5 ms·

I agree this is weird. I guess it is meant to highlight the other party wants to get rid of social security. It is strange though to take credit for not doing s

I agree this is weird. I guess it is meant to highlight the other party wants to get rid of social security. It is strange though to take credit for not doing something that someone else says they will do in the future.

nullc 4y ago
> is meant to highlight the other party wants to get rid of social security I didn't know if eliminating social security was actually a part of the republican platform, though it seemed very unlikely. I googled and found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/27/false-claim-that-senate-republicans-plan-end-social-security-medicare/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/27/false-cla...
- RunningDroid 4y ago
  Counterpoint from a quick DDG search: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senators-are-talking-openly-about-social-security-cuts-11667576391 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senato... Tl;Dr: cuts, not elimination
  - partiallypro 4y ago
    "Some Republicans" doesn't mean it's the party platform. Some Democrats have advocated nationalization of some social media platforms, that doesn't make it the party platform.
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      Indeed, and partisan politicians in safe seats also like to float ideas they know don't have a realistic chance of advancing in order to appeal to their ideological base. Every now and then Ted Cruz tweets about "Abolishing the IRS", a prospect I don't think any GOP policymakers are actually willing to fight for. They'll pay lip service to it, however.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      The GOP has been against Social Security from the start. Their stated goal has changed variously from privatization, or voluntary enrollment, to simply slashing benefits. Goldwater, Reagan, Bush all wanted to vastly reduce SS or privatize it completely. More recently, the GOP congress at the end of Obama's term pushed him hard to compromise on cuts. In 2016, Trump was unique among GOP presidential candidates in not calling for cuts. In April of this year, Rick Scott (chair of GOP campaign apparatus) called for adding a "kill switch" on SS, Medicare, and MedicAid. Current minority leader (McCarthy) wants to couple the debt ceiling and social programs. The only reason the GOP hasn't killed SS yet is because it's a popular program.
      - parineum 4y ago
        > The only reason the GOP hasn't killed SS yet is because it's a popular program. That's the only reason politicians do anything.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        Fair. SS is popular nationally across many socio-economic groupings. It’s almost impossible to touch (unlike something like abortion rights, which are widely supported, yet here we are looking at more bans, effectively the opposite of what the majority wants).
      - partiallypro 4y ago
        Cuts and privatization aren't "getting rid of" which is what this thread is about. It's like when Democrats want to reform something, Republicans will claim Democrats want to get rid of it. Which is false. Same here. I'm pretty sick of it and wish people would stop falling for things like that, when the proposed policies are actually very complex. Would privatization be bad? I don't know, I've never seen a good retort other than "markets have downturns." Would limiting firearms to someone 21+ be bad? I don't think so, but the only thing I hear against it is 18 year olds can be in the military. Those arguments somehow work on people. I guess real gripes about it don't fit into campaign ads or speeches.
        4y ago
    - smileysteve 4y ago
      Rick Scott, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee
  - atdrummond 4y ago
    Lee, Johnson and Scott are outside the GOP mainstream on this one. Even historically Republicans who have wanted to “kill SS” have wanted to replace it with something like they have in parts of Texas (https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-...). Hell, Nixon (before he stepped down) was ready to push for a negative income tax.
    - smileysteve 4y ago
      Rick Scott, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee - is outside the GOP mainstream. Interesting context.
robomartin 4y ago
> the other party wants to get rid of social security You should not repeat fake news. This isn't true. Promulgating made-up narratives does not help anyone.
prepend 4y ago
What party wants to get rid of social security? I’m not aware of any party with this in its platform or any major candidates running with this position.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  I’ve seen this so much with no evidence, that it now reads like a manufactured talking point. I’m looking forward to seeing if there are changes in discourse over the next year. Because if Twitter really does go neutral it’ll be a lot harder to push a narrative on Reddit when it’s countered on Twitter. And etc. Lab leak for example. It was easily to silence that as conspiracy theory when all the players just happen to agree and shut down dissent.

nullc 4y ago

> is meant to highlight the other party wants to get rid of social security I didn't know if eliminating social security was actually a part of the republican platform, though it seemed very unlikely. I googled and found: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/27/false-claim-that-senate-republicans-plan-end-social-security-medicare/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/27/false-cla...

RunningDroid 4y ago
Counterpoint from a quick DDG search: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senators-are-talking-openly-about-social-security-cuts-11667576391 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senato... Tl;Dr: cuts, not elimination
- partiallypro 4y ago
  "Some Republicans" doesn't mean it's the party platform. Some Democrats have advocated nationalization of some social media platforms, that doesn't make it the party platform.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    Indeed, and partisan politicians in safe seats also like to float ideas they know don't have a realistic chance of advancing in order to appeal to their ideological base. Every now and then Ted Cruz tweets about "Abolishing the IRS", a prospect I don't think any GOP policymakers are actually willing to fight for. They'll pay lip service to it, however.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    The GOP has been against Social Security from the start. Their stated goal has changed variously from privatization, or voluntary enrollment, to simply slashing benefits. Goldwater, Reagan, Bush all wanted to vastly reduce SS or privatize it completely. More recently, the GOP congress at the end of Obama's term pushed him hard to compromise on cuts. In 2016, Trump was unique among GOP presidential candidates in not calling for cuts. In April of this year, Rick Scott (chair of GOP campaign apparatus) called for adding a "kill switch" on SS, Medicare, and MedicAid. Current minority leader (McCarthy) wants to couple the debt ceiling and social programs. The only reason the GOP hasn't killed SS yet is because it's a popular program.
    - parineum 4y ago
      > The only reason the GOP hasn't killed SS yet is because it's a popular program. That's the only reason politicians do anything.
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        Fair. SS is popular nationally across many socio-economic groupings. It’s almost impossible to touch (unlike something like abortion rights, which are widely supported, yet here we are looking at more bans, effectively the opposite of what the majority wants).
    - partiallypro 4y ago
      Cuts and privatization aren't "getting rid of" which is what this thread is about. It's like when Democrats want to reform something, Republicans will claim Democrats want to get rid of it. Which is false. Same here. I'm pretty sick of it and wish people would stop falling for things like that, when the proposed policies are actually very complex. Would privatization be bad? I don't know, I've never seen a good retort other than "markets have downturns." Would limiting firearms to someone 21+ be bad? I don't think so, but the only thing I hear against it is 18 year olds can be in the military. Those arguments somehow work on people. I guess real gripes about it don't fit into campaign ads or speeches.
      - 4y ago
  - smileysteve 4y ago
    Rick Scott, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee
- atdrummond 4y ago
  Lee, Johnson and Scott are outside the GOP mainstream on this one. Even historically Republicans who have wanted to “kill SS” have wanted to replace it with something like they have in parts of Texas (https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-three-texas-counties-created-personal-social-security-accounts-and-prospered/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/05/12/how-...). Hell, Nixon (before he stepped down) was ready to push for a negative income tax.
  - smileysteve 4y ago
    Rick Scott, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee - is outside the GOP mainstream. Interesting context.

robomartin 4y ago

> the other party wants to get rid of social security You should not repeat fake news. This isn't true. Promulgating made-up narratives does not help anyone.

prepend 4y ago

What party wants to get rid of social security? I’m not aware of any party with this in its platform or any major candidates running with this position.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
I’ve seen this so much with no evidence, that it now reads like a manufactured talking point. I’m looking forward to seeing if there are changes in discourse over the next year. Because if Twitter really does go neutral it’ll be a lot harder to push a narrative on Reddit when it’s countered on Twitter. And etc. Lab leak for example. It was easily to silence that as conspiracy theory when all the players just happen to agree and shut down dissent.