House GOP releases budget that would 'destroy Social Security as we know it'

[LetMyPeopleVote]

The GOP really want to gut and kill social security and medicare

Link to tweet

https://www.rawstory.com/gop-and-social-security/

A panel comprised of three-quarters of the House Republican caucus released a budget proposal on Wednesday that would raise the Social Security retirement age—cutting benefits across the board—while further privatizing Medicare and slashing taxes for the rich, a plan that Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocacy groups said is a clear statement of the GOP's warped priorities ahead of a critical spending fight this fall.

The proposal outlined by the 175-member Republican Study Committee (RSC), led by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), would gradually raise Social Security's full retirement age—the age at which people are eligible for full Social Security benefits—to 69, up from the current level of 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

Nancy Altman, the president of Social Security Works, said the RSC budget would "destroy Social Security as we know it," using a "modest shortfall" that's more than a decade away to justify reducing benefits for millions.

"These changes would transform Social Security from an earned insurance benefit, which replaces wages lost in the event of old age, disability, or death, into a subsistence-level welfare benefit," said Altman, who noted that the RSC "rules out any options for raising revenue, such as requiring billionaires to contribute even a penny more."

[roamer65]

1. If we don't destroy the GQP, they will destroy this republic.

Plain and simple.

[Efilroft Sul]

40. By any means necessary. The party is an existential threat to everyone's health and welfare.

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[Freethinker65]

3. Needs to be in every Democratic campaign commercial and brought up at every media opportunity.

Surprised you didn't ask me about the GOP House panel approved proposal to gut social security while giving more tax breaks to the wealthy led by GOP Rep Hern. Well, I just want to point out my Democratic colleagues, and myself, are against that.

But as to your question about...

[AllaN01Bear]

4. always social programs , always . nevr military or their

rich butt buddies losing perks . make them choke it by loosing their fancy salaries etc.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Always Spending Cuts, Never Revenue Increases

Which, of course, is how successful businesses do it (and they claim government needs to run like a business).
Continuous spending cuts is how failing businesses do it.
But, since they almost support a repeated failure as the top of their ticket, I'm not surprised that failure is a virtue to them.

[Axelrods_Typewriter]

30. Even still, their budgets screw over regular military

At the expense of enriching their defence contractor buddies. From the stories I've been told by veterans from the Korean war on, the life or pay of the average soldier hasn't really improved with the size of the defence budget.

[AllaN01Bear]

31. that is correct and some of the bennies for vets are being

looked at to cut. serve your country , right?

[JohnSJ]

5. This needs to be a campaign issue for the upcoming elections along with a woman's right to choose,

voting rights, workers rights, etc.

[usonian]

6. Got billboard?

[Duppers]

11. Perfect.

[KS Toronado]

13. Billboards like this

and similar anti-reQublican ones should be in every red rural town in America until the election.
Lot cheaper than TV advertising and I'm betting more effective for money spent.

[appalachiablue]

7. K/R

[Rhiannon12866]

8. Twitter replies:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Duppers]

12. Wow! Thank you!

Thanks for catching/posting all of these!

I'm sending some of them out.

[Rhiannon12866]

14. I thought there were some great ones!

[KS Toronado]

17. The Mike Lee one would make a great billboard in Utah

Plus he's not the only reQublican we could do this to.

[Rhiannon12866]

18. That one struck me, too - yikes!

As was said earlier, it's incredible how horrific these Republicans want to be towards fellow human beings!

[Kaleva]

9. Trying to figure out how raising the age reduces benefits

Under the plan, a person who retires at the age of 69 would receive 100% of the benefits he was entitled to as does a person who retires at the current age of 67.

From the tweet in the OP

"cutting benefits across the board, "

Other then having to work 2 more years before being eligible to receive 100% of the benefits they have earned, I fail to see the "cutting benefits across the board".

[NBachers]

15. How many people will croak before they reach 69? That's certainly a reduction in benefits.

[progree]

19. If the retirement age is raised, one collects for fewer years

or less per year -- even if reduced benefits continue to optionally begin at age 62 (I don't know what that GOP House Panel says about this), the formula for the benefits payments before and after full retirement age depend on the full retirement age.

"Other then having to work 2 more years before being eligible to receive 100% of the benefits they have earned, I fail to see the "cutting benefits across the board"."

It's pretty clear to me that it's a reduction in benefits, but I agree "across the board" is maybe stretchy language.

[Kaleva]

20. But one will still get 100% of benefits at age 69...

as they would have had they retired at 67.

True, there would be a loss of 2 years of benefits but after that, it's the same amount as one would have gotten at the current retirement age of 67.

Where I see the reduction is for those who retire early. With the retirement age raised to 69 and if the early retirement age is kept at 62, a person retiring at age 62 would get far less each month over the entire course of his retirement then a person who retires at age 62 with the full retirement age set at 67.

[progree]

21. True, that's how I see it /nt

[genxlib]

22. Of course it is a cut

If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any purpose in doing it.

[ret5hd]

28. So, let's say you get hired somewhere...

You are told that you get $50/hr after 5 yrs.

You work for 4 years, waiting for that $50/hr.

Then you are called into a meeting, and told you will be getting $50/hr after 7 years instead of 5.

But it’s not a cut. You still get your 50/hr…just a bit later. So you’re all cool with that.

Unhuh, I’ll bet you’re cool with that.

[Kaleva]

35. Being on disability, I'm stuck on the low end of benefits

I wasn't able to work much during what should have been my most productive years.

When I first got on disability, my income was about $1100 a month and that's what I lived on .

Had I been able to work full time till I reached retirement age, my monthly SS would be much higher.

When I do reach full retirement age, my SSDI will convert to SS but the monthly pay will remain the same.

So going on SSDI was like taking early retirement but as with SS, if you retire early, you get far less then if you had waited to retire when you are eligible for full benefits. It's a really big pay cut. But it's worked out. I adjusted, am doing fine and I'm still alive. My doctor had told me I'd probably die if I kept trying to work.

[ret5hd]

36. I don't understand. Sorry about your situation...

but I am sure you can see how delaying a promised benefit from a system that you have contributed to over years would be construed as a “cut”.

[Kaleva]

37. I see it as a cut but am wondering how it's figured to be an across the board cut

With the proposal, a person will lose out on collecting 2 years worth of benefits but after that, they receive 100% of what they are entitled to.

However, under the current system, a person who delays retirement until age 69 will get 124% of what they are entitled to. If retirement is raised to 69, then a person would have to work till age 71 to get 124% of what they are entitled to . Everything shifts 2 years.

[ret5hd]

38. At what "shift" would you consider it a cut?

5 years?
10 years?
100 years?

To be fair, I feel obliged to answer my own question…from my perspective only: 1 day.

During the Reagan years, this shortage of funds, caused by the number of boomers retiring in the future (now) was discussed. The solution was to raise the rate of withholding. We are still withholding at that higher rate.

We all know where the solution lies: withhold at the higher income brackets. They have worked tirelessly to depress wages for decades…centuries! They have succeeded. They work to keep us desperate. They have succeeded. At some point we need to become more like the French: take to the streets in mass protests.

An aside: I am convinced that my last sentence above is the reason so much effort is put into deriding the French. No one wants to be like the French, right?

[Mysterian]

34. Put on your thinking cap

and try again.

[karynnj]

39. Many reasons

If you raise the age by 2 years, it will lower benefits, because all amounts are based on the expected cost for someone taking it at the full retirement age. For that group, all who reach the age will get 2 years fewer benefits. This may mean steeper percent reductions for those starting at 62. Overall, raising the age IS a cut to expected amount a person will receive in total.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

41. You don't get 100% Social Security at 67

You get all of it if you hold off until 70. That's how it is for those of us who haven't gotten it yet.

My statement always says that I will get more if I wait until 70.

So maybe 67 was the max eligibility age for those born before, IIRC, 1957, but it's not true for those of us born after it.

[Kaleva]

42. This and others sources say otherwise

"Full retirement age, or FRA, is the age when you are entitled to 100 percent of your Social Security benefits, which are determined by your lifetime earnings. It is gradually increasing, from 66 and 4 months for people born in 1956 to 66 and 6 months for those born in 1957 and, ultimately, 67 for people born in 1960 or later."

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/social-security-full-retirement-age.html

[NowISeetheLight]

10. Oligarch America

Tax cuts for the rich. Working serfs in eternal bondage. No healthcare for the disabled for five years. Then again it's impossible to get disability. But saving big profits for big pharma.

Typical Republican plan. How the hell can anyone support these people.

[Hekate]

16. They are evil

[Deminpenn]

23. Is this the same group that couldn't even muster

the votes to censure their sworn enemy Adam Schiff? The last time I checked 175 was far short of the 218 needed to pass a bill. They are not serious people.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

24. The GOP proposed budget is nasty

Link to tweet

[Marthe48]

25. s.c. justice thomas has a billionaire sugar daddy for his mom

maybe the r's trying to slash social security have billionaire sugar daddies for their aging parents. They act like they do.

[RSherman]

26. Undocumented workers have contributed $2T to SS

While legislators are running around, hair on fire, screaming that the SS fund will soon be depleted, the truth is that undocumented workers' payroll tax deductions are added to the SSA's Earnings Suspense File for payers with mismatched SS numbers. Those dollars are credited to the general SSA Trust Fund. So, undocumented workers subsidize the retirements of US citizens and legal residents. The undocumented will never see these benefits. The Earnings Suspense File is estimated to have accumulated around $2 trillion. And, rather than let that stay in the SS fund, the government gives it back to ICE to conduct raids.

[crickets]

27. Well, that's one way to change the subject from tfg.

But how absolutely vile.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

32. The new Republican budget plan is to cut MEDICARE to pay for TRILLIONS in tax cuts

Link to tweet

Americans should be furious.

The new Republican budget plan is to cut MEDICARE to pay for TRILLIONS in tax cuts for corporations and the 1%.

We have to join together and shout: #DontCutMedicare!!! RT & use the hashtag.

Wake up, America! The GOP isn't on our side.

[yardwork]

33. And people agree with this?!