General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf they start reducing Social Security payments, will that affect those currently collecting?
I can't even begin to imagine what would happen to people who are struggling to survive on what they are getting, now, if those benefits would be cut by ANY amount. I know the program wasn't designed to be the only retirement income, but let's face it - for some, that's just about all that is coming in.
Wounded Bear
(58,755 posts)you can't put anything past these guys. I live on my SS payments. The last two annual increases were gone before they occured, offset by rent increases and basic inflation of gas and food prices.
I get my healthcare from VA, and they are fucking with that, too.
Siwsan
(26,309 posts)Some due to being irresponsible, but others due to unforeseen circumstances and outlandish medical expenses that made it necessary to borrow against their 401K accounts, and now they have to work to repay.
I've always been healthy, VERY low maintenance and a dedicated money saver so I'm ok, financially, but I worry deeply about my niece and nephew's future, and that of their kids. Any money I can put away will go to help them, now and when I'm gone.
greeny2323
(590 posts)I can't imagine they'd be stupid enough to cut actual checks going out today. They will do what they always do: Lie through their fucking teeth while they completely undermine the program.
I'd be interested to hear from those knowledgeable about what they could do through reconciliation (so they only need 50 votes).
sandensea
(21,692 posts)I'd be surprised if they start reducing the benefits themselves (though maybe I shouldn't be) - initially, at least.
In all likelihood they'll enact a near-freeze that lasts for years, with the goal of eventually privatizing Social Security.
Then the benefits will start being reduced. I pray it never comes to pass; but that is the GOP goal.
Eyeball_Kid
(7,437 posts)And for them, there's a thin line between eating food from the grocers and eating food from dumpsters.
shraby
(21,946 posts)They won't quit if it takes another 70 years until it's all gone.
Hate is a powerful thing and they have hated the programs since they were being formed.
Only proves more that the gop needs to be eliminated and a sane and rational party formed to take its place.
Mme. Defarge
(8,055 posts)is to reduce the purchasing power of the bottom 90 percent.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)All of those are in danger and I am not able to work. I am pretty scared. I should probably not complain because there are a whole lot of people who are going to be worse off even if we both become homeless.
Igel
(35,382 posts)But there's no such law yet. The tax bills as formulated aren't relevant to Social Security.
Current income for the SSA is roughly equal to income. That's expected to shift in the next few years to expenses becoming greater than income, at which point the general fund will have to pay back the special-issue Treasure notes that the SSA holds. How they handle that in Congress is a bit of a guess; mostly likely, though, they'll just issue more publicly held Treasury bills and only refer to the national debt in ways that obscures the change.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 3, 2017, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)
I pray Congress leaves Social Security, Medicare, and me alone for eternity.
(edited to please - I shall say no more)
more
No!
You said you'd say --> "no" more !
Well, OK then ! No more.
wink wink
A basketful ( a HUGE basket) for any offended by my original wording.
Skittles
(153,243 posts)surely you would wish for them not to mess with Social Security at all
Surely that wasn't just a big fuck you to those who come after him.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)I'll alter my post to please.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)to people less than 50 years old and even those changes were phased in applying in full to only new enrolees. For instance when they raised the retirement age from 65 to 67 back in 1986, that change still isn't totally phased in. People retiring now have something like 66 and 3 months as their full retirement age. I'll reach my full age at 66 and 10 months in about six more years.
Of course that's the past. Congress can do anything it wants pretty much.
Siwsan
(26,309 posts)I have a meeting with my financial planner, tomorrow. At last year's meeting she told me it was hardly worth it to wait much later than age 65, which I thought strange since retirement age is 66.
After paying into the program for my entire working career, I always figured that money would be there when I needed it.
If threatening to destroy this program, that people are STILL paying into, doesn't create a voting backlash against the GOP, then there is no hope for this country to survive.
Yupster
(14,308 posts)They are very well informed on your choices and advantages and disadvantages of each.
Some financial advisers are more informed on the program than others. There are so many what-ifs. If you have a spouse that will get half of yours instead of theirs, it doesn't make sense to delay past 66. There are so many what ifs involved, it's best to go directtly to social security if there's an office nearby.
Siwsan
(26,309 posts)I'll see how I feel after tomorrow's meeting. I've been holding off on taking any dividends from my retirement investment account, so once I see what I can responsibly 'withdraw', I'll have a better idea if I can hold off.
It's just me, but I am now the 'stand-in' Mom for my late sister's kids. I want to be in a position to be able to help them, financially, should they need it, and hopefully be able to set up some sort of a trust fund for my grand-niece.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,375 posts)I hope we can fight and defeat any attack on SS, Medicare, Medicaid, V.A.
If the Repubs kill SS for younger people and leave elders untouched, that will split the opposition.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Fuck 'em.