• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOPer: Trump’s Startling Plan to Kill Social Security in Second Term

99percenter

99percenter

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
10,660
Reaction score
3,785
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-plans-kill-social-security.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo

The reason that Trump allegedly wouldn’t want to after Social Security (or Medicare and Medicaid) until the first day of his second term – if he actually were elected a second time – is because he made a very big promise that he wouldn’t.
Click to expand...

Remember when he promised to protect the welfare state? Instead he is planning cuts to SS and medicare. You have to pay for those tax cuts somehow.
 
joG said:
If phased out sensibly with a low guaranteed minimum income or negative income tax? Apriori it would improve the country’s circumstances and economic position.
Click to expand...

Then have him run on those positions instead of lying about it like he normally does. The problem is you guys support him lying to the public.
 
Ummm...according to this "article" it was some unnamed Republican talking about his own ideas regarding "entitlement reform," and this sentence comes out:

But the most interesting thing this lawmaker said about entitlement reform? That Donald Trump wouldn’t be willing to go after Social Security “until the first day of his second term, he told me once.”
Click to expand...
https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-plans-kill-social-security.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo

How this translates into "Trump’s Startling Plan to Kill Social Security in Second Term" is certainly a stretch. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Ummm...according to this "article" it was some unnamed Republican talking about his own ideas regarding "entitlement reform," and this sentence comes out:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-plans-kill-social-security.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo

How this translates into "Trump’s Startling Plan to Kill Social Security in Second Term" is certainly a stretch. :roll:
Click to expand...
Headline might be a bit sensationalist but the point is correct. He would be going back on a promise if he touched it in anyway.
 
Moderate Right said:
Even Democrats acknowledge that both Social Security and Medicare are on a course to insolvency. Cuts need to be made.
Click to expand...

Yep, but cuts don't need to be made. If we can add 1.5 trillion to the deficit to give tax cuts to wealthy and corporations that don't need it, then surely we can add to the deficit for SS and medicare. Any bipartisan effort to reform those programs should have gone out the window after the tax cut. Obviously the debt is no longer a priority so we can just keep doing what we have been doing.
 
This is speculation and fear mongering. Even after Trump said several times that he has no intention of firing Mueller, we're still getting warnings from people like Senator Warner that Trump had better not think about firing Mueller. The OP serves to set up the same damn goofy narrative regarding SS. OTOH, everybody in the country should hope that SS becomes a program for the poor only - those that cannot save for a retirement. In a better country, we should hope everyone ese is well off enough to not require it. That's something worth working toward.
 
99percenter said:
Yep, but cuts don't need to be made. If we can add 1.5 trillion to the deficit to give tax cuts to wealthy and corporations that don't need it, then surely we can add to the deficit for SS and medicare. Any bipartisan effort to reform those programs should have gone out the window after the tax cut. Obviously the debt is no longer a priority so we can just keep doing what we have been doing.
Click to expand...

And you actually care about the debt?
 
reinoe said:
So according to one "anonymous lawmaker" he's going to obliterate S.S. What does it have to do with Trump? Fake News.
Click to expand...

If he goes through with it, he will be breaking a huge promise.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Ummm...according to this "article" it was some unnamed Republican talking about his own ideas regarding "entitlement reform," and this sentence comes out:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-plans-kill-social-security.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo

How this translates into "Trump’s Startling Plan to Kill Social Security in Second Term" is certainly a stretch. :roll:
Click to expand...

Sounds like fear mongering to me. Might have equally been termed as 'much needed adjustments and updates to remain solvent for the future' ?

Until there are some proposals and draft bills from congress it's little more than guessing and probably heavily influenced by confirmation bias.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Ummm...according to this "article" it was some unnamed Republican talking about his own ideas regarding "entitlement reform," and this sentence comes out:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-plans-kill-social-security.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo

How this translates into "Trump’s Startling Plan to Kill Social Security in Second Term" is certainly a stretch. :roll:
Click to expand...

At least you and I agree on this one, that (1) there's no way to know what was or wasn't said, and (2) if Trump says one thing in one hour, that has no bearing whatsoever on what he says or thinks an hour later.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Ummm...according to this "article" it was some unnamed Republican talking about his own ideas regarding "entitlement reform," and this sentence comes out:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/trump-plans-kill-social-security.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo

How this translates into "Trump’s Startling Plan to Kill Social Security in Second Term" is certainly a stretch. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, it got a click out of the two of us, so they probably consider it a success. Clickbait Article is crap Clickbait Article.
 
joG said:
If phased out sensibly with a low guaranteed minimum income or negative income tax? Apriori it would improve the country’s circumstances and economic position.
Click to expand...

This is a mature, substantive, and helpful response to the OP, which is why it has gotten no play in this thread.
 
Social Security, aka the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance program, IS an insurance program.
Insurance actuaries keep their funds solvent by making actuarial adjustments all the time.

SS has an income cap which hasn't budged in a generation, $111,000.00.
Nudge it up to $200,000.00 and suddenly it's solvent once again, maybe till 2050 or even 2075.

But no, let's pretend it's an "entitlement", pretend it has something to do with the DEBT (it doesn't) and try scaring the crap out of people while misinforming
them. Same old Republican bull****, same old last ditch try to get their hands in the cookie jar one more time by giving that money to their criminal friends on Wall Street.
And Trump? You better believe that sucka will sign whatever SS killing measure PAUL RYAN puts on his desk, so let's not pretend this has nothing to do with Trump.

The tax bill is going to blow a monster hole in the deficit but deficits don't matter when Republicans are in office and in any case, they intend to gut your retirement money and Medicare to pay for it. I do not know a single person on Earth who thinks that's a great idea, except the few who think it helps them say "Yaaay Trump and screw the libtards!"
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Social Security, aka the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance program, IS an insurance program.
Insurance actuaries keep their funds solvent by making actuarial adjustments all the time.

SS has an income cap which hasn't budged in a generation, $111,000.00.
Nudge it up to $200,000.00 and suddenly it's solvent once again, maybe till 2050 or even 2075.

But no, let's pretend it's an "entitlement", pretend it has something to do with the DEBT (it doesn't) and try scaring the crap out of people while misinforming
them. Same old Republican bull****, same old last ditch try to get their hands in the cookie jar one more time by giving that money to their criminal friends on Wall Street.
And Trump? You better believe that sucka will sign whatever SS killing measure PAUL RYAN puts on his desk, so let's not pretend this has nothing to do with Trump.

The tax bill is going to blow a monster hole in the deficit but deficits don't matter when Republicans are in office and in any case, they intend to gut your retirement money and Medicare to pay for it. I do not know a single person on Earth who thinks that's a great idea, except the few who think it helps them say "Yaaay Trump and screw the libtards!"
Click to expand...

Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated January 31, was for $22.54.
Click to expand...
The very first check from social security paid nearly as much as the person put into the pot. S.S. has always been a ponzi scheme.
 
reinoe said:
The very first check from social security paid nearly as much as the person put into the pot. S.S. has always been a ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

It is still an insurance program, and it can be run as one, maintained as one, and kept solvent as one, regardless of your opinion or your lack of understanding of how insurance works. If you feel that it is not returning enough money to those who have paid into it, you can make that a core issue and vote in people who will make the necessary changes to nudge the COLA up to levels that you feel are appropriate.
That won't change the fact that it's an insurance program.
If you happen to feel that all insurance programs are ponzi schemes, then that says a lot more about your understanding and opinion of insurance programs.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
It is still an insurance program, and it can be run as one, maintained as one, and kept solvent as one, regardless of your opinion or your lack of understanding of how insurance works. If you feel that it is not returning enough money to those who have paid into it, you can make that a core issue and vote in people who will make the necessary changes to nudge the COLA up to levels that you feel are appropriate.
That won't change the fact that it's an insurance program.
If you happen to feel that all insurance programs are ponzi schemes, then that says a lot more about your understanding and opinion of insurance programs.
Click to expand...

lol u. I work in the insurance field. I know a ponzi scheme from insurance. But here's literally a textbook definition of "ponzi scheme"...

Ponzi Scheme...
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator generates returns for older investors through revenue paid by new investors, rather than from legitimate business activities or profit of financial trading.
Click to expand...

As for COLA, my comments had nothing to do with that.
 
reinoe said:
lol u. I work in the insurance field. I know a ponzi scheme from insurance.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying that apparently you do not know the difference, even if you do work in the insurance industry, and the reason you don't is
because you've proven that you do not understand how the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance program (aka Social Security) works.
That can be remedied by thuh innernets.

I didn't say that SS was a properly run insurance program, I am saying that it was set up as one and is supposed to be run as one.
Normally, powerful people, elected officials especially, are not allowed to raid an insurance fund, but that has happened to Social Security.
That's a much bigger reason why it appears to work as a ponzi scheme, because Ponzi's buddies have been meddling with it.

I can think of quite a few insurance programs that behave a lot more like ponzi schemes than Social Security...like most of the HEALTH INSURANCE "schemes" available today.
You could be paying into them your entire life, but the moment you go try to use them, BLAMMO, they suddenly start moving the goal posts, exercising spending caps, rescission, fiddling around with in-network and out-of-network approvals, cutting critical medications from the formulary, inventing prohibitions against preexisting conditions, pulling a long running policy in order to force sicker people off the risk pools, etc.

I notice you didn't bother to clarify what part of the insurance field you work in, not that you'd have to for my benefit.
I know how insurance works, and I also know how much more like a ponzi scheme many other insurance programs are, much more so than SS.
I know from personal experience where 350 thousand dollars worth of equipment was suddenly "not covered" after an earthquake.

So don't roll out the term "ponzi scheme" like it's some radioactive tag that destroys arguments, because it doesn't.
It just identifies what news sources you like to watch and listen to.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I can think of quite a few insurance programs that behave a lot more like ponzi schemes than Social Security...like most of the HEALTH INSURANCE "schemes" available today.
You could be paying into them your entire life, but the moment you go try to use them, BLAMMO, they suddenly start moving the goal posts, exercising spending caps, rescission, fiddling around with in-network and out-of-network approvals, cutting critical medications from the formulary, inventing prohibitions against preexisting conditions, pulling a long running policy in order to force sicker people off the risk pools, etc.

I notice you didn't bother to clarify what part of the insurance field you work in, not that you'd have to for my benefit.
Click to expand...
And with that you've shown all I need to know. Insurance contractual terms don't magically change after a claim is submitted. It's right there in the contract before anyone agrees to anything what the insurance company offers and the applicant accepts.

S.S. works as a ponzi scheme because the people paying into it today are paying for the benefits people are receiving today.

Spending caps aren't implemented after the fact along with the other nonsense you're spouting. I don't need to tell you what insurance field I work in because I've mentioned it repeatedly on this forum and it wouldn't matter anyway. You can have the last word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom