Glaucon

Republicans have been trying to k**l the program they label socialism and now they have the power to put it to death.

ARTICLE

On Day One, the new Congress launches an attack on Social Security
As one of its first orders of business upon convening Tuesday, the Republican House of Representatives approved a rule that will seriously undermine efforts to keep all of Social Security solvent.
It is hard to believe that there is any purpose to this unprecedented change to House rules other than to cut benefits for Americans who have worked hard all their lives.- Max Richtman, Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
But it's especially urgent now, because the disability program's trust fund is expected to run dry as early as next year. At that point, disability benefits for 11 million beneficiaries would have to be cut 20%. Reallocating the income, however, would keep both the old-age and disability programs solvent until at least 2033, giving Congress plenty of time to assess the programs' needs and work out a long-term fix.
Read the entire article at, http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-on-day-onel-new-congress-launches-attack-on-social-security-20150106-column.html

JMHO Loc: Utah

Please name the Republican(s) that wants to k**l Social Security? Bet you can't, because there is NONE! More lies and distortions from you lefties.

vernon

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:and no ss is not socialism it is paid for by the workers,but taking the money and putting it in the general fund is theft.

VladimirPee

So it is going to run dry next year? And the GOP has been warning of this for years while the left stuck their head in the sand claiming nothing was wrong.

Ricko Loc: Florida

Glaucon-Social Security was first designed as supplemental income for the elderly. We all know that the amount received each month is based on what was paid into the fund and age of retirement. Since its inception, however, income is provided to some elderly who have not paid into the system in the form of SSI. The disability portion of Social Security has morphed into a program which not only covers the elderly but basically anyone who qualifies. This has put a drain on the system as there are probably a large number of people drawing disability payments who should not be in the system. Good Luck America !!!

VladimirPee

," Obama said. "Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is -- the basic structure is sound."

buffalo Loc: Texas

ALL OF THEM!!!

Glaucon

That would take more time than I am willing to take. However, a very quick and easy task would be for you to find any that don't want to k**l Social Security. Republican have fought Social Security since it was introduced. It is a government program that is workable as long as we have many young people paying into it and old people not living too long.

It seems there are two kinds of Americans in your nonthinking: there are lefties and those who agree with you. Don't confuse that with thinking.

JMHO Loc: Utah

More buffalo s**t and lies from buffalo turd.

JMHO Loc: Utah

BULLS**T!!!! You lazy lying POS! I KNEW YOU COULDN'T NAME ANY!!!

Glaucon

I am sensing from your reply to buffalo that you respectfully disagree with him about something for some reason or reasons.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Of course it is, Article from:

7/17/2014 Robert J. Samuelson - Why Social Security is welfare

Why Social Security is welfare
By Robert J. Samuelson
Monday, March 7, 2011;
In a recent column on the senior citizen lobby, I noted that Social Security is often
"middle-class welfare" that bleeds the country. This offended many readers. In an
e-mail, one snarled: "Social Security is not adding one penny to our national debt,
you i***t." Others were more dignified: "Let's refrain from insulting individuals who
have worked all their lives and contributed to the system for 50-plus years by
insinuating that [their] earned benefits are welfare." Some argued that Social
Security, with a $2.6 trillion trust fund, doesn't affect our budgetary predicament.
Wrong. As a rule, I don't use one column to comment on another. But I'm making
an exception here because the issue is so important. Recall that Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid, the main programs for the elderly, exceed 40 percent of
federal spending. Exempting them from cuts - as polls indicate many Americans
prefer - would ordain massive deficits, huge tax increases or draconian reductions
in other programs. That's a disastrous formula for the future.
We don't call Social Security "welfare" because it's a pejorative term, and
politicians don't want to offend. So their rhetoric classifies Social Security as
something else when it isn't. Here is how I define a welfare program: First, it taxes
one group to support another group, meaning it's pay-as-you-go and not a
contributory scheme where people's own savings pay their later benefits. And
second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic
conditions and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.
Let's start with its $2.6 trillion trust fund. Doesn't this prove that people's payroll
taxes were saved to pay for future benefits, disconnecting them from our larger
budget problems? Well, no. Since the 1940s, Social Security has been a pay-as-you-
go program. Most benefits are paid by payroll taxes on today's workers; in
2010, those taxes covered 91 percent of benefits. The trust fund's $2.6 trillion
would provide only 3.5 years of benefits, which totaled about $700 billion in 2010.
The trust fund serves mainly to funnel taxes to recipients, and today's big surplus is an accident, as Charles
Blahous shows in his book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work." In 1983, when the trust fund was nearly
exhausted, a p**********l commission proposed fixes but underestimated their effects. The large surplus "just
developed. It wasn't planned," the commission's executive director said later. Even so, the surplus will disappear
as the number of retirees rises.
Similarly, Congress has repeatedly altered benefits. From 1950 to 1972, it increased them nine times, including a
doubling in the early 1950s. In 1972, it indexed benefits to inflation. People didn't complain when benefits rose,
but possible cuts now trigger howls that a "contract" is being broken. Not so. In a 1960 decision ( Flemming v.
Nestor ), the Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that people have a contractual right to Social
Security. It cited the 1935 Social Security Act: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is
hereby reserved to Congress." Congress can change the program whenever it wants.
All this makes Social Security "welfare." Benefits shift; they're not strictly proportionate to wages but are skewed
to favor low-wage earners - a value judgment reflecting who most deserves help; and they aren't paid from
workers' own "contributions." But we ignored these realities and encouraged people to think they "earned"
benefits and that Social Security is distinct from the larger budget. Politicians, pundits, think-tank experts and
journalists engaged in this charade to spare Social Security's 54 million recipients the discomfort of understanding
they're on welfare.
A relatively small elderly population sustained these fictions. Now, this is no longer possible. Contrary to the
Obama administration's posture, Social Security does affect our larger budget problem. Annual benefits already
exceed payroll taxes. The gap will grow. The trust fund holds Treasury bonds; when these are redeemed, the
needed cash can be raised only by borrowing, taxing or cutting other programs. The connection between Social
Security and the rest of the budget is brutally direct. The arcane accounting of the trust fund obscures what's
happening. Just as important, how we treat Social Security will affect how we treat Medicare and, to a lesser
extent, Medicaid.
It is because these programs involve middle-class welfare that cuts could occur without inflicting widespread
hardship. All the elderly aren't poor. In 2008, a quarter of families headed by someone 65 or older had incomes
exceeding $75,000. No doubt people would be outraged. Having been misled, they'd feel c***ted. They paid
their taxes, why can't they get all their promised benefits? But the alternative is much worse: imposing all the
burdens on younger taxpayers and cuts in other government programs. Shared sacrifice is meaningless if it
excludes older Americans.

JMHO Loc: Utah

He is full of s**t, just like you. The Republicans want to reform Social Security, which is a far cry from wanting to k**l it. I have been a Republican for a long time, and I know of NO Republican who wants to k**l Social Security. Think about it...many have parents, grandparents, relatives, friends, etc who are drawing SS, and you say they want to k**l it? Bulls**t! Reform it, yes...k**l it, no.

Glaucon

If you thought you knew I couldn't name any, why did you ask me to name them? If you were a Republican rather than a right wing extremist, you would know that doing away with SS is and has been a basic goal for Republicans since its inception.

Glaucon

Reform it out of existence = k*****g it.