Both Parties Promise No Cuts to SS--Both Sides are Talking About Cutting SS.

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,781
8,889
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
Looks like some bi-partisan lying going on here eh?


When President Joe Biden called out Republicans recently during his State of the Union for trying to cut Social Security, GOP lawmakers were so offended they literally booed and jeered the president, challenging him to name a single Republican who was targeting Social Security.
Even when the White House later enumerated many such Republicans, the GOP made a big show that Biden was unduly vilifying Republicans for proposals coming from an unserious corner of their party.
But less than a month later, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are suddenly having very serious conversations that would, in fact, cut Social Security—with a bipartisan group of senators quietly looking at raising the target retirement age for most Americans from 67 to 70.
While lawmakers caution everything is preliminary, the mere idea of raising the retirement age is already sounding alarms in the Capitol.
The news, which was first reported by Semafor, comes amid heightening tensions over Social Security, as Republicans seek ways to cut government spending.
After a forceful pushback to the idea that the GOP was sizing up Social Security for a trim, it seemed like the sacred entitlement of the New Deal was on surer political footing than at any point in the last few decades. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), the modern-day boogeyman of Social Security, even amended his controversial “plan to rescue America” to exclude Social Security (and Medicare) from a proposal to sunset all federal legislation and require it to be re-passed.
But the problem for Social Security is that the political reality is running up against a practical reality: Without some sort of Social Security reform, the program is currently slated to hit a cliff in coming years. Members of Congress acknowledge the need to address the issue, but there’s a reason why Social Security is called the “third rail of politics.”
The reported mention of increasing the retirement age is an example why.

Even though members of the working discussions are urging people not to panic, senators are now desperately trying to downplay the prospect of changes.
 
To note that simple changes are cuts likely isn't fair. If people are living longer then adjustments do have to be made. You can raise the age, raise the ceiling on wages or similar.

Or you can make cuts.
 
Looks like some bi-partisan lying going on here eh?


When President Joe Biden called out Republicans recently during his State of the Union for trying to cut Social Security, GOP lawmakers were so offended they literally booed and jeered the president, challenging him to name a single Republican who was targeting Social Security.
Even when the White House later enumerated many such Republicans, the GOP made a big show that Biden was unduly vilifying Republicans for proposals coming from an unserious corner of their party.
But less than a month later, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are suddenly having very serious conversations that would, in fact, cut Social Security—with a bipartisan group of senators quietly looking at raising the target retirement age for most Americans from 67 to 70.
While lawmakers caution everything is preliminary, the mere idea of raising the retirement age is already sounding alarms in the Capitol.
The news, which was first reported by Semafor, comes amid heightening tensions over Social Security, as Republicans seek ways to cut government spending.
After a forceful pushback to the idea that the GOP was sizing up Social Security for a trim, it seemed like the sacred entitlement of the New Deal was on surer political footing than at any point in the last few decades. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), the modern-day boogeyman of Social Security, even amended his controversial “plan to rescue America” to exclude Social Security (and Medicare) from a proposal to sunset all federal legislation and require it to be re-passed.
But the problem for Social Security is that the political reality is running up against a practical reality: Without some sort of Social Security reform, the program is currently slated to hit a cliff in coming years. Members of Congress acknowledge the need to address the issue, but there’s a reason why Social Security is called the “third rail of politics.”
The reported mention of increasing the retirement age is an example why.

Even though members of the working discussions are urging people not to panic, senators are now desperately trying to downplay the prospect of changes.
It will be yet another thing that boomers rely on and benefit from that they will spitefully rob later generations of
 
Looks like some bi-partisan lying going on here eh?


When President Joe Biden called out Republicans recently during his State of the Union for trying to cut Social Security, GOP lawmakers were so offended they literally booed and jeered the president, challenging him to name a single Republican who was targeting Social Security.
Even when the White House later enumerated many such Republicans, the GOP made a big show that Biden was unduly vilifying Republicans for proposals coming from an unserious corner of their party.
But less than a month later, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are suddenly having very serious conversations that would, in fact, cut Social Security—with a bipartisan group of senators quietly looking at raising the target retirement age for most Americans from 67 to 70.
While lawmakers caution everything is preliminary, the mere idea of raising the retirement age is already sounding alarms in the Capitol.
The news, which was first reported by Semafor, comes amid heightening tensions over Social Security, as Republicans seek ways to cut government spending.
After a forceful pushback to the idea that the GOP was sizing up Social Security for a trim, it seemed like the sacred entitlement of the New Deal was on surer political footing than at any point in the last few decades. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), the modern-day boogeyman of Social Security, even amended his controversial “plan to rescue America” to exclude Social Security (and Medicare) from a proposal to sunset all federal legislation and require it to be re-passed.
But the problem for Social Security is that the political reality is running up against a practical reality: Without some sort of Social Security reform, the program is currently slated to hit a cliff in coming years. Members of Congress acknowledge the need to address the issue, but there’s a reason why Social Security is called the “third rail of politics.”
The reported mention of increasing the retirement age is an example why.

Even though members of the working discussions are urging people not to panic, senators are now desperately trying to downplay the prospect of changes.
You need to start appealing to a shorter attention span on this board. Condense it into your own words in no more than an inch of type and drop the bold too. You're worth too much to be wasted.
 
No you cannot. Look 70 year old people can't stand on the factory floor all day working. These dumb asses in Washington who do nothing but sit around on their ass expelling hot air need to pull their heads out of their ass.

My full retirement age is 67. I do not have to work to 67. I did not do so.

All the same, I far prefer raising the wage ceiling. I was just using an example.
 
I will tell all you mooching sponges again, SS is a SHIT plan. Everyone would be far ahead if we put that SS money into a 401k. Protected from Congress stealing our money and spending it. Congress can figure out some other way to care for the mooching sponges who don't work and save.
 
It will be yet another thing that boomers rely on and benefit from that they will spitefully rob later generations of
No one is being "robbed" of anything.
When SS was established in 1935, life expectancy was about 60 years of age, it is now about 78. People are living longer and being 70 in 2023 is far different than being 70 in 1935.
 
It will be yet another thing that boomers rely on and benefit from that they will spitefully rob later generations of
I've paid in since 1975 and have yet to draw a single benefit. What I paid helped the greatest generation to retire with at least some amount of dignity. I don't begrudge anyone for that. I'm happy to have done that. Even if the fund runs dry and they can only pay us 70% of what they promised, it was still worth it.
 
No one is being "robbed" of anything.
When SS was established in 1935, life expectancy was about 60 years of age, it is now about 78. People are living longer and being 70 in 2023 is far different than being 70 in 1935.

Average Life Expectancy is the wrong metric. In 1935 ALE was dragged down by much higher infant/child mortality rates lowering the average. (It's a math thing.)

The much better metric is to look at average number of months that benefits are received. So while ALE has increased by close to 20 years, average months of benefits has only increased (on average) by about 3.5-4 years.

WW
 
It will be yet another thing that boomers rely on and benefit from that they will spitefully rob later generations of
They paid through the nose for their adult lives. Twice the size of the previous generation. And the government used all the extra postive funds on other programs. Hell, most of the BLM rioters were raised on boomers' social security taxes. Joe and the gang need to die slowly and painfully. They did this. They destroyed. Soon enough the U.S. will lose its top spot to China The King is dead, long live the King.
 

Forum List

Back
Top