After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits – Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives

The bill prevents cuts in SS benefits.
Huh? This bill will speed up SS's insolvency. Did you not read the article? FYI, according to the Social Security Administration itself, in just 10 years--yes, just 10 years--SS revenue will only pay for 75% of scheduled benefits (LINK).

So what's the Democrat answer to this problem? Add a bunch of people onto the SS benefit roles, people who did not pay into the SS system and who are already getting retirement benefits from their state!
 

After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits – Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives​

21 Dec 2024 ~~ By Samuel Short, Western Journal.

Democrats have been caught doing the very thing they’ve been accusing President-elect Donald Trump of doing: Cutting Social Security.

On Wednesday, the U.K. Daily Mail reported Senate Democrats are trying to push through a Social Security reform bill they want to see signed by President Joe Biden before Trump takes office.
The Social Security Fairness Act aims to repeal provisions that reduce payouts to public sector employees like police officers, firefighters, teachers, and post workers. The Mail cites The Committee for a Responsible Budget in their article, and that group states this would make Social Security insolvent six months earlier than current projections by giving increased benefits to 3 million people who paid into their state or local pensions that did not pay Social Security.
The CRFB also states, “As a result, we estimate a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033 would see their benefits cut by an additional $25,000 over their lifetime.”
The think tank says if Social Security runs out of money under this bill, as much as $400,000 in benefits would be lost for the average couple. CRFB states the cost for the bill over the next decade — citing the Congressional Budget Office — would be $190 billion.
~Snip~
“It speeds the bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in 2034. This will speed it up by a year or so. It’s $200 billion added to a program that is already short of money,” he said, following up by commenting, “If you’re going to add to its mandate by expanding it, you should pay for it.”
Schumer tried to pose the effort on X in the most altruistic fashion last week, saying, “It would ensure Americans are not erroneously denied their well-earned social security benefits simply because they chose at some point to work in their careers in public service.”
~Snip~
In July, Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries invoked to boogeyman that is Project 2025 to say Trump would be the end of Social Security.
He claimed, “Trump’s Project 2025 will end Social Security and Medicare as we know it.”
Despite looking to address excessive government spending, Trump stated earlier this month, “We’re not touching Social Security.”
Under Democrats’ bill, cuts will be made, and insolvency will be sped up.
It is unclear whether Democrats actually think this is helpful, or if they just want to create a massive disaster later — perhaps for the president-elect to “deal” with.
That all being said, there may be a far less conspiratorial explanation for this latest move from the Democrats.
Hanlon’s Razor states we, “shouldn’t attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

See Also:
**********​


Commentary:
These people have not paid in to social security and they are supposed to get benefits? They have benefits from their pension. Then every one should be given the max SSI payment regardless of how long they work or when they choose to retire, if you pay in to SSI.
The pensions of all public sector workers is outrage that we also pay for. Most are getting their full salaries as though they are still working…. Teachers unions and all public sector unions have made sure their members are taken care of after retirement. So no, they should not receive full SS Benefits….
If you haven't paid in to the systems you should not be collecting SS. Also SS should not be used to provide benefits for people that have never paid in. It was never designed for that. The government pays a larger portion than the employee. And the benefit payout is guaranteed by the taxpayers.
Ever since I was a kid decades ago the dems have been saying Republicans would take SS away.
 
Commentary:
These people have not paid in to social security and they are supposed to get benefits? They have benefits from their pension. Then every one should be given the max SSI payment regardless of how long they work or when they choose to retire, if you pay in to SSI.

This is false. The people impacted by this law DID pay into Social Security.

Take an example.

A Firefighter works for 20 years in California and pays into CalPers retirement but not social security, gets vested and earns a CalPers retirement. Then her husband gets orders from San Diego to Norfolk VA and she takes job as a VA Teacher. In VA public serviec EE's pay into Social Secuirty just like everyone else. After working 25 year as teacher she retires and draws Social Security.

Her SS benefit is based on earnings for the 25 year period she paid into Social Security, but under WEB it was reduced because of the CalPers pension. A pension that had nothing to do with SS, it was not "double dipping" because the times didn't overlap, it's not an additional benefit either. It is not having an earned benefit reduced.

WW
 
The worst loss would be my wife's, who was a stay-at-home mom for twenty years before becoming a teacher. She would not be eligible for Social Security survivor benefits due to the "Windfall Elimination Act." Again, she would be entitled to them if she had never worked at a job at all, but because she became a teacher, she is currently not going to get anything.

This is false.

#1 WEP has nothing to do with periods when someone isn't working. WEP has to do with pensions received from non-Social Security participating jobs.

#2 If she worked the required 40 quarters and paid into SS she would be eleigible for benefits. If she didn't work the 40 quarters, then again that has nothing to do with WEP.

#2 You mention Survior Benefits. If you worked and paid into Social Security, and something happens to you. Then your surviving spouse will be able to draw SS benefits based on your earnings. She will draw benefits equal to your social security amount for the rest of her life. If she is eligible for SS on her own and you pass, as a surviving spouse she will draw an amount equal to the HIGHER or EITHER her benefit or yours. So if hers is lower, it is raised to match yours.

WW
.
.
.
.
 
Actually, the 'Windfall Elimination Provision' or WEP) reduced Social Security payouts to people who paid into Social Security who did not accumulate 30 years.

This is false.

What the WEP did was reduce benenfits for someone that worked and qualified for SS because of a second career (either earlier than or after a non-SS covered career).

The requirement to be eleibile for any SS benefit is 40 quarters in a SS covered job. However the amount of the benefits is a weighted calcualtion based on 35 years of qualified social security earnings. The SS benefit is calcuatled by using weighted percentages over that span. So someone with only 40 quarters (10 years) would have lower weighting factors than someone with similar earngins (for the final 10 years) but who had worked for 35 years in SS covered jobs. This weighting factor is called Average Monthly Indexed Earnings.

TL;DR - someone working 10 years will have a lower benefit check becasue SS is calculated based on 35 years of earnings.

WW
.
.
.
 
It allows people who haven't paid into the system to receive social security, thus shortening the life of the fund

False. The WEP elinination is about people that paid into social security and had there benefits reduced because of another non-SS job.

This isn't about paying people from SS security that never worked in a SS covered job. They had to work 40 quarters (10-years) to even qualify for SS.

WW
 

After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits – Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives​

21 Dec 2024 ~~ By Samuel Short, Western Journal.

Democrats have been caught doing the very thing they’ve been accusing President-elect Donald Trump of doing: Cutting Social Security.

On Wednesday, the U.K. Daily Mail reported Senate Democrats are trying to push through a Social Security reform bill they want to see signed by President Joe Biden before Trump takes office.
The Social Security Fairness Act aims to repeal provisions that reduce payouts to public sector employees like police officers, firefighters, teachers, and post workers. The Mail cites The Committee for a Responsible Budget in their article, and that group states this would make Social Security insolvent six months earlier than current projections by giving increased benefits to 3 million people who paid into their state or local pensions that did not pay Social Security.
The CRFB also states, “As a result, we estimate a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033 would see their benefits cut by an additional $25,000 over their lifetime.”
The think tank says if Social Security runs out of money under this bill, as much as $400,000 in benefits would be lost for the average couple. CRFB states the cost for the bill over the next decade — citing the Congressional Budget Office — would be $190 billion.
~Snip~
“It speeds the bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in 2034. This will speed it up by a year or so. It’s $200 billion added to a program that is already short of money,” he said, following up by commenting, “If you’re going to add to its mandate by expanding it, you should pay for it.”
Schumer tried to pose the effort on X in the most altruistic fashion last week, saying, “It would ensure Americans are not erroneously denied their well-earned social security benefits simply because they chose at some point to work in their careers in public service.”
~Snip~
In July, Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries invoked to boogeyman that is Project 2025 to say Trump would be the end of Social Security.
He claimed, “Trump’s Project 2025 will end Social Security and Medicare as we know it.”
Despite looking to address excessive government spending, Trump stated earlier this month, “We’re not touching Social Security.”
Under Democrats’ bill, cuts will be made, and insolvency will be sped up.
It is unclear whether Democrats actually think this is helpful, or if they just want to create a massive disaster later — perhaps for the president-elect to “deal” with.
That all being said, there may be a far less conspiratorial explanation for this latest move from the Democrats.
Hanlon’s Razor states we, “shouldn’t attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

See Also:
**********​


Commentary:
These people have not paid in to social security and they are supposed to get benefits? They have benefits from their pension. Then every one should be given the max SSI payment regardless of how long they work or when they choose to retire, if you pay in to SSI.
The pensions of all public sector workers is outrage that we also pay for. Most are getting their full salaries as though they are still working…. Teachers unions and all public sector unions have made sure their members are taken care of after retirement. So no, they should not receive full SS Benefits….
If you haven't paid in to the systems you should not be collecting SS. Also SS should not be used to provide benefits for people that have never paid in. It was never designed for that. The government pays a larger portion than the employee. And the benefit payout is guaranteed by the taxpayers.
MAGA lies.
 
On that point, you are in error. Employees receiving state pensions do not contribute to SS through FICA. They make contributions to their state employee pensions. You don't pay anything towards their pensions.

For example, I contributed to my Kentucky state pension for 10 years. When I decided to retire, I received my contributions to the state pension fund back in lieu of a pension. Had I received a pension, those contributions that I made to the pension fund with my own money would have counted against me for my SS benefit I received for work other than for the state. Money that I paid income tax on when I received counted nothing towards my SS because they did not withhold FICA.

Like me, these people also had jobs that paid into SS, but also had jobs that did not contribute. I started when I was 17 and contributed all the way until 2007. From 2007 through 2018, I had a state retirement and contributed nothing. From 2018 to 2022, I was a military contractor and paid into SS and Medicare again for those 4 years. When I retired, my SS benefit was reduced because I had no SS income for those 10 years. The same applies to these people. What they are eliminating an additional penalty for having a separate retirement,

These people may be retired military, have taken a state job, like teaching, and when they became eligible for SS their state retirement payments count against their SS simply because they have another income source. They get their state retirement, and military retirement, but SS is reduced because of the state retirement, even though it is already reduced because they did not contribute for those years they were paying into their retirement funds.

They are not really giving these employees anything except eliminating a penalty that made no sense to apply in the first place.

Just to clarify...

"Employees receiving state pensions do not contribute to SS through FICA. They make contributions to their state employee pensions. You don't pay anything towards their pensions."

This only applies to a few states. In general State (and all Federal) employees pay into SS through FICA.

I myself (in VIrginia) pay into BOTH the State pension fund and into SS throuigh FICA.

WW
 
So, even if you worked part of your time at a job that did withhold taxes and part of your life in a job that didn't, this appears to say it doesn't matter. You'll get your full benefits either way. .

Correct. Now go back and check again, and then look at how the amount of the benefit is calculated.

Under the new provisions those that used to fall under WEP will not have their benefit reduced - True.

However the amount of the benefit is based on earnings, so only the earnings that were covered by SS are included in determining the amount.

There is no one set "Full Benefit" for everyone. Each persons benefit is calcualted individuals based ONLY on the earnings contributed over time.

So people that workedin similar jobs, say one for 35 years and one for only 10. The other years for the 10-year person were in a non-SS covered job. The 35 year persons amount is based on 35 years of SS earnigns. The 10 year persons amount is based on 10 years of SS earnigns. So the benefit amount for the 10 year person will be lower than the 35 year person.

WW
 
False. The WEP elinination is about people that paid into social security and had there benefits reduced because of another non-SS job.

This isn't about paying people from SS security that never worked in a SS covered job. They had to work 40 quarters (10-years) to even qualify for SS.

WW
*
Before 1983, people whose primary job wasn’t covered
by Social Security had their Social Security benefits
calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers.
They had the advantage of receiving a Social Security
benefit that represented a higher percentage of their
earnings. They also had a pension from a job for which
they didn’t pay Social Security taxes. Congress passed
the WEP to remove that advantage.*

people already receive social security based on the time they worked for a job that DID pay into the trust. If you work 25 years in a job that doesn't withhold SS taxes, then work 10 years in a job that does, you don't get full benefits. Your SS is reduced to reflect the amount you SHOULD get based on how much you put in.

Why would anyone to expect to receive a full benefit if they only worked a few years paying into the system.

If I read the above correctly, they were calculating their social security payments based on the higher wage, or, they were including income that didn't hold out social security taxes as part of the calculation to determine their benefit.

WEP removed that advantage. And set the SS amount based only on wages that did hold out social security taxes.
 
Last edited:
Social security benefits are regulated by core inflation. Which have been falsely reported.
However Congress is trying to vote themselves a 40% increase while SS recipients only have gotten 5%.

We do not need to expand those covered under Social Security....just pay those who paid in 120 calendar quarters or more fairly.

And those who only have 40 calendar quarters? The minimum. Also stop having a cap on SS Taxes. And that will fund the taxes on SS payments....so they can stop. Basically an increase.
Friends of mine unknowingly adopted a Russian infant that was a deaf mute. She was gifted a free education at Gallaudet, a free car and SS checks for the rest of her life. The parents are going on their third Alaska cruise. I worked double shifts in a steel mill to pay for my daughter`s education and can`t afford one Alaska cruise. We`re paying for their cruise.
 
*
Before 1983, people whose primary job wasn’t covered
by Social Security had their Social Security benefits
calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers.
They had the advantage of receiving a Social Security
benefit that represented a higher percentage of their
earnings. They also had a pension from a job for which
they didn’t pay Social Security taxes. Congress passed
the WEP to remove that advantage.*

people already receive social security based on the time they worked for a job that DID pay into the trust. If you work 25 years in a job that doesn't withhold SS taxes, then work 10 years in a job that does, you don't get full benefits. Your SS is reduced to reflect the amount you SHOULD get based on how much you put in.

Why would anyone to expect to receive a full benefit if they only worked a few years paying into the system.

If I read the above correctly, they were calculating their social security payments based on the higher wage, or, they were including income that didn't hold out social security taxes as part of the calculation to determine their benefit.

WEP removed that advantage. And set the SS amount based only on wages that did hold out social security taxes.

Except that isn't what was happening. The weren't receiving benefits based on the time they DID work in a SS covered position. There benefits were being reduced ONLY because they worked in a SS covered AND drew a pension from a non-SS covered job.

People were being treated differently.

So let's compare.

Example #1
A couple make a choice, one spouse works and is the primary breadwinner for the family. The other spouse raises the children, manages the household, does volunteer work in the community. Once the youngest child is grown and out of school the Homemaker goes to work in their 50's and works for 12 years at a fairly well paying full-time job. When they retire their SS is calculated to establish a benefit based on earnings per month over the 48 quarters worked.

Example #2
In another case a person works in a job not coverered by SS, they retire from that job and earn a pension - could be a teacher, firefighter, police officer, secretary, or someone working overseas for a long time. Since they "retired" at a fairly young age say in their 50's they stay in the labor force and continue to work for 12 years at a fairly well paying full-time job. When they retire their SS is NOT calculated to establish a benefit based on earnings per month over the 48 quarters worked. Their benefit is (was) calculated to penalize them for having worked to receive a pension and the nomral benefit was reduced under WEP.
.
.
.
.
So if the worker from Example #1 (Homemaker spouse) and Example #2 (employedd worker) are compared and say - just for the sake of discusson - they worked in the same field, drew the same salary, and worked during the same 12 year period in life.

They should draw the same benefit right? They didn't. One was penalized for working and earning a pension that had nothing to do with SS. The other was not.

WW
 
Last edited:
Except that isn't what was happening. The weren't receiving benefits based on the time they DID work in a SS covered position. There benefits were being reduced ONLY because they worked in a SS covered AND drew a pension from a non-SS covered job.

People were being treated differently.

So let's compare.

Example #1
A couple make a choice, one spouse works and is the primary breadwinner for the family. The other spouse raises the children, manages the household, does volunteer work in the community. Once the youngest child is grown and out of school the Homemaker goes to work in their 50's and works for 12 years at a fairly well paying full-time job. When they retire their SS is calculated to establish a benefit based on earnings per month over the 48 quarters worked.

Example #2
In another case a person works in a job not coverered by SS, they retire from that job and earn a pension - could be a teacher, firefighter, police officer, secretary, or someone working overseas for a long time. Since they "retired" at a fairly young age say in their 50's they stay in the labor force and continue to work for 12 years at a fairly well paying full-time job. When they retire their SS is NOT calculated to establish a benefit based on earnings per month over the 48 quarters worked. Their benefit is (was) calculated to penalize them for having worked to receive a pension and the nomral benefit was reduced under WEP.
.
.
.
.
So if the worker from Example #1 (Homemaker spouse) and Example #2 (employedd worker) are compared and say - just for the sake of discusson - they worked in the same field, drew the same salary, and worked during the same 12 year period in life.

They should draw the same benefit right? They didn't. One was penalized for working and earning a pension that had nothing to do with SS. The other was not.

WW
I can only go off of the explanation offered by the excerpt above, which is from the social security administration.

At the end of the day, people should get social security benefit based on how much they contributed during their lives. If you worked for a job, for your entire life, and you had a job that didn't hold out for SS, then at retirement, you get no SS payments.

Also, most websites don't do a good job of explaining it.
 
I can only go off of the explanation offered by the excerpt above, which is from the social security administration.

At the end of the day, people should get social security benefit based on how much they contributed during their lives. If you worked for a job, for your entire life, and you had a job that didn't hold out for SS, then at retirement, you get no SS payments.

Also, most websites don't do a good job of explaining it.

#1 People were not getting benefits based on how much (i.e. quarterly earnings) they paid into social security. As my examples have shown people were being treated differently based soley on whether working on other non-SS covered jobs and not by how much time they paid in.

#2 As the Social Security Administration points out, people do NOT have to work their entire lives in a SS-covered job to qualify for retirement benefits. To qualify for benefits you have to work in a SS-covered job for 40 quarters (10-years), then benefit amount is calculated using a weighted 35-year lookback and montly earnings.

Someone that worked only 10-years in a SS covered jobs was not penalized under SS and their amount was based on SS earnings. Someone that worked only 10-years in a SS covered job WAS penalized based on the WEP rules having the same benefit reduced only because they earned a pension somewhere else.

With the eleimination of the WEP penalty, those impacted are not getting a "bonus", they are not getting extra - they are getting the same amount as someone with simillar earnings during similar periods.

WW
 
#1 People were not getting benefits based on how much (i.e. quarterly earnings) they paid into social security. As my examples have shown people were being treated differently based soley on whether working on other non-SS covered jobs and not by how much time they paid in.

#2 As the Social Security Administration points out, people do NOT have to work their entire lives in a SS-covered job to qualify for retirement benefits. To qualify for benefits you have to work in a SS-covered job for 40 quarters (10-years), then benefit amount is calculated using a weighted 35-year lookback and montly earnings.

Someone that worked only 10-years in a SS covered jobs was not penalized under SS and their amount was based on SS earnings. Someone that worked only 10-years in a SS covered job WAS penalized based on the WEP rules having the same benefit reduced only because they earned a pension somewhere else.

With the eleimination of the WEP penalty, those impacted are not getting a "bonus", they are not getting extra - they are getting the same amount as someone with simillar earnings during similar periods.

WW

As long as they are only getting social security based off the amount they paid in all is good. In other words, if person A paid into SS all their lives, and person B only paid in for 10-15 years, and as long as they were similar rate of pay, person B would not get the same level of SS payout as person A. The pension from another job is actually irrelevant. Both people should get what they are owed determined by how much they paid in.


That's fair.

To clarify, if person A worked 30 years and paid in based off of a total lifetime salary of 2.1 million but person B only worked 12 years and made 840,000, both in jobs that held out for SS, then person A gets SS benefits based on 2.1 million, person B gets SS benefits based on 840,000
 
Last edited:

After Lying That Trump Wants to Cut Social Security, Dems Rush Bill That Will Cut Benefits – Need Biden to Sign Before Trump Arrives​

21 Dec 2024 ~~ By Samuel Short, Western Journal.

Democrats have been caught doing the very thing they’ve been accusing President-elect Donald Trump of doing: Cutting Social Security.

On Wednesday, the U.K. Daily Mail reported Senate Democrats are trying to push through a Social Security reform bill they want to see signed by President Joe Biden before Trump takes office.
The Social Security Fairness Act aims to repeal provisions that reduce payouts to public sector employees like police officers, firefighters, teachers, and post workers. The Mail cites The Committee for a Responsible Budget in their article, and that group states this would make Social Security insolvent six months earlier than current projections by giving increased benefits to 3 million people who paid into their state or local pensions that did not pay Social Security.
The CRFB also states, “As a result, we estimate a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033 would see their benefits cut by an additional $25,000 over their lifetime.”
The think tank says if Social Security runs out of money under this bill, as much as $400,000 in benefits would be lost for the average couple. CRFB states the cost for the bill over the next decade — citing the Congressional Budget Office — would be $190 billion.
~Snip~
“It speeds the bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in 2034. This will speed it up by a year or so. It’s $200 billion added to a program that is already short of money,” he said, following up by commenting, “If you’re going to add to its mandate by expanding it, you should pay for it.”
Schumer tried to pose the effort on X in the most altruistic fashion last week, saying, “It would ensure Americans are not erroneously denied their well-earned social security benefits simply because they chose at some point to work in their careers in public service.”
~Snip~
In July, Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries invoked to boogeyman that is Project 2025 to say Trump would be the end of Social Security.
He claimed, “Trump’s Project 2025 will end Social Security and Medicare as we know it.”
Despite looking to address excessive government spending, Trump stated earlier this month, “We’re not touching Social Security.”
Under Democrats’ bill, cuts will be made, and insolvency will be sped up.
It is unclear whether Democrats actually think this is helpful, or if they just want to create a massive disaster later — perhaps for the president-elect to “deal” with.
That all being said, there may be a far less conspiratorial explanation for this latest move from the Democrats.
Hanlon’s Razor states we, “shouldn’t attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

See Also:
**********​


Commentary:
These people have not paid in to social security and they are supposed to get benefits? They have benefits from their pension. Then every one should be given the max SSI payment regardless of how long they work or when they choose to retire, if you pay in to SSI.
The pensions of all public sector workers is outrage that we also pay for. Most are getting their full salaries as though they are still working…. Teachers unions and all public sector unions have made sure their members are taken care of after retirement. So no, they should not receive full SS Benefits….
If you haven't paid in to the systems you should not be collecting SS. Also SS should not be used to provide benefits for people that have never paid in. It was never designed for that. The government pays a larger portion than the employee. And the benefit payout is guaranteed by the taxpayers.
A lot of Trump`s trailer trash supporters are going to see their benefits cut.
A friend and his wife adopted a Russian infant not knowing that she was a deaf mute. They received a check every week from SS and the girl was given a car when she became old enough to drive. She was also given a free education at Gallaudet. Mon and dad have enjoyed 3 Alaskan cruises, so far. I worked double shifts in a factory to pay for my daughter`s education.
 

Forum List

Back
Top