The elected officials who have to choose between tapping into the general fund and telling 70M people they don't get a full SS disbursement is going to be in a tight spot. Especially when we're just shitting money over the wall to a dozen ongoing military disasters.
Boomers have been saying this since the 60s and continue to say it even as they cash their latest round of checks.
Social Security is crazy popular. Even marginal trimming around the edges is politically suicidal. The only way to end the program is for Congress to shut down the agency and end the distributions. That's not going to happen so long as elections are even remotely contestable. Its the third rail of politics for a reason.
I would predict a military dictatorship before I'd predict an end to SS. One is practically a prerequisite for the other, and even then it would be dicey.
This is true except for the part where anyone smiles naively, as though the dog whistle isn't delivered in the most transparent manner imaginable
Its an optional illusion. Nothing exists and we are but the stuff of dreams.
I had a game in Middle School that involved describing how I was supposed to arrange a ladder to climb up the side of a wall. We went back and forth for over an hour, because my DM kept insisting I couldn't turn the ladder sideways.
Now, if my players want to deliver a particularly clever bit of prose or describe a novel engineering technique, I just give them a +2 on the roll and that's that.
Fu Linghui, a spokesman for the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), said the release of data would be suspended while authorities look to "optimise" collection methods.
"In recent years, the number of university students has continued to expand," Fu said. "The main responsibility of current students is studying. Society has different views on whether students looking for jobs before graduation should be included in labour force surveys and statistics."
This issue, as well as the definition of the age range currently set at 16-24, "needs further research," Fu said.
Isn't this basically consistent with the... I want to say U6 unemployment metric within the US? Basically, if you're in school then you aren't an active member of the labor force and don't count as "unemployed" for the purpose of government statistics?
I remember back during the '07/'08 US downturn, lots of young people re-entered academia in pursuit of MBAs / Law Degrees / etc, because the job market sucked and pay in professional fields was worth the time/cost of a higher caliber of degree. When they fell out of the labor market as a result, the US unemployment rate adjusted in response.
Valiantly defending the Titan of Industry from in between its toes, while the behemoth clutches at its heart and collapses due to a congenital heart defect.
I think she's joking about how people over-report his trivial shit. But it can be read as blithely ignoring the monstrous crimes Obama did commit while in office, because it echoes a lot of the liberal apologia of the administration that amounted to "The worst thing Obama ever did was wear a tan suit".
Libs on /r/politics only make jokes about the Ork-shaped Slavic Brainpan and how many indictments Trump is currently under.
Since she basically stopped making content, I'm a little surprised she still has an audience. Like so many otherwise curiously influential and interesting people, she's doomed herself to drowning in the social media space when everyone would be better off (her most of all) if she just logged the fuck off.
Natalie should know better. But also... the really nasty shit under Obama was heavily under-reported and only ever seemed to penetrate media in a select few circuits. Casually tossing off a "What even did Obama do that was so bad?" is almost forgivable if you're not a terminally online 30-year-old who makes hour long YouTube videos about politics, history, and culture.
I remember when Kentucky got enough blue dogs in office to put the Medicaid expansion into effect. They called their program "Kynect" and did a reasonably decent job of administering it. The program became so popular that Republicans pivoted to "defend Kynect from the federal government!" mode. Its been delivering services for over a decade and is a vast improvement over the deplorable state healthcare system.
Plans to defund or kill Kynect have largely failed and GOP efforts to cut the program have backfired on politicians that tried it, but Democrats struggle to take credit because the savvier Republicans aren't shy about voicing their support.
So they may be good at saying "No" to proposed legislation, but the GOP is awful at saying "No" to any broad based existing program. Its the same reason they've had such a hard time privatizing education even in blood red states.
Bush Jr ran on privatizing SS and got absolutely washed in 2006.
Obama ran on scaling back entitlements and got washed in 2010.
Trump beat Hillary in part by cleaving to SS/Medicare and attacking her on her plans to gut it.
Biden is almost a fluke in so far as he's got an anti-SS/Medi history but finally landed a successful Presidential bid. Even then, without a House willing to do deals, he can't really touch entitlements either.
The AARP rivals only AIPAC in terms of its influence. Its a classic "do not fuck with the money" situation that also shields the Pentagon and the Financial Sector.
Not to say entitlements are bulletproof, but its been a nut both parties have been trying to crack since at least Clinton without success. Reagan was only able to land a blow by "saving" it with higher taxes and some very lukewarm meddling with retirement ages. Even then, it wasn't a trick any other President managed to pull again.
Every President promises to reform SS/Medi and none of them do more than tinkering with the margins.