Are you for cutting this Socialism?

[OddBeMe]

I love asking older Repubs about “Social” Security and Medicare. And hearing how it’s not really socialism. Yeah right.

Either way, why do they vote for the party that wants to cut it?

Cut it!

Don’t cut it!

Other

[Anonymous]

Both programs are going to see drastic cuts within a decade or so for want of money to pay for it. The sooner said cuts are made the less drastic they will be made.

You can't change math nor the fact that the money for said programs was already spent buying votes decades ago replaced with inflated away IOU noted we really can't pay back.

Nor can you change the demographic reality of too few young working people to provide said services much-less pay for them. A reality that like it or not is in no small part a resulted from said programs taking away one of the main motivations for 4 generation's to have and raise children.(providing for their future).

[msc545]

"The programs will run out of money" is the main talking point of Republicans and Chicken Little. So far they have not - and they will not. Harming those programs is political suicide in the US, even for Republicans.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Its called math, currently theses programs are burning thou the IOU's like crazy dominating federal Tax dollars and driving gigantic deficits.

This is because the Federal goverment cannot collect even close to enough taxes to pay for theses programs or pay for the IOUs. So they are trying to sell ever higher amounts of Treasury bills, notes, and bonds against the future taxpayers to make up the difference with ever higher interest rates.
The sum value of said dept is already $24.29 trillion dollars.

Just paying the existing interest on this dept takes $305 billion dollars right off the top of Tax revenue, will be a trillion within a decade. That is money not available to pay for anything going increasingly going outside. That is also assuming Interest rates remain low without inflating away whatever savings we do have.
So yes by the middle of next decade those IOU's will run out current law will be FORCED to either drastically cut benefits, to tax an unimaginable amount of additional money from then then smaller working population.

Knowing history we know for a fact there is no way the goverment can actually acquire soo much money regardless of tax rate, as the economy and tax base will get smaller as it loses the resourced needed to fuel it. This of course in a world where we are already losing a trillion dollars right off the top. So even if it was politically possible, it would not be economically possible.

But your right people have been FORCED by the state over the last 80 years to 'invest' 15% of their life's work into this program as such they are very much depended upon getting something out of it. That doesn't mean they can or will anymore than they can stay in shape sitting on their butts eating junk-food.

Indeed the fact that it is a goverment program is part of the problem in that current day politicians nearly all of whom will be gone within a decade have no reason to deal with it just as you suggest.

[msc545]

I am not arguing that the math is wrong. I am merely suggesting that the people in power at that time will come up with a way to save those programs because they want to keep their jobs - just as they (or people like them) always have. They will print the money if they have to.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 You have such faith in politicians to 'solve' problems. Despite their profestation on the campaign trail they are not miricials workers. Nor is the need to "keep their job" going allow them to come up with 10s of trillions of dollars that do not exist.

The resources and labor that money represents does not exist, it was spent decades ago and a decade from now there will be even fewer labor and resources available thanks to low birth rates.

So at best a politician can only reshuffle who gets what and there are major consequences to those choices.

The retired people trying to preserve theses programs will be up against the people just trying to survive, and all of them will be fighting over the finite resources the working population can produce.

So your by no means likely to see any kind of unity on the subject but even if you did they the the labor and resources still does not exist, and will only get more uncommon the more fuel you take form said industry via said redistribution.

In retirement the real problem is demographics. This is in fact a demographic situation that was very much in part the making of the same Social Securty in that said program promises took away much of the incentive for people to actually have and raise children.

[msc545]

No, I have faith in politicians engaging in sociopathic self-preservation. So far they have not disappointed me.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 If you have such faith in politic ans doing whatever it takes to get a vote, and a long history of them doing so event at the experience of the American people via lying and scamming.

Then we should expect that the 'solution' they ultimately offer will simply be anther empty promises at election time like all the others they can never fulfill.

Have you not seen this constantly too?
Indeed have you not noticed that the same politicians when they almost inevitably fail to fulfill their promises it will either be to make ti look good initialism at the expense of the ever nearer future or to ultimately blame their political enemies for having set them up for failure.

Only 2 kinds of people actually believe what politicians say, The narrow minded and the young who have yet to see enough elections to realize the consistent pattern.

Right now neither party has any reason to really tell the truth about Social Securty, and as you pointed out countless reasons to tell the American people the lie of security they want to beleive.

This is no different than a failed investor not wanting to admit to having lost soo much money trying to kick the can down the road as long as possible to buy as much time as possible all the while he keeps losing more and more money.
The only difference is there is no impartial referee looking at the books and forcing him to tell the truth because with Social security you have made that referee the failed investor who doesn't want people to know the truth.

[msc545]

You are totally misunderstanding what I said.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah dude, Biden has worked against social security quite a bit. Don't think by voting for people with a "D" next to your name that you are safe.

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/13/biden-cuts-social-security/

[OddBeMe]

Sure, but “advocating” or being a politician isn’t the same as actually cutting.

[Juxtapose]

Nobody in their right mind is going to cut those programs, that is political suicide.

[OddBeMe]

Only one side seems to put it in every budget proposal and votes on it….
www.nytimes.com/.../...repeals-the-health-law.html

[Juxtapose]

Joe Biden made plenty of proposals over 40 years 🤷‍♂️

[OddBeMe]

He may have but it’s not in the Dem platform. Nor in their votes.

[Juxtapose]

Good cop bad cop routine. I don't trust many on either side.

[OddBeMe]

And Dems never voted in mass for it.

[Juxtapose]

Good cops.

[Juxtapose]

And it wouldn't make sense for them to be against it so visibly since they at least pretend to be for welfare programs.

[Cassie88]

I'm continually amazed by the number of Yanks who have absolutely no idea what socialism actually is. If a nation has social security and Medicare, that doesn't make it socialist.

[OddBeMe]

Of course not. But they are socialized…as in govt run. And popular.

[Cassie88]

Lots of things are government-run. All of the essential services, for example. Lots of things are popular too.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah but us Yanks don’t connect socialism and govt run.

[Stoner710]

Social Security is socialistic why should the government have a right to choose what I do with my money? I vote for the ones that want to end Social Security, because I think it’s not the governments job to financially provide for people.

[msc545]

Fine for you - do what you want. Not so good for the vast majority of us.

[OddBeMe]

And when you get sick and have no savings at 67 the govt will be forced to use our tax dollars so you won’t die. Because we’re not Nazis.

[msc545]

Using tax dollars is fine with me

[Stoner710]

Saying individuals are responsible for their own action is a nazi idea? You save your income you prepare for your later life so if you get sick at 67 you can pay for your medical care. Remember the Nazis was socialist the German socialist workers party.

[Stoner710]

@msc545 government should be only allowed to collect sales tax. It says in our constitution government has control over comers the 16th amendment should be abolished or changed so that the federal government is banned from collecting income tax. That is theft

[msc545]

I have heard that before and if you don't mind federal prison you could test irt...

[OddBeMe]

Yes it’s Nazi-esk to let a person die simply over money.

[Stoner710]

So classical liberalism is now nazi-esk? Saying people are responsible for their own actions is classical liberalism. Neo liberalism is believing that people are not responsible for their own actions l. It’s the collective that must be upheld or destroyed (depending which collective you fall under) if. Believing that people should be responsible for their own actions and their own money is Nazi-esk then I’d rather be nazi-esk then fallow in the path of Stalin Mao pol pot or the Khmer Rouge.

How about this no government I want to give people as much freedom as they want financially this is why I don’t want to live is the United society socialist union or under the Chinese communist party. There are some limit to freedom and hard ship but it’s better than a government or god telling me what to do.

Please explain to me how if there is no god how government isn’t god?

[msc545]

Government has no Bible.

[OddBeMe]

I don’t really understand this…old labels like classical liberalism has no real meaning today. It’s simply a way to not focus on current politics.

Socialism is by definition anything the govt does. Either absolute or peicemeal. People don’t plan for emergencies nor save for theor golden years when they can’t work. These programs are required for that.

And these “socialist” programs actually utilize private business to provide these services. So again, the best of both worlds.

[Leopard23]

Where does the money for social security and medicare come from and how do you qualify for it?

[goaded]

People pay into it all their working lives.

[Leopard23]

@goaded... and that's socialism to you? The only way it would be socialism would be if the democrats decided to give social security and medicare to those who didn't pay into it all their working lives.

[goaded]

Did I say it was socialism? That's the sort of thing the Republicans say, but quietly, because they know people really like them. (Along with fire departments, roads, etc.)

What it really is is a government run savings plan that can't be ripped off (except that's what the Republicans want to do, by privatising it.)

I don't know what happens to people who couldn't do paid work for whatever reason, but I hope they get something for their retirement, too.

[Leopard23]

@goaded Republicans want to do, by privatising it. You ever hear of obamacare?

[goaded]

What, the 1994 Republican proposal that didn't even get a single vote from a Republican senator, even though some of them that proposed the original were still in office?

It was the best thing that could pass at the time.

[Leopard23]

@goaded what could be more capitalist than forcing Americans to buy healthcare from private health insurance companies at extortionate rates?

[goaded]

Leaving tens of millions of Americans without any health care because they can't afford it. Letting people die because they can't afford to live.

[Leopard23]

@goaded that's what they claimed but yet health insurance and pharmaceutical companies were given a licence to print money

[goaded]

Yup, because that's the best that could be passed. 100% of Republicans voted against it, so one "Independent" (asshole) could control the whole deal. Sound familiar?

[OddBeMe]

I would say it’s socialism because it’s govt run. That’s kinda the point of this. People just hear socialism and go crazy. But it’s simply govt run. In whatever capacity.

[Snakeyes7]

At least end social security. A system like that cannot survive for very long. Especially since people are going to be depending on it more and more as life expectancy rises.

[OddBeMe]

They’ve been saying that for a century. Hasn’t ended yet. Ask your grandparents how much they like it.

[Snakeyes7]

My grandparents saved up their money so they have been taking trips all across the planet ever since I was a little kid.

[OddBeMe]

That’s great. But are we supposed to let the grandparents next door to them starve to death?

[Snakeyes7]

Maybe if the politicians we voted in didn't fuck with the economy so much, they wouldn't be as likely to starve. Charities also exist too.

Maybe you can also come up with a plan that isn't as poorly planned out as social security is. I know when I reach retirement, I am getting jack shit from all the money that might as well have been stolen from my paycheck.

[OddBeMe]

You think politicians and not big business have more affect on economy? And the Gparents next door certainly aren’t to blame. But you’re quite cavalier with their lives.

[Snakeyes7]

If anything I'd be more surprised if the government and big business aren't in cahoots. I don't blame the Gparents next door I moreso blame the people who don't take the time to understand how businesses and the economy works and think they can solve everything wrong with it.

People who say "bruh, just feed people" while ignoring that resources are finite, "livable wages" while never considering that maybe every wage is livable when they don't have a sizable chunk taken out of their paychecks and those who think corporatism is synonymous with capitalism and suggest letting things like healthcare be taken in charge by what might as well be another corporation but worse because you must pay them whether you use their services or not.

I blame those people and the politicians who listen to them knowing damn well they have no idea what they are talking about.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah and these arguments sound great…until people start starving to death. And homeless populations continue to grow.

So obvi there’s a problem with people saving money for retirement.
Solution: Government forces them to save.

[Snakeyes7]

Don't talk to me about homelessness until democrat cities like San Francisco fixes their homeless problem so bad that they need poop patrols to clean literal shit off the streets.

Also, you couldn't sound more like a comic book villain, "Humans are too stupid to think on their own, thats why they need a god like me to think for them".

How about keeping the government's hand out of the economy and out of our paychecks so that less Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and will actually have money to save.

[OddBeMe]

Mmm…. poorest states in the US…conservative Bible Belt.

[Snakeyes7]

The wages are lower because cost of living is lower so you could survive off of less money.

[OddBeMe]

Yes.. cost of living is lower because life sucks there. Literally, which is why lifespans are the shortest there. Starting to see a pattern?

[OddBeMe]

And seriously, look up per 100,000 people, red states are literally in the red.

California does have problems and shows up along with the red states, but you can’t argue with majorities.

[Snakeyes7]

The people in blue states are also biggest welfare recipients.

[gorydetails]

I’d love to get rid of both. Social security is more a Ponzi scheme than socialism.

[OddBeMe]

Only to people not surviving on it.

[gorydetails]

It's a ponzi scheme no matter who is benefitting. Wait till you find out the funds are going bye-bye with all the illegals not paying taxes.

[OddBeMe]

For educated people it’s not a ponzi scheme. Multi level marketing is a ponzi scheme. Social security is your money that the govt takes from you then gives back to you at 67 to live on.

[gorydetails]

@OddBeMe um, you really are dumb, aren't you. The money you pay now is for all those getting SS benefits now. No one wanted to put the funds in Al Gore's lockbox..

[OddBeMe]

Yeah. Did you think I meant that actual dollar bills with your phone number scrawled on them? My definition still stands. It’s basically a forced savings account the govt makes you pay into. Because we ain’t good it at by ourselves.