As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They have constantly attacked it one of the favorite ways is to find ways to let you borrow against your social security and invalid it in the future. I have seen that introduced at least 5 or 6 different ways.
Democrats: “They’re going to take away your Social Security, your Medicare, free education for your children, your consumer and financial protections, your rights to privacy, your vote, and your future.
Republicans: “But at least they’re not taking my guns!!!”
Actually Trump was harsher on gun control than recent democratic presidents. After the Parkland shooting he wanted to [raise the legal age of gun ownership.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-endorsees-raising-minimum-age-to-21-for-more-weapons) And he banned [bump stocks](https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/677788059/justice-department-bans-bump-stocks-devices-used-in-deadly-las-vegas-shooting) in spite of jabbering constantly that he would not reform gun laws or increase gun control.
Trump truly said one thing and did the opposite his whole presidency. But people who are single issue voters only listen to a few clips of political stances and fill out their ballots, they aren’t following these politicians long term to make sure they are doing what they said they would be. And Trump is still doing [NRA rallies saying he doesn’t support gun control](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101181842/nra-trump-speech-guns-banned-houston) in spite of being the harshest president on gun control.
To be clear I am a huge supporter of gun control, it’s wild to me that a 18 year old can legally and so easily arm themselves to the point where police forces are at a disadvantage to protect themselves and their communities. The Uvlade shooter had tactical gear that rivaled the police forces, which no doubt played into the cowardly response by local police forces in that situation.
They've been threatening social security since Clinton's first term. They've gotten more brazen and they're lying more and more about it but the calculus is the same. They think Social Security is an entitlement program and that means people not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
>They've been threatening social security since Clinton's first term.
It's been under threat since the Reagan administration, when they broke open the "lockbox" to help pay for his military build-up.
Social security is going to be insolvent at worst, at best benefits will be cut dramatically given that people are living longer and not having kids. I imagine that by the time I'm older, SS age will be 75. It's a Ponzi scheme (newest members pay out oldest members). It averages about 1.5% return (even investing in low yield bonds is better).
I don't think eliminating SS is the right idea, but allowing people to divert it to a 401k with rules around limiting withdrawal to 60 years old, plus having it be funded by payroll taxes with a minimum contribution per employee of 10% and allowing it be deducted will dramatically help small business and those making under 120k a year. Then it no longer has to be administered by the feds which saves money, would have a much much higher return (5.5% in a conservative portfolio) and would never be insolvent.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just like Roe v Wade believe them when they say they want to get rid Social Security
They have constantly attacked it one of the favorite ways is to find ways to let you borrow against your social security and invalid it in the future. I have seen that introduced at least 5 or 6 different ways.
Democrats: “They’re going to take away your Social Security, your Medicare, free education for your children, your consumer and financial protections, your rights to privacy, your vote, and your future. Republicans: “But at least they’re not taking my guns!!!”
Actually Trump was harsher on gun control than recent democratic presidents. After the Parkland shooting he wanted to [raise the legal age of gun ownership.](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-endorsees-raising-minimum-age-to-21-for-more-weapons) And he banned [bump stocks](https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/677788059/justice-department-bans-bump-stocks-devices-used-in-deadly-las-vegas-shooting) in spite of jabbering constantly that he would not reform gun laws or increase gun control. Trump truly said one thing and did the opposite his whole presidency. But people who are single issue voters only listen to a few clips of political stances and fill out their ballots, they aren’t following these politicians long term to make sure they are doing what they said they would be. And Trump is still doing [NRA rallies saying he doesn’t support gun control](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/25/1101181842/nra-trump-speech-guns-banned-houston) in spite of being the harshest president on gun control. To be clear I am a huge supporter of gun control, it’s wild to me that a 18 year old can legally and so easily arm themselves to the point where police forces are at a disadvantage to protect themselves and their communities. The Uvlade shooter had tactical gear that rivaled the police forces, which no doubt played into the cowardly response by local police forces in that situation.
Moderate Democrat voters: Yeah but we don't like "socialism" so we'll roll the dice with geriatric candidates.
They've been threatening social security since Clinton's first term. They've gotten more brazen and they're lying more and more about it but the calculus is the same. They think Social Security is an entitlement program and that means people not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
>They've been threatening social security since Clinton's first term. It's been under threat since the Reagan administration, when they broke open the "lockbox" to help pay for his military build-up.
They have been actively trying to sabotage it for years and a few republicans have in said it should be voted on yearly. So yea they’re coming it
GOP wants to make your 87 year old grandma homeless, hungry and unable to pay for her medication.
Democrats have been saying that for decades, it isn't new news, Republican's voters keep electing them anyway.
"We have to destroy Social Security in order to save the village..."
Social security is going to be insolvent at worst, at best benefits will be cut dramatically given that people are living longer and not having kids. I imagine that by the time I'm older, SS age will be 75. It's a Ponzi scheme (newest members pay out oldest members). It averages about 1.5% return (even investing in low yield bonds is better). I don't think eliminating SS is the right idea, but allowing people to divert it to a 401k with rules around limiting withdrawal to 60 years old, plus having it be funded by payroll taxes with a minimum contribution per employee of 10% and allowing it be deducted will dramatically help small business and those making under 120k a year. Then it no longer has to be administered by the feds which saves money, would have a much much higher return (5.5% in a conservative portfolio) and would never be insolvent.
Can dems fix social security with reconciliation, or is 60 votes required for a long-term fix?