this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
271 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19246 readers
3633 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Despite Donald Trump’s promise to avoid Social Security cuts, recent signals from the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, suggest reductions may be forthcoming.

The department, aimed at streamlining federal spending, has sparked concern among advocates worried about potential impacts on the program.

Trump’s mixed messaging and DOGE’s focus on cost-cutting have intensified scrutiny as officials prepare policy recommendations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So they charge us for social securityin our paychecks for our entire lives, just to take our money away before we can retire, and just keep what they took.

[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago

The writing has been on the wall for a while now. All retirement planning I've done is based on the assumption that SSA won't be around by the time I retire. The fact that we can't even remove the taxable maximum to retain some degree of financial solvency is proof enough.

I think the most likely course of action is that we will get some portion of our contributions back, but not the full amount. I just hope that they don't raise the retirement age so much to try to retain the illusion of being able to get a full payout. I'd rather get a fraction of my contributions back at 67 than need to risk living to a much older age but receiving full benefits.