245
Young Americans turn against Boomers over Social Security
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
245 points (83.7% liked)
News
23274 readers
1257 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a propaganda article. It's meant to start the idea that social security change should happen; Social Security had a surplus and was on track to support Gen Z with boomer level benefits until George W Bush drained the fund to pay for the Iraq war. A 100 billion+ surplus (which would have been 2T by 2011) was sucked dry at a billion dollars a day for a war that brought nothing but misery. This current crisis is brought to you by the Republicans.
Some bullshit conservative think tank is trying to spin up the idea of cutting benefits to prevent taxing billionaires. Don't let the rich lie anymore. Make the rich pay!
Man, wish we could have put that money in some sort of locked box...
Oh yesh, the "locked box" tag lines. Again and again and again during speeches, debates, and articles. Back when news cycles and ongoing stories were measured in weeks rather than hours.
Social Security should be reformed. The surplus should be given back and laws passed that forbid touching it. Further:
Honestly, Social Security should also be responsible for paid sick/family leave, short term and long term temp/perm disability, unemployment, etc. We in the US could have it so much better…
Yeah and it should be allowed to hold companies that are bailed out as long as its financial advisers choose.
Hell when it’s time for UBI this is the administration to do it
Your forgetting Ronald Reagan was the one who started borrowing from it and saying here is an IOU
There has never been a separate fund. The "money" is still there, its in IOU's.
Yeah it’s not enough to live on. I want to be able to survive on social security when I’m old, so I’ll fight for old people to be able to survive on it now. And a little something for a surplus.
Taxes aren’t why you’re poor, shit pay is
Also social security for all is UBI, we can demand that
Only because we keep letting it die
That's defeatist. Of course if you give up fighting, then it won't be around.
And yet
Fixing it should we quite doable, if politicians look ahead. However the longer we wait, the bigger impact from adjustments, and we all know the reality of politics.
If you’re under 40, I agree that you need to focus on retirement savings, since that’s the only part you can control
Just put all your money in a 401K. Do your fiscal duty and grovel at The Shrine of Captialism, peasant. You're lucky you're allowed to live and serve.
Bold of you to assume we will live to retirement age.
That is by no means guaranteed. That is Republican propaganda. If you let them get their way, that is what will guarantee it.
Okay, well then I guess we should just give up on social security since a Republican might get into office one day. Probably should forget about every single other progressive idea too. Because Republicans exist. In fact, let's just all vote for them and get it over with!
Not really. Bush ended Clinton's budget surplus and replaced it with a budget deficit, and I won't argue if you hold the wars responsible.
But SS is not part of the normal budget. It was running a surplus in the Bush years. There was a debate over what to do with the surplus.
Keeping it "stuffed in a mattress" would be irresponsible for the same reason most of us don't keep our life savings in a checking account. Bush wanted to invest it in the stock market, but the public rightly thought that was too risky. So it was invested in the most risk-free asset: Treasury bonds.
That means that the government could spend the surplus, but they are required to pay it back with interest. Failing to pay back SS would trigger a default, no different than crashing through the debt ceiling.
The Social Security Trust Fund is nearly $3T
It's probably important to consider that the Iraq war was enthusiastically bipartisan with one glaring exception: Bernie Sanders. Therefore, it's not entirely honest to (rightly) fault the Iraq War as a starting point for the problems with SS and not also fault Democrats for their role in making those decisions.
This is the only way to fix the problem, but it's never going to happen. Every two years we vote for legislators who are fabulously wealthy and have made all manner of corruption legal for federal legislators. (ie, loaning your campaign money at interest, insider trading, using classified briefings for stock moves, etc.)
Now's a good time to repeat what I do every campaign season: Don't give candidates your money. Put it in your investments, and then no matter who is elected, you will have some representation as both parties care more about the stock market than they do about you.
I mean...126 democrats in the house voted against it. Only 6 Republicans and one Independent (Bernie) voted against it. Democrats did play a role, but it's not nearly so "both sides!!" as you're trying to make it here.
Damn, good to know I was fucked before I was even able to vote. And here I thought me and my generation were the problem....