If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not sure what is dumber, MTG saying an elementary school in IL spent 5.1 billion in Covid funds on DEI training or DeSantis proposing a budget that eliminates the sales tax on gas stoves.

The GOP has nothing other than greivances.

The gas stove thing still blows my mind. They are bad for health. One government official mentioned in an offhand way that maybe we should discourage their use. And that is all it took for them to become a right wing cultural flashpoint. It’s amazing.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The gas stove thing still blows my mind. They are bad for health. One government official mentioned in an offhand way that maybe we should discourage their use. And that is all it took for them to become a right wing cultural flashpoint. It’s amazing.

The Biden administration seriously needs to start using this against these wackos. Just start rumors about banning things you want people to use.

[Ghost Econ]

I hope they tell us to burn our pants, these things are driving me nuts.

The Simpsons - Don't You Hate Pants!? - YouTube

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The Biden administration seriously needs to start using this against these wackos. Just start rumors about banning things you want people to use.

Like: "don't inject bleach, it will kill you".

[Lathum]

Shes a cartoon character.

Lauren Boebert Dismayed Americans Only Own 46 Percent of World's Firearms

[Lathum]

dola- she also was complaining that she was disarmed on 1/6 because of rules regarding firearms on the floor. She said the doors were shaking nd she didn't know what was on the other side and it was the first time she couldn't defend herself. Glad she is finally admitting it was a violent mob.

[Ksyrup]

She has a point though. For all the shootings and stuff, you'd think we had at least 75%.

To Atocep's point, someone ought to use this type of stuff against the GOP. Like, pointing out that despite the fact the US owns less than half the guns, other nations don't seem to have the same issues we do with random mass shootings on the daily and asking the rhetorical question, "Gee, I wonder why?".

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- she also was complaining that she was disarmed on 1/6 because of rules regarding firearms on the floor. She said the doors were shaking nd she didn't know what was on the other side and it was the first time she couldn't defend herself. Glad she is finally admitting it was a violent mob.

And that she would have shot Ashlee Babbitt given the opportunity.

See, this turning shit around on crazy people is really not that hard!

[albionmoonlight]

Pence calls for Social Security reform, private savings accounts

Not sure quite where to put this. It is almost cute in a way. Mike Pence is trying to gain some traction in the GOP pre-primary by floating wonky Social Security reform ideas. Like this is 1988 or something.

[NobodyHere]

Personally I wish I could opt out of Social Security and get everything back I've put into it, plus interest.

[PilotMan]

So you're ok with little old ladies begging for food on the street corner?

or

What we really ought to do is completely cut people off from Medicare once they've reach the exact amount they've contributed. That ought to make for some panicky news media coverage. (knowing that the vast majority of people who live long enough will far outstrip the amount they've ever put in, and with no system that allows for the elderly to opt out of life, and the new standard of care is to prolong life at all costs, we should see interesting results in short order)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Personally I wish I could opt out of Social Security and get everything back I've put into it, plus interest.

It's a debate to have.

But the GOP electorate is not the place to have it.

Pence had every opportunity to keep the GOP as a place where one could have high end policy discussions.

And, like so many others, he sat there while it went full MAGA.

He's not putting the genie back into the bottle.

[Ksyrup]

If he decided to straddle the fence about going full anti-Trumper after being the subject of a mob assassination attempt on the grand idea of running for President on an old-style GOP platform, that's ... an odd and ineffectual decision.

[thesloppy]

In my mind one of the GOP's biggest victories over the last 50 years was convincing senior citizens that they were protectors of Social Security, while openly attacking the other corners of the safety net, so I am kind of dumbfounded that multiple GOP leaders keep trying to drag it into the limelight.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Personally I wish I could opt out of Social Security and get everything back I've put into it, plus interest.

As a whole, people get far more out of SS than they put in.

I think it was in the early 2000’s where there was proposal to put some/part of SS into the stock market. I’m all for it but there needs to be a mechanism to prevent panic during a crash, recession etc. If we did this back then, we prob would have delayed the pending 2035-2040 crisis by X more years.

[GrantDawg]

See, the funny thing is that pending crisis was supposed to be in 2010. Then 2020. I remember distinctly over and over again the claim that Social Security would be bankrupt in 10 years....in 1999.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[flere-imsaho]

1999? I could swear I remember Reagan using it as a scare tactic.

[Edward64]

Er, isn’t that when retirement age was changed, phased from 65 to 67?

I’ll probably be grandfathered in, so feel free to up it to 69.

To your point, things change. We did lose 900k+ of people currently/near eligible for SS so maybe Covid bought us some time.

Sounds like you guys are saying SS (or Medicare) isn’t really in trouble?

[GrantDawg]

Social Security is in way more danger from Republicans than running out of funds. It is more a fear tactic than anything real.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Social Security is in way more danger from Republicans than running out of funds. It is more a fear tactic than anything real.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

There are volumes of links that says SS will be only able to afford approx 75% by 2035-2040 if nothing is done. I’m pretty sure this is a fact regardless of party affiliation.

If your stance is something bipartisan will be done to shore it up, I agree. But the problem is very real and the shoring up will come at a ‘cost’ to many people e.g. delaying retirement age, increasing or eliminating payroll tax cap etc.

If you don’t think this is real, please post a link. I would be very interested in reading a different POV and rationale.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

There are volumes of links that says SS will be only able to afford approx 75% by 2035-2040 if nothing is done. I’m pretty sure this is a fact regardless of party affiliation.

If your stance is something bipartisan will be done to shore it up, I agree. But the problem is very real and the shoring up will come at a ‘cost’ to many people e.g. delaying retirement age, increasing or eliminating payroll tax cap etc.

If you don’t think this is real, please post a link. I would be very interested in reading a different POV and rationale.

Nope, not interested in arguing with you about it. There are dozens of easy fixes, and the only real danger is the GOP purposely destroying it.

[flere-imsaho]

Literally the first link, when searching for "How to fix Social Security", from Forbes, no less: How To Fix Social Security – Forbes Advisor

And, as I know we've discussed here before, the most blindingly obvious of the fixes:

Increase taxable maximum. Only the first $142,800 of a worker’s earnings is subject to the 12.4% in Social Security taxes. Every dollar after that gets off scott free. This is why many refer to payroll taxes as regressive. The current arrangement means that roughly 85% of wages are subject to taxes. By increasing that to 90% of wages, or removing the cap altogether, Social Security’s finances could be improved.

There are a wide range of fixes that can (and will) be done to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent, but if you're expecting Congress to do something bipartisan about it now, when the problem is 10+ years in the future, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Speaking of bipartisanship, Republicans have been trying to privatize or eliminate the Social Security program since it was created. Don't be fooled by any GOP rhetoric that they want to fix Social Security, they want to eliminate it. Exactly how do you compromise with them to fix it, given that starting point?

And why? Well, the GOP has long been about shrinking or eliminating government programs they don't like, and their think tanks have long worked on strategy to do that, for example this piece, written by co-authors from Cato & Heritage.

The question, then, about what to do about the solvency of the Social Security program, is a philosophical one. Democrats who originally enacted the Social Security program, and Democrats now, believe in its utility as a way to ensure that people can retire in old age regardless of the economic success or failure of their working lives. Republicans believe that you should live off of what you were able to earn, save, and invest. One of these approaches leaves large parts of society behind, economically, and one doesn't. One greatly benefits high wage-earners, and one benefits all wage-earners. One dramatically increases wealth inequality and one doesn't. I could go on, but you can see the facts in black-and-white by looking at the median & mean retirement savings (not Social Security, obviously, but all other retirement vehicles like IRAs & 401ks) by net income, race, etc... here.

And don't believe the pablum about how individual investors could see a greater rate of return were they able to invest the money that would have gone to Social Security payroll taxes. Americans are, in general, financially illiterate. How many are going to put that money into the latest YOLO stock instead of an index fund? And let's say you make it like most 401k plans, with a staid selection of mutual funds, well, that'll benefit the very financial institutions who have been lobbying for social security privatization for decades (to say nothing of businesses wanting a back-door tax cut through the elimination of the payroll tax - of which they pay half). But, of course, if all that lost investment gains were really their concern, it could be easily remedied by putting the entire trust fund itself into an index fund. The fact that the GOP doesn't suggest this, of course, illustrates their real aims.

So, in conclusion, GrantDawg is correct. Republicans have long been attempting to kill Social Security and this latest round of fear-mongering over its future solvency is just another iteration. I mean, this is a party that currently looks A-OK with having the U.S. government default on their loans. You think they're legitimately interested in "fixing" Social Security?

[Lathum]

I am all for raising the cap, but removing it all together is a hard pass for me. People who are super high earners, in the several millions should have to pay more, but I think if you make a few hundred thousand or a little more, especially in an area where the cost of living is higher, you shouldn't be punished for being successful.

[flere-imsaho]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but super high earners only pay more if the cap is removed. It's not a cap on how much tax you pay, but on how much of your income is subject to tax.

Currently, if I make $140,000, all of my income is subject to the tax (I'd pay $17,360). Currently, if I make $2,500,000, only the first $142,800 I make is subject to the tax (I'd pay $17,707).

Remove the cap and those tax numbers are $17,360 and $310,000, respectively.

It's pretty regressive.

[flere-imsaho]

dola, well - it is also a cap on how much tax you pay, but that's a byproduct of it being a cap on how much of your income is subject to tax.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but super high earners only pay more if the cap is removed. It's not a cap on how much tax you pay, but on how much of your income is subject to tax.

Currently, if I make $140,000, all of my income is subject to the tax (I'd pay $17,360). Currently, if I make $2,500,000, only the first $142,800 I make is subject to the tax (I'd pay $17,707).

Remove the cap and those tax numbers are $17,360 and $310,000, respectively.

It's pretty regressive.

Right. Maybe I'm not explaining it well. For us, starting the first paycheck of the year it is $900 less than the last one in December. So every month we get $1800 less until we reach the cap, roughly sometime in June-July ( I'm obviously rounding a bit but you get it). After that we basically get a $1800/month "raise."

I am fine with a higher cap and having to pay a bit more, but I would not be a fan of removing the cap all together as that would effect us financially. Not in any way we couldn't manage, but I feel like it would be a bit of a burden on the people who make good money, but not "vacation house in Vale" money.

does that make sense?

[PilotMan]

*Vail

[Lathum]

Obviously I'm not in that category...

[flere-imsaho]

Presumably Vail is in a vale, though, right?

[flere-imsaho]

Lathum - what if it was a progressive tax like income tax, with brackets & whatnot?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Nope, not interested in arguing with you about it. There are dozens of easy fixes, and the only real danger is the GOP purposely destroying it.

I agree there are fixes and it will get fixed before 2035’ish but dispute they are easy fixes.

… But the problem is very real and the shoring up will come at a ‘cost’ to many people e.g. delaying retirement age, increasing or eliminating payroll tax cap etc.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but super high earners only pay more if the cap is removed. It's not a cap on how much tax you pay, but on how much of your income is subject to tax.

Currently, if I make $140,000, all of my income is subject to the tax (I'd pay $17,360). Currently, if I make $2,500,000, only the first $142,800 I make is subject to the tax (I'd pay $17,707).

Remove the cap and those tax numbers are $17,360 and $310,000, respectively.

It's pretty regressive.

An article I read said removing caps will fix 75% of the problem but less like 50% (?) if you give the ones taxed more benefits with their increased payroll taxes.

I do agree this is the one I would prioritize (e.g. increasing retirement age, reducing benefits, paying out of general fund).

[Thomkal]

Nope not a cult:


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-say-rcna69060

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

An article I read said removing caps will fix 75% of the problem but less like 50% (?) if you give the ones taxed more benefits with their increased payroll taxes.

So don't do it. Cap the defined benefit at whatever people who made $500,000+/year get (with adjustments for inflation, of course). Anyone making that kind of money has multiple other avenues to sock away money for retirement and you can be they're utilizing those.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So don't do it. Cap the defined benefit at whatever people who made $500,000+/year get (with adjustments for inflation, of course). Anyone making that kind of money has multiple other avenues to sock away money for retirement and you can be they're utilizing those.

So where will the remaining 25% (to maybe 35% if addl benefits up to $500k) gap come from?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So don't do it. Cap the defined benefit at whatever people who made $500,000+/year get (with adjustments for inflation, of course). Anyone making that kind of money has multiple other avenues to sock away money for retirement and you can be they're utilizing those.

We could solve a lot of problems by taking money from people and giving them no benefit in return. But it is completely and totally politically unrealistic. If you get rid of the cap and increase the benefit, you are still helping shore up Social Security, and you at least have some carrot you can use to try to market it to people.

Also, the people this would affect are people who make lots of money via wages and not investments or inheritance. The exact sort of highly-educated suburban high earners that have flocked to the Democrats recently.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

We could solve a lot of problems by taking money from people and giving them no benefit in return. But it is completely and totally politically unrealistic. If you get rid of the cap and increase the benefit, you are still helping shore up Social Security, and you at least have some carrot you can use to try to market it to people.

Also, the people this would affect are people who make lots of money via wages and not investments or inheritance. The exact sort of highly-educated suburban high earners that have flocked to the Democrats recently.

You literally just described us. I would likely vote for a non MAGA republican over a dem who was going to take significantly more of my money with no added benefit in return.

I also think you need to factor in cost of living. A Walmart exec who lives in Fayetteville gets a lot more for their 500K/year than a tech exe living in San Fran or NYC.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So where will the remaining 25% (to maybe 35% if addl benefits up to $500k) gap come from?

I don't think the numbers work out as simply as that.

I've now posted the history of GOP efforts to both kill and scare-monger over social security, and shown with detail and links, why it is not in imminent danger. If you want me to continue to respond to your assertions based off a cursory skimming of headlines, then bring some meat to the table.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

We could solve a lot of problems by taking money from people and giving them no benefit in return.

You say this as if it doesn't already happen. Plenty of my tax money goes towards things from which I get no benefit.

If you want to argue that it's politically not possible, that's fine, but I wasn't making that point. Maybe I should be more clear:

1. The potential scenario where the Social Security Trust Fund runs out of money is 10+ years away. There is no crisis now and if you want to believe that the GOP really has a good-faith effort underway to resolve said future crisis, then this is where we part ways.

2. There are a large number of variables that go into the run down of that Trust Fund, so much so that its demise has been predicted for a wide variety of dates over the past 40 years since Reagan & Co started publicly harping on it (the GOP having decided by that point -- see my links -- that it wasn't going to be possible to kill it in one go).

3. There are a variety of fixes that could be implemented in combination to avert the crisis, should it ever look imminent. All require some sacrifice of some group of Americans. Should a crisis become imminent, I suspect the fixes that will be implemented will likely be those which target the least electorally important of those groups.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't think the numbers work out as simply as that.

I've now posted the history of GOP efforts to both kill and scare-monger over social security, and shown with detail and links, why it is not in imminent danger. .

Your Forbes link says this

It is true that retirees are facing possible benefit cuts if nothing is done to shore up the program’s finances in the next decade or so. But rest assured, Social Security isn’t going anywhere. It will remain the key source of most Americans’ retirement income regardless of whether Congress decides to fix its finances.

And then

Eventually, Social Security’s day will come. When it does, Congress’ options are to increase taxes, decrease benefits, do a little bit of both or simply make up the shortfall with general revenue—paid for with deficit spending.

Don’t know your definition of ‘imminent’ but your article’s ‘in the next decade’ timetable sure sounds imminent to me. It is in danger as evidenced by Forbes detailing what the possible fixes are and adverse impacts to groups of people.

[flere-imsaho]

In a reality-based world where Congress often won't pass a budget until after government shutdowns and one party is fine letting the country default on its debts to score political points, something that may or may not happen in 10+ years is not, by any reasonable definition of the word, "imminent".

[flere-imsaho]

Here are four proposals with overwhelming bipartisan support outside of Congress that completely eliminate the potential shortfall:

Making More Wages Subject to the Payroll Tax: Currently, wages subject to the payroll tax are capped at $147,000. A proposal to additionally make all wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax, was favored by an overwhelming 81% (Republicans 79%, Democrats 88%). This would eliminate 61% of the shortfall.

Increasing the Payroll Tax: 73% (Republicans 70%, Democrats 78%) favored increasing the payroll tax from 6.2 to 6.5%, eliminating 16% of the shortfall.

Raising Retirement Age: 75% (Republicans 75%, Democrats 76%) favored gradually raising the retirement age from 67 to 68, eliminating 14% of the shortfall.

Reducing Benefits for High Earners: 81% (Republicans 78%, Democrats 86%) favored reducing benefits to the top 20% of earners, eliminating 11% of the shortfall. High earners would still get higher benefits than others, but less so.

To go back to what started this: this potential situation is absolutely solvable. One party, who wants to eliminate Social Security altogether, stands in the way of such a solution. Which is why, again, this is a) a fake crisis brought on by the GOP who wants to scare-monger the public into making changes that will end Social Security and b) thus means that Social Security is in far more danger of said GOP destroying it (as they have tried to many times before) than actually becoming insolvent.

Unless, of course, you want to tell me that the GOP of, say, 2030, decides that the best way to get rid of Social Security is to let it go insolvent and that they'd survive that, electorally.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you want me to continue to respond to your assertions based off a cursory skimming of headlines then bring some meat to the table.

How about AARP?

Updating Social Security for the 21st Century: 12 Proposals You Should...

Specifically on how eliminating payroll tax cap will only account for 71% of funding gap.

If all earnings were immediately subject to the Social Security tax, the new revenue would fill an estimated 71 percent of the funding gap.

AARP lists options, just like Forbes. Both acknowledges there will be a problem.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here are four proposals with overwhelming bipartisan support outside of Congress that completely eliminate the potential shortfall:

To go back to what started this: this potential situation is absolutely solvable.

I don’t think anyone believes it won’t be solved. The question is how and who gets the pain. Just because it’s solvable doesn’t mean it’s not a crisis. My orig quote is below.

If your stance is something bipartisan will be done to shore it up, I agree. But the problem is very real and the shoring up will come at a ‘cost’ to many people e.g. delaying retirement age, increasing or eliminating payroll tax cap etc.]

[flere-imsaho]

It's not a crisis. The program has been modified several times over its history to shore up its long-term financial health.

If it's 2030 and the actuarial projections still show depletion in 2034 and the GOP still has functional control over Congress then it will be a crisis.

But it is not a real crisis right now. It's a manufactured crisis, done so to allow the GOP to put forward proposals that will definitely result in its long-term demise. Which was the original point of this tangent.

Stop being so credulous when reading headlines, Edward.

[Edward64]

]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Here are four proposals with overwhelming bipartisan support outside of Congress that completely eliminate the potential shortfall:
.

Your bipartisanship support outside of congress is not a real poll but a game simulation (?) and therefore does not represent truly how regular citizens believe or would support

The survey was conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC). Unlike standard polls, public consultation surveys take respondents through an online process called a ‘policymaking simulation’ that seeks to put them in the shoes of a policymaker. Respondents were given a briefing on the Social Security program and the projected shortfall, and asked to evaluate arguments for and against proposals addressing the shortfall and increasing some benefits. They were informed about the impact of each proposal on the shortfall. The content of the simulation was reviewed by experts on different sides of the debate to ensure accuracy and balance.]

I find it hard to believe there would be overwhelming support for 3 of your listed 4 proposals (reduce benefits for high earners is the possible exception).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

It's not a crisis. The program has been modified several times over its history to shore up its long-term financial health.

If it's 2030 and the actuarial projections still show depletion in 2034 and the GOP still has functional control over Congress then it will be a crisis.

But it is not a real crisis right now. It's a manufactured crisis, done so to allow the GOP to put forward proposals that will definitely result in its long-term demise. Which was the original point of this tangent.

Stop being so credulous when reading headlines, Edward.

Okay. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on what imminent and crisis means in the context of the SS forthcoming gap circa approx 2035.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I find it hard to believe there would be overwhelming support for 3 of your listed 4 proposals (reduce benefits for high earners is the possible exception).

So, that's 2 of 4 (including your potential exception) and here's a poll showing support for a gradual but whole elimination of the payroll tax cap, making it 3 of 4.

The only one not covered is raising the retirement age, but of the 4 proposals, it's actually the only one that's been done, historically, so it's certainly possible to do it.

Again, eminently solvable and not a crisis.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Okay. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on what imminent and crisis means in the context of the SS forthcoming gap circa approx 2035.

I will accept your capitulation, which, as in the past, is signaled by the abandonment of arguing on the merits and retreating to dictionary definitions.

[albionmoonlight]

We have managed to have a more intelligent discussion on this topic on a football video game message board then Mike Pence will ever get the GOP electorate to have amongst itself.