White House to seek just $9B in spending cuts from Congress out of $175B in claimed savings found by Musk’s DOGE.....
- Thread starter shonuff253
- Start date
It makes a ton of sense if you don't think about it.
I told people from day one the idea of cutting $2T in spending was ludicrous.
And simply not possible if you refuse to touch SS and Medicare.
This whole DOGE thing is/ was a waste of time and will accomplish nothing. I cannot believe Elon ruined his brand equity to accomplish virtually nothing.
Medicare, SS, and military. There’s $3 Trillion right there. If congress hadn’t stolen money from SS it wouldn’t be in the mess it is today.
Not this same crap again. Congress did not steal any money from Social Security. It's obviously too much trouble to actually know how it works.
Well, I know how it doesn't work and that is how it was intended and even that was a ponzi scheme rip off. I know in my case, if my wife and I had our contributions in a conservative, interest bearing account, we'd have close to 2 million drawing interest. As it stands now, if I pass before age 65, my wife would get around 300 bucks and then be forced to chose between drawing my benefit or hers. Additionally, I paid income tax on my social security contributions and I can't even draw out my contribution before what should have been interest gains without being taxed again. And of course, I hear the constant drum beat of my benes should be reduced if I have outside retirement income.
It's BS and yes, Congress DID raid SS and issued IOUs and placed the program in danger. I'll never understand why folks that are on either side of the aisle continue to defend how our fed gov has devolved. It's like defending someone that promised you a filet and delivers shitsandwiches over and over again.
I'm sorry if you don't like the system, but it has provided retirement income for generations of people. If you think most people, especially those who need that benefit the most, would save for their retirement, you are mistaken.
Regardless of your dislike of Social Security it doesn't excuse lying about it. You're better than that.
It's either the number 1 or number 2 most popular government program in US history. It keeps hundreds of thousands of seniors out of poverty. It's also completely self funded. Meaning it doesn't add to the deficit
Those that need it most are the ones that are hurt the most by the way the ponzi scheme works. For example, let's take a couple that both worked on the lower end of the spectrum but paid in their 12.4% for 30 yrs. If one of the two pass, the survivor is only entitled to the benefits of one of the 2 contributors. Iows, if they both were drawing a total of 4K per month and had no other retirement income and both had contributed roughly the same amount, the survivor would have their benefit cut in half.
I care about people that have paid into a system for 40 yrs getting the short end of the stick. I care about my mom and the hundreds of thousands like her that would be on easy street now if the contributions that her and my dad made for over forty yrs had been put in account in their names rather than her having to watch her spending because of the hit she took when my dad passed. .
And no SS hasn't provided retirement income for those that paid into the system any more than a 401K provides income. SS is treated as an entitlement because pols sold people on the entitlement BS instead of categorizing it as an earned benefit. Think about it, SS pays out based supposedly on what you paid in. SS requires that you and I pay in for X amount of yrs before we can draw but then will keep your money should you pass before you've draw out you contribution. If you are currently on SS, the government isn't providing you with a benefit as much as they are returning money you paid in at a garbage rate of return.
Is that better than 1 billion?
asking for a friend,
he was rent free before November 4th, and now he is living with you 24/7 lol
you libs just cant stand it
asking for a friend,
he was rent free before November 4th, and now he is living with you 24/7 lol
you libs just cant stand it
Actually SS pays out based on the income level you were taxed on every year adjusted for inflation. The percentage of a calculated average is highest for the less your wage base was so it's better relatively for the lower paid.
You can look at it however you want, but we are going to have to disagree on the facts.
Let's see if we can agree on these facts.
1. Lower income people pay their 12.4% on every dollar they earn.
2. Lower income people are less likely to save for retirement.
3. If a couple both work and one passes, the survivor is only entitled to the benes from one account.
4. If you pass at age 64, your surviving children aren't entitled to your account.
So, if you are worried about the lower income people, the SS scam hits them the hardest. They pay a larger share of their gross income, they are more likely to depend on SS, their SS income will be less than higher wage earners, their life expectancy is generally lower and since SS took a higher percentage of their income and reduced the likelihood of retirement contributions, they leave a spouse that takes a big loss in benes and have very little to pass on if they pass at a younger age.
I know it's controversial to some but the Galveston plan is similar to how I would like our SS system to evolve. It just seems to me that if you pay in for 30 yrs, you should be able to expect more than a small payment for your remaining yrs with nothing to pass on if you die before you draw your benes.
https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/deta...texas-counties-pioneer-social-security-reform
I wouldn't jump to conclusions, and I definitely wouldn't celebrate just yet. Politics is a funky process.
But you be you.
Last edited:
1. No, lower income people pay 6.2%. Yes, their employer pays an additional 6.2%, but that statement is a little misleading and not literally true. It's not literally coming out of their salary.
2. No disagreement at all.
3. True, but not sure what point that makes. Anything else would require more money. If a single (always) person dies before collecting benefits, no retirement benefit is needed by anyone and that money goes (essentially) to pay more to others.
4. No. If you had worked enough to earn a benefit (basically 10 years) then a child under 18 is entitled to a benefit (there are other provisions).
Everyone pays the 6.2% on the first $176,100 of income so they don't pay a larger share of their income than most people. Of course their SS income will be less than higher wage earners - the benefits are related to wages (they will be a larger % though because of the benefit formula). Do you have any statistics showing their life expectancy would be lower? The financial strength of the system is based on not paying benefits if you die; it's not intended strictly as a death benefit. I think it would make more sense if they removed the $255 benefit since it's useless (but then again we're dealing with Congress).
You can expect whatever you want from the Social Security system but it has to be financially viable (there are rules). If they would pay people more (in whatever form) it would cost more money.
I don't know how the Galveston plan has done recently. The discussion you linked talks about certain interest rates but I wonder what they have been earning in recent years of overall low interest rates. In theory Congress can design whatever they want for a Social Security program. The Galveston plan is privatized, but it's a relatively small group of people and there would be a lot of practical questions, especially in regard to investments, trying to do it for the whole country (plus what do you do with the existing system). There are a number of things that the Federal Gov't doesn't do well, but I think this needs to stay a Federal program. Unfortunately, it's such a "hot potato" for Congress.
The Galveston plan is basically you own what you pay in. In the case of SS, it would be something similar to you paying in your 12.4%, a small portion goes in to buying life and disability insurance and the remainder going into your account and earning interest. If you die at 64 and have a wife and adult children, they own your account. A surviving spouse doesn't lose income and there is a lump sum that can be passed down to surviving adult children, For example, my mom and dad both worked for decades and both were able to draw on their accounts. When my dad passed, my mom was forced to choose which account she would draw from. She chose dads because it paid more but she lost about 2500 per month in SS income. If my dad owned his account, like his 401 K, mom wouldn't have lost income and a spouse.
Additionally, employers aren't stupid. I can promise you I don't pay 1/2 of my employee's SS contribution. My "contribution" is nothing more than a line in my employment budget and it's money the employee earns but he's scammed into believing he's not paying that money. The employee just doesn't see that as money earned because it's not listed on their pay stub. It is not a gift, it's a gimmick.
Last edited:
I understand the last point, but that's not how you stated it.
Ok, you want the Galveston plan. I accept that. But you tried to justify it through incorrect and somewhat misleading statements. It's not a Ponzi scheme (though people use that to get attention) and making negative comments about SS doesn't help present any argument.
Trump’s second term is shaping up to be a huge failure. To pretend otherwise is coping.
There’s still time for him to fix it but it’s quickly running out. He will be impeached when the republicans lose the house in the midterms.
There’s still time for him to fix it but it’s quickly running out. He will be impeached when the republicans lose the house in the midterms.
It provided a service that the federal government was never intended to, and shouldn’t, provide.
What's your source on the federal governments intent? What does that even mean? The founding fathers built the constitution to develop and change with the times. The country and world is a fundamentally different place than in 1789. Wanting the government to run by those the functions of those times is asinine.
This shows such ignorance of why Social Security was established. Come back when you have some idea of what you are talking about.
SS literally pays today's recipients with money collected from investors that hope to collect in the future from future investors. It may not be a classic ponzi scheme but it operates much like a ponzi scheme and you and I couldn't get away with opening an investment house and operating it like SS.
Also, how are you going to make SS better/more solvent without discussing the areas which are problematic. Iows, we'll always be playing a shell game where some folks collect multiples of what they invested and others are losing their shirts unless we move away from the ponzi like aspects and allow the younger generation to actually own part of their investment and grow it with interest.
Lyndon Johnson moved SS from a private fund into the general fund to help fund the so called Great Society !
Man where did that shit come from?
A key element of a Ponzi scheme is that fraud is involved. So SS is not a Ponzi scheme. The fact I couldn't do the same has nothing to do with SS, because this is how Congress set it up. Again feel free to desire another system, but don't mislabel what we have now.
The main problem with the funding of SS is that after a period of growth the fund has started to decrease. As things stand now, something will have to be changed. That's the only thing I would call "problematic" if you want to. Retirement age has been increased and likely will have to be increased again. I doubt the contribution rate will be increased. The funds won't run out of money for a while and since an analysis is required annually there is time.
I disagree with your description of what the system is and apparently with what you see as a problem, so further discussion is not worthwhile.
How many times can you be wrong about things? The money that SS collects is invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities as required under the Social Security law. Why do you make things up?
This is not made up! They moved the fund into the general fund.
Every action Trump has attempted to take has been immediately stopped by the courts. And Trump has abided by the court’s decision every time.
Additionally how many deportations have we gotten? Has any deep state actor been arrested? Has there been anything done which would make the left think twice before continuing to behave the way they did the last 4 years?
As far as impeachment goes, it shouldn’t be surprising. It’s what democrats do, they file articles of impeachment.
He bounces from one failure (doge) to the next (tariffs). The upcoming battle in the Senate over his budget will only reiterate to all that he lied his ass off concerning one the cornerstones of his campaign - cutting spending, reducing the deficit.
He gets credit for the border but even that has been mess.
Dems will take the House next election and he will be impeached. Not sure he survives this time.
Have to combat all the lies you and others tell. I see you agree with the incorrect statement about Social Security funds being transferred into the General fund. They have never been transferred into the General Fund and that is not allowed by law. Stop confusing it with Johnson and how the fund was accounted for in the budget. The actual operation of the fund was not changed.
Don’t waste your time … he can’t speak on the merits of any topic. Just repeats the same 2 or 3 insults, over and over again.
And you two just keep lying over and over again. In 1964 or 65 the government moved the SS funds out of a private fund and into the general fund. They may have moved it after that I don’t know. But it was in its own private fund at one time they moved it out. I know because I was living during that time and I remember them doing it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Trevor Immelman drains any last vestige of masculinity from golf.- Latest: RedNBlackNtheDay
-
What’s the one road stadium where you most want to see a game?- Latest: donalsonville_dawg
-
