Trump wants to defund Social Security ?

Wow you sure changed the subject fast.

 

I recall what the economy was like when Obama took over, the economy was in a nose dive. The two greatest nose dives in history a Republican was president, and the only time in history ( or modern history ) there was a budget surplus was when a Democrat was in office. yeah, I'll take a dem any day of the week, over a republican.

 

Reality is only what 2 people agree on. We can agree that elderly should not have to live on the streets, but you can't convince me that there is nothing better. For those that cant save/invest, let them choose where that money goes. Making the same government known for irresponsibility the only choice is bad for workers and the elderly.

 

I recall what it was like when he and his fellow Democrats tool back the Congress two years before that, do you? Do you remember what was the deficit the Republicans handed them? I recall Gingrich and Kasich forcing Clinton to sign their budgets and tax cuts and welfare reform else not get reelected and those combined to get the economy back on track, lower unemployment as the economy grew and produce a flood of tax revenues which produced the budget surpluses.

Presidents are not kings, the Congress has the highest budget authority the President is along for the ride especially a lame ducked one with the opposition Congress.

 

The government can't invest outside itself, it can't go into the markets and invest. Any surplus FICA contributions are put in special Treasury Bills.

 

Payroll taxes pay for basically 2 things. SS, and Medicare/Medicare. So what do you think will happen when you cut that tax.....


Go ahead, Ill wait

 

The reason there was a budget surplus was because Clinton raised taxes on the rich and cut defense spending and welfare.

The buck stops with the president, and no one forced Clinton to do a damn thing. He did something bad, and I blame him for it (The commodity Futures Modernization Act, for example), he did something good, the surplus and robust economy, and I credit him for it. The buck stops with the president.
That being said, because of the appropriations process, which is done via fiscal years, on economic stats, you have to do them according to fiscal periods, to be accurate. A recall that we were at the tail end of a recession when Clinton assumed office. A president can sign or veto a budget, so he's ultimately responsible for it. Speaking of deficits, they are currently higher than at any time in history, and that is due to the massive tax cut to the rich and corporations. and this will, in the long run, do damage. ( as are the tariffs).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econo...linton_administration#cite_note-CBO_BEO2016-1
President Clinton oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the United States federal budget into surplus from the fiscal year 1998 to 2001, the only surplus years after 1969. Debt held by the public, a primary measure of the national debt, fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001

Funny how when comparing the salient performance stats comparing republic administrations going back to say , to democratic administrations, democratic administrations score better, overall. Not on every stat, but many of the salient ones.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...does-better-under-the-democrats/#236b78836786
If you are going to blame a president for the bad things that happened during his term, you then must give him credit for the good things.

 

A) Have the young and healthy support the old people (you know, just like humans have done since the cave).

B) Have the young and healthy support the disabled (you know, just like humans have done since the cave).

C) Young and healthy minorities included (many migrants already operate this way).

And what master race would that be? The race that regards inter-generational family support as normal? Or those who think that kind of thing is a burden?

 

Only if we refused to support our impoverished elderly family members, of course.

 

Exactly.

 

People who are elderly today, worked/saved during a time when the working classes could easily afford to own a home. Buck stops there.

 

Republican politicians have never liked Social Security and Medicare. This puts them in a quandary, because people past 65 are a Republican constituency. That will change quickly if the GOP tries to defund those programs in order to pay for their tax cuts for the rich.

 

none of us have a right to live on our own.

 

If every 50 year old is given X dollars (SS as lump sum), at a given time, then that particular cohort is subject to the same market conditions. Any variation in the outcome 20 years down the track, will therefore not be a result of market conditions .. it will be entirely down to personal choices. It goes without saying that any lump sum arrangement would have to come with the proviso that that's your lot - though of course that would be made very clear at the outset. It would be a case of fully informed consent.

 

If everyone is paid out (via lump sum) as per the proposed model, then they can choose how to apply those funds. This is FAR more reasonable and just, because it gives people the opportunity to put a lump sum to work. Something many poor people might otherwise never have the opportunity of doing.

 

I read the article no where did it state the cuts would defund Social Security. It was insinuated in a straw man opinion piece.

 

Make your point or sit down.

 

Where does it say specifically for Social Security? Quote it for us won't you.

 

In other words: **** them. let them die, they're somebody else's problem

What about people who never had children, or whose children won't support them?

Sympathy doesn't feed anyone

 

And most of us would refuse entirely without a second thought. We're not monsters but we have our own problems. Have you never read a Dickens novel? They were so popular because they were based on the reality people could see around them every day.

 

And what if the risk they take fails? This is what all you capitalists refuse to see, for every successful business, there are 9 failures. It's not called risk for nothing.

 

That's what payroll taxes fund lol

 

From the horse's mouth: Starve the beast. That was GOP strategy ever since saint Reagan. This is just another attempt: Cut revenue first through tax cuts, so later there will be no other choice but cutting benefits.

This is so transparent, I have no idea why any senior would vote for these people. Oh, I know, they always think the benefit cutting will happen to someone else, who they deem undeserving, whereas their own SS benefits, which they deem well deserved, remain untouched. At one point, they'll be in for a rude awakening.

 

Try reading for once.

 

The bill was sponsored by that great corporate raider of retirement funds Mitt Romney so why would it not want to destroy this retirement fund that citizens pay for?