278
Trump memo reveals plan to throw Social Security into chaos
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
278 points (99.3% liked)
politics
31351 readers
2690 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What is it that's unsustainable with social security?
Benefits increase GDP growth, cushions impact on performance of market upheavals, increases political stability, reduces poverty, increases health and productivity and of course increases happiness.
It would seem to me that it's a sound investment for both economic, societal, moral and selfish reasons. Please tell me where my analysis or the data doesn't support my conclusion.
My understanding (not op) is the most unsustainable thing is that the cap for payments doesn't adjust for inflation, meaning the rich don't pay as much as they used to. If we don't fix that, one day payments will be cut to around 80 percent of what they are. Not world ending, but something that would be easily fixable if we weren't ruled by sociopaths preaching sociopathy as the new religion.
Why doesn't the working class, the larger of the two, simply not eat the owning class?
Jokes aside; seems to me the problem is that policy is set on feelings rather than reality, and then the argument of "not sustainable" gets irrelevant (which is why the policy carries on even though demonstrably wrong).That I can understand, cutting off one's nose to spite the face kinda deal. But if you're spiteful, it might be a reasonable (although not rational) choice.
If you're looking for efficient and/or rational policy, you need more mature representatives, simple as.
Yes, Social Security has problems right now that are not impossible to overcome.
The main reason why Social Security is unsustainable is because population growth is slowing down. In a few decades from now, there will be more old people than young people.
Even with the current demographic situation, people are getting less than what they pay in.
Singapore’s CPF meanwhile is sustainable but Social Security is not unfixable.
The reason why Social Security is unsustainable is because population growth is slowing down. In a few decades from now, there will be more old people than young people.
Even with the current demographic situation, people are getting less than what they pay in.
The program is expected to begin running deficits every year starting in 2037.
Singapore’s CPF meanwhile is sustainable although Social Security is not unfixable.
Seems like you're running in to the same problems the rest of the world has, only slower. You don't even have to come up with a solution, just steal one.
Besides, the state retirement fund is only structured that way as a cash buffer, borrowing the retirement fund of a whole generation. You could just as well go back to how it was done in the 70ies with the retirement fund actually built from people's taxes, and not from the next generation's - boom, no more problems with uneven generation populations.