level of preparation for retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:sounds good, i'd rather cash out and keep my own money to invest as i please

Oh…you think they are going to cut you a check for your share? How cute!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's what the MAGAs on SS, SSDI, and Veterans benefits apparently wanted them to do when they voted for them.

You can type whatever you like but no, that's not what voters want.

Oh no no no no no. Trump won the election. This information was all over the place. We spent months trying to beat this into you, and you voted for him anyway. This is absolutely what voters wanted. You don’t get to play dumb now. If you voted for Trump, this is on you. Claim it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) said Tuesday that lawmakers will ultimately face tough choices on spending in next year’s unified GOP government, suggesting cuts may be coming to social welfare programs

We’re going to have to have some hard decisions. We got to bring the Democrats in to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, and we know how to do it, we just have to have the stomach to actually take those challenges on,” McCormick told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5019422-republican-social-security-medicaid-medicare-welfare-cuts-trump/

This will be fun to watch because at the same time congressional republicans are cutting these benefits they will be giving tax breaks the rich. You know they will also go after the VA and veterans’ disability.

Benefit cuts are already written in to Social Security, according to the trustees' report. It is spending more money on benefits than money coming in.

But for the boomers' main working years there was a major excess of money coming in which Reagan and the Bushes squandered on government spending when they could have kept it in the Social Security Trust Fund.

That is irrelevant, because the Social Security fund is calculated as if all the money spent by the government was borrowed by the government from Social Security, and is paid back with interest. It's like in those big companies where one division pays another for services.
The Social Security benefit calculations assume all the money that came in is still there, with interest paid.
Any shortfall is borne by the rest of the government. This is why the social security crisis really started 20 years ago.
As soon as the social security surplus started dropping, that was more money for the rest of the government to borrow to cover the shortfall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) said Tuesday that lawmakers will ultimately face tough choices on spending in next year’s unified GOP government, suggesting cuts may be coming to social welfare programs

We’re going to have to have some hard decisions. We got to bring the Democrats in to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, and we know how to do it, we just have to have the stomach to actually take those challenges on,” McCormick told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5019422-republican-social-security-medicaid-medicare-welfare-cuts-trump/

This will be fun to watch because at the same time congressional republicans are cutting these benefits they will be giving tax breaks the rich. You know they will also go after the VA and veterans’ disability.

Why do the “hard decisions” always involve cutting benefits? Why not just raise taxes a little bit?

Because it's supposed to be a pension fund and not a welfare program.

It's not a welfare program. Republicans previously used the money people paid in to fund wars and tax cuts. Time to pay the people back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) said Tuesday that lawmakers will ultimately face tough choices on spending in next year’s unified GOP government, suggesting cuts may be coming to social welfare programs

We’re going to have to have some hard decisions. We got to bring the Democrats in to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, and we know how to do it, we just have to have the stomach to actually take those challenges on,” McCormick told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5019422-republican-social-security-medicaid-medicare-welfare-cuts-trump/

This will be fun to watch because at the same time congressional republicans are cutting these benefits they will be giving tax breaks the rich. You know they will also go after the VA and veterans’ disability.

Why do the “hard decisions” always involve cutting benefits? Why not just raise taxes a little bit?

Because it's supposed to be a pension fund and not a welfare program.

It's not a welfare program. Republicans previously used the money people paid in to fund wars and tax cuts. Time to pay the people back.

Again the money is there on paper, and all benefits are calculated assuming the money is there, with the government looting paid back with interest.

[Anonymous]

The shortfall is social security is because benefits are indexed to inflation, but the first check is instead indexed to wages. As people earn more money, they raise the first check to match that. If they instead used price inflation for the first check, then the system would largely be paying for itself.

[Anonymous]

It might be a stretch to call it a Ponzi scheme, but it does have similarities, namely that it relies upon funds from the current workforce to pay for the retirees receiving SS income.
This is a problem because it relies upon an ever-increasing workforce and GDP, and that is not sustainable or desirable.

The math is pretty bad. Between my employer and I, we are putting in 12.4% of my salary up to the cap. If I were to invest that same amount into a broad index fund (set and forget) with the plan to eventually withdraw from that when I retire, I would come out way ahead compared to what I will draw in SS benefits. SS is a bad deal.

As far as raising the cap goes, how fair would that be without raising the benefit amount for those who contributed higher amounts? It wouldn’t be fair. And if we did also increase the benefit amounts to those people, then it wouldn’t solve the problem either. So I say let’s not increase the cap.

Part of my solution would be that over a years-long period, we transition/ramp from FICA deductions to self funded retirement. Give everyone something like TSP, but the (eventual) 12.4 percent should be locked up into age based index funds that cannot be accessed via loans or withdrawals, and must be paid out at retirement via monthly payments not lump sums that someone might do something stupid with. If you want to have a lump sum available, you save for that separately.

Doing so would create a temporary (though years long) gap in funding that unfortunately would have to be paid for by increasing retirement age, small reductions in SS benefits, a VAT, spending cuts, or ideally a combination of these means in order not to place the burden disproportionately on any one group. It will be painful, but less so, and eventually the problem will be solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It might be a stretch to call it a Ponzi scheme, but it does have similarities, namely that it relies upon funds from the current workforce to pay for the retirees receiving SS income.
This is a problem because it relies upon an ever-increasing workforce and GDP, and that is not sustainable or desirable.

The math is pretty bad. Between my employer and I, we are putting in 12.4% of my salary up to the cap. If I were to invest that same amount into a broad index fund (set and forget) with the plan to eventually withdraw from that when I retire, I would come out way ahead compared to what I will draw in SS benefits. SS is a bad deal.

As far as raising the cap goes, how fair would that be without raising the benefit amount for those who contributed higher amounts? It wouldn’t be fair. And if we did also increase the benefit amounts to those people, then it wouldn’t solve the problem either. So I say let’s not increase the cap.

Part of my solution would be that over a years-long period, we transition/ramp from FICA deductions to self funded retirement. Give everyone something like TSP, but the (eventual) 12.4 percent should be locked up into age based index funds that cannot be accessed via loans or withdrawals, and must be paid out at retirement via monthly payments not lump sums that someone might do something stupid with. If you want to have a lump sum available, you save for that separately.

Doing so would create a temporary (though years long) gap in funding that unfortunately would have to be paid for by increasing retirement age, small reductions in SS benefits, a VAT, spending cuts, or ideally a combination of these means in order not to place the burden disproportionately on any one group. It will be painful, but less so, and eventually the problem will be solved.

This is a terrible idea because the whole point is that people don't save for retirement for a variety of reasons and we, as a society, because of what happened in the Great Depression, have decided there should be a social safety net.

[Anonymous]

Older Gen X and I've been paying for Medicare and Social Security since I was 15.

Cut these programs if that's how the country wants to go but phase it in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) said Tuesday that lawmakers will ultimately face tough choices on spending in next year’s unified GOP government, suggesting cuts may be coming to social welfare programs

We’re going to have to have some hard decisions. We got to bring the Democrats in to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, and we know how to do it, we just have to have the stomach to actually take those challenges on,” McCormick told Fox Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5019422-republican-social-security-medicaid-medicare-welfare-cuts-trump/

This will be fun to watch because at the same time congressional republicans are cutting these benefits they will be giving tax breaks the rich. You know they will also go after the VA and veterans’ disability.

Why do the “hard decisions” always involve cutting benefits? Why not just raise taxes a little bit?

Because it's supposed to be a pension fund and not a welfare program.

It's not a welfare program. Republicans previously used the money people paid in to fund wars and tax cuts. Time to pay the people back.

Again the money is there on paper, and all benefits are calculated assuming the money is there, with the government looting paid back with interest.

Right, but whether or not the money will be paid back is a question mark. As everthing about our government is with Trump in power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Older Gen X and I've been paying for Medicare and Social Security since I was 15.

Cut these programs if that's how the country wants to go but phase it in.

That's not how the country wants to go. It's how one man wants to go. The point of our government is that it is a system of checks and balances. If the congress has anything to say about it, neither Medicare nor Social Security are going anywhere any time soon. If the Congress doesn't weigh in, well, then we have even bigger problems.