5 ms·

Counterpoint from a quick DDG search: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-some-republican-senators-are-talking-openly-about-social-security-cuts-11667576391 h

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.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      Privatization - SS would be replaced with a pay-as-you-go private account, similar to a 401k. I have seen some suggestions where SS is partially kept, or it becomes optional, either way, it probably kills the system because there won’t be enough money coming into the system to pay out.
      - agensaequivocum 4y ago
        There's already not enough money going in. It's going to get worse because no one is having kids.
        partiallypro 4y ago
        IMO, this is one reason why illegal immigration gets a blind eye. They work, pay into social security, but can't withdraw.
        alistairSH 4y ago
        Easily fixed by removing the cap on the tax. No good reason to have such a regressive plan in place.
    - agensaequivocum 4y ago
      Because owning a firearm is a right of the people. If you want to raise the age of adulthood so serving in the military and voting than we can talk about raising the age to own a firearm.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    It's important to note that Democrats have been against Social Security since B. Clinton, and have made more than one attempt to privatize it. Obama set up the Bowles-Simpson commission to cut Social Security, and forced a moron like Paul Ryan into the spotlight as an "expert." Obama is now for Social Security, now that he's out of power and he can make promises that the administration doesn't have to keep.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Obama set up the Bowles-Simpson commission to cut Social Security Bowles-Simpson wasn’t about Social Security specifically, and it was set up deliberately with a supermajority rule that assured if it did something controversial, like touched Social Security in an adverse way, it would fail and fall short of the threshold for proposing policy changes at all, doing nothing. Which is exactly what happened.
- 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.

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.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Privatization - SS would be replaced with a pay-as-you-go private account, similar to a 401k. I have seen some suggestions where SS is partially kept, or it becomes optional, either way, it probably kills the system because there won’t be enough money coming into the system to pay out.
    - agensaequivocum 4y ago
      There's already not enough money going in. It's going to get worse because no one is having kids.
      - partiallypro 4y ago
        IMO, this is one reason why illegal immigration gets a blind eye. They work, pay into social security, but can't withdraw.
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        Easily fixed by removing the cap on the tax. No good reason to have such a regressive plan in place.
  - agensaequivocum 4y ago
    Because owning a firearm is a right of the people. If you want to raise the age of adulthood so serving in the military and voting than we can talk about raising the age to own a firearm.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It's important to note that Democrats have been against Social Security since B. Clinton, and have made more than one attempt to privatize it. Obama set up the Bowles-Simpson commission to cut Social Security, and forced a moron like Paul Ryan into the spotlight as an "expert." Obama is now for Social Security, now that he's out of power and he can make promises that the administration doesn't have to keep.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Obama set up the Bowles-Simpson commission to cut Social Security Bowles-Simpson wasn’t about Social Security specifically, and it was set up deliberately with a supermajority rule that assured if it did something controversial, like touched Social Security in an adverse way, it would fail and fall short of the threshold for proposing policy changes at all, doing nothing. Which is exactly what happened.
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.