House Republican wants to cut Social Security benefits

[Morphine Prince 109,680]

WASHINGTON ― President-elect Donald Trump distinguished himself on the campaign trail as the rare Republican candidate promising not to cut Social Security and Medicare.

But Republicans in Congress have other plans for the two popular social insurance programs ― and they are wasting no time rolling them out.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security, released a plan Thursday to reform Social Security that would drastically reduce benefits. The bill would make the program less of a universal earned benefit and more of a means-tested safety net that aims only to provide basic support to the poorest retirees and disabled workers.

In order to close Social Security’s long-term funding gap, Johnson would make Social Security’s benefit formula less generous for all but the lowest earners, rapidly raise the retirement age and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, among other changes designed to save money.

Johnson also proposes changes that would cost the program money, like an increased minimum benefit for the poorest retirees ― provided they have a long history of covered employment ― and the elimination of income taxes on Social Security.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/top-house-republican-social-security-cuts_us_584b1bb8e4b0e05aded3ff3c

 

[PaperIz 7,354]

 saw this yesterday on yahoo...smh he really pulled one over on his idiotic voters. 

[Yuuri 21,636]

2 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

 saw this yesterday on yahoo...smh he really pulled one over on his idiotic voters. 

And before The Trumpets run to The Hillaries, and join forces to make sure Trump and his team doesn't get into office.

[ryanripley 86,575]

as a person with the IQ of a potato, what does this mean?  

[mucinex 4,260]

this is a ridiculous and stupid idea. these people must've never struggled a day in their life.

[Luc 4,776]

5 minutes ago, ryanripley said:

as a person with the IQ of a potato, what does this mean?  

More money for the rich 1%, less for the ones in need. Old people, sick people, disabled, unemployed and the lower middle class will get a lot less money.

The government will in turn save a lot of money, which they will probably use to make taxes for high incomes lower.

 

basically Republicans are planning on destroying the economy once again.

[ryanripley 86,575]

Just now, Luc said:

More money for the rich 1%, less for the ones in need. Old people, sick people, disabled, unemployed and the lower middle class will get a lot less money.

The government will in turn save a lot of money, which they will probably use to make taxes for high incomes lower.

 

basically Republicans are planning on destroying the economy once again.

why would somebody do that to their country? thats so mean

[Benji 20,113]

Cutting benefits for people that simply avoid work makes sense. It states that benefits (it doesn't say which) won't just be given out as a right but more selectively given out. The article states it won't effect disabled or retired people and that there's also going to be a cut on social security tax.

All in all, it's not that bad. Until you know exactly what benefits are going to be cut, you can't really judge the plan. Benefits need to be a safety net, not a way of life that is for some people.

[Morphine Prince 109,680]

2 minutes ago, Benji said:

Cutting benefits for people that simply avoid work makes sense. It states that benefits (it doesn't say which) won't just be given out as a right but more selectively given out. The article states it won't effect disabled or retired people and that there's also going to be a cut on social security tax.

All in all, it's not that bad. Until you know exactly what benefits are going to be cut, you can't really judge the plan. Benefits need to be a safety net, not a way of life that is for some people.

Most people on social security are retired persons. People pay towards SS so when they retire they have some income secured when in old age. 

Just wanted to point this out in case some of you didn't know. 

We aren't talking about food stamps. 

But I agree, I want to know more about this plan. 

[Benji 20,113]

1 minute ago, Morphine Prince said:

Most people on social security are retired persons. People pay towards SS so when they retire they have some income secured when in old age. 

Just wanted to point this out in case some of you didn't know. 

We aren't talking about food stamps. 

But I agree, I want to know more about this plan. 

Cutting that tax seems to make sense then. People are living longer and retiring later in life so it makes sense to lower the amount of money people are paying into this as it's being paid into for longer? It seems like a move that will mostly benefit people, if I've got a decent understanding of it of course.

[Morphine Prince 109,680]

10 minutes ago, Benji said:

Cutting that tax seems to make sense then. People are living longer and retiring later in life so it makes sense to lower the amount of money people are paying into this as it's being paid into for longer? It seems like a move that will mostly benefit people, if I've got a decent understanding of it of course.

On the tax issue I'm not so sure because the number of people receiving SS benefits is growing more rapidly than the number of people contributing to the program. This is due to the baby boomer generation + people are living longer. 

All I know is SOMETHING has to be done for SS and Medicare to help these programs survive. If not in the 2030s we could be in trouble. 

Democrats propose expanding these programs. 

[venusfly 17,885]

None of this is really bad... social security should only be for the very poorest and people otherwise unable to gain money through no fault of their own. It's not something to just be expected if you happen to have a low income like a lot of people seem to view it as

18 minutes ago, Luc said:

More money for the rich 1%, less for the ones in need. Old people, sick people, disabled, unemployed and the lower middle class will get a lot less money.

The government will in turn save a lot of money, which they will probably use to make taxes for high incomes lower.

 

basically Republicans are planning on destroying the economy once again.

That's not an accurate description of it at all, it even says it will still provide for those who are disabled etc. It's not the job of the govt to give money to the unemployed and lower middle class if they are that way through something that they can do to help themselves.

The 'top 1%' are already taxed A LOT. There is no need to tax them more when the majority of their pay already goes towards taxes. It is a misleading claim often made by politicians that the rich rake in money and pay nothing back for it, they actually pay out most of the money they get in and dont even get to keep 50% of the money that they make. This is a very intentional claim designed to divert away from the fact that more money could be freed if the government stopped misspending tax payer money on stupid stuff like the world's largest military.

In order for the US's society to work there needs to be rich people who can run businesses that employ others. As soon as that becomes unprofitable and too highly taxed THAT will be the real destroyer of the economy, and this is coming from someone who is a leftist. 

[Luc 4,776]

37 minutes ago, LG said:

None of this is really bad... social security should only be for the very poorest and people otherwise unable to gain money through no fault of their own. It's not something to just be expected if you happen to have a low income like a lot of people seem to view it as

That's not an accurate description of it at all, it even says it will still provide for those who are disabled etc. It's not the job of the govt to give money to the unemployed and lower middle class if they are that way through something that they can do to help themselves.

The 'top 1%' are already taxed A LOT. There is no need to tax them more when the majority of their pay already goes towards taxes. It is a misleading claim often made by politicians that the rich rake in money and pay nothing back for it, they actually pay out most of the money they get in and dont even get to keep 50% of the money that they make. This is a very intentional claim designed to divert away from the fact that more money could be freed if the government stopped misspending tax payer money on stupid stuff like the world's largest military.

In order for the US's society to work there needs to be rich people who can run businesses that employ others. As soon as that becomes unprofitable and too highly taxed THAT will be the real destroyer of the economy, and this is coming from someone who is a leftist. 

An actual leftist would support higher taxes for the rich and stand in solidarity with the less well-off at all times, providing opportunity and freedom by creating conditions under which humans work optimally, rather than the ineffective, bureaucratic and even counter-productive method of forcing people to work. Actual leftists will support giving people a good safety net, thus reducing stress and supporting creativity and innovation. And most of all: actual leftists support equal opportunity in order for everyone to have a chance to get to the top, thus encouraging ambition for all and a society where innovation plays a key role.

There's a reason why Sweden, arguably the most socialist country in the Western hemisphere, also is the country with the second most innovation. That's because people perform best under the right conditions of a stressless environment full of opportunities where ideas and culture can flourish. The negligible amount of people who live their whole life on benefits are quickly made up for by the increased economic growth under a socialdemocratic system that encourages innovation and discourages social inequality. The rich don't need 50 million dollar incomes to be ambitious. The only bad thing too high taxes could lead to is companies moving to a different place or increased tax evasion. Not because it causes less innovation!

 

Also, and this is my least leftist opinion, the military has a very good reason to be that big and that is that the US protects the whole world. The military exists to guarantee that all trade routes continue to exist and to ensure that the dollar remains a stable currency, both to keep the US economy stable and alive. That's also why the US pays for the defense of so many countries: it's a win-win system, where both the countries paying less for their military (Europe, Japan, SK) and the US profit in terms of economics and in terms of safety. Indeed the US politicians divert attention away from this because it's too complicated for the public.