Posted on 03/12/2024 3:08:18 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
there are probably 30-50 million anchor babies and illegals leaching off the system, so yes absolutely it can largely fix it.
Unfortunately SS has become an entitlement used to buy votes for the rats.
____________________________________________________________
The Federal Reserve Bank’s ability to purchase as much debt as the Treasury Dept. needs has been used to finance vote-buying for the Rats. This phenomena is here to stay. All future political parties in the US will do it. The ultimate question is: Whose votes are we buying? Open borders, Woke, Globalists? or Law-abiding, hard-working, decent, US citizens?
Trump can’t get out of his own way..
It will be interesting to see who he picks for a VP candidate, if he chooses a RINO it will be telling.
I have no idea where that 30-50 million number came from. Most likely it was made up as there is no proof to back it up. Anyway, the last I looked, the SS Trust fund will go bankrupt in 7-8 years and will then have unfunded liabilities of at least $75 Trillion. Even if your numbers are right and we could eliminate those people, that wouldn't be nearly enough to make the program solvent. The dirty little secret is that the payroll tax for SS needs to go up substantially or benefits to boomers such as myself will need to be means tested. Yes, that means that people who were disciplined enough to save for their retirement would have their benefits reduced while those who did not would have their benefits untouched. Yes, it's unfair but it's been what conservatives like me have been warning about for decades. I can see no other way of getting out of this mess.
But please don't misunderstand. I think just on principle, illegals or their anchor babies shouldn't get SS.
I know that they’re going to end up weakening Social Security, “because the country is weak.”
“because of Biden inflation” would have been better.
I’m nearing retirement age. I don’t know whether to take the reduced amount now, or gamble on living long enough to receive the full amount, if there’s even anything left.
Agreed
And it should be noted that there are a lot of us Gen X who worked our asses off from an early age and started paying the maximum SS contribution back in the 90’s and continue doing so
By the time I’m eligible to “retire” and start receiving benefits I will have paid the maximum amount >40 years and it’s projected by even the govt that the fund will have run out of money before that
Personally I don’t much care if it goes bankrupt tomorrow instead of 15 + years from now when it matters to me
Social Security is a mess, yes it must be cleaned up, so yes that is “change”.
You must remember, never, ever believes a word Phil Bump says. If he tells you it’s sunny outside, go check, it’s probably raining. Waste of bandwidth posting anything from this mendacious reprobate.
Sure, just like the walls are closing in. Go away troll, idiot troll I might add.
Oh, and one more thing. If you had invested the funds in an annuity or index funds, the payments keep coming after you die. The same benefits stop so fast in social security that, in most cases, they know before your funeral.
SS is an entitlement...if you payed into it you are entitled to it.
not to be confused with individuals who believe they are entitled to other people’s money (OPM).
Anyone even *suggesting* any kind of cuts to social security is going to be, and should be, tarred and feathered.
A sociopathic nutcase mightcall it a ‘Ponzi scheme’ but it’s life-or-death to a *huge* chunk of Americans who are NOT going accept anything even resembling a cut (defined as not keeping pace with inflation). Period. No debate, no discussion, anyone talking about reducing benefits needs to be shut the F- up, permanently.
President Trump had better do not only a 180 degree turn from any *hint* of cutting, ‘Come To Jesus’, and be utterly clear that there is nothing short of a full nuclear strike on the US that is even going delay those payments *or* we might as well inaugurate Biden now.
I think his comments were taken out of context, but he needs to make comments that *can’t* be taken out of context.
A person even seriously suggesting cuts should be treated like a burglar breaking into one’s home, or a terrorist planting a bomb; click, click boom.
So anyone who says it’s a financial system where current benefits are based totally on future contributions from people you don’t know (And it was deliberately set up that way!)is a sociopathic nutcase?
So how does a mentally correct person describe it?
As exactly what it is supposed to be. A nearly 100 year old social welfare program that prevents people who have worked and contributed to society with a guaranteed financial stipend once they are too old to work so that they don’t end up on the streets or dead from starvation after a lifetime of labor.
I don’t give a rip about the disability scam part, but any fool who even voices cutting any kind of benefit that we working folks are counting on needs to be put 6 feet under. This utterly transcends all other issues and ideological struggles.
So the fact that it’s on ever increasing deteriorating foundations doesn’t bother you? The fact that in 1940 there were 150+ workers contributing into the system for every dollar taken out in benefits and now that ratio is done 2 or 3 paying in for every dollar paid in benefits doesn’t bother you? The fact that the government has allowed and encouraged a fundamental misconception about the the money taken in SS taxes somehow belongs to the payer? It doesn’t! There have been a number of federal court cases establishing that the SS payer has no property\asset rights in the the money he/she paid in. It doesn’t bother the that if you live long enough you take out far more then you pay in. Look up Ida May Fuller the celebrated first SS benefit recipient. She paid in something like $22.00 and took out something like $20k. There have been thousands of Ida May Fullers! None of that bothers you?
Yes it is political kryptonite. However at some point its going to have to be put on a sound financial basis.
It doesn’t bother me anywhere nearly as much as folks I’ve grown up with and worked with not receiving what they have contributed to and are expecting/need in their old age. Not by one billionth as much.
Anyone suggesting cutting anything should be plugged full of lead exactly like a burglar or carjacker; no questions, no trial.
If you think that statement through wouldn’t those of us being forced to pay in now with the knowledge we won’t get back anything near what we paid in if even anything at all be justified in taking the same view of those currently taking our money?
I know there are a lot of ways to look at this but a lot of the current recipients seem to be fine with us paying in with near zero hope of recovering what we contribute
It’s definitely a risky talk for DJT and we need him as president so I’d suggest he stay away from the topic but fact is the system is going to fail in the next decade or two max so the next generation is going to get royally screwed-is that ok if the current generation gets theirs?
The government lied or misled them into expecting it. What they put in went out the door as benefits to those then retired. What they got in lieu of assets are IOUs on the next working generation. Yes, a 100-year-old system based on 100-year-old demographics and life expectancy, how comforting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.