How will Social Security be modified?

So you would fundamentally change it from a safety net, retirement system into a welfare transfer program?

no, actually, the courts seem eager to take the country back to roughly 1880, give or take separate but equal.

ditto the policies. gilded age stuff. rich get richer.

basically reverse what is left of the new deal stuff. which was brought in because the GOP pushing the gilded age/roaring 20s approach had repeatedly run the economy in the ditch, and among other things it was decided amidst all that poverty maybe don't privatize old age.

the people pushing "work until you can't anymore" don't get (or won't admit, perhaps) that basically means you suffer some sort of health catastrophe. for my dad, a crippling stroke. at which point, and only that point, GOP is like "congratulations, you can act like you're old now."

to me it's like if you have been working since age 18/been in the work force 40 years, fine, retire at 65. jesus, how much more we gonna squeeze the oranges? and it should be paid for. consider it the work equivalent of a military pension or GI bill or like benefit. you eviscerate welfare and make us work our lives away. trade off -- chip in for retirement.

this rings insincere when you don't exactly leave the trust fund cordoned off.

Kristen Sinema and Joe Manchin. Ever heard of 'em?

Simpler is making the tax based on Total Income with no deductions for anything, except don't tax Social Security benefits at all.

This means all investment incomes (nothing non-taxable, including Roths), all business incomes, all "deferred" salaries in the year "awarded", Capital Gains, and similar. The uber rich, like Musk and Trump are not paying into SS at all, or paying less than minimum wage earners.

first off, your personal or party's morality has nothing to do with whether my side can pass a bill. y'all are the ones pushing we are evil people on abortion or trans sports. but that seems to be the narrow little circle where morality matters. outside of that it's "but they couldn't get it done" or "once a democrat wanted this 30 years ago."

second, your argument is dishonest. you know full well we were depending on the traitors sinema and manchin, and caucusing with the independent king. are we seriously suggesting actual "democrats" couldn't pass bills? i don't think we had 50 votes for jack squat.

third, you'd have filibustered it. at least until you soon take power, we've required 60 votes to do controversial stuff.

fake.

Both accept payments in Rubles.

So, save money and don't get any SS. Don't save any money and get SS.

The young will just love having their parents move in with them.

More like a forced savings program where the if you are a good investor you get nothing. Retire in debt and get someone else's savings transferred to you.

1. I did not vote for Trump. I did vote for the GOPer running against Liz Warren.

2. It was the Dems and Obama who raised the "grand bargain" in an attempt to cut Soc Sec benefits. I am sure the GOP would like to do so as well but the people are watching them more closely and it would be more difficult to do so. Don't forget, the Obama admin took us from 2 wars into 7, kicked out more immigrants than Trump, built the cages that those immigrant kids were put in. It was the Biden admin that ramped up the censorship, mandated the jab.

to elaborate on the actuarial table crap, if republicans spent 5 seconds with their poor rural voter base they'd probably quickly figure out they aren't gonna live to be 100.

it's a game, let's come up with some excuse to cut taxes and/or reduce obligations. "ok, people live longer now."

except that's an average. this is still a country where some people find age and poor health in their 40s-60s while others stay pretty vital until their 70s and live to be 100. you can either play games with the averages there, or you can reflect the varying realities -- particularly for their poor base.

which, to me, if your own voters start falling apart in their 50s and 60s, then maybe set retirement where the earliest health retirements start. where your own voters fall apart. 65 is pushing it for them. 70 if most live to 65 would basically be reneging on the promised retirement.

that and as of covid the expectancy numbers were going the wrong way. if the survival number drops 2 years then let's not pretend we're living forever or getting longer lives.

No, the Democrat solution was to continue flooding the country with open borders and then give them amnesty so they'd start paying into the system. (Never mind that they would eventually become additional SS collectors too, so it only kicks the can down one generation until we'd need another round of mass immigration.)

If they wanted to lift the payroll tax cap, they would have done it in 2021. Or 2009 for that matter.

first off, you're leaving out where you have to work x quarters to max out. it's not equal for everyone.

second, i wasn't saying means test it. i think that's kissing up to folks like you who want to underfund and trim. kind of gross to badger folks into compromises -- at threat of cutting the programs entirely -- then mock the half measure. "oh, haha, now people paid in and won't get any." as though they get any if SS disappears, or get their full due if SS is decreased.

i personally think kids and retirees should be taken care of because they cannot necessarily fend for themselves.

i personally think there's a little redistribution going on if i pay in and you use it to buy tanks then tell me the Fund is broke and are gonna have to cut my benefits.

and like i said, it was never "equal" in the fake sense you imply. you work more quarters you get more back.

and if i wanted to get REALLY PUNCHY about this, where are you finding the money for extra border crap if SS needs cuts? cause as far as i am concerned that's a jobs program for border towns giving the false impression that people sneak through (and may now get caught and sent back in greater bulk) when the vast majority drive through an entry port then overstay their visa.

no, you're boring, dude. ask any mainstream economist and we need more workers. not less. the migrant obsession is a racial thing, not some economic necessity. we in fact need more workers for the jobs, taxes, and such.

that's not a "democrat" thing, that's any economist asking how do we afford the ageing population.

you are merely offering a different approach where we wreck the economy and save a buck on having retirees switch to dog food to survive.

and before you get started, i am not mr. open borders, nor do i think that's the only way you're about to wreck the place. mass government worker layoffs = recession. mass procurement cuts = recession. mass deportations = recession. you can't cut the work force dramatically, cut the tax revenues dramatically, cut the public sector procurement dramatically, etc. etc. and expect the economy to hum along the same.

Obama had complete control from 2008-2010 as well where he had a 60-40 super majority in the senate for 72 days.