comment: >
  
  It is not bipartisan.
context: It is phenomenal that, even though the French have life expectancies 4 years longer that the US, they are ready to remove their president for suggesting raising their retirement age from 62 to 64, and these bozos think we would consider 69 to be a reasonable retirement age. >
  
  It's not that they think people would think it's reasonable, it's that they know all it will take is a few days of Fox News and Newsmax coordinated messaging with all their talking heads repeating the same soundbites, slogans, and scare words over and over again for enough people to be convinced that it's the fault of socialism and minorities for the people who cut their social security and medicare and raised the retirement age to keep getting reelected. Eat cat food and work until you die or be homeless. Brought to you by Republicans, but the fault of socialist commie liberals and migrant caravans. >
  
  Firstly, it is factually inaccurate to suggest that Social Security and Medicare are being cut. In reality, both programs are being strengthened, with Social Security beneficiaries receiving a 1.3% cost-of-living adjustment for 2021. Furthermore, the retirement age is not being raised, and the Trump administration has actually proposed a reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate. Additionally, the Republican party is not solely responsible for the current economic situation - both parties have had a hand in policy-making decisions over the years. It is also incorrect to suggest that the only solutions to economic woes are eating cat food and working until you die, or being homeless - there are numerous government aid programs and private charities that can help people in need. >
  
  Social Security and Medicare are paid for with a separate tax. Neither program adds to the national debt.
  Social Security taxes are paid on only the first $147,000 of income (increases to $160,200 in 2023). If the cap was increased or removed, Social Security could be solvent in perpetuity.
  Social Security has about a $2,500,000,000,000 surplus.
  Congress has borrowed trillions from Social Security for government spending. >
  
  Yep, in the article:
  
  Not only is Social Security legally incapable of adding to the federal deficit, but budget analysts have shown that the program is financially sound, requiring just a small increase in payroll tax revenue to ensure full benefits beyond 2035.
  
  This should be the top comment and all of us should be contacting our representatives and reminding them of this fact.  Also, tell everyone you know so they can understand this approach by the Republicans and that Judas Manchin will not accomplish reducing the national debt. >
  
  If they gut social security are they going to send us a check for all that's been taken out of our paychecks over the years?
  I'm guessing no.... >
  
  No, Romney and Manchin are thieves. That’s how they got so rich. >
  
  “Not only is Social Security legally incapable of adding to the federal deficit, but budget analysts have shown that the program is financially sound, requiring just a small increase in payroll tax revenue to ensure full benefits beyond 2035.” >
  
  
  requiring just a small increase in payroll tax revenue
  
  Actually it does not require this at all, most workers and small businesses need not pay a penny more in payroll tax. 
  All that is required is raising the income cap. As of 2023, no additional income beyond $160,200 is taxed for Social Security. Meaning whether you make $160,200 or fifty million dollars+, you pay the same amount into Social Security. If you are rich you automatically get to pay less than everybody else, because of course it is that way because 'Murica.
  In fact this has been the answer every time Republicans start their lies and fearmongering over Social Security becoming insolvent, it's numbers simply need to be adjusted.
  There's also other social safety net revenue streams like capital gains taxes etc that can be tapped into. Lower income brackets could pay even less in Social Security taxes if the wealthy paid more of their fair share. >
  
  Your last sentence is really all that matters
  We just need to tax the rich. >
  
  Anyone else remember Trumps state of the Union address where he said, 'under Republicans, Social Security and Healthcare will never be cut'? And all of the r's clapped and stood up.
  I remember.
  Edit: grammar >
  
  "I meant under a republican president. We'll do that shit under a Democrat so they get blamed." >
  
  Trump tried every budget to get the safety net removed. It was always on his wishlist. >
  
  Conservatives don't care about the elderly, veterans, people with illness or any other vulnerable groups of people. If you don't represent a corporation, you don't matter. >
  
  Correct.  The only people Romney cares about are corporations. >
  
  Almost true. The surviving Koch Brother runs their $10 billion plus business as a privately owned partnership, not a corporation. There are literally a handful of people, all billionaires, who count for Romney who are not running proper corporations. >
  
  Having Manchin on your side does not make your commission "bipartisan". >
  
  It's what we used to call "Reagan bipartisanship". >
  
  Oh yeah cutting public safety nets in a country full of angry well armed people is going to work out so well for everyone, The 1% used to be smart enough to keep the bread and circuses going but I guess they forgot how fast countries destabilize. >
  
  50% of those well-armed people voted for the cuts, because they think it will only affect the people they hate. >
  
  Wild how the people always screaming about how they need to hoard guns in case of government tyranny are the same people who keep voting/supporting government tyranny innit >
  
  "If working class Americans have social security, it means people can retire. If people can retire, they cannot be worked to death. This is anti-capitalism as it provides less return for shareholders." –Republicans >
  
  There will still be social security. For corporations. >
  
  “Not only is Social Security legally incapable of adding to the federal deficit, but budget analysts have shown that the program is financially sound, requiring just a small increase in payroll tax revenue to ensure full benefits beyond 2035.” >
  
  That is OUR money.  There should be protests in the streets if they do anything to reduce our benefits.  Remember this is OUR money! >
  
  Machin has been the Republicans best weapon for the last 7 years. Hes also going to be responsible for the next 50 years of trauma this country will experience >
  
  People who say that we're lucky to have him are interested in bleeding out instead of instant death. >
  
  This is an easy fix. Cut military spending. >
  
  Social security spending is more than 50% higher than defense spending, and the majority of the latter is payroll.  It's not that easy.  We need to cut wasteful spending, get rid of hurtful subsidies, and increase revenues. >
  
  
  Social security spending is more than 50% higher than defense spending, and the majority of the latter is payroll
  
  That total  spending includes discretionary budgeting.  Discretionary budgets have military spending at 50% of the total discretionary budget.
  Social Security, Unemployment and Medicare are mandatory contribution budgets,  and not in the same considerations as discretionary budgets. >
  
  Not only is Social Security legally incapable of adding to the federal deficit, but budget analysts have shown that the program is financially sound, requiring just a small increase in payroll tax revenue to ensure full benefits beyond 2035. >
  
  If they get rid of Social Security, shut down your 401K and withdraw everything. Sit back and watch the 1% lose their fucking minds. >
  
  I’m always amazed when people try to defend Mitt the Shit for being in some way a decent human such as when he voted to impeach trump. He knew there was no chance there would be enough votes to convict. It was just for show. Every fiber of his being is driven by greed. He made his fortune as a vulture capitalist. His 47% comment to his fellow leeches on society was uttered believing it would stay in that room. Now he wants eliminate or severely cut the social safety net. No amount of wealth is enough for him. 
  Manchin? He stopped Democrats from making a serious dent in the income inequality that has exploded over the last 4+ decades.
  Fuck them and every other greedy self-serving MF in the GQP. Bernie is the decent, humane side of this fight. >
  
  Hell, after his impeachment vote, some Redditors thought he was going bring a redemption arc to the Republican Party and he should be the next president.
  Romney has never budged from being a solid Republican. He just does a little PR here and there. >
  
  Progressive programs are fiscally conservative 99% of the time, so long as they're properly funded and operated and corruption by government officials doesn't ruin it. >
  
  “I’m not like the other Republicans!”
  Mitt Romney >
  
  Just remember George Carlin joked about this very issues many years ago! >
  
  It was never really a joke. It was a rant laced with humor. >
  
  If Bernie wasn’t out there being vocal as Hell, Biden would be “compromising” by cutting Medicare and Social Security.  Advocating for cuts like this used to cost politicians elections, it should now. >
  
  I would like to discuss the SS cuts with a conservative who supports them and can articulate their position without using buzz words from Fox.  I truly have no idea why the common American would support this. >
  
  It’s obvious in the present that the boomers are going to crash the system and that reforming it would basically require levying higher taxes on working age people. There’s a possibility that we could stick billionaires with the bill, but that hasn’t worked very well in the past. 
  I don’t think the system is likely to get reformed, and the cost of waiting for it to kill itself is too high to bear. Thus, it must be killed. >
  
  Just stopping in to remind everyone of Biden's repeated "social security freeze" comments from before his Presidency. >
  
  Biden denys it and Sander exposes it >
  
  The Obama Administration was in favor of Social Security cuts until that last couple years when Obama started echoing Bernie in calling for them to be expanded. 
  They actually offered cuts in a shutdown deal but GOP but was so deep into their "Democrats are the Devil" rhetoric that they were afraid to make any substantive bargain with Obama at the risk of being called RINOs by the Tea Party types.