Trump wants to defund Social Security ?

I've been investing for my retirement since 1978. I am about to retire with a nice nest egg. Had I the money I contributed to SS over the years going into a similar but even more conservative portfolio I'd be WAY ahead. The goal is to give everyone a better program in which to build a retirement, a better and sustainable program. Why would you object to that? What changes would put in to reform SS, let me guess tax the other guy.

 

And Wall Street is where the capital to do so acquired and put together to create the companies that creates those jobs and pays those incomes.

 

It would be better off had we been able to put some of the money into the market in private accounts. SS needs to be reformed to allowed people just starting out and still 10 years from retirement to do so.

 

You are talking Medicaid not SS. Medicare which retires are forced into does not require you to have no assets. Had I had my SS to invest in my 401k or IRA I would have MUCH more to "survive" on

 

I don't remember these Leftists crying out when Obama stole from Social Security to pay for Obamacare.

 

taxpayers paid into socialist security, if it were privatized they get a return on investment.

under socialist doctrines taxpayers pay for the upkeep of deadbeats on the welfare rolls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_on_investment

 

not now, the market is about to crash

but the government could have invested it in bonds or something

 

That hasn't been prior GOP polices, and....maybe you can point me to one GOP policy of a President that was the case, or one thing Trump has done....I'll wait.

Reform, is not defunding.

It's a low standard....I know from my practice, where someone said...."i can't stand very long, so that's why i get SSI" - literally. SSI needs major reform. The issue is, whatever the guidelines are...you don't have the guy or girl from their office in Washington actually meeting with the person.....it's tragic.

 

Facts:

1. SSI funded by Treasury’s General Account.....It’s a Social Security program.
2. Some SS administrative expenses are funded by Treasury’s General Account.
3. The semi-annual interest payments to the SS Trust Fund have historically been fully, then partially IOU’ed......not anymore, Treasury now has to borrow from Public.

 

Depends on what you mean by successful. We’d be better off if everyone could take their full SS accounts and invest them. That’s a populist right wing reform proposal that I agree with.

 

Are you naive enough to believe that?

Trump's "historic" tax cuts have not translated into private sector reinvestment.

Rather, companies have taken advantage of the cuts to buy back their own shares.

There's virtually no correlation between stock market performance and real economic activity.

This is all the more true these days.

 

So does investing and the government doesn't get to keep my money if I die before retirement age. SS is a bad deal. People can do so much better on their own. Competition is what is needed so those who don't know how to invest have better choices.

 

disagree, it's good for society, one of the best programs we have

the reality is, it's like two incomes when women started working, at first it was a boom, now it's the norm... same would be true on not paying a social security tax... prices would go up, most could not save, and still have an elderly population to support in old age

anyone that saved would lose all welfare and medical benefits.... thus once they got sick... all their savings would go poof

 

Yes they did and we had one of the best economies ever.
You don't know how or why stock buybacks happen and why they are good for the economy and move capital to areas of growth which creates jobs and expansion.
Yes there is correlation between the stock market and real economic activity.

 

2.3% average GDP growth from 2017 to January 2020.

Is it for you the best economy ever ?

Explain that to me.

 

If it were privatized, they "could" get a better ROI, but that isn't necessarily an absolute outcome. I'd say that doing that, without any mandated minimums, would end up like most of America now: a wide gap between the successful and the unsuccessful. Unfortunately, a lot of unsuccessful individuals at retirement age would likely drain the benefits the successful types gained through increased costs overall.

It's to the overall benefit of the entire country to have retirees not require a lot of emergency room healthcare.

https://peoplesworld.org/article/th...n-social-security-getting-worse-all-the-time/

The Repubs have a long history of opposing and trying to gut SS.

As for reform for the disability side, I'd be ok with that depending on the reform. Not being able to stand for long periods of time is a disability if your skillset requires standing. That said, their are jobs where you can sit and I'd prefer any disability program also have a jobs component where they can connect disabled people with Jobs that work with their disability.

 

socialism isn't absolute because it is dependent on stealing the product of someone's labour.

capitalism is absolute because it is dependent on keeping the product of someone's labor.

 

Yes they opposed it at the start...and frankly, at the start,....FDR's bill is nothing like it is now....the Dems have expanding it, grew it...and allowed it to become one of the biggest drivers of debt.

Since then the GOP has done everything to reform it....your website says "cut" when in fact most of it was somehow reforming it to make it last....currently it is on a path to crash, and the left doesn't want to do anything about it

 

We would have done better had our excess contributions been invested in municipal bonds.

Why?

Because State/local government debts, both principal and interest are repaid by General revenues, such as;

a. Income Tax revenues
b. Sales/fuel tax
c. User fees
d. Property tax
e. Special assessments

AND

Budget cuts!

In other words, State/local governments HAVE/WILL raise taxes, or cut expenditures in order to finance their debts, whereas the Federal Government will keep borrowing.

Today’s size of municipal bond market; Near $4 trillion.

OTHER REASONS;

2. It would have eliminated Clinton’s/Bush’s slush funds/deficit reduction scheme.

3. It would have lowered the Federal Debt by at least $3.7 trillion.

 

Once the government take over, not only are there no improvements, they cannot be trusted to maintaining the same level of efficiency. Instead, they raise taxes and raise the retirement age. Mathematically, its a bad deal for the worker.

There used to be a product called health insurance that prevented sick people from going broke. It has since been replaced with a product called "health care" that all but guarantees more sickness and brokeness!

 

Back in the mid 1990’s, when both Repubs and Dems were just arguing about reforming SS, three countries started investing their worker’s excess contributions into stocks, bonds, real estate world-wide, and today, they’re laughing. In addition, said 3 country’s Social Security were reformed/partially privatized by LIBERAL Governments, thus, WTF?

Partially privatized, meaning; Their SSA ended up hiring salaried Money Managers.

 

Well I guess future administrations could print money for anything. Never a current administration however...

 

Facts:

That has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Looks like a distraction.

 

why not, Trump is

where did the tea party go, funny, Trump spends more in 4 years than any other President has spent in 8... and they are nowhere to be found

the tea party told the IRS they were not a political group, did they lie to the IRS?

 

Maybe theoretically, but millions of people won't, so it's for them. The policy is based on political reality, i.e, 'the greater good' not wishful thinking insofar as 'if they did this or that'.