Why Do Democrats Want Social Security To Go Bankrupt?

Democrats have done absolutely nothing to save social security from going bankrupt, which is expected to happen by 2035. When Republicans talk about solutions to shore up the program so that it doesn't go bankrupt, Democrats attack Republicans, claiming that Republicans want to get rid of social security. But, Republicans are not the ones standing idly by waiting for the program to go bankrupt. They're actually trying to figure out ways to save it. So, why do Democrats want Social Security to go bankrupt?

 

republicans are doing nothing of the sort. the plan is to trransfer the trillions to wall st where they can fuel a bubble while being shuffled into fees and commissions for the hedge fund managers.

privatization of medicare (part d) has not improved medical outcomes bit has made a lot of money for insurance executives, as agencies, and joe namath.

 

Thanks for your opinion.

 

I don't think they want it to go bankrupt, I just think they would rather wait until the very last minute to fix it because million's of panicked oldsters are likely to go along with just about anything else the Democrats want to throw in the bill.

 

What do you propose they do? Just as background, Social Security is legally required to be self-funding, so unless you want to gut the law, there is exactly one and only one solution currently legally available to "shore up" the system--increase payroll FICA taxes.

 

Holding the keys to social security is excellent leverage. And it's not just oldsters who'll agree to anything to preserve it.

 

They don't. Welfare is fundamental to rentention of votes, after all.

But they certainly want as many people on some kind of govt support as possible, and are likely muddling through until an equilibrium of dependence is reached. They probably consider that's not far off, given all else they're doing to disable the common man to a point of increased consumerism.

PS: When I say 'they', I mean Western Progressives - not just American Leftists. They're all doing the same thing, regardless of which country they're in.

 

What solutions to shore up SS have been proposed?
Don't make a claim without offering some support.

 

Get the hell rid of it for all but those in genuine need.

It should be strictly limited to orphans, bona fide refugees, victims of disasters, and physically disabled adults.

 

There are a number or remedies, none of which democrats have even tried doing.

 

That's just it. Democrats haven't done anything. They have had total power to do whatever they wanted over the last two years and their progressive agenda took priority over SS.

 

...

 

No one wants Social Security to go bankrupt, but the way it is set up as a pay-as-you-go system, it is reliant on a sufficient worker-to-retiree ratio to remain solvent, assuming everything else remains equal. Currently, it is less than one worker per retiree right now and that is not sustainable. We have a society that lives longer, with some individuals living beyond 40 years plus past their retirement. In the past, it has dwindled from 5 workers to one retiree in 1960 with people not living much longer past the age of retirement. In 1986, the civil service, federal primarily, and to some extent, state and local, were now subject to Social Security, with some caveats such as the teacher's donut hole loophole. In addition, we, the native-born citizens are having fewer, and fewer babies per family household and getting older before having our first child. These factors are in play and Congress as a whole has kicked the can down the street time and time again.

Congress, both Republican and Democrat have relied on the excess money received in the Social Security Trust fund to help pay down the projected deficit every year for more than 40 years now, since 1986. Privatization will not solve the problems of social security. It will solve the ones we have and create new ones as well, based on the rise and fall of the stock markets with more and more people not willing to pay into the system and more financial strain on those who already receive those benefits now.

Want to solve this problem, increase the number of workers per retiree ratio, increase the tax rate, and lock down the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds so that it cannot be borrowed. Remember, we have doubled our debt in the 1980s, 2000s, 2010s, and a huge deficit in four years of the Trump administration that exceeded the 8 years of Obama. We must also look at raising taxes to meet our financial obligations to pay for the things we have and keep the current system in place. Getting rid of less than 5% of the discretionary funding is not going to help, aka getting rid of education, DOL, DOE, `and all those other agencies that the GOP does not like. Changing the tax system will not help either from an income tax to a very regressive "Fair Tax" or consumption tax with a huge increase on pretty much everything from houses and cars to prescription medicine and everywhere in between, twice as much as what states currently tax in a sales tax now. The other way to not to solve it is to use Social Security and Medicare as a hostage to make the funding discretionary, renewable every five years. and as a goat for that debt ceiling.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF10522.pdf

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2022/08/t...-is-at-a-low-and-projected-to-decline-further

 

Well said!

 

What proposals have Dems attacked that the R's proposed.

That is what your claimed.

 

They do that already, except for refugees since GOPers don't want them unless they are Christian and do not believe in a two-nation state in Palestine. The biggest welfare receipent are actually kids whose parents are too poor to care for them and the state does not want to take care of them. They are already have too few resources for actual orphans right now with some foster parents using it as a business.

 

The ONLY remedy that Conservatives have proposed is privatization. We still have people not saving with the various retirment accounts we have from IRAs, to HR10s, Solo 401ks, traditional and Roth 401ks, Savings Credits to encourage people to save, etc. The three reasons why people do not save include:

1. Lack of funds
2. Being too young
3. Prioritizing other investments.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2022...ck of funds was the,ways to fix the situation.

 

https://www.econdataus.com/workers.html

looks like we are around 3:1 worker/retiree

 

namely privatization of Social Security. Yes, it was originally proposed by Sen. Edward Kennedy in the 1980s, but then both parties rejected that idea. When the GOP decided to take on the mantra of "no new taxes"
pledge, the GOP also decided in the 1990s to take on the mantra of privatizing Social Security has slowly gained steam to today.

 

Who forced those people to have kids they couldn't afford?

This is the exact problem. If you keep paying people to have kids, they'll keep having them - and they'll keep saying they keep needing that welfare because they can't afford the kids you enabled them to have.

A dimwitted ten year old knows this stuff, so suggesting it's an 'unintended consequence' is flaming BS.

 

Not all workers pay into social security in the United States. Those with 457 and 403b plans generally do not pay into Social Security. Military do not either. But temporary workers do and they cannot collect benefits. Students, those under the age of 22 and in College in a work study program also do not pay into social security.

 

You should read Paul Klugman's (Nobel Laureate in Economics - if you don't know) "Arguing with Zombies", you will discover Social Security is just fine IF REPUBLICAN profit mongers will just quit trying to privatize it. Privatizing SS will make paupers of our elderly.

 

From your 2nd link: Possible solutions.

...
The good news is that there are many available solutions to ensure Social Security’s solvency: raising the retirement age, decreasing the program’s benefits, or increasing revenues dedicated to the program; pursuing all in combination would likely provide the most lasting and least painful adjustment for the future. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that if the federal retirement age was raised to 70, it would decrease federal outlays by $72 billion over the next several years (and by growing amounts thereafter). An example of a way to reduce benefits would be to link payments to average prices rather than lifetime earnings

 

Robbing the poor, middle and upper middle to line the pockets of the rich.....the American Way!

 

None of which would be a problem if people planned ahead from day one.