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.

More fake news from the far left!

Fake news? You mean from the lips of Republicans in Congress - including Paul Ryan?

Top House Republican Unveils Plan To Gut Social Security

Are Republicans Crazy Enough to Go After The Safety Net?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

By 2035 what percentage of benefits can they afford?

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program


Its just too fucking easy Lakhota. I found this in 5 seconds!

 

[Muhammed]

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?

They don't threaten to throw granny off the cliff in the first place,jackass.

 

[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 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

Did that just last night. Not gonna repeat it for you. Because you wont READ IT, understand it, and/or remember it.. You don't discuss, you just spew. Sources are the SSA themselves and CBO.. Read this post and my next 3 or 4 in THIS thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16020858/

As opposed to the bullshit phoney accounting that the SSA does on the FRONT pages of it's annual report, EVERYTHING I SAID is found on the latter pages in small print. .And your link about "CASH RESERVES" in the Trust Fund is just the propaganda that's kept idiots dumb and happy for 30 years while your wallet was robbed TWICE..

 

[Pete7469]

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

Same here, I'm a weapons mechanic. I even went out looking for trouble in Iraq. Never found any.

I was sure we had actually won the war until I got to an airport bar where I couldn't turn off CNN. Turns out those assholes in their Atlanta offices had a better understanding of the circumstances on the ground where I stood weeks before, and a better understanding of the Iraqi people I believed I left behind with a promising future.

Either that or the leftist "journalists" were out to sabotage the entire endeavor...

 

[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?

They don't threaten to throw granny off the cliff in the first place,jackass.

Sure they did. Pay attention.

Granny Off the Cliff - Agenda Project Action Fund

 

[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 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

By 2035 what percentage of benefits can they afford?

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program


Its just too fucking easy Lakhota. I found this in 5 seconds!

It's also very easy to find out when SS started to run deficits. Which occurred at LEAST 6 years ahead of schedule when as part of Obama's 2009 "tax bail out for the working poor" he STOLE income from SS to give tax breaks to folks who PAY NO INCOME TAX...

 

[Eaglewings]

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.

These dumb people are in such a Trump coma they can't see who Trump is lining his MOB SWAMP with...

Micheal Korbey , Trumps pick for the Social Security Transition Effort ~ has spent most of his career wanting to cut Social Security.

This crooked ass Korbey isn't going to sit around giving out girl scout cookies..

Wake up and smell the sludge people...


.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

By 2035 what percentage of benefits can they afford?

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program


Its just too fucking easy Lakhota. I found this in 5 seconds!

Common Lakhota give us the percentage.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes .. SocSec NEEDS to be "managed" and "touched"... It's only been 2 generations before it was robbed and failed.

 

[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?

They don't threaten to throw granny off the cliff in the first place,jackass.

Sure they did. Pay attention.

Granny Off the Cliff - Agenda Project Action Fund

I actually read your shit, its why I dominate you.

That is a leftwing organization. So what is the plan, status quo?

 

[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

By 2035 what percentage of benefits can they afford?

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program


Its just too fucking easy Lakhota. I found this in 5 seconds!

Common Lakhota give us the percentage.

2035? So what? We're talking about NOW. Social Security will continue to need tuning and tweaking just like it always has since its inception - but threatening to abolish it is not the answer.

 

[Lakhota]

Yes .. SocSec NEEDS to be "managed" and "touched"... It's only been 2 generations before it was robbed and failed.

Social Security is the largest holder of U.S. debt and draws interest on its loan to the government - just like China and other debt holders.

 

[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 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

Did that just last night. Not gonna repeat it for you. Because you wont READ IT, understand it, and/or remember it.. You don't discuss, you just spew. Sources are the SSA themselves and CBO.. Read this post and my next 3 or 4 in THIS thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16020858/

As opposed to the bullshit phoney accounting that the SSA does on the FRONT pages of it's annual report, EVERYTHING I SAID is found on the latter pages in small print. .And your link about "CASH RESERVES" in the Trust Fund is just the propaganda that's kept idiots dumb and happy for 30 years while your wallet was robbed TWICE..

You know.. I have no one OFFICIALLY on ignore. Not my style. But when I respond to requests for links and info and ALL I GET IS A FUCKING "FUNNY" --- I stop reading their threads. Unless of course, I am forced to in order to moderate.

So Lahkota -- Can you stop laughing and funnying long enough to tell me what THESE WORDS from the SSA and CBO mean to you???

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

You need a goddamn history lesson on who the Nazis really were.

 

[easyt65]

'No One Voted to Destroy Social Security'

No one voted to give Barry the authority to send combat ground troops into Syria to fight his own personal, Un-Constitutional war, either...

 

[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

Did that just last night. Not gonna repeat it for you. Because you wont READ IT, understand it, and/or remember it.. You don't discuss, you just spew. Sources are the SSA themselves and CBO.. Read this post and my next 3 or 4 in THIS thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16020858/

As opposed to the bullshit phoney accounting that the SSA does on the FRONT pages of it's annual report, EVERYTHING I SAID is found on the latter pages in small print. .And your link about "CASH RESERVES" in the Trust Fund is just the propaganda that's kept idiots dumb and happy for 30 years while your wallet was robbed TWICE..

You know.. I have no one OFFICIALLY on ignore. Not my style. But when I respond to requests for links and info and ALL I GET IS A FUCKING "FUNNY" --- I stop reading their threads. Unless of course, I am forced to in order to moderate.

So Lahkota -- Can you stop laughing and funnying long enough to tell me what THESE WORDS from the SSA and CBO mean to you???

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

You are sooo full of shit - and yourself. Where do you conjure up your bullshit on Social Security? Alex Jones?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Conservatives: We should have an absolute bottom for people that completely fuck up their lives and have nothing in the end so they can get just enough to survive. But mostly people should keep their own earnings and do the best they can.

Liberals: We should take most of these peoples money so they can't do the best they can but in return we will give them the least amount possible to keep them alive. And then we will call it something you can't possibly live without.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

By 2035 what percentage of benefits can they afford?

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program


Its just too fucking easy Lakhota. I found this in 5 seconds!

Common Lakhota give us the percentage.

2035? So what? We're talking about NOW. Social Security will continue to need tuning and tweaking just like it always has since its inception - but threatening to abolish it is not the answer.

Hahaha there it is. 2035 is less than 20 years away. So when we have to.cut it in 2035x he'll bitch at us, even though he didnt give a shit to fix it.

So what tweaks does.it need?

Who said they were abolishing.it? I want an audi or video.of.that person, not some.bullshit journalists making shit up.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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

Did that just last night. Not gonna repeat it for you. Because you wont READ IT, understand it, and/or remember it.. You don't discuss, you just spew. Sources are the SSA themselves and CBO.. Read this post and my next 3 or 4 in THIS thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/16020858/

As opposed to the bullshit phoney accounting that the SSA does on the FRONT pages of it's annual report, EVERYTHING I SAID is found on the latter pages in small print. .And your link about "CASH RESERVES" in the Trust Fund is just the propaganda that's kept idiots dumb and happy for 30 years while your wallet was robbed TWICE..

You know.. I have no one OFFICIALLY on ignore. Not my style. But when I respond to requests for links and info and ALL I GET IS A FUCKING "FUNNY" --- I stop reading their threads. Unless of course, I am forced to in order to moderate.

So Lahkota -- Can you stop laughing and funnying long enough to tell me what THESE WORDS from the SSA and CBO mean to you???

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

You are sooo full of shit - and yourself. Where do you conjure up your bullshit on Social Security? Alex Jones?

I posted.a link some the SSA and you didnt read it. Youre lazy and stupid, you just buy whatever David Corn sells.