For a campaign to post dishonest videos is shameful

[TexasTowelie]

28. I'm able to back up my statement. Republicans have called Social Security a welfare for decades.

When Medicare was first being considered Senate Republican Robert Dole (then in the House) voted against it. Also in opposition to Medicare, in a famous 1964 speech, Ronald Reagan explained that his opposition to Social Security and Medicare is why he switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. He called Social Security “welfare” and said of the possible regret in not stopping the passage of Medicare: “One of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/11/02/republican-public-opposition-to-social-security-and-medicare/#67cfe80a4e71

There are some other pieces of information that indicate Republican opposition to Social Security going back to 1935, while other paragraphs are more recent.

However, instead of means testing Social Security the GOP prefers to eliminate the entire program. I will concede that it will be easier for the GOP to accomplish that goal if they could claim it was welfare though, but there are enough actuarial and budgetary factors that they don't have to stick their necks out which makes them appear cruel.

I think that a lot of whether a means tested Social Security system would be viable is going to depend on where the dividing line is set for eligibility. If 80%-90% of retirees remain eligible for Social Security, then there will remain enough support for the program and the wealthy won't be in a position to gather enough votes to eliminate the program. However, if only 50%-60% of retirees are eligible, then it does take on aspects of a welfare program and those that are ineligible could muster the resources to eliminate the program.

Can I live with soaking the rich a bit more to finance Social Security? Yes, and I can understand why Biden feels that way also. If we want to discuss correcting economic inequality, the adjustment for means testing for Social Security seems like a starting point. The program already exists so new bureaucracy would need to be created. I also support raising the income amount subject to taxes to a higher level--again no new bureaucracy is necessary.

While Biden's proposals included a mix of progressive ideas along with some conservative aspects, it offered enough middle ground that both sides of Congress could have reached an agreement. Instead, Congress sat on the problem for over a decade and the situation has grown worse.

The actuarial soundness of Social Security when Biden made the remarks in 2007 was 30 years (2037). The actuarial soundness for Social Security now is 15 years (2035). If Biden's proposals were adopted then Social Security would be sound past 2070. It will require much larger tax increases to keep the program alive to the 2070s since we can't go back and recover that lost revenue and the interest it would have earned. What exacerbates the situation is that the government has incurred major deficits, particularly with the Trump tax cuts; therefore, it is going to be more difficult for the government to cover deficits in SS funds than it would have been otherwise. The young are more likely to view Social Security as a transfer of wealth from their pockets to the pockets of the elderly with little hope of benefiting from Social Security themselves which may put more pressure on eliminating the program altogether.