Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
As much as I hate the woke crowd, I hate people who want to cut something I paid into even more.
Democrats are actually better on this issue but people like Joe Biden have an advocating for cutting social security for 40 years.
This is a misleading piece. In fact, there are few things in political life that are as immortal as Social Security and Medicare. They are, by far, biggest programs in the social welfare state and the consensus - societal and thus political - for them is absolutely rock solid.
Hence, by the way, whenever anyone mentions even the most modest reforms to either Social Security or Medicare, the reaction is as if someone had set out to touch up the Mona Lisa with a paint gun. Suffice to say, leaving mathematics and demographics aside, both programs are untouchable. At least until the aforementioned mathematics and demographics produce a fiscal crisis.
At which point, the American public, it has been said, never panics... except in a crisis. At which point policy will be made on the fly and in a fit of hysteria. The results of that being unpredictable, save for the fact that come what may, the benefits will be preserved.
It was to avoid such a scenario that Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott proposed a bill that would require both SS and Medicare to be authorized every year. Just as the budget for the DoD is reauthorized every year. (Most programs must be reauthorized - that is a law passed governing them. After which a second bill - an appropriations bill - is passed the fund the authorized program. Alone, SS and Medicare are permanently and automatically authorized every year without the need for further Congressional action.)
Please note, not a single Senator cosponsored the bill. Nor was a companion bill introduced in the House of Representatives. No Member would touch it with a 20 foot poll. Benign as it was given that the odds that either program - has Senator Scott's bill become law - would always be reauthorized as Members of both parties in both Houses of Congress would rather endure slow torture unto death that touch them.
That all said, it was Senator Scott's bill that gave President Biden - and some Democrats - the pretext to say that the GOP wanted to cut and/or abolish SS and Medicare. Slim though that pretext was.
Of course, as noted, both programs are living on borrowed time. The population is aging and the workforce - and therefore the tax base - is shrinking relative to population. The net result is that SS has $23 trillion in unfunded liabilities and Medicare has $43 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The whole GDP of the USA stands at $24 trillion.
Suffice to say, that trajectory cannot continue. Sooner or later, the string will run out. Till then, Democrats will accuse Republicans of wanting to abolish SS and Medicare. Republicans will deny it and vote accordingly, and the clock will run out. Panic legislating to follow.
Well, first of all, your hypothetical is problematic. Clean compared to what? Any human institution is created and run by imperfect beings and will therefore have a degree of imperfection.
The US government is generally, by global standards, very "clean." Indeed, most dictatorships are far more prone to graft and corruption - and generally without any corresponding benefit to the public. The bottom line being that the most you can do is seek accountability from public officials.
Oh, and by the way, that is the public's responsibility and they are VERY bad at it. The recent mid-term elections being a superb example.
The polling data showed that there was a high degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Then the public proceeded to vote for the status quo. Presumably being then horrified at the status quo they voted for if subsequent polls are any indication.
The bottom line. First, the pursuit of utopia - as Russell Kirk said - is the primal madness of the species. Second, that if the public is not willing to vote for accountable government, but is content to suck up the benefits of the system as is, they are getting what they pay for.
As to limiting government spending to defense spending - I assume including that spending necessary to maintain the court system, the legal system, etc. It is problematic.
CONT.
Do recall that two conservatives, Disraeli in the UK and Bismarck in Germany - founded the welfare state. The purpose being to reconcile the masses to the dynamics of a free market economy by limiting the effects of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.
Proper conservatives understanding that a stable government is impossible without a stable social order. Suffice to say, a social order where the middle class is at the mercy of economic and political forces it cannot control is not going to be stable and the result will be unstable politics.
The real problem with the welfare state is that a certain school of liberalism came to see the welfare state not merely as an ameliorative instrument, but as a tool of social engineering. This producing all sorts of unintended consequences.
The bottom line being that a neat balance must be struck. Suffice to add that a government focused alone on defense spending will likely, in due course, either descend into chaos or alternatively become, of necessity, a police state.
@Juxtapose
No it would still be bankrupted. I don't think you grasp the scale of the problem with Social Securty and medicare. There are 48.5+ million people retired and currently receiving Social Securty payments.
That is 48.5+ million people on the payroll...
The U. S. military has less than 1 million on its payroll, it's almost inconsequential.
@monorprise Actually I do grasp the scale of the problem. SS has $24 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Medicare has $43 trillion in unfunded liabilities and the whole economy right now has a GDP of $25 trillion.
Throw in that SS and Medicare - as the population ages - will have more people taking benefits out and fewer workers - and thus fewer taxpayers - contributing to a "pay as you go" system. This being a problem in the whole of the Western world where normal demographic patterns tend toward an aging population.
This is a serious problem. However, the notion that there will be sweeping reforms that correct all that is wrong is problematic. In any case, as one wag put it, "The American people never panic - except in a crisis." Thus making it unlikely that any reforms will be undertaken until absolute immediate urgency requires it.
The bottom line is that reforms will be episodic and haphazard. Moreover, as older voters tend to vote more often than the young and older voters will be more defensive of their benefits, this will be a slow an imperfect process.
So it goes. As someone once said, "democracy is the worst form of government - until you compare it to all the others."
P. S. Also meant to add that even defense spending is not immune to this basic demographic problem.
Again, as the population ages, the workforce shrinks - which means that the tax base shrinks. Thus over time there are fewer and fewer dollars going to the treasury. It also means that - again as the population ages - there are fewer and fewer people, as a percentage of the population, who are of an age to serve in the armed forces.
Also, defense spending has been in decline really since the end of the Cold War, with only brief spikes after the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War and after the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Indeed, right now the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are the smallest that they have been since the 1970s and the Air Force is relying on 1990s vintage technology.
Thus, at best, defense spending will need to be increased as the threats from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea - not to mention other places in the Mideast in particular - increase. Thus you have a smaller tax base that will have to pay increasing amounts of money into defense spending and will have to take a larger share of a decreasing working age population out of the tax base in order to serve in the military.
In short, your simple solution is not so simple.
@nightdrot Althou I was not reply to your remark but the one that implied we could somehow take the military funding to fix the math problem for Social Securty and Medicare.
You seem to have a better grasp of the scale of the problem than @Juxtapose.
That being said the ageing population or rather lack of young children who would be available to work is the real problem.
It really doesn't matter how much money you saved, borrowed, or print if there are not enough people to do the work providing all the services and goods you require.
As such we should expect significant relative price hikes with only tecnoligy and automation offsetting that. Such is why Japan's focus upon pushing said automation is soo wise.
We really need people to make and raise more children if you expect to have a nice retirement as ultimately retirement depends entirely upon children. When you save or invest your really just trying to buy a share of other people's children's work.
@monorprise Well, not sure how much automation will solve the problem. This is basically a patch on a gaping wound.
That said, there is no doubt that the demographic problem is the heart and soul of the matter. However, there is nothing to suggest that there is a solution to the problem. The aging of the population in an industrialized economy appears to be, from all the available data, a normal human demographic pattern.
Yes, we do need to have and raise more children. (Raising being a very important aspect. It has been well said - and current issues among American youth certainly reinforce the message - that Americans do not raise children. They incite them.)
To be sure, policies can be introduced that might incentivize and reward family formation. However, even that is problematic. As the population ages it will tend to vote for candidates and policies that reward and focus on the problems of the elderly and less on children. (Indeed, this also making @Juxtapose's suggestion politically problematic. The elderly are not apt to vote for candidates and policies that reward defense spending at the expense of SS and Medicare.)
Bottom line, there are some problems that do not have solutions. Rather they must be managed as best they can be. The problem with the American entitlement system being one of those.
I was not advocating for defense spending, I was advocating for cutting everything unnecessary down. All those overseas military adventures? All those tax breaks for the deep state class and their allies? All the pork that we don't need? Etc.
I want in America that prioritizes its citizens rather than the interests of the ultra wealthy.
Well that would be nice. However, you cannot make straight the crooked timber of humanity. The system we have, flaws and all, is a result of the choices the public has made over time.
It is fine to think that these things happened by accident - and to be sure, sometimes the public is responding to the passions of the moment. The Founders attempted to insert into the constitutional system some safeguards against the popular impulses of the moment, but those will only go so far. Particularly in a populist age where the "will of the people" is deemed the highest expression of virtue.
In a democracy, correctly understood, the people do not decide. Rather they decide which elites will decide. "Elite" representing a standard of virtue and excellence. However, again, in a populist age, such an argument does not sell very well.
So we have the programs and agenda that we do because that is what the people - both knowingly and unconsciously - choose to have. The notion that you can, given that reality, define the "unnecessary" is problematic.
For what it is worth, I am not unsympathetic to some of arguments. However, there is, at least at present, no societal and therefore no political consensus for them. Thus you are spitting into a hurricane.
In any case, statecraft, properly understood, is best played in inches and not miles. Incremental reforms tend to be wiser - and in any case more doable - than any sweeping reform such as you suggested.
P. S. Just to add - and repeat - by the way, also do not forget that, properly managed and limited, the welfare state has a socially stabilizing influence. It gives those who might not otherwise have a stake in the stability of society and the political order some link to it. This thereby conducing to a more stable statecraft and society.
This is what Bismarck and Disraeli understood. It was only with the advent of first "radical" liberalism and then socialism that the idea of the welfare state as an instrument of social engineering was born. (Please note that the use of the word "radical" above does not refer to its' contemporary meaning, i. e. extremist. Rather it means as the ancient Greeks used the word, Meaning "to the root of.")
Bottom line, the welfare state, like any human creation, must be cautiously and prudently used. However, no more than its radical liberal use would its' abolition likely prove wise and prudent. The balance - yes, including a fiscal balance - must be struck.
Our representatives are nigh useless because they are corrupt and compromised. The whole point of representatives are so the average person doesn't have to spend so much time educating themselves on politics to the point where it's almost a full-time job.
If every citizen was passionate about politics and educated themselves, then this oligarchy would not be in power. Representative democracy was a mistake.
Really? How many people out there know, in an intellectual way, their constitutional rights?
No, police brutality can and has been a problem, but hardly anything like the soaring crime rates. Compare the murder rate in a city like Detroit to the incidence of police brutality. Where do you think the bigger problem lay?
I can shoot a thug no problem and have much less problems to deal with and if I shot a cop who was breaking their oath.
Police are much more dangerous to deal with and they have an immense responsibility to uphold which they are dreadfully ignorant of. A lot of them think that if you don't I. D when they ask, that is a reason for them to throw you in a cage. That is not true, they have to have RAZ and PC to I. D you
At this point the government is so corrupt that it is up to the citizenry to educate themselves to the full extent on the constitution, the laws and so on. People have to absolutely be on top of this just like they are full-time politicians, otherwise they're going to lose all their rights and live under communist Chinese style oppression with social credit scores and all of that.
Well, as Jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternl vigilnce. The trouble is the public cnnot be bothered but ssumes its own virtue.
P. S. There seems to be something wrong with my computer. I apologize for all the type-os. I m going to look into this. Very sorry. lso, s of tomorrow, I will be on "honeymoon" for a few days. So I will not be able to reply till next week if you choose to discuss further.
Again, very sorry for the mess above.
There is no such thing as republicans and democrats, thats an act, a distraction for you to be glued to.
They are both on the same team, rather like how arms dealers or banks often are on both sides of a war.
It's pointless to debate who should be in congress or as president. Because the public doesn't get to vote on bills, and even if we did, there is no way the rich would not cheat in the voting results the wanted, just like how it's done with presidents and congress.
It's amusing how we elect representatives so we can go about our lives but in reality you have to study the law carefully just to not have your rights violated by a police officer and you have to advocate for any change you want aggressively just like you are working a full-time job as a politician who somehow has their hands clean.
Laws as they are currently written are overcomplicated, nonsensicle, and impractical, and "advocating" is just begging but written fancier.
If you want to make the rules, you are stuck running a country yourself.
No that would only result in absolute corruption.
The solution is lots of tiny countries, each filled with only people who agree with eachother.
Be it a dicatorship, a majority vote, or a scam by the rich. It all results in people being told their opinions and desires are worthless.
Any real solution has to value all, or conflict will arise, and end whatever is in place. It's why even mostly peaceful empires fall.
That wouldn't work, it's hard to get even 10 people to agree with what you want. And then what about their children? And their children's children?
Not everyone's opinion can be valued because a choice has to ultimately be made that will favor one side over the other in some way. There are rarely perfect solutions.
If I was given in immortality and perfect control over society, I would have you all living in a paradise.
Your idea of a paradise is a nightmare to me, I prefer a government that entirely relegated to public benefits and freedoms, not an overlord.
The fact that it's difficult to get lots of people to agree with eachother, is why tiny countries are better, as that solution gives small populations per country, making is managable.
it* not "is"
My idea would work, but dictatorships have proven only to be failures.
It would be easy enough to do about 10,000 to 100,000 people per country, any larger I'd think impossible without preference differences. It would be a LOT of countries, like much smaller than a state sized ones. Probably city sized.
It would also require zero immigration barriers in all countries. As new people would have to choose their ideal one upon reaching adulthood.
I personally do not think it will ever happen, despite being sensible. People tend to prioritize blood relation and faith over logic and common ground.
This is the only topic that I disagree with Republicans on, Sanders is right on how to help social security by removing the cap on income. No matter how much someone makes they should pay the social security tax.
The real problem is SS is a pyramid scheme, in order to work, it needs more people working at the base.
Social programs are the largest chunk of Federal spending, we hear people complain about military spending but to put things into perspective.
The U. S. government spent a total of 724 billion U. S. dollars on interest of public debt. Military spending was at 858 billion.
Eventually the USA is going to be spending more on servicing the outstanding debt than they will be for the military.
The current spending is unsustainable, eventually... regardless of what law makers want, there won't be anyone willing to loan money to the government and then what happens?
Even so, this was never really going to happen, it has just been taken by Democrats as a scare tactic.
"No matter how much someone makes they should pay the social security tax." People who earn huge incomes DO pay social security tax on the first $160,200 of income, but they are not taxed on income above that level. There is also a cap on the Socal Security benefit that they will receive upon retirement.
@OlderAndWiser That is what I meant, remove the cap for taxing income, but put/keep cap in place for collecting if you have so much money, you can only collect so much.
If you're married, one of you will lose your money. The gov. only allows one spouse to collect their forced retirement money and the other one forfeits.
SS is a rip off and it needs to be abolished as does other forms of government theft. If it's going to be abolished then everyone shoukd get a refund of what they paid into it (interest will never happen).
Ok, but it should be that everyone gets back what they were forced to save.
That shouldn't be a forced choice.
Opinion
16Opinion
u Ths guy is a conspiracy theorist and this YT video is based on isolated examples and sound bytes that are very truncated and clipped. I suspect that hearing the extended quotes from these people would change the significance of what they said.
If Democrats propose to increase Social Security benefits by 8% and Republicans propose a 7% increase, Democrats will accuse Republicans of wanting to "cut" Social Security. This is one of the oldest tricks in their arsenal of dirty political tricks.
Privatizing Socal Security is not the same thing as abolishing Social Security.
And if you say that enough times. . . it must be true?
Republicans are not trying to commit suicide any more than Democrats. I've been following this political debate for over 40 years. That's a lot of sessions of Congress with both Republicans and Democrats in power. From the oldest members to the youngest, it's four generations of members. Some of the current members could be great grand children of the oldest members when I started following this issue.
So why has there been so much talk about "fixing" Social Security, yet very little has been done? Because ANY fix will be political suicide. Even suggesting a fix has serious political backlash. We've seen it over and over, with people from both parties suggesting fixes. Politicians KNOW this will happen because it happens every time. They know that any move to fix the system WILL have serious backlash.
So who is to blame for it not being fixed? All the people who yell and scream every time the politicians suggest anything are to blame. It's the people who want it fixed. But it's also the people who prevent it from getting fixed. Nobody is willing to bite the bullet and do what needs to be done. So decades pass, without anything substantial being done.
As far as the video, I quit watching a few minutes in. That guy is obviously biased and editing things and taking them out of context to make Republicans look bad.
People keep whining about this stuff. If it's going to be fixed, it's going to be painful. But people want to fix it AND have it not be painful. That's not going to happen. Look what happens when someone suggests changes. That's been going on a very long time and both Republicans and Democrats have been under the gun and faced backlash.
From another user:
"The government changed the original program from an insurance policy that accrued dividends to a pay as you go system so that the government could loot the fund."
This is the government's fault and also there are so many things we could cut besides those programs we already paid into.
The fund has a huge amount of money. That's money that was paid in the past. It is far from completely pay as you go. And even if it's pay as you go, so what? Insurance is much the same. They have a large fund to pay out when needed, but they rely on a constant influx of premiums to sustain it long term.
As for looting the fund, that's a myth. The federal government has never stolen a single cent from Social Security. Social Security lends money to the government, and gets paid back with interest. The interest rate sucks, but they get every cent paid back. Getting a better return on their investment is probably the best way to make SS completely self-funded, but it should have been done decades ago. Plus, there could be all kinds of negative consequences to doing that.
Actually, I did read it all, and I just re-read it. As far as I can see, your assertions are based on the idea that there's only one way to "fix" social security (cutting benefits), and that's simply not true.
Raising worker's average salaries would increase contributions. Removing the cap on annual contributions. Making health care more affordable wouldn't hurt, either.
@goaded
I never said there was only one solution. I said that no matter what they suggest, there is political backlash. That includes the things you mention. All kind of things have been suggested: raising the tax, decreasing the benefits, increasing the retirement age ( which has several variations since it's not just one age ), privatizing SS, investing in stocks, allowing people to manage their own money ( the stupidest suggestion of all ), increasing the cap, changing "the bend" ( which is a benefit reduction in disguise ), eliminating COLAs, increasing the early retirement penalty, stop paying people who start collecting but later go back to work.
ALL of them have been shot down. All of them have had political backlash, whether they are Republican or Democrat. The politicians don't have the balls to do anything, so nothing gets done at all.
The political solution is easy. Don't do anything. Then it gets absorbed in the general budget where it gets hidden by smoke and mirrors. People eventually will quit talking about it. That's not a fix, but it works politically.
"I never said there was only one solution." Then I apologise, that's what I read into your opinion. Sorry.
I definitely agree with your assessment that allowing people to manage their own money is a really stupid suggestion, but I'd say cancelling the whole thing (which is what sunsetting the law would do) is even worse, mainly because it also involves the former.
I don't think you can argue that no Republicans are proposing to make that a possibility, whether it's to finally kill it altogether or to gain almost infinite leverage over the Democrats in their negotiations by threatening to do so. Just like they've been doing with the debt ceiling.
The problem is we paid into it, but they've been stealing it and at higher rates, and that's not even counting their accounting fraud.
Look... when you are a thief, and you are slowing stealing peoples standard of living, ya gotta be careful... meanwhile... on the other side of it, sheep aren't that smart. Lying is a valid tool... the gap between reported inflation and real inflation, etc.. You don't want to be found out... not, on "your" watch... kick the can is better than "take responsibility"? Where is that taught?
But whatever, can't throw people out in the street like that, voters don't like to hear "discipline", "it don't exist", fraud, balance budget. They just want what they had before and more of it... so tell them everything is great, shrink the package, steal their land from under their feet, and reduce quality... sometimes, double the price and say infliation is 9%. Ya know... ya gotta be creative. You're sheep will still vote for you.
So prepare yourself for eating insect protein, having your wealth swiped away over time... just like prior generations. Have you seen the old wandering the streets, with no support?
In the meantime, care for those who've already fallen off the boat, do the best you can to save and hope for the best.
Suicide? That is another tool being used by the populace... especially the old, and American indians, and military.
People are required to pay into social security so that they can receive payments after retirement.
The government changed the original program from an insurance policy that accrued dividends to a pay as you go system so that the government could loot the fund.
Social security became nothing more than a tax.
But, yeah, retirees and people who are nearing retirement will make big trouble if benefits are cut.
It doesn't really matter, SS is a pyramid scheme. It's going to fail regardless of if any politicians (regardless of affiliation) are trying to kill it. In fact, one could argue those trying to phase it out are acting responsibly instead of pretending that this financial fantasy can continue.
PS I'm not really into left or right politics, but I go by the numbers and statistics instead.
The richest country in the world didn't get to be the richest country in the world giving away a hot meal to anyone who just asks for it.
Those citizens are members of a capitalistic society. That means they have great freedom to go out and do their best to get the most they can out of life. But if they want to sit on their ass or make bad decisions, there are going to be consequences for that as well. Or even if they work hard but just have bad luck and get cancer or some weird disease; that's not on everyone else to fix their problem. There's great opportunity, but also great risk. If you want some other kind of government and care for the old and disabled, go to a different country. I got medical care in Nicaragua when I wasn't even a citizen. Just a visiting American, and they gave me about $15,000 worth of medical care (US prices) and all I had to pay for was some medicine I had to special order that they would have given me for free but they had run out so I had to order it for around $150. Then they administered it for free and tended to me for over a month for free.
The country isn't "looking out" for anyone. The government costs citizens more than it is worth. We pay $10 trillion into the government and what we get in return is we pay $9 trillion worth of government employee salaries and get $1 trillion in actual benefits (like roads or other infrastructure, &c.) Not actual numbers but you get the idea. It's like when you donate to "starving kids in Africa": about $0.10 of every $1 actually goes into food or something for the kids, the rest is eaten up by the program, fuel costs, paying for the shipment, paying the actors and for the ads to run on tv, all the overhead. Only instead of starving kids in Africa, we are trying to have roads and cops that won't maim or kill us but will help when we are in trouble. But we have to pay $1 for every ten cents of benefit.
With lower birth rates and higher life expectancy, something needs to be done. But don't worry. Republicans don't have the guts to do what is necessary and Democrats would refuse if they did. But yeah, run out the same old scare tactics. Just hope you are saving a lot. If you're under 45, maybe even 50, FICA and Medicare might as well just be an additional income tax, because the system will collapse before you retire if things don't change. Either that or the idiots in DC will monetize the debt, and then we will all really be screwed.
@juxtapose If you beleive Joe Biden on anything least of all what he claims about his political enemies 'desires' your not in a position to be counted as responsible.
Still thinking you would get something out of a ponzi scheme due to be out of IOU's within a decade or so 15+ years before your eligible to get anything isn't a encouraging indication of your math skills either.
But fine do nothing in watch them IOU's fly out the window and try to silence anyone who dares say anything about it.
You certantly got the Republican and Democratic party paying ball on that. it probably doesn't help that its likely already too late to do anything of consequence.
@goaded The problem with Medicare setting prices (which is what negotiation really is) is the country is far too geographically and economically diverse for any price not to automatically cut off from service significant shares of their FORCED customer base.
When a private company does this they can simply leave that area to their competition, but Medicare having FORCED everyone to be its customer regardless of where they live is robing people in every area it doesn't serve.
I'm not sure what effect location has on drug prices, but I can see your argument about, say, hospitals. I don't think it's impossible to take account of those sorts of things in regulations, though.
I think hospitals here are allowed to charge more than others if they have good reasons to, like being remote, serving a small community, etc.. Something similar could work in the US, too.
Seems like every year, there's political campaigns with ads stating that they're going to cut social security and Medicare, right around the time that people vote for senators and representatives. Last time I heard, US government borrowed from the surplus that the SS had for decades and pays interest on it. It's a self funded program you get deducted right from your paycheck. In 2018, $83 billion in interest income was collected by Social Security.
If maga claimed everyone should jump off a cliff. . . even as that would be literal suicide, it would still be good politics. Because all they had to do is claim if folks choose life, they would be labeled libtards.
And all you guys would go running towards the cliff just to avoid being labeled.
The Republicans can screw up a free lunch. The RNC is like s clown car. Mitch McConnell needs to go.
@goaded I think it makes more sense than the system we have now with all the laws and loopholes. I used to be able to deduct credit card interest but no more. I also used to write my wife's car off as a business expense. All my loopholes have been closed. Even the uninsured loss. Let's have either a flat tax or national sales tax.
I'm just pointing out the standard Republican talking point about 50% of people supposedly paying no taxes is a lie.
If you'd said "The bottom 50% currently pay no federal income tax", I wouldn't have said anything. OK, maybe I would, but at least the statement would have been accurate.
Do you count Social Security contributions as a federal tax? Because, aiui, most people pay that too.
This is complete nonsense. A shame that people run with Biden’s lies. The truth is SS is going to run out of money. No politician has the balls to tackle that reality.
Social security is not going to run out of money, it is overfunded by taxes and underused by disabled and retired every year. We could eliminate property taxes entirely and still fund it just fine.
And there is no limit to the money, the government just keeps printing more of it, its value descreases from this, but it's value also increases as other countries also hit the same inflation, so nothing changes.
No point to going into how it's backed by nothing, not in an age with debit/credit, and not enough of any rare ore to back it.
You're always beacon of light in the cesspool of stupid. Republicans don't want to take away your social security, regardless of what the bonehead in the video says. Republicans want to stop Dimocrats from stealing your money, and giving it to Pakistan for gender studies. They shouldn't be allowed to use SS money for anything other than what it was intended for. But they don't give a shit about the people. Why should they care? So Republicans aren't taking away SS, they're taking it out of the Dim thieves that are stealing it. But since people will pretty much believe anything they hear, the message got twisted.
We need term limits, and we need them yesterday.
They don't care. They will take the money from their rich sponsors while the party collapses like a Turkish apartment block.
Why are you drinking the Kool-Aid? No one wants to cut Social Security, dude.
The reforms are for future generations. They're not for people currently receiving benefits on these programs.
@Juxtapose I also would like to privatize it. I thought the Bush plan was great!
"99 Red Balloons go by" Biden 2023
Do you smell the coffee, now? It's been around since, well, the 1920s.
I have no idea, but I agree with you Republicans have gone downhill to be mere tools or jokes
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions