We knew it was coming and here it is. Republicans want to cut your retirement

Thats right, Bob.  We pay for things.   

"Freeloaders" are people who dont want to pay for things and suck off the government.....which is what Republicans always cry about but they themselves embody in its purest form as evidenced by their own legislation..

***For Thoughtful Non-Partisans Only***

Social Security is Running Out Fast, . . .

The above piece lays out the forecast for Social Security funding,payouts, etc., etc., etc.

Bottom line the folks who initiated the Social Security Program did not foresee, . . . or more likely did not care to addres , . . . the possibilities likely to arise subsequent to passage of the Law.

And now solutions are getting even-less unpleasant:

__If no changes are made to deal with the trust fund shortfall, benefits will have to be reduced by 21%, according to the 2016 annual report of the trust fund Board of Trustees. 

__If benefits aren't cut, tax revenue for the program will likely have to increase. 

__If the trust fund reserves become depleted, the payroll tax would need to increase by 3.58 percentage points to increase revenues enough to sustain the program.

__Another option to increase tax revenue to fund Social Security is to raise the amount of earnings subject to taxation.

__Because tax hikes aren't popular, Congress will more likely raise the full retirement age for Social Security benefits.

__To keep the Social Security trust funds solvent, there could be changes to cost-of-living adjustments.

etc.

etc.

etc.

A partisan statement:

Those who passed the Social Security legislation initially did not forsee, or more likely did not want to consider, conditions which might adversely affect their "promise" of old-age benefits.

Those who passed the promise of old age benefits with insufficient funding , themselves benefitted from the thankfulness of Social Security recipients at the ballot box.  And after all that's what really matters.

DonDiego

Like Tom and David Miller I encourage DonDiego to forfeit his Social Security benefits as he clearly has ideological problems with them.    

Heres a non partisan statement.....social security is far more popular with the general public within both parties than any tax cutting legislation in the past 40 years.    The general public in both parties will favor a massive host of fiscal sacrifices before allowing any cuts to their benefits from Social Security or Medicare.   

Nothing in DonDiego's post indicated an "ideological problem". 

The post stated the unpleasant fact that Social Security is underfunded to pay the "promised" benefits.

Simply put:

Either i. benefits will have to be cut or ii. additional funding will have to be provided.

DonDiego supposes the general public might well prefer lots of other "fiscal sacrifices" before any cuts to Social Security, . . . right up until those cuts are actually proposed.  Then they won't like them either.

If there are no offsetting-cuts new "taxes" of some sort will be necessary.  DonDiego supposes the general public won't like that either.

It's a puzzlement.  Happy times are not assured.

Or, . . . perhaps, . . . just perhaps, . . . before that unpleasantness arrives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will become President and the United States will magically transfore into a Socialist Paradise where all Government benefits are "free" and citizens are taken care of from birth until death by a benevolent Government with unlimited resources and infinite wisdom.

[The immediately preceding paragraph is a fairy tale solution, the sarcasm of which might well reflect DonDiego's "ideological problem".]   

Such Socialist Paradises have existed before, . . . but only briefly.

Don said, Or, . . . perhaps, . . . just perhaps, . . . before that unpleasantness arrives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will become President and the United States will magically transfore into a Socialist Paradise where all Government benefits are "free" and citizens are taken care of from birth until death by a benevolent Government with unlimited resources and infinite wisdom.

[The immediately preceding paragraph is a fairy tale solution, the sarcasm of which might well reflect DonDiego's "ideological problem".]   

I'd settle for simply escaping this bizarre form of capitalism we practice here in the United States were profits are privatized but losses are socialized. Corporate personhood needs to be abolished as the Constitution makes no mention of corporations. Only then can our government get back to the people's work. 95% of the things Congress and even the Federal Court system currently deals with are at the behest of large corporations. That is not how our system was designed to work.

I wish I lived in a country where rich old white billionaires and corporations weren't portrayed as the most put-upon and disadvantaged members of our society. It is so bad the conservative media and conservative politicians have managed to convince 40% of the country that the worst thing that can happen to you in America is to be born as a straight white male with old money. 

If these simple desires make me a socialist in search of utopia so be so. Anything beats living in a capitalistic dystopia. 

I agree with you at some point it will all come to a head.  I think automation and a near future where there simply aren't enough jobs for able-bodied adults will ultimately force the issue. If I were a conservative, that is would keep me up at night. When we get to the point where 15-20% or more of able-bodied adults are unable to work because there are simply not enough jobs to go around and there won't be any for the foreseeable future, conservatism will die. 

If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were to follow the same path as the last three "Socialist" presidents on managing the budget then she would leave office with the books in better shape than when she arrived.

That was a promise Donald Trump, George W Bush, George HW Bush, and Ronald Reagan made too.   But they all used dynamic scoring for their legislation.  SO they did the exact oppositte. 

Give me another socialist president please.   

PJStroh writes: "I encourage DonDiego to forfeit his Social Security benefits as he clearly has ideological problems with them."

How ignorant !

If the contributions to Social Security and Medicare were voluntary, poor old DonDiego would've opted out for his entire working career.

Why are the contributions not volutary ?   Hmm, . . . tough question.  Maybe because lots of folks of all ideologies would opt out and keep the money they earned for themselves.  And the savvy ones could plan for their own retirement and invest the monies themselves for their own retirement.

Not everybody would opt out; . . . folks who share PJStroh's ideology of a benevolent Government intent on providing benefits to the citizenry - under penalty of imprisonment if one doesn't participate - could happily turn over a portion of their earnings to the Government in exchange for a promise of repayment come retirement.

Unless the Government runs out of money and has to change the rules, . . . or something.

Nobody asked me if I wanted to put my tax dollars into the f-35 fighter jet program.,,or the Iraq war.   But I'd happily forfeit my share of both those projects if I were allowed...along with whatever cuts those projects were forced to make as a result.     Of course, I'd lose the security provided by fighter jets the Pentagon does not use....and we might not ever find Bin Laden hiding in Baghdad.

But the government acts collectively whether individuals like it or not.    People who complain about this concept only in the context of spending they dont individually agree with are not very sincere, are they?

People’s retirement should be an individual choice not a government mandate. 

I would love to have a Republican run on that platform.     Let me know when you find one.