Republicans plan to “rein in” social security and Medicare if they take control of congress

[Anonymous]

This is one of Biden’s key talking points and it was given four Pinocchios by WaPo fact checkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are banking on Baby Boomers to be more wedded to culture wars than their bank accounts.

I don't know why any Baby Boomer would vote for a Republican knowing this plan....but the GOP elite are betting they will. Identity politics are a drug.

If it's anything like past republican plans to reform social security, it will exempt anyone within 20 years of retirement

As someone under 45, I’ll be voting anyone proposing this. Why should the generation who refused to adequately fund these programs get the full benefits while sticking our generation with their bill. If there are cuts, then they need to apply across the board.

Because you'll be punishing those of that "generation" who didn't agree with refusing to adequately fund these programs, who voted against politicians who refused to fund them, who worked hard and need the money, that's why.

Like my parents who over the past 50 years have volunteered in local politics to try to get Democrats elected, not always succeeding. They made modest money working hard, lived modestly, saved where they could, and now are counting on SS to make up the rest. Why are you trying to punish my parents?

It’s not about punishment. It’s about equitable distribution of cuts. Your parents shouldn’t get spared while the rest of us get hit with the bill and the cuts.

A potential cut is not the same as having earned income withheld for 30-40 years and then not get what was expected

But it's OK if the later generations don't get money after their income was withheld for 30-40 years?
There is less money going in than money scheduled to be paid out.
Part of this is because that first check that seniors get is based not off of how much money was paid in, but off of how much wages increased over the 40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are banking on Baby Boomers to be more wedded to culture wars than their bank accounts.

I don't know why any Baby Boomer would vote for a Republican knowing this plan....but the GOP elite are betting they will. Identity politics are a drug.

If it's anything like past republican plans to reform social security, it will exempt anyone within 20 years of retirement

As someone under 45, I’ll be voting anyone proposing this. Why should the generation who refused to adequately fund these programs get the full benefits while sticking our generation with their bill. If there are cuts, then they need to apply across the board.

Because you'll be punishing those of that "generation" who didn't agree with refusing to adequately fund these programs, who voted against politicians who refused to fund them, who worked hard and need the money, that's why.

Like my parents who over the past 50 years have volunteered in local politics to try to get Democrats elected, not always succeeding. They made modest money working hard, lived modestly, saved where they could, and now are counting on SS to make up the rest. Why are you trying to punish my parents?

It’s not about punishment. It’s about equitable distribution of cuts. Your parents shouldn’t get spared while the rest of us get hit with the bill and the cuts.

A potential cut is not the same as having earned income withheld for 30-40 years and then not get what was expected

But it's OK if the later generations don't get money after their income was withheld for 30-40 years?
There is less money going in than money scheduled to be paid out.
Part of this is because that first check that seniors get is based not off of how much money was paid in, but off of how much wages increased over the 40 years.

Cut it off for people 20 and younger if you want. Those who've paid in should at least get their money back out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are banking on Baby Boomers to be more wedded to culture wars than their bank accounts.

I don't know why any Baby Boomer would vote for a Republican knowing this plan....but the GOP elite are betting they will. Identity politics are a drug.

If it's anything like past republican plans to reform social security, it will exempt anyone within 20 years of retirement

As someone under 45, I’ll be voting anyone proposing this. Why should the generation who refused to adequately fund these programs get the full benefits while sticking our generation with their bill. If there are cuts, then they need to apply across the board.

Because you'll be punishing those of that "generation" who didn't agree with refusing to adequately fund these programs, who voted against politicians who refused to fund them, who worked hard and need the money, that's why.

Like my parents who over the past 50 years have volunteered in local politics to try to get Democrats elected, not always succeeding. They made modest money working hard, lived modestly, saved where they could, and now are counting on SS to make up the rest. Why are you trying to punish my parents?

It’s not about punishment. It’s about equitable distribution of cuts. Your parents shouldn’t get spared while the rest of us get hit with the bill and the cuts.

A potential cut is not the same as having earned income withheld for 30-40 years and then not get what was expected

But it's OK if the later generations don't get money after their income was withheld for 30-40 years?
There is less money going in than money scheduled to be paid out.
Part of this is because that first check that seniors get is based not off of how much money was paid in, but off of how much wages increased over the 40 years.

Cut it off for people 20 and younger if you want. Those who've paid in should at least get their money back out.

They will get back the money they paid even with cuts. The problem is the program pays out well more than most Boomers paid in so now they want to increase taxes on the younger folks because they underfunded their own retirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are banking on Baby Boomers to be more wedded to culture wars than their bank accounts.

I don't know why any Baby Boomer would vote for a Republican knowing this plan....but the GOP elite are betting they will. Identity politics are a drug.

If it's anything like past republican plans to reform social security, it will exempt anyone within 20 years of retirement

As someone under 45, I’ll be voting anyone proposing this. Why should the generation who refused to adequately fund these programs get the full benefits while sticking our generation with their bill. If there are cuts, then they need to apply across the board.

Because you'll be punishing those of that "generation" who didn't agree with refusing to adequately fund these programs, who voted against politicians who refused to fund them, who worked hard and need the money, that's why.

Like my parents who over the past 50 years have volunteered in local politics to try to get Democrats elected, not always succeeding. They made modest money working hard, lived modestly, saved where they could, and now are counting on SS to make up the rest. Why are you trying to punish my parents?

It’s not about punishment. It’s about equitable distribution of cuts. Your parents shouldn’t get spared while the rest of us get hit with the bill and the cuts.

A potential cut is not the same as having earned income withheld for 30-40 years and then not get what was expected

But it's OK if the later generations don't get money after their income was withheld for 30-40 years?
There is less money going in than money scheduled to be paid out.
Part of this is because that first check that seniors get is based not off of how much money was paid in, but off of how much wages increased over the 40 years.

Cut it off for people 20 and younger if you want. Those who've paid in should at least get their money back out.

They will get back the money they paid even with cuts. The problem is the program pays out well more than most Boomers paid in so now they want to increase taxes on the younger folks because they underfunded their own retirements.

The people I know who had money withtheld for 40 years would have much preferred to do their own investing, and they are not getting more than they paid into the stystem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one of Biden’s key talking points and it was given four Pinocchios by WaPo fact checkers.

You get 1000 pinocchios for your BS post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are banking on Baby Boomers to be more wedded to culture wars than their bank accounts.

I don't know why any Baby Boomer would vote for a Republican knowing this plan....but the GOP elite are betting they will. Identity politics are a drug.

If it's anything like past republican plans to reform social security, it will exempt anyone within 20 years of retirement

As someone under 45, I’ll be voting anyone proposing this. Why should the generation who refused to adequately fund these programs get the full benefits while sticking our generation with their bill. If there are cuts, then they need to apply across the board.

Because you'll be punishing those of that "generation" who didn't agree with refusing to adequately fund these programs, who voted against politicians who refused to fund them, who worked hard and need the money, that's why.

Like my parents who over the past 50 years have volunteered in local politics to try to get Democrats elected, not always succeeding. They made modest money working hard, lived modestly, saved where they could, and now are counting on SS to make up the rest. Why are you trying to punish my parents?

It’s not about punishment. It’s about equitable distribution of cuts. Your parents shouldn’t get spared while the rest of us get hit with the bill and the cuts.

A potential cut is not the same as having earned income withheld for 30-40 years and then not get what was expected

But it's OK if the later generations don't get money after their income was withheld for 30-40 years?
There is less money going in than money scheduled to be paid out.
Part of this is because that first check that seniors get is based not off of how much money was paid in, but off of how much wages increased over the 40 years.

Cut it off for people 20 and younger if you want. Those who've paid in should at least get their money back out.

They will get back the money they paid even with cuts. The problem is the program pays out well more than most Boomers paid in so now they want to increase taxes on the younger folks because they underfunded their own retirements.

The people I know who had money withtheld for 40 years would have much preferred to do their own investing, and they are not getting more than they paid into the stystem.

Sure they would. But if they had done their own investing, some would have the same retirement, others would have more return and a better retirement, and some would be broke and literally starve to death. They won't admit it but that's the truth. You won't admit it but it's the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. Money losing ponzi scams that provide horrendous ROI. It is absolutely irresponsible that discussions around reforming and cutting SS/medicare refuse to take place, because they're going to bankrupt the country.

I'd be happy to talk about Social Security and Medicare right after we have the discussion on the defense budget. We spent $320 million a DAY in Afghanistan for 20 years. Has there been any public discussion of pulling back or meaningfully re-programming those funds.

And periodic reminder: The Pentagon has never passed an audit.

#HandsOffMySocialSecurity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of Biden’s key talking points and it was given four Pinocchios by WaPo fact checkers.

You get 1000 pinocchios for your BS post.

Do you not read WaPo? Or are you some desperate troll that’s terrified of the truth? Either way you’re a hopeless imbecile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are banking on Baby Boomers to be more wedded to culture wars than their bank accounts.

I don't know why any Baby Boomer would vote for a Republican knowing this plan....but the GOP elite are betting they will. Identity politics are a drug.

If it's anything like past republican plans to reform social security, it will exempt anyone within 20 years of retirement

As someone under 45, I’ll be voting anyone proposing this. Why should the generation who refused to adequately fund these programs get the full benefits while sticking our generation with their bill. If there are cuts, then they need to apply across the board.

+1,000,000,000

Someone gets it. Why should Millennials and GenZ have to eat gigantic losses because Boomers refused to do anything about it and only set themselves up for cushy retirements through nothing more than gigantic transfers of wealth from the going to the old? Boomers already fattened themselves up on the trough of prosperity while simultaneously ruining the country. Payback is a B, and they will get their benefits cut. Why would any sane young person vote to keep the status quo for SS that's going to decimate the country for younger generations. I will vote for any politician who runs on a policy of cutting SS taxes, reducing benefits, and phasing it out all together. It is a money losing Ponzi scam and a much worse deal for younger people.

Distributing the losses equally is the only fair way. This is what happens when the stupid govt over promises and can't deliver on a gigantic bureaucratic program that is wildly inefficient and provides negative ROI. Gee, who'd have ever guessed that the govt stinks with your money?

Certainly not the banks and financial corporations that have stolen and lost your money through greed and corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of Biden’s key talking points and it was given four Pinocchios by WaPo fact checkers.

You get 1000 pinocchios for your BS post.

Do you not read WaPo? Or are you some desperate troll that’s terrified of the truth? Either way you’re a hopeless imbecile.

Kevin McCarthy says you’re a f**king hopeless imbecile.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said that if Republicans win control of the House the GOP will use raising the debt limit as leverage to force spending cuts — which could include cuts to Medicare and Social Security — and limit additional funding to Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are banking on Baby Boomers to be more wedded to culture wars than their bank accounts.

I don't know why any Baby Boomer would vote for a Republican knowing this plan....but the GOP elite are betting they will. Identity politics are a drug.

If it's anything like past republican plans to reform social security, it will exempt anyone within 20 years of retirement

As someone under 45, I’ll be voting anyone proposing this. Why should the generation who refused to adequately fund these programs get the full benefits while sticking our generation with their bill. If there are cuts, then they need to apply across the board.

Because you'll be punishing those of that "generation" who didn't agree with refusing to adequately fund these programs, who voted against politicians who refused to fund them, who worked hard and need the money, that's why.

Like my parents who over the past 50 years have volunteered in local politics to try to get Democrats elected, not always succeeding. They made modest money working hard, lived modestly, saved where they could, and now are counting on SS to make up the rest. Why are you trying to punish my parents?

It’s not about punishment. It’s about equitable distribution of cuts. Your parents shouldn’t get spared while the rest of us get hit with the bill and the cuts.

A potential cut is not the same as having earned income withheld for 30-40 years and then not get what was expected

But it's OK if the later generations don't get money after their income was withheld for 30-40 years?
There is less money going in than money scheduled to be paid out.
Part of this is because that first check that seniors get is based not off of how much money was paid in, but off of how much wages increased over the 40 years.

Cut it off for people 20 and younger if you want. Those who've paid in should at least get their money back out.

They will get back the money they paid even with cuts. The problem is the program pays out well more than most Boomers paid in so now they want to increase taxes on the younger folks because they underfunded their own retirements.

The people I know who had money withtheld for 40 years would have much preferred to do their own investing, and they are not getting more than they paid into the stystem.

Sure they would. But if they had done their own investing, some would have the same retirement, others would have more return and a better retirement, and some would be broke and literally starve to death. They won't admit it but that's the truth. You won't admit it but it's the truth.

PP here. I said the people I know. Regardless, it was required withholding. Don't be making changes to people's income after they've retired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Money losing ponzi scams that provide horrendous ROI. It is absolutely irresponsible that discussions around reforming and cutting SS/medicare refuse to take place, because they're going to bankrupt the country.

I'd be happy to talk about Social Security and Medicare right after we have the discussion on the defense budget. We spent $320 million a DAY in Afghanistan for 20 years. Has there been any public discussion of pulling back or meaningfully re-programming those funds.

And periodic reminder: The Pentagon has never passed an audit.

#HandsOffMySocialSecurity

I have to agree. There needs to be much more scrutiny applied to defense spending. Those numbers are huge and I’d guess (but don’t know) that a big percentage is essentially corporate welfare that goes to defense contractors.

I remember the scandal about the cost of the toilet seat (?) and then there is the plane that someone has been developing for years and can’t fly. Am sure there are others better versed than I on the details. And then also the intelligence budget, which has no oversight apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of Biden’s key talking points and it was given four Pinocchios by WaPo fact checkers.

You get 1000 pinocchios for your BS post.

Do you not read WaPo? Or are you some desperate troll that’s terrified of the truth? Either way you’re a hopeless imbecile.

Kevin McCarthy says you’re a f**king hopeless imbecile.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said that if Republicans win control of the House the GOP will use raising the debt limit as leverage to force spending cuts — which could include cuts to Medicare and Social Security — and limit additional funding to Ukraine.

Lol…..you’re so stupid. Oh wait, I’m sure you’re brighter than WaPo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The GOP has been promising to cut social security and Medicare for years, and yet the Republicans I know, who are completely dependent on social security to live, still keep on voting for the GOP. It boggles the mind.

At this point, I'm think if that's what they want to get, that's what they are going to get.

they are POS. they know their benefits are not going to be cut. they will be cut for younger people