Trump Plans Cuts To Social Security (salary, Reagan, suspect, conspiracy)

[Frank DeForrest]

GOP'ers defending socialist insecurity? FDR looks up from the firey gates of hell and smiles.

[Oklazona Bound]

Originally Posted by Boss

Long term stability not assured. Due to falling employment. 1981 and 1987 changes to the law as well as 2001. The GOP will kill it off when it wants.

Its not going anywhere. Older people tend to vote GOP and people in general tend to get more conservative as they grow older.

[Oklazona Bound]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

GOP'ers defending socialist insecurity? FDR looks up from the firey gates of hell and smiles.

The two parties are the same. Only difference is one party loves Trump and one hates him.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by Boss

Long term stability not assured. Due to falling employment. 1981 and 1987 changes to the law as well as 2001. The GOP will kill it off when it wants.

Not happening.

[mjaynes288]

Originally Posted by armourereric

The feds should:

Accelerate deportation of employed illegals
Start a recertification process for those on SSDI, surely with current technology, many can fill jobs that they could not fill 10-20 years ago
Use the savings to shore up Ss retirement funds

What are these jobs? In my experience jobs disabled people did in the past have been lost to automation or moved to other countries.

[katie45]

Originally Posted by MJJersey

How many times are you guys going to spread this fake rumor?

This is their attempt to get votes for a Dem candidate in November. Pathetic.

[evilnewbie]

Democrats trying to scare people about Social Security AGAIN? do people actually believe that crap after 30 years of Democrat lies... You think they would invent something new...

[Rachel976]

So what are these supposed SS "cuts"? I see nothing in the article(s) posted, other than that Trump wants to take a "look at" the program. And what's wrong with that? SS is projected to run out of money, and changes do indeed have to be made.

And they don't even have to be massive changes. SS was originally instituted when people were living, on average, only a few years past 65 (if that), and now we have people averaging 15 years past SS (with many 25 years past SS). Given that, two small modifications will correct the problem:

1) Move the SS retirement age from 67 to 68.
2) Move the SS cap up to $200,000 (or remove it altogether).

Benefits don't have to be touched at all. Stop being an alarmist, OP.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease

Dems and Rep. are equally to blame for the debt mess we are in. Trump has nothing to do with the huge debt that was left before him or the ingrained corruption in DC. If he is acquitted - the next step for the dems is to crash the stock market if they can... watch...

Trump has nothing to do with the debt before he took office, but look at what's happened since

Cumulative rolling four years of deficits under Obama:
2012-2015: $2,191 billion (last four years of Obama’s Presidency)
2013-2016: $2,171 billion (last three years and first year of Trump’s)
2014-2017: $2,471 billion (last two years and first two years of Trump’s)
Under Trump:

2017-2020: $3.330 billion (first four years of Trump’s Presidency, one year of increased spending)
2018-2021: $3,757 billion (second to fourth year of Trump’s Presidency, first year after and two years of increased spending)
2019-2022: $4,228 billion (last two years and first two years of next term)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjo.../#1bdde1407693

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Tonyafd

I have just done a Google search using "cuts to social security" as the search criteria.

Did you hurt yourself? Are you okay?

Originally Posted by Tonyafd

I got over a billion hits in .45 seconds.

That proves nothing.

You have been repeatedly called out on threads like these. I have repeatedly challenged you to read the Social Security Act of 1935 and the 1939 Amendments as well as the annual reports filed be the Trustees and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have not.

You also fail to understand that the Lamestream Media writes inflammatory articles precisely to get suckers like you to play the click-bait game so they can boost their advertising.

Such examples are abundant.

What the Lamestream Media called as "cuts" to Social Security Disability were in fact not cuts at all.

The legislation enacted by the then-Republican Congress and signed into law by Trump merely barred persons on Social Security Disability from also collecting federal unemployment benefits and State unemployment benefits.

Not one single person on Social Security Disability had their Social Security Disability payments cuts.

Not one.

Yet, the Lamestream Media called it a "cut."

The only affected persons were those persons collecting Social Security Disability and also collecting unemployment benefits, unemployment benefits at the State and federal level were not cut, either, they were simply withheld.

If you can justify why someone who claims they cannot work due to disability should also be allowed to collect unemployment benefits from the State or federal government -- even though they claim they cannot work due to disability -- then please do.

Originally Posted by Tonyafd

That shortfall wasn't supposed to happen until the twenty thirties.

Wrong.

Your claim that a "shortfall wasn't suppose to happen until the twenty thirties" is based on your ignorance of everything related to Social Security.

Shortfalls:

2010: -$15.9 Billion
2011: -$11.4 Billion
2012: -$17.1 Billion
2013: -$33.8 Billion
2014: -$39.6 Billion
2015: -$40.2 Billion
2016: -$65.9 Billion
2017: -$64.3 Billion
2018: -$103.1 Billion
2019: -$71.4 Billion

Your claim demonstrably fails in a manner most spectacular.

There have been shortfalls for 10 consecutive years, and unless and until Congress decides to increase the FICA payroll tax, the shortfalls will continue ad infinitum.