Home | About | Donate

On Social Security "Valentine's Day for Millionaires," an Extra Gift From Senate GOP


Which advanced countries are those?


Yes most likely 2/3 of congress and 5/6 of banking.


Along with ending actual welfare aid, the Clinton administration took the first steps to begin similarly "reforming" Social Security. Social Security provides retirement, disability and survivors' benefits. Clinton began by targeting the disabled.

Social Security isn't only a retirement program for middle class workers. In fact, millions of elderly women who were never in the workforce, paying into Social Security, were able to survive their senior years because of it. Workers who become severely disabled, no longer able to work, can survive because of it.

As a result of Clinton's cuts, the disabled had become the fastest-growing group of homeless Americans by 2000. (Benefits were finally restored by the Obama administration.) America's only response to this crisis remained the ongoing calls to protect benefits for middle class workers.

Either demand the protection of Social Security in whole, or expect to lose it all in the foreseeable future as our government dismantles it incrementally. The call to "Protect Social Security for Some" remains powerfully divisive and counter-productive. Remember that our former welfare aid was dismantled the same way, one cut/one piece at a time, from General Assistance to AFDC.


Several countries, such as Norway and Switzerland, are experimenting with the basic income guarantee. Google "basic income guarantee."

The reason there is no chance of seeing this in the US in the foreseeable future is that Americans chose the exact opposite approach. We ended actual welfare aid twenty years ago, and fully embraced laissez-faire capitalism. The overall life expectancy of the US poor has fallen below that of every developed nation, yet even liberals don't call for restoring the basic human rights (UDHR) of food and shelter to our poor.

The impact: The overall quality of life in the US went from being rated at #1 when Reagan was elected (far from perfect, but better), and had already fallen to #48 by the time Obama was elected. The more people in poverty, the fewer the consumer purchases. Fewer products need to be made, fewer workers are needed, more people are plunged into poverty. We remain stuck on this downhill slide.


That would mean the rich would have to pay more. And the whole idea that trump and the republicans are pushing is to have the rich pay the least amount possible, as in none if they can get away with it.
Raising the cap defeats the whole purpose of that premise of the rich paying nothing. They know that raising the cap would make it solvent for decades, it is just something they are not willing to do.


It is why I always thought people who said that trump was already rich and wouldn't want more are fools. The rich always want more, with a few exceptions.
I don't know and don't really accept that Trump is a billionaire, but he is greedy and part of that class. As for ideology, certainly Ayn Rand is an ideology and people like trump follow it, whether they say so or not. Certainly the republicans worship Ayn Rand. And mindless plentiful idiots along with them worship Ayn Rand. Greed is good, selfishness is good. There's an ideology for people to worship.
I could follow your rant with one of my own, but what good would it do? We are entering a new robber baron age and until it has played out to the full extant of how many of us are hurt, only then will americans rise up and fight against the corrupt system. And even then, it will be only a small % of us who will fight back, just like the labor union fought against the robber barons.


The point is, a National Strike. Naturally, that doesn't mean abandon ERs, refuse to change IVs, etc. Fire Departments would respond to fires and accidents, but that is all, none of the routine tasks. Same with Police. Yes, they do a lot of things. However, suppose they didn't? Suppose they only responded to genuine emergencies, then returned to quarters. People might realize some of these things when they didn't happen.
* If a National Strike only applies to housewives and people with unimportant jobs that won't inconvenience anyone, you might as well forget it. The Oilagarchy would just laugh.
* A genuine National Strike means a lot of hardship. It means We the People are going to have to cooperate, help each other. We've got to keep the target in view. Not use the junk the corporations pedal. The Military-Industrial-Congressional-Corporate-Complex makes billions building bombs and missiles, but most of them also make huge sums through marketing soft drinks, junk food, sugary breakfast foods, various cleaning solutions. They make millions or more through flying in fruits and other food from far off countries.
* If we just left that junk on the shelves and cooperated with each other to do without it, that would send a message. Sooner or later, they would have to sit down and talk. That is the idea behind a General Strike. BDS works very well. If we boycott the stuff the warmongers sell, let it spoil on the shelves. If those of us that have stocks, even a few, divest their holding in coal, oil and war products. Reinvest in green stocks, help farmers and local artisans by buying their locally grown crops and locally made artifacts and tools. It would not take long for the Oilagarchy to realize that we were more than just dumb laborers who were to work to earn a pittance to go in hock with high interest credit card debt to buy this junk.
* Very few corporations are in business to become non-profits. We could make them so with just a bit of discipline and planning.
* No profits, no corporations. Change or go under.




Agreed. Plus I could handle no more war, no more outfitting "allies" to kill millions of people, and our troops in all those countries brought home---that'd all put some money back where it belongs-- for wethepeople.


Do you or does anyone know any trumpists who highly regretting their vote(s)? Has her/his ox been gored.....or betrayed sufficiently yet?


For god's sake, Marie. We should listen to your advice which I infer to mean that he holds station and should be respected? Let him be? Is that what you mean? Because if a helluva lot more people had not listened to their chancellor and fuhrer, history would sure have had a different tale.


Thanks for reminding me about Scandinavia who have a reasonably caring and sane population. It was Nansen who organised the Nansen Passport to give to refugees in the 1920s a fighting chance to find new homes, unlike the bloody callous governments of today, although then again Germany has done a great deal in the last couple of years.

I find the USA hard to understand as the very people who would benefit from a public health service seem to think it is "socialism" and do their best to oppose it. It's not "socialism"; a public health service is simple human decency. Lord Beveridge produced his report on public health in the UK in 1942 and this is what led to the British NHS and social welfare system in 1948. If a member of the British House of Lords can start the long march to public decency in the UK I fail to see why the USA can't; maybe the USA needs a responsible aristocracy???????????


Thank you! One of our national shames....sickening, criminal, immoral--some "Christian" nation.


Just what kind of country needs its police to patrol at schools?


They are not entitlements, Medicaid is an entitlement.


Municipal employees are paying into SS already. The only employees I am aware of that don't pay into SS are railroad and church employees. The railroad employees have a different fund they pay into. Not sure why but it has much better benefits then SS. The church employees foolishly count on the church to help them out in their elderly years.


Now wait a minute, when the patron saint of the mentally challenged, Ronald Reagan was president, he raised my and every one of my employers payroll taxes by 2% and they had to buy US savings bonds with the surplus. Now that it's time to start paying that bill, they want to kill the safety net. And if they do there will be blood in the streets. It will be the blood of the poor and disenfranchised, 'cause cops are mercenaries who work for them that pays their salary, and they arrest whomever their paymasters say.


I've long stated that a general strike is the only power we have. Folks like me who can take a paid leave day might consider bringing the days pay in the form of food bags for folks who still need to feed their families. Where do I sign up (but please don't say Facebook!!)?


A very sick one.


Defenders my arse.

So where were these "defenders" when Obama was in office? Monthly SS payments increased on average $8 month over the total of Obama's 8 years in office. Thanks defenders.

Yeah, I know it's not Obama's fault .... it never is. Olamer had to know that seniors prescriptions (thanks ACA) have exponentially increased over those 8 years, utilities have increased, groceries and rents have increased. A $200/mth increase over those 8 years still would have left seniors dangling from the edge. Funny how Obama found trillions to bail out the banking industry but left the struggling class to ruin.

This is exactly why Trump was elected -- anything was better than the status quo. And if not, burning the whole thing down and rebuilding it beat Clinton.

Don't let this dance fool you -- every time there is a change in power in DC cuts to SS take center stage. The Ds say they are saving it from the meanie Rs. The Rs say they are preserving it ... ad nauseam. Nothing ever changes, benefits do not increase to a livable level. The public sighs in relief when SS emerges with only a few cuts here and there and accepts it -- because ya know now -- it coulda been worse. The cap is never removed forcing the extremely wealthy to pay more, benefits are not increased (they're cut), more of the cost of medical care is shoved onto seniors who can ill-afford it and on and on. It's a con, it happens every four years.