Republicans break protocol to kill Social Security benefits expansion bill

submitted 3 weeks ago by lemme in@lemm.ee

www.newsweek.com/republicans-break-protocol-kil…

345

Log in to comment

32 Comments

It's gonna be peak face-eating season during holidays when my parents go to retire during this presidency but find out that they can't because social security doesn't exist anymore, 75% of their paycheck goes to either the military budget or kings tribute tax, and everything has doubled in price.

3 weeks ago

lol “protocol”. They haven’t respected protocol for 20+ years

3 weeks ago

i think newt flushed that down the crapper back in '94

Newt and Rupert Murdoch are wholly responsible for all of this shit for the last years.

Don't forget Reagan

3 weeks ago

It's the rich. The owner, ruling class.

We're all just using different words for the ruling class. It really is as simple as haves and have-nots and it's been a concerted effort by the Haves to get more since 1940.

3 weeks ago

Rush Limbaugh too

3 weeks ago , edited 3 weeks ago

"This will cost us nothing to keep going. Destroy it."

3 weeks ago , edited 3 weeks ago

"Oh my God, what on Earth is that??? I accidentally dropped a dollar that I took from you! Better burn it before it accidentally helps somebody..."

What do you think the chances are that they kill social security's payout mechanism without dismantling the process of collecting it and then treat their thievery like pennies from heaven?

3 weeks ago

Wait, how does it literally cost nothing?

3 weeks ago

Looks like it's scumbag politics.... They want *all* the credit. They don't want the population associating this with any Democrats whatsoever, they want to make it appear as a GOP bill passed by a fully GOP lead government... It will be passed, but not until next year so they can claim full credit...

3 weeks ago

You do understand their agenda is to cut services? They will be taking credit for that.

3 weeks ago , edited 3 weeks ago

Generally yeah, but even the article pointed out that it was bipartisan and the scumbags caucus was the one that put it on the shelf for now. There was a lot of language about "unfair distributions" so if anything they'll make slight clarifications to that. Social security is kind of a "third rail" of politics, you touch it you die.

Old people and billionaires are the two classes of people you don't mess with in politics, one votes for you the other owns you, but then again now that gen z seems to be brainwashed by Reich wing disinformation podcasts and tictoks maybe Republicans will ditch their fear of old people revolting against them.

3 weeks ago

I feel like at this point the Republicans don't have to worry about their policies being popular anymore. Their voters are stuck in an information bubble where anything they don't like is scapegoated on someone else.

Sounds like that's the Dems fault

This is an intentional joke, right?

3 weeks ago

they want to change the bill so it that it gets funded by a tax cut for the wealthy.

3 weeks ago

Thank goodness they are looking out for them boomers.

I saw Trump voters online already freaking out about this. Also saw a Trump voting veteran lose his shit after it was announced Trump is fucking them too.
Leopardseatingpeoplesfaces is gonna have so much content in the next four years

3 weeks ago

And people say this election was all bad /s

3 weeks ago

These provisions reduce Social Security benefits in proportion to a beneficiary's pension amount, which impacts individuals who receive pensions from employment not covered by Social Security.

So you get a pension and your SS is reduced by that amount? Isn't that the point of the pension? Big nothing burger.

3 weeks ago

Yes, the point of a pension is to give you zero additional benefit. I can’t imagine hitting Post after writing that

It means you contributed to a pension directly or indirectly as well as social security and now you don't get the social security that was part of the original deal. It's a little nibble away at the edges to soften retirees up for the next nibbles

3 weeks ago , edited 3 weeks ago

This is incorrect. The conditions here are applicable to former employees who are collecting a pension from an employer that did NOT contribute to social security.

The number of people that this impacts is small but not insignificant. About 2 million people, or 3 percent of Social Security beneficiaries, according to a February 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service. Most are former federal workers who were hired before 1984, when the U.S. civil service was brought under the Social Security system, and ex-employees of some state and local government agencies.

Appreciate the clarification, I was not aware that some federal workers were outside of the social security system!

3 weeks ago

This has always been the case though. I've seen someone retire and they offer you a choice on how to structure your SS and pension, monthly, lump sum, etc. Generally those pensions are going to be much higher than social security anyways. For the few that still get them. i.e. predominantly public sector employees.

This is basically a massive tax.

3 weeks ago

Same as how I'm paying into social security I'll never collect. Same as how inflation punished me for saving and cut the value of the currency almost in half.

That was Republicans.

3 weeks ago

That was the covid spending, the inflation reduction act, the constant wars. Literally the one thing both sides agreed on.

Taxes pay for nothing. Taxes are an anti-inflationary device. Please read up on modern economic theory.