No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

[Lakhota]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

 

[Lakhota]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

 

[Kosh]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

More fake news from the far left!

 

[buckeye45_73]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

 

[Lakhota]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

Wouldn't matter HOW they voted. They'd be too late to "destroy" SocSec. Congress did that over 30 years. Robbing the paychecks of the working poor and rich alike with surpluses that were just pissed away and nothing of value left in it's place. THEN -- now that SocSec is already running a deficit (started 8 yrs ahead of projections thanks to Obama robbing the income stream in 2009) --- The felon fleecers are ROBBING YOU AGAIN. By issuing NEW debt to cover the shortfalls. Debt which you and your grandchildren will be paying out your paychecks AGAIN.. How stupid is that? For folks to be whining about "touching" or "destroying" Soc Sec when the felons in Washington accomplished that task your entire lives and didn't know it?

It pisses me off that the resultant economic mismanagement carnage is some kind of sacred cow that must not be "touched". Get off my cloud.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

It's hillarious how you guys on the left stay awake at night thinking this stuff up.

 

[Kosh]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

Yes the far left destroyed SS, but do you expect from a bunch of fascists..

 

[tyroneweaver]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

We love these jakestarkey type prophecies.

 

[Pete7469]

Wouldn't matter HOW they voted. They'd be too late to "destroy" SocSec. Congress did that over 30 years. Robbing the paychecks of the working poor and rich alike with surpluses that were just pissed away and nothing of value left in it's place. THEN -- now that SocSec is already running a deficit (started 8 yrs ahead of projections thanks to Obama robbing the income stream in 2009) --- The felon fleecers are ROBBING YOU AGAIN. By issuing NEW debt to cover the shortfalls. Debt which you and your grandchildren will be paying out your paychecks AGAIN.. How stupid is that? For folks to whining about "touching" or "destroying" Soc Sec when the felons in Washington accomplished that task your entire lives and didn't know it?

It pisses me off that the resultant economic mismanagement carnage is some kind of sacred cow that must not be "touched". Get off my cloud.

You should be Trump's Press Sec.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

To piss off you guys in the Gaystopo

 

[Missouri_Mike]

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

I'm trying to think why this is a bad thing. It's pretty much what we have now. You can pump thousands a year into SS and when you need it you get barely a subsistance payout. You pay almost 8% of your earnings throughout your entire working life for the chance to collect less than 1200 bucks a month. If you took that 8% and actually invested it you could easily be getting three to four times that when you need it. SS is nothing more than a rip off for people to think they have some kind of security which actually isn't much compared to what they paid in.

I would like all of my money back I paid in. I would be in a pretty good position right now.

 

[Pete7469]

We love these jakestarkey type prophecies.

Bed wetters are parrots. You can have 9/10 of them on ignore and still read all the same bullshit.

 

[tyroneweaver]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

Yes the far left destroyed SS, but do you expect from a bunch of fascists..

i bet that stupid war I participated in the 60's was funded by social security.

 

[Pete7469]

i bet that stupid war I participated in the 60's was funded by social security.

Glad you got home brother.

 

[owebo]

And noone has, the election is over. You can Stop with the bullshit, throw granny off the cliff stuff. Your scare tactics no longer have impsct, people caught on.

What these Nazis are planning is even worse than just throwing granny off the cliff.

I heard this shit in the 80s, the 90s,.the 2000s and it has never happened

Why do NaziCons keep threatening to do it?

Yes the far left destroyed SS, but do you expect from a bunch of fascists..

i bet that stupid war I participated in the 60's was funded by social security.

And the Iran ransom Obama paid....

 

[tyroneweaver]

i bet that stupid war I participated in the 60's was funded by social security.

Glad you got home brother.

I just baby sat ordinance. I had it pretty D'kd

 

[tyroneweaver]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

Go out and win an election.

 

[Lakhota]

Not a single candidate in 2016 campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace Social Security or Medicare. Anyone who did would have been soundly defeated. Indeed, unlike the Republican opponents he beat, Donald Trump promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But now that the Republicans will soon be in charge of all branches of government, destroying Social Security and Medicare is on the top of their agenda.

Two days after the election, Paul Ryan said, “With a unified Republican government, we can actually get things done.” One of those things is ending Medicare as we know it, as I and others have spotlighted. It turns out that Social Security is in the Republicans’ cross hairs, as well. This is not a surprise. Ending Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is Republican-elite orthodoxy.

What is surprising is that the Republican establishment is so eager, it can’t wait to unveil its plans. In some ways, you can’t blame the Republican elites. They have been waiting a long time.

In the 1936 election campaign, repealing and replacing Social Security was the Republican battle cry. That year, the Republican presidential standard bearer, Alf Landon, claimed, “To get a workable old age pension plan we must repeal [Social Security].” What did he and his fellow Republicans want to replace it with? Instead of Social Security’s pension plan, which replaces wages so that people can retire with dignity and maintain their standard of living as they age, the Republicans proposed paying all seniors an identical subsistence-level amount.

Now, just before Congress left town, the powerful Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled a proposal that would radically transform Social Security. It takes a long time to phase in, but when it does, what would Social Security provide? An essentially flat, subsistence level benefit, independent of how much a worker contributed, just as the 1936 Republican Party proposed.

Unlike 1936, when straightforward repeal was possible, because Social Security hadn’t yet begun, today it has been around for over eighty years. So, to get back to what the Republicans wanted then and now, you have to slash benefits – and the Republican plan does so with gusto.

Much More: No One Voted to Destroy Social Security

People of all ages should fight this - because it would affect ALL of us - young and old.

Wouldn't matter HOW they voted. They'd be too late to "destroy" SocSec. Congress did that over 30 years. Robbing the paychecks of the working poor and rich alike with surpluses that were just pissed away and nothing of value left in it's place. THEN -- now that SocSec is already running a deficit (started 8 yrs ahead of projections thanks to Obama robbing the income stream in 2009) --- The felon fleecers are ROBBING YOU AGAIN. By issuing NEW debt to cover the shortfalls. Debt which you and your grandchildren will be paying out your paychecks AGAIN.. How stupid is that? For folks to whining about "touching" or "destroying" Soc Sec when the felons in Washington accomplished that task your entire lives and didn't know it?

It pisses me off that the resultant economic mismanagement carnage is some kind of sacred cow that must not be "touched". Get off my cloud.

Please provide "credible" proof that Social Security is "running a deficit". Reserves are projected to approach $2.9 trillion by 2020.

Trust Fund Data

Social Security Trust Fund Cash Flows and Reserves