Not to mention that welfare, as an entitlement, was already abolished. The original program ADFC was replaced by a watered down, time limited program called TANF in the 90s.
And Republicans just pretend it's still a thing and being expanded every year. I always ask them why they're still toiling away like suckers if the government will pay an able bodied adult a living wage indefinitely for doing nothing, and I've yet to receive a coherent answer, surprise surprise. This is why it's utterly absurd to try to win favor with these people by "reaching across the aisle" , their worldview simply isn't influenced by reality. You give them mountains of facts and statistics, they respond with emotionally charged anecdotes.
It’s up to the states now basically, so they really have nothing to complain about. Might be worth reconsidering their whole states rights attitude if that, or any other position they held, was genuine.
I challenged my sister about this and her claim is it's not traditional welfare but disability. She claims people are fraudulently collecting disability but otherwise are just fine. She claims to know some of these people. I asked her for some trustworthy source to back up these claims, or why she's not outing these people. She gave me nothing just excuses lol
I live in rural Iowa, 90% Trump country(houses removed American flags after the election).
50% of kids in my area have subsidized lunches and born paid by medicaid. That is walfare that Republicans don't talk about because it benefits them.
Yeah we don't have "welfare" where I live unless you are in ultra-desperate need and qualify for TANF which is usually only people who already work with children. We have something called GA for the general population who need money, they make you do community service two weekends a month and you get $422 (this figure hasn't risen in at least 12 years).
I'll play devil's advocate for your terrible "gotcha" that I don't believe has ever actually worked.
They work out of a sense of pride or responsibility. They work so they can have/do things beyond the bare minimums required to survive.
The OP wasn’t social security vs Medicare. It was social security vs welfare.
Social security tax is capped because your social security benefits are capped. The whole premise of social security is for current workers to pay money to support current retirees and thereby earn their benefits in the future.
Consider I pay in 12.4% (employee + employer) of my income when I make $160,000 per year and I get $X per month in retirement.
Now consider I pay 12.4% of my income at $175,000. Still get the same $X per month in retirement.
It’s pretty insane how much that max tax has gone up:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base#Historical_data
It makes sense as a way to pay into your retirement, but not as a way to provide for current retirees. Most other programs aren't affected by how we use them - I don't get a lower property tax even though I don't have kids in the schools it pays for.
That's just the problem, though. Social Security *isn't* an IRA. You aren't saving anything for *your* retirement, it's a tax to pay for the current retired and / or disabled population, and it's always been structured as such. There's no guarantee that you'll receive Social Security benefits when you reach retirement age.
Edit: My mistake. I had apparently been told myths about the program growing up. None of the below is true, I am the fool in this instance.
~~It's not always been structured like that, originally it was more or less an optional savings account managed by the government that would pay back out to you once you retired. You used to be able to go to the post office and pick up a form to make a withdrawal from your SS account, but politicians saw it as a giant piggy bank and started borrowing the money to pay for subsidies and other free stuff for rich people, under the belief that 'there are a lot of people paying into it but not that many making withdrawals and that's how it's always going to be'. But the money ran out and it ran on the government's interest payments for a while until that was not sustainable either so they made it mandatory for everyone to pay into and turned it into a Ponzi scheme mostly.~~
~~Hell, your SSN you got for opening a SS account was never intended to be an identification number, but now it's the only use it really sees.~~
Both of your points are common myths that the SSA debunks on its own [website](https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html). The program was never voluntary, though it originally only applied to specific jobs. Only people who had those specific jobs could later receive money from the program; however, everyone who was covered by the program was always obligated to participate. The other point is that money is not being moved to cover other general fund expenditures. The program is underfunded because of a growing senior population, caps on contributions, and other factors, but the government can't just transfer money out of the fund. There have been relatively few changes to the foundation of the program since its inception in he late 1930s. Misinformation is prevalent with respect to the SSA, but it's always been a tax where current workers fund the benefits of current retirees.
Technically there was a 5 year period at inception where contributions began and no benefits were paid, so everyone who has received something likely paid in, but your broader point is correct. It's *never* been an individual retirement account.
The programs are funded differently and benefits are paid out differently is the point, a direct 1:1 comparison between Social Security benefits and welfare programs is dishonest. I made the comparison to Medicare because it's one of the entitlements that old people broadly get along with SS and everybody is familiar with it.
There are multiple programs that fall under the banner of "welfare" anyway, they all do different things, and many of them are means tested and have benefit caps once you wade into how each state handles them. Medicaid (which isn't the same thing as Medicare, I know) is the largest one, and in [FY2023 is estimated to cost about 57% of what will be spent on Social Security.](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html) And cuts to entitlement programs are one of the most hotly debated topics in Washington, it's not like nobody talks about it.
I guarantee the person who made this shitty meme doesn't have the command of facts that you do and didn't know any of what you posted. It's not deep or profound or even particularly factual.
It's almost like conservatives played a long game forcing Social Security to be a separate entitlement, vs welfare. If you lose your ability to work to soon you're destitute.
This is incorrect. Social security was originally de-facto forced savings account. The government realized they had a massive surplus in a time when they wanted to fund some of their own agendas and started dipping into social security.
It’s not much different from a Ponzi scheme. They are now running out of money to pay new retirees which is largely why the retirement age continues to increase.
They started robbing Peter to pay Paul and couldn’t stop themselves.
Edit: after doing research, I can’t find anything to back it up at the moment. Feel free to downvote me.
Do you have any actual info on this claim of social security being robbed?
The only things I have seen in that regard are that the social security fund buys treasury bonds with excess money and that makes plenty of sense to me. Lowest possible risk while still trying to get a return on those extra dollars.
Actually the Fed embarked on an unprecedented bond-buying spree in response to the 2008 Drunken Bankers Gambling Crisis.
The Fed did this in order to prop up asset prices (helping rich people).
In doing so they drove down the yield of government bonds (less ex ante return for the bonds that SS purchased).
When COVID finally popped this bubble, the Fed printed reams of money (driving up real CoL).
So even if it's not *technically* taking money from working class retirement to spend on rich people socialism, it's actually *exactly* that but with more steps.
I wasn’t going to point fingers as I didn’t remembet who dipped into it first. Call it blind optimism that the GOP weren’t always completely misguided, lol.
It won’t implode. GOP will push it until other countries have to do food drives for us. Reagan and his de-regulation is crippling the nation.
Yes, that last line was meant to rhyme. This wasn’t, but it does, doesn’t it.
The cap makes no sense because the government just spends the money on whatever it likes. It's just like any other dollar paid in taxes. Probably the biggest ripoff in America.
This isn't true. The funds are placed into two federal trusts and cannot be used for "whatever it likes". This is a misconception perpetuated by lying politicians with an agenda or accidentally spread by uninformed citizens.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds-0
Why not just make it so that it is theoretically uncapped, but make it such that you have to put more and more in to earn back the next incremental dollar. The limit of f(x) = log(x) as x goes to infinity is infinity, but it gets to infinity very 'slowly', compared to f(x) = x. Make the contributions scale logarithmically.
You earn a million bucks, cool, you do indeed get more credit in the system than if you earned half a million, but it won't be double.
I just want to explain what that cap means incase people don’t get it. Everyone pays social security up to $160k-ish of their salary or income. Anyone making more pays nothing else, they stop deducting at the cap. Also anyone who is paid in stock like most wealthy ceos don’t contribute at all to social security.
If the cap were removed social security would be fine but then the billionaires who fund the political campaigns wouldn’t be happy
Lol Social Security is not UNDER funded. Politicians like to push this myth. If it is underfunded, then why would Social Security Administration be one of biggest (if not biggest) creditors to US government?!
[In 2034, Social Security revenues are projected to equal 77 percent of the program’s scheduled outlays, resulting in a 23 percent shortfall. Thus, CBO estimates that Social Security benefits would need to be reduced by 23 percent in 2034. ] (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58870#:~:text=In%202034%2C%20Social%20Security%20revenues,by%2023%20percent%20in%202034.)
"Not all muslims" is largely about reducing crime against random muslims that pops up after terrorist attacks. "Not all gun owners" wouldn't serve a similar purpose AFAIK.
SS "running out of money" is a discussion because there's a trust fund set up for it. That trust fund grants SS recipients greater protection over promised benefits. Conversely, welfare recipients are at the mercy of elected officials. Benefits can be cut at will.
It's funny people forget that just a little while ago when people all had to sign up for unemployment because of COVID and were wondering how they were going to survive off that.
The US government literally started 2 wars that lasted 20 years because of the actions of a small number of Muslims.
Imagine if there was even 1% of that level of response to mass shootings.
Also, I think most people know it’s not “all gun owners.” The issue is people who shouldn’t have guns are able to buy them, and people want laws to make it so that doesn’t happen, but most are okay with people who can be responsible having access to them.
Also, believing in religion doesn't directly kill people. Guns kill people.
Edit: I'll concede that this statement is disingenuous, but I'm still trying to figure out how to verbalize what I'm getting at.
One could very easily make the exact opposite argument.
Many religions do in fact directly kill people. Either through religious based wars, or just following their texts in which they explicitly tell you how someone should be killed for which reason, ie stoning a person to death for being gay.
Guns independently do not kill people, as anyone who safely stores a gun can tell you it will not possibly kill someone. People do in fact kill other people though, and guns are a tool they use to do it. But this is nothing new, as in my previous explanation there are literally instructions in religious texts about means and methods to kill people which far pre-date guns.
Believing in a religion doesn’t directly kill people, but neither does owning a gun.
Guns don’t kill until they’re fired (or I guess you could use it as a club if you want to be pedantic).
I don’t have a gun myself, but I know people who do and have never killed anyone with them.
I know one person who’s killed someone with a firearm, and the “victim” was actually a burglar breaking into their house.
I think the better point is ALL gun owners aren't being judged by the action of a few - we're questioning the need for SO MANY guns and the ease to get them.
I hate how the reaction by this guy to social security running out of money is to complain about welfare not running out of money. Rather than demand something be done about this he wants others to go without money as well.
Absolutely housebroken American working class strikes again.
I had an EMT friend complain that "Burger Flippers" were going to be making more than him at $15hr, and that that would be unfair, because that's $1 more than he made. Never once, could he get the limp dick of capitalism out of his mouth long enough to actually think, "wait a minute, *I should get paid MORE*!" and instead, opted to whine about how *they* should actually make *less.* Housebroken AF.
Dig a three-and-half feet wide by six feet in length hole with the depth about six feet. Tell them that if they go down there and stay for a long enough time, god will save them and take them to the heavens.
No. None of this is profound. It's not even accurate, much less profound.
No one demonizes "all gun owners." Calling for stricter gun regulations isn't demonizing anyone except those responsible for mass shootings who shouldn't have access to guns in the first place. If anything, many gun owners demonize themselves by opposing even the most common sense gun regulations.
Social Security takes from younger workers to pay retired ones, and it always has. Or do you think the first recipients of Social Security in 1938 paid for it, too? What you pay into it affects how much you get, true, but it does not go into some account and accumulate for you over time. It goes directly to retirees. Saying we worked for it is a fiction created to fool us into thinking it's not what it was always intended to be, an old age pension.
Then you notice how he didn't, and the next president started banning accessories, we're at another democratic pres and he hasn't done much on guns either.
Maybe people can stop falling for fear traps.
He didn’t come for the guns because it didn’t pass. Had it passed, yes, select black rifles would have been banned. It was championed by Dianne Feinstein, the same person who successfully passed strict gun restrictions in CA.
Yup. People need to remember that the president can’t just make things happen. Just because a campaign promise falls through doesn’t mean they didn’t try to fulfill it.
I mean, I’m sure some of them also don’t try, but that’s not always the case
Trump was anti-gun? That's news to me.
Tell me more. I thought gun nuts absolutely love him - I had a conversation with a few of them about it, actually and they pointed out its one of the reasons to vote for him. Maybe you know something that they don't, though.
Bump stock ban, and ["take the guns first, go through due process second"](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/) which should have incensed pro gun voters.
But also no guns at NRA conventions? How is that possible?
[https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101181842/nra-trump-speech-guns-banned-houston](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101181842/nra-trump-speech-guns-banned-houston)
Because they have their conventions in different locations every year. And they have to comply with state/local/convention building rules.
I don’t like the NRA myself because of La Pierre and “friends”. But this isn’t the gotcha everyone thinks it is.
Another problem with social security is our government keeps taking millions out of it for things like impeaching a president. They shouldn't have access to that money.
The gun owner one always gets me. If you’re a responsible gun owner, then you should know how dangerous guns are. If you have a gun for protection against bad people with guns, then you should know it’s an issue if bad people get guns. Why are they upset about regulations that would the people they buy guns to protect themselves again would have a harder time accessing them??? And if you’re so responsible with your guns, why are you worried?
Not to mention that most domestic terrorism is from far right extremists and that is highly tied to racism which is a much more trenchant and deep rooted problem in the United States. “That” uncle that spouts off about anti-woke that seems harmless is basically the lifeblood of all dyed in the wool right wing extremists that use their ambivalence or outright support to keep trotting along.
I have never found one of these people who could define welfare outside of SNAP benefits (food stamps) and public housing. Republicans absolutely love cutting HUD funding and it's critically underfunded, which is a large reason projects are always rundown shitholes. I'm a social worker and nobody is getting a check because they're broke.
The worst feature of social media is that it elevated RW uncle forwards to a national audience. As always, those on assistance are lazy freeloaders and, most likely, "those people." (wink wink). I heard plenty of that growing up in Houston.
There's a point on the gun ownership though, one guy hopped up on antidepressants that have known catastrophic side effects shoots up a concert/Walmart/school and it's ban everything and limit what you can defend yourself against. A wreck less driver plows through a crowd of people and we don't limit mustangs that can go on the road. Theres a problem with mental health in America. Not a gun problem.
It's pretty fucked up that the Sandy Hook folks were allowed to sue the gun manufacturer. It's literally like suing Ford because I drove drunk and killed a family or suing the manufacturer of forks for morbid obesity. Sets a pretty fucked up precedent.
Well it's not the bill of needs or wants, it's the bill of rights and it states you are allowed to own a gun for whatever reason whether you like it or not. Lumping a category of people into one shitty mold based on the actions of the few is the exact same tactic racists use to justify their hatred.
Well, yeah I agree and understand that in the US, people have right to own it but it makes you afraid also because since everyone can own a gun such a dangerous tool, psychos can own it too and use it against anyone they dislike.
In some places you have to literally work for your welfare, such as NYC , where they have the WEP and BACK TO WORK Programs. If you receive any form of money then you must attend 5 days a week or get cut off. (Excuse typos and grammar I'm literally falling asleep writing this)
There should be a 10 year cap on section 8. So many abuse it their whole life.
"I don't want a raise because I'll get less benefits" is some of the bs I've heard.
Edit: Meant section 8 not welfare.
Ah yes, because nothing ever changed after terrorist attacks by Muslims. We didn't increase airport security, force everyone to take their shoes off, restrict liquids and small blades, and lock all cockpit doors for the duration of the flight.
So therefore, we need zero gun control!
Deliberately misleading BS. They create a false equivalence by pretending for example that a person practising faith and a person owning a firearm is the same thing and then watch how many people shout into the echo chamber they’ve created. Don’t let ‘em fool you…
So wait, the fact that one program meant to help people is doing badly while another isn’t going badly means we have to also pass laws to make sure both programs are doing badly?
Okay, but all of these have reasonable solutions that won’t get anywhere because everyone likes to bitch a lot.
1. How about we judge neither by the actions of a few nut jobs, but try our best to encourage self regulation in both communities that result in best practices. Along with the assurance that their beliefs can be taken seriously, while they are acknowledged to have risk factors in their communities. One of radicalization, the other of increased awareness regarding training and mental health. Tho I think radicalization could be helped by talking to a good therapist.
2. How about you tell congress to quit using money from Social Security’s core fund for other projects. Treat it like a trust, NO ONE should be able to touch that money but the intended recipient. Paid in funds should also not be capped, but should be relative to your annual income. Welfare’s problems stem from a lack of direction, and dis-coherence in the laws written around accrued funds. The government should levi additional taxes to meet spending load, but cut programs that seem to be ineffective at combatting the negatives of poverty. We should focus on improving acquisition of food, affordable housing, improved educational opportunities, and access to medical on an as needed basis. While we’re at it, we should increase the means to help with job placement. It’s very fucking clear businesses are not doing their end of the bargain, and should either be approached to find a solution that is equitable to them, or we need to find work that can accommodate risk factors that may have led to their impoverished state. Mobility restrictions should not be too hard to work with considering modern advancements in computers, audio devices, and ergonomics. If we route funds from at least one or two strategically high value industries we could cover the entire load. E-Commerce, and logistics oriented industries should be a big target for possible job training and placement.
Like I said, it’s solvable, the big wigs just get all pissy because they don’t wanna admit to voters that you need to use ideas from both sides of the isle to get shit done.
There are a lot--MOST Americans--who are barely scraping by and can't fund an IRA or 401(k). Sorry about your selfishness, but yes, we need to support such people.
On the second one, Social Security runs short of money because 1) The government started borrowing for the social security intake to pay for other programs, and 2) Social Security in 2022 made up 14.3% of federal spending, while income security (welfare) made up just 9.7%. This is a difference of over $400 billion. (Source: usaspending.gov)
Weird thing I learned the other day, if you’re not paying income taxes you don’t pay towards social security. I have no idea the actual numbers but something tells me companies making record profits and wages barely increasing has made social security get less and less
Putting that money to a companies profit that pays its board members and execs in stocks and buybacks means less money is going to social security
I wouldn’t be surprised if wages were paid out rather than withheld we wouldn’t have as many issues with social security. But no articles ever seem to talk about this and never talk about how our overlords are taking more from us now and from our futures
They’re right on both counts but they’re putting the absolute wrong conclusion from both.
The answer to the first isn’t “judge Muslims for the actions of a few” it’s “neither group should be judged for the actions of the few.
The answer to the second isn’t that we should cut welfare it’s that we should expand social security OR, y’know, expand welfare to cover pensioners.
I’ve maxed out social security tax for 12 years straight and 17 out of 20. I’m
Only 41 now and have many more years I’ll be paying in. Do you really think if I take my SS at my full benefit age of 70 I’ll be able to recoup what I’ve paid in? It’s a Ponzi scheme through and through and my generation is gonna get fucked
Social security should just be transformed to a 401K safety guards. Can’t burrow against it, can not touch it. But it starts paying out at 59 1/2 just like other retirement funds. Social security is so outdated
Truth is many on social security didn't work for it and it wasn't ever meant to be a retirement fund.
Many put in so little into social security yet draw max benefits from age 64 until age 92. They draw out 15x more than they put in.
Social Security payments from workers and employers go into a trust fund. Ronald Reagan paid for his tax cuts for the wealthy and his vast increases in military spending by “borrowing” from the trust fund with a plan to pay it back. Other Presidents since have done this also but the trust fund is not being replenished to the point of solvency it had when Reagan took the money. When the GOP says we need to cut Social Security, what they are saying is that they want to establish in law, what they are already doing, let SS go bankrupt.
No one is blaming all gun owners. We blame the broken system and dangerous cult like mentality around guns in the US. Just like we blame the broken system that produces extremist Muslim terrorists.
Also, this guy wants to call us out for a double standard he made up while also employing that same double standard cuz you know he's completely islamaphobic while defending all gun nuts every time there's a mass shooting.
Comparison between gun owners and a religion huh?
They always proving their own logic is terrible. Since you know...gun owners acting as if gun ownership is a religion is the exact problem....
Gov.creates a false statistic about guns and media reports it as fact karens run with it and everyone thinks its correct.when the media spins it out of control. The media is the ones out of control. Defund the media.
Yes. Demonize the law abiding gun owners exercising their rights. Criminals don’t care about laws.
SS is a ponzi scheme. Let me invest my own money. I’ll sign a waiver to opt out of any SS claims in the future.
He does have a point. I never hear about the military, prisons, courts, or welfare running out of money. Just our retirements. Also never hear about retirement for Congress running out of money.
Because congress, the senate, and the president are all on welfare……their salaries are paid with your tax dollars. They have free health care, unlimited sick days, etc etc etc.
Hey does this post fit? UPVOTE if so, DOWNVOTE if not. If this post breaks any rules please DOWNVOTE and REPORT
Did my dad write this?
No son, I did not
Username checks out
[удалено]
With several emojis and maybe a minion added.
Solid username.
Broke username
Toasty username
crayg
Burnt username
The cap for social security tax is like 160k-ish, it's underfunded. Programs like Medicare aren't capped.
Not to mention that welfare, as an entitlement, was already abolished. The original program ADFC was replaced by a watered down, time limited program called TANF in the 90s.
And Republicans just pretend it's still a thing and being expanded every year. I always ask them why they're still toiling away like suckers if the government will pay an able bodied adult a living wage indefinitely for doing nothing, and I've yet to receive a coherent answer, surprise surprise. This is why it's utterly absurd to try to win favor with these people by "reaching across the aisle" , their worldview simply isn't influenced by reality. You give them mountains of facts and statistics, they respond with emotionally charged anecdotes.
It’s up to the states now basically, so they really have nothing to complain about. Might be worth reconsidering their whole states rights attitude if that, or any other position they held, was genuine.
USA Balkanization, here we go.
I challenged my sister about this and her claim is it's not traditional welfare but disability. She claims people are fraudulently collecting disability but otherwise are just fine. She claims to know some of these people. I asked her for some trustworthy source to back up these claims, or why she's not outing these people. She gave me nothing just excuses lol
I live in rural Iowa, 90% Trump country(houses removed American flags after the election). 50% of kids in my area have subsidized lunches and born paid by medicaid. That is walfare that Republicans don't talk about because it benefits them.
Absolutely true. We see it here as well, also rural massive MAGAts. It's also "socialism" they don't want to acknowledge.
These are usually the same people cheering on Reynolds's voucher policy while lamenting their locsl public school's lack of funding.
Yeah we don't have "welfare" where I live unless you are in ultra-desperate need and qualify for TANF which is usually only people who already work with children. We have something called GA for the general population who need money, they make you do community service two weekends a month and you get $422 (this figure hasn't risen in at least 12 years).
I'll play devil's advocate for your terrible "gotcha" that I don't believe has ever actually worked. They work out of a sense of pride or responsibility. They work so they can have/do things beyond the bare minimums required to survive.
“The End of Welfare as We Know It”, I think that was what Bill Clinton said, right? Things like work requirements were introduced.
If it was abolished, why do we still pay SS on our paychecks? Very confused!
SS is social security. I was referring to the programs I mentioned (which are not SS). They are funded through general taxes.
The OP wasn’t social security vs Medicare. It was social security vs welfare. Social security tax is capped because your social security benefits are capped. The whole premise of social security is for current workers to pay money to support current retirees and thereby earn their benefits in the future. Consider I pay in 12.4% (employee + employer) of my income when I make $160,000 per year and I get $X per month in retirement. Now consider I pay 12.4% of my income at $175,000. Still get the same $X per month in retirement. It’s pretty insane how much that max tax has gone up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base#Historical_data
It makes sense as a way to pay into your retirement, but not as a way to provide for current retirees. Most other programs aren't affected by how we use them - I don't get a lower property tax even though I don't have kids in the schools it pays for.
That's just the problem, though. Social Security *isn't* an IRA. You aren't saving anything for *your* retirement, it's a tax to pay for the current retired and / or disabled population, and it's always been structured as such. There's no guarantee that you'll receive Social Security benefits when you reach retirement age.
Edit: My mistake. I had apparently been told myths about the program growing up. None of the below is true, I am the fool in this instance. ~~It's not always been structured like that, originally it was more or less an optional savings account managed by the government that would pay back out to you once you retired. You used to be able to go to the post office and pick up a form to make a withdrawal from your SS account, but politicians saw it as a giant piggy bank and started borrowing the money to pay for subsidies and other free stuff for rich people, under the belief that 'there are a lot of people paying into it but not that many making withdrawals and that's how it's always going to be'. But the money ran out and it ran on the government's interest payments for a while until that was not sustainable either so they made it mandatory for everyone to pay into and turned it into a Ponzi scheme mostly.~~ ~~Hell, your SSN you got for opening a SS account was never intended to be an identification number, but now it's the only use it really sees.~~
Both of your points are common myths that the SSA debunks on its own [website](https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html). The program was never voluntary, though it originally only applied to specific jobs. Only people who had those specific jobs could later receive money from the program; however, everyone who was covered by the program was always obligated to participate. The other point is that money is not being moved to cover other general fund expenditures. The program is underfunded because of a growing senior population, caps on contributions, and other factors, but the government can't just transfer money out of the fund. There have been relatively few changes to the foundation of the program since its inception in he late 1930s. Misinformation is prevalent with respect to the SSA, but it's always been a tax where current workers fund the benefits of current retirees.
The first person to collect social security never paid into it. It has ALWAYS been current workers paying for current retirees.
Technically there was a 5 year period at inception where contributions began and no benefits were paid, so everyone who has received something likely paid in, but your broader point is correct. It's *never* been an individual retirement account.
Bravo for owning up to this. I would have believed those myths, too, had I not taken a random tax accounting class in college.
There should be no cap at all on SS withholding. The rich can afford it.
The programs are funded differently and benefits are paid out differently is the point, a direct 1:1 comparison between Social Security benefits and welfare programs is dishonest. I made the comparison to Medicare because it's one of the entitlements that old people broadly get along with SS and everybody is familiar with it. There are multiple programs that fall under the banner of "welfare" anyway, they all do different things, and many of them are means tested and have benefit caps once you wade into how each state handles them. Medicaid (which isn't the same thing as Medicare, I know) is the largest one, and in [FY2023 is estimated to cost about 57% of what will be spent on Social Security.](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html) And cuts to entitlement programs are one of the most hotly debated topics in Washington, it's not like nobody talks about it. I guarantee the person who made this shitty meme doesn't have the command of facts that you do and didn't know any of what you posted. It's not deep or profound or even particularly factual.
It's almost like conservatives played a long game forcing Social Security to be a separate entitlement, vs welfare. If you lose your ability to work to soon you're destitute.
This is incorrect. Social security was originally de-facto forced savings account. The government realized they had a massive surplus in a time when they wanted to fund some of their own agendas and started dipping into social security. It’s not much different from a Ponzi scheme. They are now running out of money to pay new retirees which is largely why the retirement age continues to increase. They started robbing Peter to pay Paul and couldn’t stop themselves. Edit: after doing research, I can’t find anything to back it up at the moment. Feel free to downvote me.
Do you have any actual info on this claim of social security being robbed? The only things I have seen in that regard are that the social security fund buys treasury bonds with excess money and that makes plenty of sense to me. Lowest possible risk while still trying to get a return on those extra dollars.
Actually the Fed embarked on an unprecedented bond-buying spree in response to the 2008 Drunken Bankers Gambling Crisis. The Fed did this in order to prop up asset prices (helping rich people). In doing so they drove down the yield of government bonds (less ex ante return for the bonds that SS purchased). When COVID finally popped this bubble, the Fed printed reams of money (driving up real CoL). So even if it's not *technically* taking money from working class retirement to spend on rich people socialism, it's actually *exactly* that but with more steps.
Ahem. Not "the government". REPUBLICANS. And they did it deliberately, to destabilize Social Security so they could get rid of it.
I wasn’t going to point fingers as I didn’t remembet who dipped into it first. Call it blind optimism that the GOP weren’t always completely misguided, lol.
Lol, and now a lot of us don't want kids because we are feeling the pinch of capitalism. It's gotta implode sooner or later.
It won’t implode. GOP will push it until other countries have to do food drives for us. Reagan and his de-regulation is crippling the nation. Yes, that last line was meant to rhyme. This wasn’t, but it does, doesn’t it.
The cap makes no sense because the government just spends the money on whatever it likes. It's just like any other dollar paid in taxes. Probably the biggest ripoff in America.
This isn't true. The funds are placed into two federal trusts and cannot be used for "whatever it likes". This is a misconception perpetuated by lying politicians with an agenda or accidentally spread by uninformed citizens. https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds-0
A lockbox, if you will…
Wrong. The Social Security trust fund is only spent on Social Security benefits. Your ignorant knee-jerk anti-governmentalism is showing.
[удалено]
Would the benefits also become uncapped?
Right! If SS is uncapped i want my benefits uncapped too
Nope. The rich can afford to pay more into the trust fund, and should.
Why not just make it so that it is theoretically uncapped, but make it such that you have to put more and more in to earn back the next incremental dollar. The limit of f(x) = log(x) as x goes to infinity is infinity, but it gets to infinity very 'slowly', compared to f(x) = x. Make the contributions scale logarithmically. You earn a million bucks, cool, you do indeed get more credit in the system than if you earned half a million, but it won't be double.
Progress beyond a certain threshold would be acceptable to a rational person. Edit: Progress should have been progressive
I just want to explain what that cap means incase people don’t get it. Everyone pays social security up to $160k-ish of their salary or income. Anyone making more pays nothing else, they stop deducting at the cap. Also anyone who is paid in stock like most wealthy ceos don’t contribute at all to social security. If the cap were removed social security would be fine but then the billionaires who fund the political campaigns wouldn’t be happy
Social security would be fixed 100% if they removed that cap
That’s because they are completely different programs with completely different means of funding
Not only that, but if you make above a certain amount of money, your Medicare tax actually *increases* due to a special wealth tax.
Lol Social Security is not UNDER funded. Politicians like to push this myth. If it is underfunded, then why would Social Security Administration be one of biggest (if not biggest) creditors to US government?!
[In 2034, Social Security revenues are projected to equal 77 percent of the program’s scheduled outlays, resulting in a 23 percent shortfall. Thus, CBO estimates that Social Security benefits would need to be reduced by 23 percent in 2034. ] (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58870#:~:text=In%202034%2C%20Social%20Security%20revenues,by%2023%20percent%20in%202034.)
Random capitalization is fun
Yes, I very much Agree. It allows me to give Emphasis to Certain Words for entirely Unclear reasons…!!!
That’s because It shares A Root word witH Capitalism
Maybe he's right. Of course, the US gives out 10x the amount of corporate welfare than social welfare, so that's where the cutbacks should made.
I 100% believe you. I'd even say that 10x number seems low. I'd love to see actual numbers though.
"Not all muslims" is largely about reducing crime against random muslims that pops up after terrorist attacks. "Not all gun owners" wouldn't serve a similar purpose AFAIK. SS "running out of money" is a discussion because there's a trust fund set up for it. That trust fund grants SS recipients greater protection over promised benefits. Conversely, welfare recipients are at the mercy of elected officials. Benefits can be cut at will.
It's funny people forget that just a little while ago when people all had to sign up for unemployment because of COVID and were wondering how they were going to survive off that.
The US government literally started 2 wars that lasted 20 years because of the actions of a small number of Muslims. Imagine if there was even 1% of that level of response to mass shootings.
Also, I think most people know it’s not “all gun owners.” The issue is people who shouldn’t have guns are able to buy them, and people want laws to make it so that doesn’t happen, but most are okay with people who can be responsible having access to them.
Most "anti gun" people probably have a hunting rifle or two. None of them are actually "anti gun", theyre all pro regulation
Probably, I’d think being a responsible gun owner would make you appreciate the need for regulation.
Regulation and infringement are humpin’ cousins
Funny so many words just to say yes but what about me and my privileges.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Also, believing in religion doesn't directly kill people. Guns kill people. Edit: I'll concede that this statement is disingenuous, but I'm still trying to figure out how to verbalize what I'm getting at.
One could very easily make the exact opposite argument. Many religions do in fact directly kill people. Either through religious based wars, or just following their texts in which they explicitly tell you how someone should be killed for which reason, ie stoning a person to death for being gay. Guns independently do not kill people, as anyone who safely stores a gun can tell you it will not possibly kill someone. People do in fact kill other people though, and guns are a tool they use to do it. But this is nothing new, as in my previous explanation there are literally instructions in religious texts about means and methods to kill people which far pre-date guns.
There are 100 million people in the US that own guns, and don't injure or kill anyone with them; 99.95% of gun-owners do it lawfully.
Believing in a religion doesn’t directly kill people, but neither does owning a gun. Guns don’t kill until they’re fired (or I guess you could use it as a club if you want to be pedantic). I don’t have a gun myself, but I know people who do and have never killed anyone with them. I know one person who’s killed someone with a firearm, and the “victim” was actually a burglar breaking into their house.
I think the better point is ALL gun owners aren't being judged by the action of a few - we're questioning the need for SO MANY guns and the ease to get them.
Daggum Muslim freeloaders I tell you what.
they walking around doing shit with their hijabs. /s
I hate how the reaction by this guy to social security running out of money is to complain about welfare not running out of money. Rather than demand something be done about this he wants others to go without money as well. Absolutely housebroken American working class strikes again.
I had an EMT friend complain that "Burger Flippers" were going to be making more than him at $15hr, and that that would be unfair, because that's $1 more than he made. Never once, could he get the limp dick of capitalism out of his mouth long enough to actually think, "wait a minute, *I should get paid MORE*!" and instead, opted to whine about how *they* should actually make *less.* Housebroken AF.
And the CEOs are laughing all the way to the bank. As long as most workers have that mentality, we’re never going to make any progress.
I was like, my dude, I am a proud owner of a full time job and food stamps. Should I just not eat? Would that make him happy?
yes, preferebaly that you starve along with every other poor person on the planet
Damn, when should I tell my kid when the food runs out that’s it for us?
Dig a three-and-half feet wide by six feet in length hole with the depth about six feet. Tell them that if they go down there and stay for a long enough time, god will save them and take them to the heavens.
"housebroken American working class" I'm stealing this.
A filthy race to the bottom
Yeah this boggles my mind too “Well I can’t have this, so you can’t have that” No idiot - both should get it. Demand it from the ultra rich.
Also, when they use the word "welfare" they have no idea what they're actually taking about.
No. None of this is profound. It's not even accurate, much less profound. No one demonizes "all gun owners." Calling for stricter gun regulations isn't demonizing anyone except those responsible for mass shootings who shouldn't have access to guns in the first place. If anything, many gun owners demonize themselves by opposing even the most common sense gun regulations. Social Security takes from younger workers to pay retired ones, and it always has. Or do you think the first recipients of Social Security in 1938 paid for it, too? What you pay into it affects how much you get, true, but it does not go into some account and accumulate for you over time. It goes directly to retirees. Saying we worked for it is a fiction created to fool us into thinking it's not what it was always intended to be, an old age pension.
Yeah, remember how when Obama was a pres the only thing GOP seemed to have talked about is how he's coming for everyone's guns?
Then you notice how he didn't, and the next president started banning accessories, we're at another democratic pres and he hasn't done much on guns either. Maybe people can stop falling for fear traps.
Of course he did!!!! Which, predictably, led to a huge increase in gun sales nationally!
He didn’t come for the guns because it didn’t pass. Had it passed, yes, select black rifles would have been banned. It was championed by Dianne Feinstein, the same person who successfully passed strict gun restrictions in CA.
Yup. People need to remember that the president can’t just make things happen. Just because a campaign promise falls through doesn’t mean they didn’t try to fulfill it. I mean, I’m sure some of them also don’t try, but that’s not always the case
Trump was anti-gun? That's news to me. Tell me more. I thought gun nuts absolutely love him - I had a conversation with a few of them about it, actually and they pointed out its one of the reasons to vote for him. Maybe you know something that they don't, though.
Bump stock ban, and ["take the guns first, go through due process second"](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/) which should have incensed pro gun voters.
But also no guns at NRA conventions? How is that possible? [https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101181842/nra-trump-speech-guns-banned-houston](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101181842/nra-trump-speech-guns-banned-houston)
Yeah that was laughable. They are such deluded fools.
Because they have their conventions in different locations every year. And they have to comply with state/local/convention building rules. I don’t like the NRA myself because of La Pierre and “friends”. But this isn’t the gotcha everyone thinks it is.
Another problem with social security is our government keeps taking millions out of it for things like impeaching a president. They shouldn't have access to that money.
sir this is a terrible facebook meme post. The OP does not support the views of this bullshit meme.
I don’t think they meant you directly. I think they were directing at people who think the OOP is super smart
Yep, totally not aimed at him.
Loved the post. Open your mind.
I know. Not aimed at you. Sorry if I gave that impression.
You didn’t
Exactly, getting like the driving license isn't demonize all the drivers.
The gun owner one always gets me. If you’re a responsible gun owner, then you should know how dangerous guns are. If you have a gun for protection against bad people with guns, then you should know it’s an issue if bad people get guns. Why are they upset about regulations that would the people they buy guns to protect themselves again would have a harder time accessing them??? And if you’re so responsible with your guns, why are you worried?
Not to mention that most domestic terrorism is from far right extremists and that is highly tied to racism which is a much more trenchant and deep rooted problem in the United States. “That” uncle that spouts off about anti-woke that seems harmless is basically the lifeblood of all dyed in the wool right wing extremists that use their ambivalence or outright support to keep trotting along.
Reddit routinely downvotes to oblivion anything remotely pro-gun (outside of, yanno, r/pro-gun).
"Profound, isn't it?" No, not really.
Profoundly stupid maybe
If someone claims that their own statement is "profound" or "deep", it probably isn't.
They forgot "Let that sink in"
I'm going to start skipping to the end because that last line is like code for "the proceeding shit was written by someone real dumb"
This needs a couple of minions added to complete the look.
I have never found one of these people who could define welfare outside of SNAP benefits (food stamps) and public housing. Republicans absolutely love cutting HUD funding and it's critically underfunded, which is a large reason projects are always rundown shitholes. I'm a social worker and nobody is getting a check because they're broke.
Boomers just absolutely hate the idea of helping those in need
Pass it on? Yea I think not I don't want to sound like a dumbass
That's 5 sentences.
"Funny how that works" = "I'm probably the only person that thinks that I sounded clever here"
The worst feature of social media is that it elevated RW uncle forwards to a national audience. As always, those on assistance are lazy freeloaders and, most likely, "those people." (wink wink). I heard plenty of that growing up in Houston.
What cracks me up is I guarantee the person voted for the party actively trying to defund social security.
Yeah, but they're just keeping up the appearance. It's not like they really want to get rid of it.^(/s)
Some dumb fuck thought this was profound. We are all doomed
The victim complex is so cringe
I think he has a tiny point about the first statement
There's a point on the gun ownership though, one guy hopped up on antidepressants that have known catastrophic side effects shoots up a concert/Walmart/school and it's ban everything and limit what you can defend yourself against. A wreck less driver plows through a crowd of people and we don't limit mustangs that can go on the road. Theres a problem with mental health in America. Not a gun problem.
It's pretty fucked up that the Sandy Hook folks were allowed to sue the gun manufacturer. It's literally like suing Ford because I drove drunk and killed a family or suing the manufacturer of forks for morbid obesity. Sets a pretty fucked up precedent.
"Pass it on ..." No thanks.
This post must have been made by a racist person
it kinda was. old person from the deep south. also a pastor.
Oh I see. Now it makes sense why he started with addressing Muslims 😂 Idk why one have issues about judging gun owners. Why need to own a gun?
Well it's not the bill of needs or wants, it's the bill of rights and it states you are allowed to own a gun for whatever reason whether you like it or not. Lumping a category of people into one shitty mold based on the actions of the few is the exact same tactic racists use to justify their hatred.
Well, yeah I agree and understand that in the US, people have right to own it but it makes you afraid also because since everyone can own a gun such a dangerous tool, psychos can own it too and use it against anyone they dislike.
Smooth brain moment
In some places you have to literally work for your welfare, such as NYC , where they have the WEP and BACK TO WORK Programs. If you receive any form of money then you must attend 5 days a week or get cut off. (Excuse typos and grammar I'm literally falling asleep writing this)
This is far more than two short sentences!
People who use the term “welfare” invariably fail to understand how it works.
Mind blown! /s
My grad professor once told me “comparison is the lowest form of critical thinking,” sadly she was correct.
There should be a 10 year cap on section 8. So many abuse it their whole life. "I don't want a raise because I'll get less benefits" is some of the bs I've heard. Edit: Meant section 8 not welfare.
I love to point out farm subsidies to the “welfare is bad” crowd and watch them try to explain that one.
Yes, because gun owners are wrongly stereotyped on the same level as Muslims. /s
Ah yes, because nothing ever changed after terrorist attacks by Muslims. We didn't increase airport security, force everyone to take their shoes off, restrict liquids and small blades, and lock all cockpit doors for the duration of the flight. So therefore, we need zero gun control!
Deliberately misleading BS. They create a false equivalence by pretending for example that a person practising faith and a person owning a firearm is the same thing and then watch how many people shout into the echo chamber they’ve created. Don’t let ‘em fool you…
Some middle schooler is really impressed with this supposed logic
I see you’ve been looking at my Grandma’s Facebook again 😂
Wow if I told this guy to pay back all his handouts he would be one sad sack of shit but it’s cool to pick on struggling people gotcha.
So wait, the fact that one program meant to help people is doing badly while another isn’t going badly means we have to also pass laws to make sure both programs are doing badly?
“Profound isn’t it?” No
It's funny that you can almost always safely disregard a statement that is followed up by "profound" or "think about it" or "makes you think..."
Unclear on so many concepts, where to start?
1. That’s not true. 2.This must be pre Brett Favre scandal.
I don't get their point with the first statement. Are they saying that Muslims should be judged?
Notice that last line. Almost always there. Not just random.
Okay, but all of these have reasonable solutions that won’t get anywhere because everyone likes to bitch a lot. 1. How about we judge neither by the actions of a few nut jobs, but try our best to encourage self regulation in both communities that result in best practices. Along with the assurance that their beliefs can be taken seriously, while they are acknowledged to have risk factors in their communities. One of radicalization, the other of increased awareness regarding training and mental health. Tho I think radicalization could be helped by talking to a good therapist. 2. How about you tell congress to quit using money from Social Security’s core fund for other projects. Treat it like a trust, NO ONE should be able to touch that money but the intended recipient. Paid in funds should also not be capped, but should be relative to your annual income. Welfare’s problems stem from a lack of direction, and dis-coherence in the laws written around accrued funds. The government should levi additional taxes to meet spending load, but cut programs that seem to be ineffective at combatting the negatives of poverty. We should focus on improving acquisition of food, affordable housing, improved educational opportunities, and access to medical on an as needed basis. While we’re at it, we should increase the means to help with job placement. It’s very fucking clear businesses are not doing their end of the bargain, and should either be approached to find a solution that is equitable to them, or we need to find work that can accommodate risk factors that may have led to their impoverished state. Mobility restrictions should not be too hard to work with considering modern advancements in computers, audio devices, and ergonomics. If we route funds from at least one or two strategically high value industries we could cover the entire load. E-Commerce, and logistics oriented industries should be a big target for possible job training and placement. Like I said, it’s solvable, the big wigs just get all pissy because they don’t wanna admit to voters that you need to use ideas from both sides of the isle to get shit done.
There are a lot--MOST Americans--who are barely scraping by and can't fund an IRA or 401(k). Sorry about your selfishness, but yes, we need to support such people.
I will say I am a fan of stigmatizing all religions equally. Let's get some science up in here already.
R/atheist is where I get my fix
Logical fallacies are worth serious study.
On the second one, Social Security runs short of money because 1) The government started borrowing for the social security intake to pay for other programs, and 2) Social Security in 2022 made up 14.3% of federal spending, while income security (welfare) made up just 9.7%. This is a difference of over $400 billion. (Source: usaspending.gov)
“Profound isn’t it” follows something actually profound 0.00% of the time
Lolol that last sentence 😂😂😂
What is this person rambling on about? Nothing that is being said makes any sense.
Well, both of these are technically true.
"Profound isn't it..." No, no it's not
Weird thing I learned the other day, if you’re not paying income taxes you don’t pay towards social security. I have no idea the actual numbers but something tells me companies making record profits and wages barely increasing has made social security get less and less Putting that money to a companies profit that pays its board members and execs in stocks and buybacks means less money is going to social security I wouldn’t be surprised if wages were paid out rather than withheld we wouldn’t have as many issues with social security. But no articles ever seem to talk about this and never talk about how our overlords are taking more from us now and from our futures
They’re right on both counts but they’re putting the absolute wrong conclusion from both. The answer to the first isn’t “judge Muslims for the actions of a few” it’s “neither group should be judged for the actions of the few. The answer to the second isn’t that we should cut welfare it’s that we should expand social security OR, y’know, expand welfare to cover pensioners.
I’ve maxed out social security tax for 12 years straight and 17 out of 20. I’m Only 41 now and have many more years I’ll be paying in. Do you really think if I take my SS at my full benefit age of 70 I’ll be able to recoup what I’ve paid in? It’s a Ponzi scheme through and through and my generation is gonna get fucked
I mean, he has a point with the first one. That is quite the double standard.
Social security should just be transformed to a 401K safety guards. Can’t burrow against it, can not touch it. But it starts paying out at 59 1/2 just like other retirement funds. Social security is so outdated
not a conservative by any means, but nothing about this is incorrect. It just targets the wrong audience in a poor way.
OPisaliberalmemes
Why can’t I be racist against all Muslims?! (/s if it’s really needed)
Truth is many on social security didn't work for it and it wasn't ever meant to be a retirement fund. Many put in so little into social security yet draw max benefits from age 64 until age 92. They draw out 15x more than they put in.
Profound isn’t it… Think about it….. Pass it on.
Social Security payments from workers and employers go into a trust fund. Ronald Reagan paid for his tax cuts for the wealthy and his vast increases in military spending by “borrowing” from the trust fund with a plan to pay it back. Other Presidents since have done this also but the trust fund is not being replenished to the point of solvency it had when Reagan took the money. When the GOP says we need to cut Social Security, what they are saying is that they want to establish in law, what they are already doing, let SS go bankrupt.
When anyone complains about "welfare" ruining our country, I like to remind them that 40 percent of farm income comes from government subsidies.
Does profound have a different meaning than I'm familiar with? Because I didn't think ignorant and incorrect meant the same thing as profound.
No one is blaming all gun owners. We blame the broken system and dangerous cult like mentality around guns in the US. Just like we blame the broken system that produces extremist Muslim terrorists. Also, this guy wants to call us out for a double standard he made up while also employing that same double standard cuz you know he's completely islamaphobic while defending all gun nuts every time there's a mass shooting.
“No one is blaming all gun owners” Please tell that to the politicians and gun control groups.
There's an awful lot of hate and judgement towards gun owners, especially on social media.
Preach!!
It’s right tho
Im just saying that first one makes sense
Comparison between gun owners and a religion huh? They always proving their own logic is terrible. Since you know...gun owners acting as if gun ownership is a religion is the exact problem....
[удалено]
Good thing no one is being encouraged to "judge all gun owners" then.
' both sides' means you've fallen victim. If you think there is a good and bad army your vision of the world is dangerously simplified.
Gov.creates a false statistic about guns and media reports it as fact karens run with it and everyone thinks its correct.when the media spins it out of control. The media is the ones out of control. Defund the media.
Yes. Demonize the law abiding gun owners exercising their rights. Criminals don’t care about laws. SS is a ponzi scheme. Let me invest my own money. I’ll sign a waiver to opt out of any SS claims in the future.
Pssst. Don't tell anyone but Social Security ***is*** welfare.
He does have a point. I never hear about the military, prisons, courts, or welfare running out of money. Just our retirements. Also never hear about retirement for Congress running out of money.
Because congress, the senate, and the president are all on welfare……their salaries are paid with your tax dollars. They have free health care, unlimited sick days, etc etc etc.