Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
“We’re going to have to have some hard decisions. We got to bring the Democrats in to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There’s hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, and we know how to do it, we just have to have the stomach to actually take those challenges on,”
Or, hear me out... stop letting private healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry charge insane prices?
Billions of DOLLARS to be saved, millions of LIVES to be sacrificed.
Mammon is hungry
Those are like three of our nations most successful programs.
Also, hundreds of billions is like a couple of aircraft carriers and a stealth bomber.
It's not even that.
If you buy any of those you buy the upkeep and maintenance costs as well and for even a single last Gen plane that can cost well into a the hundreds of millions and potentially billions if it has the service life of something like a b52 or the speciality of a stealth craft.
What about the poor shareholders? Are you not thinking of them? Or how about the executives and their yachts? How are they going to afford all their hookers and blow?
“We’re going to have to have some hard decisions.
Really? For a Repub these are easy choices, boot straps plebs, boot straps
Yeah, they are rubbing their hands together.
There should be no tough choices here, it should only be about removing that stupid cap.
Notwithstanding but it's really damn stupid that my middle class ass stops paying into social security before the end of the year while the working class subsidizes me.
I had no idea there was even a cap, that's ridiculous. I don't know a single middle class person IRL that earns enough individually to hit that cap though, so it is probably a bit regional since that cap feels like it would be awfully low in SV or a high COL city.
Keep in mind that Social Security retirement benefits depend on your contributions. So by capping the amount you contribute, Social Security also caps the amount you will receive.
While I agree the cap needs to be removed. The cap is only stopping you from subsidizing more of the working class. They are not subsidizing you. The payout is also capped. You're effectively paying a portion of your contribution to boost the payout of multiple other people who contributed less during their careers
The way I see it, sure it's capped, but I work a pretty good, white collar job, I'm going to statistically live longer than my blue collar peers drawing more over time and end of the day. I'm going to get a whole lot more out than the average blue collar worker and end result is that the working class is going and are subsidizing those rich people who are living longer putting that drain on resources.
That's just the way i see it.
That's not the way the math works, regardless of how you "see it".
That is exactly the way the math works for anything resembling the concept of insurance.
All of those programs are a form of insurance.
You just don't understand insurance.
No. Social security is not funded the same way that insurance is. We're talking about the funding here, so the comparison does not work.
Shit guys, no one tell Bronzebeard the concept of insurance!
Why did you feel the need to say this twice?
You're now wing both times. Funding is very different from insurance, which was the entire point of this discussion.
Really love how it's the cash strapped programs that gotta face the tough times while the richest CEOs and businesses are finally getting "relief" from their burdensome taxes.
This is that "tough love" that Chomsky always talked about: for most everyone, it's "tough", meaning lots of austerity and telling people to keep their chin up and work three jobs or whatever. For the elites, it's "love", and lots of it. In the form of huge handouts.
Look on the bright side, some CEOs are getting relief from this mortal coil!
I bet the really juicy healthcare package that members of Congress have isn’t on the table for review.
Trump supporters in a couple of years: “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be”
They'll say it not knowing, or believing, conservatives are hurting the people they see the need to hurt which are 90-something percent of people in this country.
Only if Republicans convince 7 Democratic Senators to help them reach the 60 needed to gut Social Security.
Which won't happen.
Not exactly. If they craft it as a budget bill, all they need is 50.
You are referring to "reconciliation", which cannot be filibustered.
Reconciliation can be used for the regular budget, but changes to Social Security are explicitly prohibited.
Oh good, there's a rule in place to stop republicans. I can now rest easy.
The only way to gut Social Security unilaterally would be to nuke the filibuster, and Thune said he won't do that.
Probably because he knows that if he did, then the next time Democrats hold a trifecta they will use it to enact a far more progressive version of Social Security. And unilaterally gutting Social Security would very likely give Democrats that trifecta in 2028.
but changes to Social Security are explicitly prohibited
Unless you ignore the parliamentarian. Which the GOP would never do.
That's equivalent to nuking the filibuster. Which Thune doesn't want to do, because it guarantees that Social Security Plus is enacted in 2028.
Why 2028?
Because in the 2028 election, the GOP would be reminded why Social Security is the third rail of politics.
An election in 2028?
Assuming we even have fair elections any more.