An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

[Markle]

There is no trust fund. S.S. is a ponzi scheme.

Ponzi schemes don't last almost a hundred years like our S.S. system has, but trump and the republicans would like to end it. Even the fools that kiss trump's ass even though many of them would be living like paupers were it not for FDR and the democrats.

Sure they do when the government is running them. If SS was run by a private company, it would have declared bankruptcy 50 years ago.

No, a private company would have made adjustments every year since its inception.

 

[Erinwltr]

There is no trust fund. S.S. is a ponzi scheme.

We don't agree on about anything, but this much is true. Beat me to it.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no trust fund. S.S. is a ponzi scheme.

Ponzi schemes don't last almost a hundred years like our S.S. system has, but trump and the republicans would like to end it. Even the fools that kiss trump's ass even though many of them would be living like paupers were it not for FDR and the democrats.

Sure they do when the government is running them. If SS was run by a private company, it would have declared bankruptcy 50 years ago.

No, a private company would have made adjustments every year since its inception.

What sort of "adjustments?" You can't change a contract once both parties have signed it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

Most of the trades that involve hard physical labor are dominated by unions, and the unions handle the pensions. That is why I am a fan of construction unions but not of public sector ones.

I understand that given my father retired at the age of 62 as a bricklayer. However he would have never been able to do it with his pension alone. He retired early and of course, got the discounted amount from SS for the rest of his life. He has a great pension too. He's 88 today and still collecting it.

Still the pension model works for certain things. I for one prefer a 401k, but I was putting at least 12% of my income into it (plus 3% match) since I started working full time at 23 years old (grad school).

I'm 45 and have just under 500k in the account, and it's ALL MINE. I'm still in mostly stocks because in engineering you can work until your marbles go.

Pensions are really a thing of the past. Nobody uses or trusts them anymore. When a company wanted to get away with ripping their lifelong employees off, they simply laid them off so they couldn't collect on that pension.

Like you, I have an IRA. My former employer can't touch it since it's run by a private investment company and all the money is tied up in stocks. Besides my investment company, I'm the only one who oversees it.

I started working as a child, but I had my SS card before my first part-time job and have been contributing since. I'm 60 now, and if you could take your lifetime contributions to SS, and hand that over to an investment company and ask what you would be worth today had all that money been invested in a conservative growth fund, most of us older folks would probably shit ourselves.

 

[martybegan]

Dude, how much of that debt you are talking about is owed to social security?

Your ignorance of the fact that spending too much money on the federal government is another issue just shows how much of a moron you are.

Dude, Unfunded Liability as of 7/24/2020 of Social Security and Medicare.

I usually separate the social security issue from the unfunded liability issue, as SS is the one with the supposed "Trust Fund" that is nothing more than a bunch of IOU's.

SS will be insolvent in 2037. Medicare will be bankrupt in 2026.

Both programs are "fixable". All that needs to happen are a few tweaks. Lets say that Trump wants a temporary payroll tax cut. So the democrats want SS & Medicare "fixed". Lets make a win-win. Trump get a few months of the payroll tax cut, and the democrats get SS & Medicare fixed.

Here are the various fixes to consider:
Social Security fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/21/how-warren-buffett-thinks-we-should-fix-social-sec.aspx
https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2014/11/14/5-potential-social-security-fixes
https://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-05-2012/future-of-social-security-proposals.html

Medicare Fixes:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare
https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

The problem with raising the cap is that there will still be a cap on benefits, and thus the original pretext of this not being about the rich supporting the poor, but the working supporting the not working goes away.

I read your post 10x and still don't get what you're point is?!
1. Raising the cap on tax means more revenue
2. Not raising the cap on benefits means everyone gets a similar "pension", subject to income tax brackets.

No work means no SS.

SS was built on the basis of "the more you pay in, the more benefits you get up until a point". It's why the cap is there in the first place. It wasn't sold as a progressive income distribution program, but as a scaling retirement "pension".

If you raise the cap on what you put in, and keep a cap on what you can take out later, you basically destroy the concept upon which SS was sold to us at the time of creation. It just becomes another progressive "tax".

You're looking at it way too idealistically. Here are the cold-hard "facts":
1. SS will be insolvent in 2037, paying only 70% of promised benefits.....forever
2. Unless SS is "fixed" one way or another, that's what happens.
3. So pick your preferred "fix", raise the cap, raise the retirement ages, raise the tax rate, tax benefits (means test), or something else or any combination that works.

Who gives a **** how it was created 80-years ago?? We all paid into it and are promised benefits. The government needs to provide those promised benefits.

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

Most of the trades that involve hard physical labor are dominated by unions, and the unions handle the pensions. That is why I am a fan of construction unions but not of public sector ones.

I understand that given my father retired at the age of 62 as a bricklayer. However he would have never been able to do it with his pension alone. He retired early and of course, got the discounted amount from SS for the rest of his life. He has a great pension too. He's 88 today and still collecting it.

Still the pension model works for certain things. I for one prefer a 401k, but I was putting at least 12% of my income into it (plus 3% match) since I started working full time at 23 years old (grad school).

I'm 45 and have just under 500k in the account, and it's ALL MINE. I'm still in mostly stocks because in engineering you can work until your marbles go.

Pensions are really a thing of the past. Nobody uses or trusts them anymore. When a company wanted to get away with ripping their lifelong employees off, they simply laid them off so they couldn't collect on that pension.

Like you, I have an IRA. My former employer can't touch it since it's run by a private investment company and all the money is tied up in stocks. Besides my investment company, I'm the only one who oversees it.

I started working as a child, but I had my SS card before my first part-time job and have been contributing since. I'm 60 now, and if you could take your lifetime contributions to SS, and hand that over to an investment company and ask what you would be worth today had all that money been invested in a conservative growth fund, most of us older folks would probably shit ourselves.

Pensions work best if they are run by the employees, i.e. like trade unions. Mob corruption used to be an issue, but the Mob is a shadow of itself.

 

[9thIDdoc]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

What a BS thread! There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump ever has-or would-even consider such an atrocity.

He's trying to have a payroll tax reduction as a stimulus.... this would have doomed social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

Thankfully, Ds and Rs would have none of it!!! Not in an election year...those Rs already are hurting, in the house and Senate in this upcoming election.... They needed this payroll tax cut as a guise to destroy social security, like a hole in the head....

I don't buy that. The federal government runs Social Security just like it does the IRS. A payroll tax cut does not automatically indicate a reduction in any particular program. Maybe a dramatic reduction in foreign aid would cover it and is needed anyway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

There is no option but to increase the retirement age by at least five years, incrementally. Folks were roofers and brick laborers in 1950 too. Social Security was never intended as a retirement plan, it was designed to help get you through a year or two until you croaked.

In 1950 for women the retirement age was 62 and 65 for men. The average life expectancy in the US was 66.

Life expectancy of all Americans in 1961 was 70 years. Social Security benefits started at age 62 for women and 65 for men.

For those retiring today full benefits are at 67 with an average lie expectancy of 78. Many, except for blacks, live well into their 80’s or 90’s.

The system is incredibly racist since blacks contribute as much, but their life span is far shorter.

In 1950 there were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient. In 2011, the ratio is 2.9 workers for each recipient.

This year, about 157 million U.S. workers support some 55 million Social Security recipients, according to the SSA’s data. In 1950, 48 million workers supported 2 million recipients.

Perhaps some increases in the tax but already we pay 15.3% of our pay up to $137,700 this year. That's more than $21,000 a year PLUS your income taxes. For anyone, that's a LOT of money. Imagine if you had even half of that to invest on your own each year?

I'll have to disagree with you on part of that since I come from a construction family. Growing up, I seen my father in traction for his back. He's had the surgeries. My father loved what he did for a living, but his body couldn't take it. It's very hard work. He had to retire at 62.

My two cousins each have their own remodeling business. One retired about two years ago, but he struggled at least five years before. Going to work every day in pain is no fun on a physical job. My other cousin can't work anymore, but hires people and oversees the remodeling jobs.

That aside, I'll use my own former career. Would you want to be in the car in front of me when I'm piloting a 75,000 lbs vehicle at 68 years old in a snow storm, and traffic comes to a sudden stop?

There are a lot of jobs people can't do at a later age because your body can only take so much. Other jobs you really can't do safely as you may be jeopardizing your fellow workers, or in my case, motorists on the road. So raising the age to collect isn't the answer.

 

[kyzr]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

What a BS thread! There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump ever has-or would-even consider such an atrocity.

He's trying to have a payroll tax reduction as a stimulus.... this would have doomed social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

Thankfully, Ds and Rs would have none of it!!! Not in an election year...those Rs already are hurting, in the house and Senate in this upcoming election.... They needed this payroll tax cut as a guise to destroy social security, like a hole in the head....

I agree with you, no payroll tax holiday. However, if they can agree on "fixes" for SS & Medicare for a short duration payroll tax cut, that's a win-win.

Medicare is bankrupt in 2026, and SS is insolvent in 2037 without "fixes".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

What a BS thread! There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump ever has-or would-even consider such an atrocity.

He's trying to have a payroll tax reduction as a stimulus.... this would have doomed social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

Thankfully, Ds and Rs would have none of it!!! Not in an election year...those Rs already are hurting, in the house and Senate in this upcoming election.... They needed this payroll tax cut as a guise to destroy social security, like a hole in the head....

I don't buy that. The federal government runs Social Security just like it does the IRS. A payroll tax cut does not automatically indicate a reduction in any particular program. Maybe a dramatic reduction in foreign aid would cover it and is needed anyway.

A payroll tax cut means taxes are going to get cut. Besides your local taxes which Trump couldn't cut, you only have SS, FICA and Medicare to cut from. It's got to be one if not all of those things.

 

[IM2]

I for one, want the money taken out of my check that belongs to me given to me.

 

[Care4all]

social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

The government collects trillions in taxes every year, where do you see a "struggle"?

The federal gvt doesn't have the money, to pay full benefits to all the Recipients in just a couple of decades....

The federal gvt borrowed the SS trust fund money, to pay for what income taxes etc, should have been paying the bill for....

They've borrowed so much more money, over and above what they borrowed from the SS surplus money, that our interest payments on these loans is going to be the size of our national defense budget, on a yearly basis, from what I've heard....

The federal gvt has been struggling to have a balanced budget for decades now.... all this COVID money borrowed, ain't gonna help the situation... or make it easier to pay back the SS SURPLUS money borrowed.

A SSecurity tax cut, only makes the situation worse imo.

 

[bripat9643]

social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

The government collects trillions in taxes every year, where do you see a "struggle"?

The federal gvt doesn't have the money, to pay full benefits to all the Recipients in just a couple of decades....

The federal gvt borrowed the SS trust fund money, to pay for what income taxes etc, should have been paying the bill for....

They've borrowed so much more money, over and above what they borrowed from the SS surplus money, that our interest payments on these loans is going to be the size of our national defense budget, on a yearly basis, from what I've heard....

The federal gvt has been struggling to have a balanced budget for decades now.... all this COVID money borrowed, ain't gonna help the situation... or make it easier to pay back the SS SURPLUS money borrowed.

A SSecurity tax cut, only makes the situation worse imo.

What's your point?

 

[Care4all]

social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

The government collects trillions in taxes every year, where do you see a "struggle"?

The federal gvt doesn't have the money, to pay full benefits to all the Recipients in just a couple of decades....

The federal gvt borrowed the SS trust fund money, to pay for what income taxes etc, should have been paying the bill for....

They've borrowed so much more money, over and above what they borrowed from the SS surplus money, that our interest payments on these loans is going to be the size of our national defense budget, on a yearly basis, from what I've heard....

The federal gvt has been struggling to have a balanced budget for decades now.... all this COVID money borrowed, ain't gonna help the situation... or make it easier to pay back the SS SURPLUS money borrowed.

A SSecurity tax cut, only makes the situation worse imo.

What's your point?

Oh, didn't really have one, other than my opinion on why a payroll tax cut, is not a good idea...

 

[bripat9643]

social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

The government collects trillions in taxes every year, where do you see a "struggle"?

The federal gvt doesn't have the money, to pay full benefits to all the Recipients in just a couple of decades....

The federal gvt borrowed the SS trust fund money, to pay for what income taxes etc, should have been paying the bill for....

They've borrowed so much more money, over and above what they borrowed from the SS surplus money, that our interest payments on these loans is going to be the size of our national defense budget, on a yearly basis, from what I've heard....

The federal gvt has been struggling to have a balanced budget for decades now.... all this COVID money borrowed, ain't gonna help the situation... or make it easier to pay back the SS SURPLUS money borrowed.

A SSecurity tax cut, only makes the situation worse imo.

What's your point?

Oh, didn't really have one,

Thanks for admitting that.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Raising the retirement age doesn't work based on the type of job you had. You can't ask a roofer to be climbing up ladders three stories with a 30 lbs pack of roof shingles when he's 68 years old. Or a bricklayers laborer. Or perhaps a carpenter or remodeler.

Of course the problem can be fixed. Simply take a huge increase on payroll deductions for SS and Mediocre. So why won't they do it? For one, political suicide. We all want the goodies, but don't want to pay for them. Two, the working public would then demand an end to these programs because of the expense. Democrat would never allow themselves to be put in that position.

There is no option but to increase the retirement age by at least five years, incrementally. Folks were roofers and brick laborers in 1950 too. Social Security was never intended as a retirement plan, it was designed to help get you through a year or two until you croaked.

In 1950 for women the retirement age was 62 and 65 for men. The average life expectancy in the US was 66.

Life expectancy of all Americans in 1961 was 70 years. Social Security benefits started at age 62 for women and 65 for men.

For those retiring today full benefits are at 67 with an average lie expectancy of 78. Many, except for blacks, live well into their 80’s or 90’s.

The system is incredibly racist since blacks contribute as much, but their life span is far shorter.

In 1950 there were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient. In 2011, the ratio is 2.9 workers for each recipient.

This year, about 157 million U.S. workers support some 55 million Social Security recipients, according to the SSA’s data. In 1950, 48 million workers supported 2 million recipients.

Perhaps some increases in the tax but already we pay 15.3% of our pay up to $137,700 this year. That's more than $21,000 a year PLUS your income taxes. For anyone, that's a LOT of money. Imagine if you had even half of that to invest on your own each year?

SS is an income tax and always has been and it was intended as a retirement plan. It is not contributed; it is taken. Benefits have been paid for by the recipient through forced contract. How many were forced to pay into the system but never received a dime in compensation? I receive S. Security. How much better might I have done had the government allowed me to keep what I had earned? Now it is quite literally a done deal and I fully expect the government to comply with it's part of it's own forced contract. It is not some kind of welfare; it is one of the most important National debts and must be considered as such. Purely idiotic to claim we cannot afford to pay debts to our own citizens while throwing away money on foreign aid to countries which we don't owe and don't even particularly like us.

 

[9thIDdoc]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

What a BS thread! There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump ever has-or would-even consider such an atrocity.

He's trying to have a payroll tax reduction as a stimulus.... this would have doomed social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

Thankfully, Ds and Rs would have none of it!!! Not in an election year...those Rs already are hurting, in the house and Senate in this upcoming election.... They needed this payroll tax cut as a guise to destroy social security, like a hole in the head....

I don't buy that. The federal government runs Social Security just like it does the IRS. A payroll tax cut does not automatically indicate a reduction in any particular program. Maybe a dramatic reduction in foreign aid would cover it and is needed anyway.

A payroll tax cut means taxes are going to get cut. Besides your local taxes which Trump couldn't cut, you only have SS, FICA and Medicare to cut from. It's got to be one if not all of those things.

Maybe President Trump would like Congress who controls budgets and taxes to cut other expenditures. They certainly have the power to do that.

 

[Cellblock2429]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

/---/ Neither Party wants to end Social Security, Geeez what a dumbazz.

 

[Nova78]

Screw the Democrat-backed stimulus, go get a job you worthless assholes, there everywhere. You fucktards are destroying this Country with no work lazy worthless asses.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.
An Executive Order Is Needed To Confiscate The Social Security Trust Fund

For decades retired and disabled Americans have watched with concern as the GOP and many Democrats salivated at the prospect of ending Social Security and Medicare.

Yes, possessing the power to make life miserable for many disabled and elderly men, women, and children has long been a pleasing thought for these politicians. But the important goal has always been to transfer the Social Security Trust Fund into the pockets of the, approximately, 600 American billionaires.

Congress has permitted the impeached president trump immense governing power over and above the maximums granted by the U.S. Constitution. So no impediment remains to block an executive order issued by the impeached president trump, to confiscate all moneys associated with Social Security and Medicare.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an excellent opportunity for the impeached president trump to included in this executive order instructions for the method to be used in the distribution of these funds as a stimulus package: Said funds to be divided equally, as tax free grants, among the top 600 families whose wealth exceeds $1 billion. (A windfall worth over two billion dollar to each billionaire. Now, that’s stimulating!)

Happily, no one of any significance will complain or condemn the impeached president trump or the members of congress for this stimulus package using federally owned funds rather than borrowed.

With the elections just around the corner, time could be growing short to acheive this long-sought goal.

Is Trump Using Next Stimulus Package To Undermine Funding Of Social Security And Medicare?



.

What a BS thread! There is absolutely no evidence that President Trump ever has-or would-even consider such an atrocity.

He's trying to have a payroll tax reduction as a stimulus.... this would have doomed social security and Medicare, which are already struggling to get their trust fund money back, from the federal gvt who spent it.

Thankfully, Ds and Rs would have none of it!!! Not in an election year...those Rs already are hurting, in the house and Senate in this upcoming election.... They needed this payroll tax cut as a guise to destroy social security, like a hole in the head....

I don't buy that. The federal government runs Social Security just like it does the IRS. A payroll tax cut does not automatically indicate a reduction in any particular program. Maybe a dramatic reduction in foreign aid would cover it and is needed anyway.

A payroll tax cut means taxes are going to get cut. Besides your local taxes which Trump couldn't cut, you only have SS, FICA and Medicare to cut from. It's got to be one if not all of those things.

Maybe President Trump would like Congress who controls budgets and taxes to cut other expenditures. They certainly have the power to do that.

The Democrats are not going to cut any of theirs. They're not going to cut funding to PBS, NPR, Planned Parenthood, none of their favorites. The only thing they'd be willing to cut is our military.

 

[sartre play]

.

.


The “Mitt-wit” Romney has been pushing publicly for including a bill of his in the relief package called the TRUST Act. Written with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). It would provide an invaluable tool to the members of congress, both Republican and Democrat, determined to wreck Social Security and Medicare.

But Romney’s plan would take much longer to transfer the federally held funds into the pockets of the ruling billionaire class than an executive order as described in the OP.

Congress should take advantage of the impeached president trump’s unlimited ability to abuse presidential authority while they still can. With Election Day rapidly approaching, the civil unrest the impeached president trump’s expected disregard of election results will cause, the door could very well be closed to this amazing opportunity, which will quickly add a couple of tax free billions into the pockets of 600 billionaires, and put millions of disabled and elderly Americans out of their homes and into the streets. (Which conservatives and most centrists will claim was the choice made by these newly homeless families and individuals.)

Unsanitized: Mitt Romney Wants to Use the Crisis to Cut Your Social Security




.

Please if your a senior take a Good look at the so called Trust act & don't trust it.