Republicans Are, And Have Been, Attacking Social Security

[WorldWatcher]

I guess you would pay the state, but you wouldnt have to pay federal as the inheritance was below the cap.

Different situation.

The stocks were in our MIL's name and were sold. The capital gains was paid by her (though my wife as executor) as part of her yearly taxes which my wife as executor has to file for the 2022 Tax Year.

The stocks were not transferred as part of the "inheritance" falling under Estate Tax rules.

WW

 

[beautress]

Biden refused to name them, but here's the names of some of the loudest ones...



Do the USMB rightwing Republican-voters agree w/this attack on social security?

What's your position on this matter?

My position is I think blacklisting is the desired end of gouging conservatives. Communism requires fear to keep the cartel groupies cheerful. Pity. 247 years after the Founders freed the common man from paying high taxes, we're approaching such arrogant "leaders" who want to raise taxes and collect themselves a little fortune with insider trading like Nancy Pelosi et al.

 

[Nostra]

You're FOS, MORON.
See above Q-NUT.

Link to Wall St getting it, or admit you are full of shit, Simp

 

[francoHFW]

I am saying that too many people have fallen for the Marxists identity politics where some people who worked hard and saved lots of their money, is the enemy of those who didnt work as hard but worked just enough to be satisfied with their lives, until these political hacks get them all riled up.

Sorry about being civilized and taking care of the unfortunate... of course Mario Cuomo said that Ronald Reagan made blaming the poor acceptable. A disgrace. We have to join the rest of the world the modern world in having a living wage and cheap college and training so jobs are good and there are ways to get a good job. Instead of this GOP crap. We'll all be selling hamburgers to each other soon... that's what they call the worst inequality, upward mobility homelessness Etcetera after 40 years of GOP giveaway to the rich and screw job for everyone else. Change the damn channel. there aren't any Marxists around, just people who aren't brainwashed with BS from the greedy idiot GOP rich, Super Dupe.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Give a fuck about anybody? So you’re saying that governing doesn’t include caring about the population of the country? I hate to break it to you but governing means addressing people.

No, government means to govern. Our founders designed this system so people take care of themselves because they knew government taking care of people would only make them dependent thus giving them unlimited power over the people. That's not what they wanted.

Fast forward to today and the federal government houses some people, feeds them, feeds their families, provides them retirement benefits, provides healthcare, provides daycare, gives some a Fn free cell phone, pays for their utilities, and more recently, Dementia got the Affordable Connectivity Act passed so now the federal government is paying for your cable/internet bill as well if you make less than X amount per year.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself: do you think we would be 31 trillion dollars in the hole today had we only listened to Madison's words?

 

[Billy000]

No, government means to govern. Our founders designed this system so people take care of themselves because they knew government taking care of people would only make them dependent thus giving them unlimited power over the people. That's not what they wanted.

Fast forward to today and the federal government houses some people, feeds them, feeds their families, provides them retirement benefits, provides healthcare, provides daycare, gives some a Fn free cell phone, pays for their utilities, and more recently, Dementia got the Affordable Connectivity Act passed so now the federal government is paying for your cable/internet bill as well if you make less than X amount per year.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself: do you think we would be 31 trillion dollars in the hole today had we only listened to Madison's words?

Oh god spare me your typical rant about welfare dude lol. Good god. It’s getting really old at this point. It’s actually not something that needs to be relevant to what I’m talking about. You’re trying to put “care” into a connotation that involves welfare or nurturing. When you think of national security like what the CIA does, you’re talking about “care”. You’re talking about something that benefits people. When you’re talking about highways, you’re talking about a mechanism that involves people’s livelihood like commuting to work. You’re talking about emergency services like the police or ambulances that “care” for the well being or people. Your connotation of “care” is completely limited. I mean you can choose to use whatever word you want if “care” triggers you I guess. Either way policies you support involve the care and benefit of people.

 

[Nostra]

Link to Wall St getting it, or admit you are full of shit, Simp

Smokin' OP seems to have nothing.

Full of shit it is.

 

[80zephyr]

NOT without court cases.
More $$$ deductions.

Have you ever been involved in this type of situation? I have.

 

[JamesE]

True. Some Republicans want to sunset Medicare and Social Security, along with EVERY funded program, and then refund them as needed.

If you're looking for a good "wedge issue" between seniors and Republicans, SS & Medicare are it.

If the stupid fucks don't just "fix" entitlements and move on, 2024 might be a bloodbath compared to the "red wave" disappointment of 2022.

Didn't think Social Security was a entitlement considering I put in 600 to 700+ a month for the last 30 years i worked and put into it for the previous 15 years before that.

 

[MarcATL]

they can't wait to "reform" medicare and Social Security, the scumbag liars

Basically.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh god spare me your typical rant about welfare dude lol. Good god. It’s getting really old at this point. It’s actually not something that needs to be relevant to what I’m talking about. You’re trying to put “care” into a connotation that involves welfare or nurturing. When you think of national security like what the CIA does, you’re talking about “care”. You’re talking about something that benefits people. When you’re talking about highways, you’re talking about a mechanism that involves people’s livelihood like commuting to work. You’re talking about emergency services like the police or ambulances that “care” for the well being or people. Your connotation of “care” is completely limited. I mean you can choose to use whatever word you want if “care” triggers you I guess. Either way policies you support involve the care and benefit of people.

That's not caring about people on a personal level, that's governing. Police and emergency services are not provided to cities by the federal government, they are locally provided with local tax money in most cases just like schools, street lights, water and sewer construction and repairs.

 

[MarcATL]

No, government means to govern. Our founders designed this system so people take care of themselves because they knew government taking care of people would only make them dependent thus giving them unlimited power over the people. That's not what they wanted.

Fast forward to today and the federal government houses some people, feeds them, feeds their families, provides them retirement benefits, provides healthcare, provides daycare, gives some a Fn free cell phone, pays for their utilities, and more recently, Dementia got the Affordable Connectivity Act passed so now the federal government is paying for your cable/internet bill as well if you make less than X amount per year.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now ask yourself: do you think we would be 31 trillion dollars in the hole today had we only listened to Madison's words?

This is why my OP is right.

Republicans are attacking, and ultimately wants to destroy social security.

 

[Billy000]

That's not caring about people on a personal level, that's governing. Police and emergency services are not provided to cities by the federal government, they are locally provided with local tax money in most cases just like schools, street lights, water and sewer construction and repairs.

Lol dude quit trying to make a distinction between federal or state as if it matters. Governing is governing. Of course you conveniently left out the CIA and national security from my post which is obviously federal. How about the military that would need to protect the citizens in the case of a war?

Let me ask you this burning question I know you can’t answer. What federal programs do you consider to be governing that do not fit the mold of the citizens benefiting from it? Name SPECIFIC programs. Like if it doesn’t benefit citizens, why do you care it even exists? Like who is it benefiting instead?

You take your time on that one!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol dude quit trying to make a distinction between federal or state as if it matters. Governing is governing. Of course you conveniently left out the CIA and national security from my post which is obviously federal. How about the military that would need to protect the citizens in the case of a war?

Let me ask you this burning question I know you can’t answer. What federal programs do you consider to be governing that do not fit the mold of the citizens benefiting from it? Name SPECIFIC programs. Like if it doesn’t benefit citizens, why do you care it even exists? Like who is it benefiting instead?

You take your time on that one!

I don't need much time. You used the word "caring" for it's citizens as in the nanny state sort of way. You didn't say benefit. In the Constitution it outlines national security such as the military, and yes, you can include various national security agencies. We all "benefit" from such security.

Now state and local governments can "care" for people as provided by States Rights. National and local governments are not the same because under States Rights, a local government can do as they please as long as there are no constitutional violations. There are no duties or requirements in our Constitution for local governments as there are with our national government.

What I consider governing by our federal government are those listed in the Constitution. Anything outside of what's enumerated is benevolence as Madison addressed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is why my OP is right.

Republicans are attacking, and ultimately wants to destroy social security.

Yes I know, we've been ending it for decades now according to the left. But the left can't explain why we never did it in spite of having total control over the federal government on several occasions.

Trying to fix something is not attacking it. It's trying to save it.

 

[themirrorthief]

Sorry about being civilized and taking care of the unfortunate... of course Mario Cuomo said that Ronald Reagan made blaming the poor acceptable. A disgrace. We have to join the rest of the world the modern world in having a living wage and cheap college and training so jobs are good and there are ways to get a good job. Instead of this GOP crap. We'll all be selling hamburgers to each other soon... that's what they call the worst inequality, upward mobility homelessness Etcetera after 40 years of GOP giveaway to the rich and screw job for everyone else. Change the damn channel. there aren't any Marxists around, just people who aren't brainwashed with BS from the greedy idiot GOP rich, Super Dupe.

you are one of those who think biden isnt hopelessly senile and totally useless

 

[Billy000]

I don't need much time. You used the word "caring" for it's citizens as in the nanny state sort of way. You didn't say benefit. In the Constitution it outlines national security such as the military, and yes, you can include various national security agencies. We all "benefit" from such security.

Now state and local governments can "care" for people as provided by States Rights. National and local governments are not the same because under States Rights, a local government can do as they please as long as there are no constitutional violations. There are no duties or requirements in our Constitution for local governments as there are with our national government.

What I consider governing by our federal government are those listed in the Constitution. Anything outside of what's enumerated is benevolence as Madison addressed.

Uh no. Only you used the word “nanny”. Not me. Like my point is pretty basic but you’re pretending it isn’t. Any government program that benefits the people is my point. Technically that means “care” whether you like it or not. I get that you’re trying to make a limited connotation on what “care” means as far as it is related to welfare nurturing but it really doesn’t make any sense to do that. Like okay we all get it: you’re a tough, old school, manly man who hasn’t accepted a single dollar of welfare in your whole life! Derp, derp, derp! Guess what, Ray? I haven’t either. We aren’t all that special, are we?

What the fuck are you even talking about right now? Like yeah, the federal government gives only so much power to state and local. Okay and? What is your point? Do you even have one? Why are we talking about this? Like I guess you’re trying to minimize the power of state and local law enforcement because they aren’t federally funded. Um okay. And? Are you trying to say we should get rid of state and local services? Of course either way we know we have federal law enforcement like the FBI. Are you pretending they don’t exist for the sake of your argument?

Okay what’s listed in the constitution. Got it. Such as? How do those programs not serve the people? Be specific.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Basically.

Of course if nothing is done to fix the medicare/social security problem, then everyone will lose when there is no more money or the money is so worthless that wheel barrows of cash will be needed just to buy an apple. Sorta like what happened in the 1930s with the Weimar Republic and we knew what happened after that....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Uh no. Only you used the word “nanny”. Not me. Like my point is pretty basic but you’re pretending it isn’t. Any government program that benefits the people is my point. Technically that means “care” whether you like it or not. I get that you’re trying to make a limited connotation on what “care” means as far as it is related to welfare nurturing but it really doesn’t make any sense to do that. Like okay we all get it: you’re a tough, old school, manly man who hasn’t accepted a single dollar of welfare in your whole life! Derp, derp, derp! Guess what, Ray? I haven’t either. We aren’t all that special, are we?

What the fuck are you even talking about right now? Like yeah, the federal government gives only so much power to state and local. Okay and? What is your point? Do you even have one? Why are we talking about this? Like I guess you’re trying to minimize the power of state and local law enforcement because they aren’t federally funded. Um okay. And? Are you trying to say we should get rid of state and local services? Of course either way we know we have federal law enforcement like the FBI. Are you pretending they don’t exist for the sake of your argument?

Okay what’s listed in the constitution. Got it. Such as? How do those programs not serve the people? Be specific.

You're moving the goalposts constantly. Serve the people, benefit the people, is not the same as caring for the people.

caring​

/ (ˈkɛərɪŋ) /

---

adjective
feeling or showing care and compassion; caring attitude
of or relating to professional social or medical care: nursing is a caring job
noun
the practice or profession of providing social or medical care

I don't think you're going to find many if any social program that does not benefit somebody. Of course they do because otherwise the policy or law would have never been created in the first place. This has nothing to do with being special, the debate here is what did our founders expect out of a federal government. I have news for you, this isn't it.

My point about various governments is they all have different objectives; different rules to play by; different roles. Government is not simply government period. My state government provides things not covered by the feds. My local government provides things the state doesn't.

Now you ask the question what should our federal government provide, and in spite of me answering your question earlier, you ask it again. So you tell me, what do you think our federal government should be providing?

 

[kyzr]

"Am I an actuary?" No. I'm an information system guy for Human Resources. My boss is quite a visionary, I'm a behind the scenes technical guy. If it's computer system related she tells me what she want's as an outcome, we discuss details. Then she gets out of the way while I roll up my sleeves. Very good working situation to be honest and why I enjoy my job. But it means I need to peek behind the curtain and think beyond the bump-sticker and think through details of how something works.

I work with benefits systems, recruiting systems, the HR side of payroll, ya-da ya-da ya-da.



My parents were older when I was born and their own retirement was just a few years away. They would have tried to help, but I left home at 18 with nothing on but the clothes on my back and joined the Navy. My rating was in Aviation Electronics, which led to computers, then databases and now information systems. Forty-Five years later I'm looking at our own retirement. We have - well - some solid retirement assets (home equity, 401K's, some stocks, CD's, etc.). The retirement budget has 6 sources of revenue (military pension, current employer pension, and SS for each of us). Our revenue steams will cover retirement living without having to touch retirement assets, including not touching the 401Ks.

Right now (in addition to employer health insurance) we have TRICARE Select which transitions to TRICARE for Life once we reach 65. We'll have TRICARE and MediCare in retirement and Medicare premiums won't be a problem. Will probably pick up either an Advantage or MediGap policy to cover the holes in coordinated medical coverage. As military retirees we are enrolled in the BENFEDS program where we access Dental and Vision coverage, those premiums already come out of my military retirement.

Personally speaking, if I assume a 25% reduction (worst case) in SS payments in 2035 - in other words SS check are reduced to 75%. That 25% drop in SS results in a 9.3% reduction in Gross Income (pre-tax) because SS is only 2 of the 6 streams. Because of the reduction in income, some napkin calculations show the effective negative impact on disposable income is 7.36% because of the standard deduction for taxes.***

WW

*** Take Gross Income, subtract the standard deduction for married filing jointly with the Senior provision, calculate Federal & State income tax on that amount, then subtract the taxes from Gross to get disposable income to build the budget. Then repeat the process based on a SS income reduction of 25%. The difference is the true impact of the SS reduction on our personal retirement budget based on the 6 revenue streams. Even then, if SS is reduced by 25%, the direct impact on disposable income isn't dollar-for-dollar because there is less income on which to pay Income Taxes. Because these calculations are based on our personal situation, others results will be different.

It figures that you work with computers and HR data.
Congrats on your military pension, thank you for your service.
Most/many of us can take a 25% reduction in SS and survive, but we shouldn't have to.
SS & Medicare should be made whole.