Home | About | Donate

Social Security: The GOP vs. the American People


Social Security: The GOP vs. the American People

Nancy Altman

In case anyone had any doubts, the most recent Republican presidential debate made crystal clear how out of touch the Republican establishment is with the American people.


If you can’t work or want to retire, America, the Republican plan is this: “Die quickly.” That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you can’t work or want to retire.

with apologies to and respect for Mr. Alan Grayson


Please add the crafty Democrats who have also not-so-secretly supported ways of diminishing Social Security. Obama, HRC, many others…their reps have even bragged about it, as if it was the only, only solution to financial troubles, even while throwing barrels of money at Wall St.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


While 50%+ of our Tax Dollar goes to “National Security” and the “Pentagon” to spend on “Spying” on any and all of the people and to afford outrageous killing machines for Wars that are not only unspeakable, but totally insane and beyond the human pale, these bastards want to cut “Social Security”- What have we become and just where are we going???
End these INSANE Wars NOW!!!


This frame is deceptive and inaccurate.

How many of “WE” determine policy decisions and what percentage of the treasury’s income will go to the MIC?

You take rule by the 1% and attribute the fallout to the people. This is the psychological equivalent of stealing the people’s money!

The Stock Market is a blown up balloon. In order to stay inflated it needs capital. THAT is why the Paul Ryans are carrying water for the 1% by pushing the meme that Social Security cannot be funded.

The imbeciles who actually would vote for those about to steal their retirement income may deserve that fate, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us do!

Republicans play dirty to win elections!

They make sure to disenfranchise former felons–most of them Black.
They pushed voter I.D. laws to make sure that lots of Democrats (blacks, elderly, poor) could not vote.
They own the touch screen voting machines that can be programmed by external computers (Bev Harris documents this).
They have their comrades as a majority on the Supreme Court (up till Scalia’s death) and stepped in to decide the 2000 election.
They gerrymander voting districts to end up with disproportionate advantages.

Republicans are NOT a majority.

I do agree that the military taking HALF the U.S. money supply for the purposes of doing phenomenal harm and cold-blooded mass murder is an insane “investment” and horrific karma.

THESE two nail it:


Unlike Altman, I have not heard Clinton propose expansion of Social Security. Clinton’s stance has been the same as Trump’s…no cuts, no expansion.

Clinton’s ignoring the risk of too-big-to-fail banks is a de facto commitment to cut Social Security to pay for the next series of multi trillion dollar bankster bailouts needed to “save the economy” when the next crash hits.


You know EXACTLY what I said, and yes the “We” frame you have alleged to have patented applies in some cases, but without even reading your “message” I said “We” with A driven purpose!
Bernie Sanders said that we need A political Revolution to get us out of the mess we are in-
WE are responsible for the mess WE are in and only WE can fix it!!! The “Frame” is NOT deceptive and inaccurate, so quit making excuses-

Other than this, I can agree with most of your post-


I have heard Clinton protoges (I can’t remember the name of the woman economist–Laura Tyson?–who helped Obama and is a friend to HRC, i believe), saying something like, “Well, of course we’ll have to cut social security!” It was so demeaning to listen to.

Pretty sure HRC would allow stealth cuts (no COLA raises, partial privatization, etc.) to social security. She loves privatizing.

I don’t trust her for one second with my social security. It’s scary, knowing that what I am waiting until I’m 70 to receive may not be there anymore. I’m still doing my best to bring income in and do not want to receive the significantly lower amount I can get earlier than 70.


“The two Democratic presidential candidates, in clear contrast to the Republicans, favor expanding, not cutting Social Security. So do 90 percent of the Democrats in the Senate and 75 percent of the Democrats in the House.”

And that will last until election day is past, except for Bernie and a few others, who will continue to advocate it. Clinton will drop her fake support, and will decide we need a “grand bargain” that will cut Social Security.

Honestly, is there no end to these gullible people who believe Hillary’s “promises”?


Hillarybots need to start a club and call it the chameleon club.


This is just another example of how entrenched Economic Darwinism is in our politics. If you are financially successful, you get the privilege of enjoying a life of dignity and reasonable comfort. If you don’t measure up, there are a myriad of ways to marginalize you and kill you off in the most quiet and insidious ways. Deny you education, food, medicine, housing, medical care, and I guess now water has been thrown into the mix.


Thanks for reminding us of Obama’s grand bargain which included his Simpson Bowles commission that institutionalized the “chained CPI” scam,

Today, those “hard-right crazy Republicans” appear to be the only potential road block to stop Obama from msneaking his TPP, TTIP and TISA into law after the November election.

In the past Altman’s articles have always been highly credible. Its sad to see her put herself in a partisan box.


Exactly who actually votes for any of the republicans? Seniors won’t and the young won’t and most poor and working class won’t? I mean beside the Diebold machines!
No wonder they try so hard to encourage low turnouts for Dems.


Keep in mind the total employment numbers in the USA keep dropping. As opposed to the massaged unemployment numbers this a better indication of how many jobs available to the working class.

6100 Americans reach 65 and retire each day. This comes to some 2.2 million year. In order to allow new people entering the workforce to get a job some 183,000 new jobs would have to be created every month over and above those created today. On average the GW Bush Presidency saw anet gain of some 800 new jobs created per month when calculating jobs lost against jobs created. Under Clinton this net gain was around 12000 per month still far below 180000.

Are these guys for real?


After Republican Gerald Ford lost the 1976 election and Democrat Jimmy Carter lost the 1980 election, both due in part to having unfavorable numbers concerning inflation, unemployment, etc., formulas for calculating “employment numbers” and other statistics used by the US Government were altered in a bipartisan effort to make sure the numbers never look so bad again.

Revised formulas understate the rate of inflation that in turn reduces the consumer price index, that in turn gives governments and businesses cover to reduce or eliminate annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for workers and retirees. The revised inflation formulas were the main cause of the housing bubble a decade ago. Formulas for calculating unemployment are even more bizarre.


Or … vote these insane bastards OUT now!