WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump told a Republican member of Congress that he is willing to go after Social Security and other entitlement programs at the beginning of his second term. The Republican member of Congress spoke to a small group of reporters Thursday about a wide range of subjects on a condition of anonymity. The member said both parties and past administrations are to blame for the lack of effort to reform entitlements, citing a gap in leadership on the issue. "Until you have an administration willing to actually tackle entitlement reform, the idea that Congress is just going to magically produce it on its own," said the lawmaker. "Entitlement reform always takes leadership at the presidential level and it also takes -- by the way, real reform takes bipartisanship." When asked about Trump's level of serious on the issue, the Republican said the president would not touch Social Security "u ntil the first day of his second term, he told me once."
I guess trump won't be going after social security at all, seeing as he won't have a second term.
BTW Social Security and Medicare are not ENTITLEMENTS. I have paid into the system for 40 years, it contributes $0 the debt and the only reason it is an issue is because the GOP has stolen $2,700,000,000,000 of middle class payroll taxes since the 1980's to fund tax cuts for millionaires and needless wars and defense spending and we can't dare ask the billionaires to put it back.
BTW Social Security and Medicare are not ENTITLEMENTS.
So by that token, neither is my military retirement, right? I mean, I paid taxes on my income just like everyone else..
Can you please relay this then to that dumb ass Hans?
"BTW Social Security and Medicare are not ENTITLEMENTS."
well, they are...you just don't like the word "entitlement" and what it sounds like and what you believe others perceive it as...
but no matter your political ideology....we all support the notion of getting our SS as we have paid into it. Medicare as well.
Who here equates SS to welfare?
"President Donald Trump told a Republican member of Congress that he is willing to go after Social Security and other entitlement programs at the beginning of his second term"
in the past 30+ years, every president has claimed, whether in public or private, a more radical agenda in their second term. Social security is always on that list.
nothing even remotely original here. Trump may not have an election to win again but unless he has a ---- load of old farts not seeking re-election in congress....it doesn't matter.
SS will still be the hot potato it has always been even on the first day of Trump's second term (Please God no...)
The Social Security system is something you specifically pay for from every single paycheck. As I have said on other threads - IF I had the money I paid into SS and invested it, I would be able to retire right now. But the government takes the money to ENSURE I have at least "some" retirement. It is not part of your federal "income tax" but a specific tax for the program.
By contrast your military retirement IS an entitlement. You did not "pay" for it from every paycheck specifically like SS or a 401k. You are "entitled" to it for your years of service in the military. Just like anyone else who earns a pension. I see military pensions as particularly generous and a sizeable burden on tax payers. That said, I am not going to say they are unearned or unjust.
#5 | Posted by eberly
I agree entitlement is a dirty word and yes indeed you are "entitled" to it. But as I addressed Boaz comment - it is something you specifically "pay for".
SS is not a welfare program. Only the ones cheating SS are4 using it as welfare.
* Steve Benen picked up on something that is going to come as a big surprise to an awful lot of people. It starts with this statement from Trump during his meeting with House Republicans yesterday.
Trump thanked party leaders, expressed optimism about the Senate bill, and said he believed that Congress ought to move to "welfare reform" after completing the tax bill, according to several members in the room.
Benen explains that "welfare reform" means something different to this president than most people assume. He's not talking about making changes to the TANF program, as happened during Bill Clinton's presidency. Instead, what welfare reform means to this president was telegraphed when John Harwood interviewed Gary Cohn.
HARWOOD: Are you thinking that you'll deal with that Social Security/Medicare/baby boomer retirement issue later by entitlement reform that reduces benefits?
COHN: Look, the president on the economic front laid out three core principles. Number one was [regulatory] reform, number two was taxes and number three was infrastructure. We're working our way methodically through [regulatory] reform, taxes and infrastructure. I think when he gets done with those, I think welfare is going to come up. That's our near-term economic agenda right now.
Benen writes, "Note how welfare' came in response to a question about social-insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare." If he's right, that would be yuuuuuge.
Second Term! That's hilarious. - #3 | Posted by kudzu at 2017-12-15 08:15 AM
Trump elected! That's hilarious.
Sounds silly, right? No, I don't think he'll win a second term, but his opposition has shot themselves in the foot before.
Who here equates SS to welfare?
#5 | Posted by eberly
Lots of rich Rs do. All they see is somebody poor getting money from the government. That money should be going to rich people.
Based on the eligibility for SS (retirement part) and how the benefit is calculated.....it's more of an earned entitlement, IMO.
I think I do.
Why isn't it welfare?
#13 | Posted by snoofy
It isn't real complicated sno. This is calculated on just 30k per year. I would like to take about half of that 893K in a lump sum and they could just keep the other half.
Remember, not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500.
If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the government pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.
If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
If it isn't really complicated, you ought to be able to explain it it under three paragraphs...
"If you calculate the future value"
How about you calculate the current value for SSI recipients under your plan.
"If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year"
If you calculate the future value on Trump's inheritance, you'll find he is a terrible business man.
But somehow you don't think Trump is a terrible business man. You think he's a genius.
So I'm not really convinced you know enough about what financial success looks like to come up with a sensible plan towards achieving it.
But it will be kinda darkly funny if the Baby Boomers decide it's better for the rich to divert America's SSI payments to the rich.
"it's more of an earned entitlement, IMO"
Is the eligibility calculation the only difference?
Because they have that for welfare too, it just runs the other way; make too much money and you don't qualify.
But I get it, "welfare" is any program you don't have to pay in to get paid out. Or something. I'm not sure why so much emphasis is placed on that distinction. It's fiscal NIMBYism.
Drudge Retort Headlines
'I Have a Dream' (200 comments)
Trump Golfed While Hawaii Panicked (85 comments)
Trump Calls DACA 'Probably Dead,' Dodges Blame (25 comments)
Laid-Off Carrier Workers Feel Betrayed by Trump (24 comments)
Wal-Mart Cutting 12,000 Jobs (23 comments)
All Immigration Was Legal Before 1882 (22 comments)
How 'Bout Them Jaguars? (19 comments)
China Demolishes Christian Megachurch (18 comments)