US worker: pays into Social Security with every hour of labor
CNBC: how do we rich people claw back these “entitlements”?
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024
284 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19126 readers
2317 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That makes me think of the two pro Trump ladies on the Channel 5 video that were complaining about social security being too low. I'm sure their reaction will be "But it won't affect me, only cheaters!"
I used to love Channel 5 and Andrew but haven't been able to bring myself to watch since any of the allegations against him came out.
Has he made any sort of indication that he has learned and changed from that experience or has it just been business as normal since he started making content again?
Yeah, he made a statement I think on Twitter or somewhere apologizing and recognizing his wrongdoing. Whether it was sincere or not, I dunno
What were the allegations?
Edit: eww, read his wiki
In January 2023, two women posted TikTok videos accusing Callaghan of trying to pressure them into having sex with him. A reporter at The Stranger then interviewed two other women who alleged that Callaghan tried to pressure them into having sex with him and made them uncomfortable. On January 12, his legal representative responded to the allegations in a statement released to Variety, saying in part: "Conversations about pressure and consent are extremely important and Andrew wants to have these conversations, so he can continue to learn and grow. While every dynamic is open to interpretation and proper communication is critical from all those involved, repeated requests for money should not be part of these conversations."
On January 15, Callaghan responded to the allegations in a YouTube video, stating that some of the allegations about him are "not true" or "missing important contextual information" but apologizing for his behavior and revealing plans to attend therapy and Alcoholics Anonymous. On February 28, The Stranger published an additional story with two more women accusing Callaghan of sexual assault and coercion that took place at Loyola University in 2017. Callaghan's legal representative said, "Andrew has taken accountability for his role in other situations and will be the first to admit his shortcomings; however, these accusations go further and are completely without merit. Andrew will utilize every option he has in order to clear his name and protect his reputation."
Not invalidating anyone's experience, I'm just curious on the details. One person's drunk harassment....
God dammit. Thanks for saving us the clicks.
Happens all the time with patients I see on disability or Medicaid. I had a patient tell me last week about how his social security disability income is tight and we "need Trump back to fix things." Yeah okay, good luck with that buddy.
The vast majority of people who vote right of center don't realize they're doing so at their own expense...
Conservatives aren't exactly known for their intelligence.
I've seen plenty of conservatives insist that investments pay back better than SS. Therefore, all retirement should be privatized and invested in the stock market.
I've never really seen why they are wro- 40% market dip OH SHIT OH FUCK OH NO!
Yeah, you're highly reliant on your personal ability to control yourself and actually invest that money without ever taking it out AND investing it right so your plan doesn't blow up in your face just at you're about to retire.
So a universal system is better.
Okay, but here me out. What if we privatized the gains and just socialized the losses?
And yet the elderly people in this country will still vote for him
Fox doesn’t report on this topic
You misspelled "OAN and Newsmax"
Them too.
And a shitton of 25-45 year olds.
None of my homies. The idiot across the street probably will. But he isn't down with me.
They absolutely will. And then several months in it’ll be, “he isn’t hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
The whole lot of them failing to learn anything from mistakes.
You know who’s really going to understand retirement? The rich guy who inherited millions from his daddy and famously likes to stiff the working class folks he hires.
If social security is cut, can I get all the money I put into it back? Because I'd have a sizeable retirement rather than losing all that money to the ether.
Fucking stupid.
Best we can do is a tax break to corporations.
Your money is already gone. It's one giant Ponzi Scheme. They take the money from you to pay all the old fucks currently living off of Social Security.
If you want to have any money - you have to hope that in 20 years everyone else puts in enough to cover you.
It's not a Ponzi scheme because withdrawals and deposits are scheduled and mandatory. You don't get into a situation where investors lose faith and ask for money that you don't have because that's not allowed. You get your money when you reach the requisite age. You also don't get into a situation where you run out of investors because it's a mandatory payroll tax.
Essentially the only issue facing social security is the fact that since 1974, wage growth has become decoupled from productivity gains, meaning the payroll tax that funds social security captures a smaller proportion of business revenue over time - because businesses spend less of their revenue on payroll than they used to.
Social security doomerism of the type on display here is a tacit acceptance of conservative propaganda on the subject. The government is fully capable of indefinitely maintaining a pension fund, we just have to stop accepting the lie that it isn't.
Ponzi scheme or adequately funded resource for no longer employable non-rich people? The difference is in the management and contributions, both of which need to increase up here.
Your money is already gone.
We literally print the money. It isn't gone. There is always more money in the banana stand.
We have an entire province in Canada who thinks the same.
They also think they get way more than their share because they're soooo much more important -- and it's not the region where Toronto is!
If social security is cut, can I get all the money I put into it back?
The social security cut will be coupled with a tax cut. And you'll be told to invest the difference in the stock market
The social security cut will be coupled with a tax cut for the rich. And you'll be told to just be grateful the "job creators" blessed you with technically-slightly-better-than-slave wages you can spend renting your home from them
FTFY
The social security cut will be coupled with a tax cut for the rich
Nah, Republicans aren't quite that stupid. They'll throw out a $200 increase to the child tax credit for six months or an increase in the standard deduction. Everyone (who isn't already zeroed out by the last round of tax cuts) will get a taste.
And you’ll be told to just be grateful the “job creators” blessed you with technically-slightly-better-than-slave wages you can spend renting your home from them
This record low unemployment is, unironically, the right-wing technocrat's wet dream. Everybody kicking and clawing for a seat at the table in a market that's very easy to enter and very unsteady to climb. It really is the War Of All Against All out there. Survival of the ~~Whitest~~ Fittest. Real Social Darwinism Hours.
You, too can gamble on Bitcoins / Sports Betting, win big, and pull together enough money to become a landlord, so you can tell the next generation to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Or gamble and lose and just fucking die, to thereby decrease the surplus population.
Old Dead Ass Boomer:
"This won't affect me?"
GOP:
"Nope. But we will absolutely destroy any resemblance to generational wealth for your kids and grand kids."
Old Dead Ass Boomer:
"Just as God intended. Thanks Supply-Side Jesus!"
Thumbs up from Him on High
I really enjoyed those couple of years when the media didn't report on everything he said.
You mean a decade ago?
That was before we knew he was Hitler 2.0.
Telling your core voting block you're gonna take money away from them is a bold strategy.
Don't worry, they haven't exactly been paying attention
"I hope he hurts the right people this time".
If they understood basic English and any economic theory they would be incredibly uninterested anyway because their in a cult.
Fox news will never report this so they'll never know
It's the Dan Crenshaw Gambit.
"We need to cut social security for everyone under 55 so we can keep it going for everyone over 55".
And then let them fight.
Remember: He's god to them. He could promise to make food illegal and they'd kill each other for the chance to suck him off for it.
They are not money making programs. Go ahead and touch Grandpa Joe's Medicare and Social Security. Then you'll see shit hit the fan.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump opened the door Monday to “cutting” spending under Social Security and Medicare, drawing swift pushback from President Joe Biden and elevating a key policy battle in the 2024 election.
Phoning into CNBC's "Squawk Box," Trump was pressed on how he plans to resolve the long-term solvency problems of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
A Trump campaign spokesman said he was referring only to “cutting waste and fraud,” but did not provide additional policy details on how he’d go about that or how much can be saved.
“If anyone tries to cut Social Security or Medicare, or raise the retirement age again, I will stop them,” Biden said during a speech Monday in New Hampshire.
“As the President just warned in his State of the Union address, Republican officials plan to cut Medicare and Social Security,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said, adding that “today, in his budget, President Biden honors his ironclad commitment by firmly opposing benefit cuts to Medicare and Social Security.”
The budget further calls for “protecting and strengthening” Social Security by “asking the highest-income Americans to pay their fair share,” a White House fact sheet said.
The original article contains 623 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Don't be tremendous.
Any so-called "long-term solvency problems" are only a creation of the elitist right wing.