Topic: Why do Republicans want to destroy Social Security?
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 years ago #101,964
What is their motivation?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 26 minutes later[^] [v] #1,152,222
You're wondering why a party against people getting free money from the government...is against people getting free money from the government? Are you Catherine or Matt?
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,224
Anonymous B replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,227
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,254
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,260
@previous (A)
They also dislike taxation (at least for things like this). Anonymous B is right, there's nothing too mysterious about this.
They also dislike taxation (at least for things like this). Anonymous B is right, there's nothing too mysterious about this.
Anonymous B replied with this 5 years ago, 50 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,277
@1,152,254 (A)
People also pay into welfare by paying taxes. Why is it confusing to you that the party against welfare would be against social security?
People also pay into welfare by paying taxes. Why is it confusing to you that the party against welfare would be against social security?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 38 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,293
@1,152,260 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
But aren’t many Republicans depending on social security to survive ?
But aren’t many Republicans depending on social security to survive ?
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 29 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,315
Anonymous B replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,316
@1,152,293 (A)
The Republican party depends on getting people to vote against their interests. Anyone over the age of 18 should know this.
The Republican party depends on getting people to vote against their interests. Anyone over the age of 18 should know this.
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,320
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,412
It's cheaper for the rich
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,413
They don't. There have been seven Republican presidencies since Social Security and the program is pretty much unchanged since 1935.
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,414
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Every Republican Congress, and our current president, constantly tries to cut funding for SS, dude.
Every Republican Congress, and our current president, constantly tries to cut funding for SS, dude.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,419
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
Okay so why didn't SS get cancelled at some point in the past 85 years? How many times were there in those 85 years when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House? We just had several years during which Republicans controlled all three branches of government and... nothing.
Okay so why didn't SS get cancelled at some point in the past 85 years? How many times were there in those 85 years when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House? We just had several years during which Republicans controlled all three branches of government and... nothing.
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,430
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Because they know that Americans will oppose an outright dismantling and canceling. Instead, they attack its funding under other guises.
Because they know that Americans will oppose an outright dismantling and canceling. Instead, they attack its funding under other guises.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,445
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)Okay so why didn't funding get cut at any point in the past 85 years?
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE replied with this 5 years ago, 29 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,446
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,447
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
Okay so if Republicans want to attack Social Security, and the American people don't want this, why do Republicans keep getting elected?
Okay so if Republicans want to attack Social Security, and the American people don't want this, why do Republicans keep getting elected?
Meta !Sober//iZs double-posted this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,450
Again Mr. 181 IQ M.A. is stumped by the simplest questions ?
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE replied with this 5 years ago, 8 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,459
@1,152,447 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Because SOME Americans want it. Those are the Republican hillbillies who constantly vote against their own interest. I mean, you're a conservative. Trump promised that, should be be re-elected, he iwll eliminate the payroll tax that funds social security. YOU explain to me why you support something against your own interest? I am curious to know.
Because SOME Americans want it. Those are the Republican hillbillies who constantly vote against their own interest. I mean, you're a conservative. Trump promised that, should be be re-elected, he iwll eliminate the payroll tax that funds social security. YOU explain to me why you support something against your own interest? I am curious to know.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,475
That means Bert will never indulge in the benefits of social security.
Anonymous I double-posted this 5 years ago, 20 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,476
Because social security is a form of socialism.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 44 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,496
@1,152,459 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
Trump promised to reduce, not "eliminate" the payroll tax. Please learn basic English and reading comprehension before attempting to debate. Thanks.
Trump promised to reduce, not "eliminate" the payroll tax. Please learn basic English and reading comprehension before attempting to debate. Thanks.
Meta !Sober//iZs double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,498
@1,152,459 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
People don't "vote against their own interests". They vote for their interests, which may be different from your interests.
You still didn't answer how, if Republicans want to cut SS and the American people don't want that, they keep getting elected.
People don't "vote against their own interests". They vote for their interests, which may be different from your interests.
You still didn't answer how, if Republicans want to cut SS and the American people don't want that, they keep getting elected.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,500
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,504
@previous (A)
You need to ask DeVry for a refund on that diploma ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/08/08/trump-payroll-tax-cut/
You need to ask DeVry for a refund on that diploma ?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/08/08/trump-payroll-tax-cut/
Meta !Sober//iZs double-posted this 5 years ago, 34 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,511
Mr. 181 IQ can't reconcile reality with his conspiracy theories and delusions ???
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,518
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,519
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,530
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
> Citation?
This.
Come on Matt. You made the claim, now show the proof Trump said this.
> Citation?
This.
Come on Matt. You made the claim, now show the proof Trump said this.
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 29 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,534
Republicans seek to shrink government.
Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,536
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimwang/2020/08/08/president-trump-signs-executive-orders-for-payroll-tax-holiday-enhanced-unemployment-insurance-student-loans-deferred-and-eviction-moratorium/#54cc9516e785
Rad the fucking article, morae.
Rad the fucking article, morae.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,546
@previous (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> Forbes
Stopped reading there.
> Rad the article
Rad? How's that online university diploma working out for you again?
> Forbes
Stopped reading there.
> Rad the article
Rad? How's that online university diploma working out for you again?
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 25 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,551
@1,152,536 (Apocalypse Indy™ !bYobIzYIFE)
> a payroll tax holiday to employees earning less than $104,000 per year from September 1st through December 31st.
Awh geez, you exposed the diabolical Republican plan to DESTROY Social Security with... a three month payroll tax holiday where the program will be funded by deficit spending instead of payroll taxes. I guess grandma's gonna have to eat cat food now!!!! But at least she won't get evicted because, by your logic, Trump's executive order also permanently ended evictions, permanently extended unemployment insurance, and permanently ended interest on student loans. Oh wait, he didn't do any of those things.
Jesus Christ you're dumb ?
> a payroll tax holiday to employees earning less than $104,000 per year from September 1st through December 31st.
Awh geez, you exposed the diabolical Republican plan to DESTROY Social Security with... a three month payroll tax holiday where the program will be funded by deficit spending instead of payroll taxes. I guess grandma's gonna have to eat cat food now!!!! But at least she won't get evicted because, by your logic, Trump's executive order also permanently ended evictions, permanently extended unemployment insurance, and permanently ended interest on student loans. Oh wait, he didn't do any of those things.
Jesus Christ you're dumb ?
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,559
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
A paragraph later it says
> He would later state that if he was re-elected, he’d “terminate” those taxes. In the past, President Trump has promised to not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but this statement seems to indicate that his stance has changed on these social safety net programs.
I believe that's what Matt is referring to.
A paragraph later it says
> He would later state that if he was re-elected, he’d “terminate” those taxes. In the past, President Trump has promised to not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but this statement seems to indicate that his stance has changed on these social safety net programs.
I believe that's what Matt is referring to.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,600
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
I don't see why terminating the taxes (money taken out of your paycheck) means terminating the benefits (checks paid to grandma), given the ability of the government to borrow and/or print money. Trump has never said anything about ending Social Security retirement/disability benefits, which is what most people have in mind when someone says "Trump is going to end Social Security".
I don't see why terminating the taxes (money taken out of your paycheck) means terminating the benefits (checks paid to grandma), given the ability of the government to borrow and/or print money. Trump has never said anything about ending Social Security retirement/disability benefits, which is what most people have in mind when someone says "Trump is going to end Social Security".
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 5 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,663
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Because Social Security is paid for by those taxes, no? So people conclude that when the taxes are canceled, so will be the programs depending on those taxes.
(yes, i know he could cancel the taxes and find another money source for social security, i have no dog in this race im just explaining)
Because Social Security is paid for by those taxes, no? So people conclude that when the taxes are canceled, so will be the programs depending on those taxes.
(yes, i know he could cancel the taxes and find another money source for social security, i have no dog in this race im just explaining)
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL double-posted this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,665
@1,152,600 (Meta !Sober//iZs)Out of curiousity, when you get a paystub what does it look like? Like does it show a breakdown of deductions? Here's one of mine (from top to bottom: unemployment insurance, parental insurance, pension, federal taxes, quebec taxes, union fees, withheld, net salary, EI insurable hours)
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,670
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,892
@1,152,663 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)It is funded by payroll taxes but it doesn't have to be. It could be replaced by a Federal sales tax, or an increase in income taxes (just lump it in with the rest instead of it being a separate line item), or deficit spending, or anything really.
Basically if you look at a graph of US government spending, I don't see that trend line changing anytime soon. Keep in mind this graph includes several Republican presidencies, Republican Congresses, and four (nonconsecutive) years during which the stars aligned such that the Republican party had the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate - ie nothing standing in their way of slashing government taxation and spending which is something every Republican elected official promises to do.
Looking at the graph, if you didn't know which years had Republican control and which years had Democrat control you would be hard pressed to tell.
I'm a fairly cynical person so when Trump says the Social Security tax will be "eliminated", I believe this actually means something on a spectrum from "we will keep the existing tax, but it will be called something else" and "we will eliminate the tax, then raise one or more other tax(es) to cancel it out".
Also, just because Trump says he's going to do something doesn't mean it will ever happen. We're nearing the very end of his first term and Obamacare still has not been "repealed and replaced" yet (something he promised during the campaign), Muslim immigration was never banned (ditto), a wall with Mexico that Mexico paid for was never built (remember that one? ?), etc.
Some of these promises failed because Congress wouldn't play ball, some because he tried and got blocked by judges, some because he is just incompetent at playing politics. Trump has got to be one of the least effective presidents in world history. He couldn't repeal a wet paper bag. The entire Trump administration is sound and fury signaling nothing, but the man is a living meme machine, and it's very good comedy.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,976
@1,152,419 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> Okay so why didn't SS get cancelled at some point in the past 85 years? How many times were there in those 85 years when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House? We just had several years during which Republicans controlled all three branches of government and... nothing.
so you say they are either liars or incompetent?
> Okay so why didn't SS get cancelled at some point in the past 85 years? How many times were there in those 85 years when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House? We just had several years during which Republicans controlled all three branches of government and... nothing.
so you say they are either liars or incompetent?
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,978
@1,152,445 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
> Okay so why didn't funding get cut at any point in the past 85 years?
does this chart use constant dollars, that is, with account for the diminished worth of a dollars over time due to inflation? Because it would be terribly misleading if it did not.
> Okay so why didn't funding get cut at any point in the past 85 years?
does this chart use constant dollars, that is, with account for the diminished worth of a dollars over time due to inflation? Because it would be terribly misleading if it did not.
Sheila LaBoof triple-posted this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,152,982
@1,152,534 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Republicans seek to shrink government.
more than that, the famous dork Grover Norquist who made the party members sign some bullshit paper to promise to do shit said he wanted government made small enough to "drown in a bathtub", a reference to a lady who drowned her kids in a bathtub at a recent time. Well, the functionality shows that it's drowning at this size.
> Republicans seek to shrink government.
more than that, the famous dork Grover Norquist who made the party members sign some bullshit paper to promise to do shit said he wanted government made small enough to "drown in a bathtub", a reference to a lady who drowned her kids in a bathtub at a recent time. Well, the functionality shows that it's drowning at this size.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 5 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,153,075
dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,153,077
Also
> population growth
> population growth
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,153,149
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,153,179
Just a reminder, Social Security is one primary example of Socialism.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,153,189
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,153,194
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,153,195
More like socialist security...Cut that crap and spend the money on investigating the Democrats..