There are too few reminders that Medicare and Social Security are NOT "entitlements." Workers (at least those at the lower end of the income spectrum) pay into these insurance programs throughout their working lives. In the case of Medicare, they continue to pay premiums (in some cases, quite substantial) once they are eligible for services. In other words, they HAVE PAID AND CONTINUE TO PAY for these programs. They're NOT freebies.
The fact that the government has, over the years, raided these funds for other purposes does not somehow negate the reality that older adults should receive the benefits they paid for.
Medicaid is in a different category. But it provides a vital service that enables people to stay at work, to ensure the health of their children, and to care for their older parents who need services not covered by Medicare. It is inhumane but also stupid in terms of impact on the economy reality to cut this essential program.
Actually, "entitlement" means that one is fairly owed something that one has earned. The Republicans have been chipping away at the meaning of the word for years. Republicans act as if they are entitled to rewrite the English language. They are not.
I prefer to think of it as a "loan". We pay the gov't a Social Security Tax - loaning them money - that they can use to make things better through various public services and investments. When we retire, the gov't pays us back.
True, but if we explain to people that it's a loan (because that's pretty much how it works in practice), they might not see it as the gov't just giving money to people who think they're entitled to it somehow.
Our payroll deductions went into the Social Security (SS) Fund.
SS benefits are paid out of that fund.
The Government for decades borrowed money from that fund (sold treasury bonds/notes to the SS Fund) in order to help cover deficit spending.
It was always expected that the fund might grow (investing in more securities) & shrink (selling held securities).
The long term expectation was that the economy would grow with more paying in than what was being paid out. Unfortunately the explosion of Baby Boomer and their longer life expediencies has created a problem.
The SS Fund actually grew for a long time, but is currently cashing in on those Treasury securities.to pay benefits.
Regarding statement that a large part of the Federal Budget goes to Social Security - it is expenditures to pay back those loans, paying out the Treasury securities that are being redeemed by the SS Fund.
Since the government is running a deficit, you can think of this as replacing debt owed to the SS Fund with new debt owed to other buyers of Treasury securities.
Money spent on SS benefits has no net affect on the national debt.
As concerns the payroll taxes of current workers, there is an issue regarding the state of the SS Fund when they retire. There are many options on how to handle that, but that is too much to cover here.
Simple solution. Call Social Security and Medicare “Earned Benefits.” Earned because work (for the most part) is how you have the benefits when you’re older.
Their definition of entitlement has come to mean something that one THINKS they are owed, as Andrew Cuomo believes he is owed an elected post of leadership and trust. "Fairly" is out. And BTW: the day after New Yorkers blithely reelect him, he will switch his party affiliation.
Gee Hal, hope your military pension & health care will be safe from President Musk. And it's fine you are a political independent. That said, when you have to choose between the party that exults gratuitous evil and cruelty versus the well meaning if bumbling party -- I think your choice is clear. Surely you agree?
"That said, when you have to choose between the party that exults gratuitous evil and cruelty versus the well meaning if bumbling party -- I think your choice is clear."
Most times I vote for the Libertarian candidate. But when it came time to choose between a convicted felon and a walking low-IQ word salad, yeah, the choice was clear...and more Americans agreed with me.
Trump is a convicted felon, the walking low-IQ word salad, and a grifter. I see you bought into the "conservative" talking points about Candidate Harris without actually listening to her, not to mention the nonsense bullet points in your original comment. Libertarian is a euphemism for a "small government conservative" trying to sound smart (in other words, I've got mine, to heck with everyone else). I've known plenty of "Libertarians" who constantly complain loudly about taxes and government spending and yet still gladly have their hands out.
"Trump is a convicted felon, the walking low-IQ word salad, and a grifter."
Yet he is President...again. Doesn't speak well for Kamala or the Democrats.
"I see you bought into the "conservative" talking points about Candidate Harris without actually listening to her..."
I watched every interview she had and yes, she is that bad. She didn't have the spine to attend the Al Smith Dinner because there would be no teleprompter support. She didn't do Joe Rogan because Kamala couldn't do three hours unscripted.
"Libertarian is a euphemism for a "small government conservative" trying to sound smart..."
Well, this libertarian actually believes in a small (and limited) federal government. The alternative is what we already have, which is practically unlimited government, regardless of which party is in charge. At least Trump is making an attempt to pare down the waste which, by the way, Democrats don't seem to care about.
Trump, for all his faults, can at least carry on a conversation without a teleprompter and creating word salad responses. How long was it after Kamala's anointing before she she actually had her first interview? And two notable no-shows: the Al Smith Dinner (no teleprompters allowed) and Joe Rogan (typically around three hours unscripted). And of course her love of yellow school busses, Venn diagrams and the passage of time.
I read and post on this forum because I choose to. Now you can choose to block me as many others have simply because they can't stand any opposing view inside this liberal echo chamber, and I am perfectly fine with that. Understand that being in an echo chamber doesn't necessarily make you any smarter, but it will make you more closed-minded. Democrats used to brag about being tolerant and inclusive...I guess those days are gone.
If the choice had been clear the race would not have been so close. I'd rather have a decent person as President instead of an amoral felon....regardless of which one was dumbest. And the jury is out on that.
Medicaid is primarily there to provide funds for the care of disabled children and adults who cannot care for themselves. I know this because I am the mother of a child born with multiple birth defects, who was loved by all who knew him.
2/3 of Medicaid recipients are the elderly and disabled, but Republicans convinced their followers that "those people" (read: BLACK) were exploiting Medicaid to have more children so they could collect more welfare.
1. No one has raided the Trust Fund. You need to learn how it works.
2. When has the government, in the last 85 years, NOT paid benefits?
“The Social Security trust funds are financial accounts in the U.S. Treasury. There are two separate Social Security trust funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund pays disability benefits.
Social Security taxes and other income are deposited in these accounts, and Social Security benefits are paid from them. The only purposes for which these trust funds can be used are to pay benefits and program administrative costs.
The Social Security trust funds hold MONEY NOT NEEDED IN THE CURRENT YEAR to pay benefits and administrative costs and, BY LAW, invest it in special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them.”
Thanks for the clarification. You encouraged me to do some reading that did, indeed, identify some ways in which I was mistaken. My main point still stands, though. Social Security is not a give-away. People have paid into SS in good faith and have earned their payments. We need to enact policies that ensure those who follow will also receive the promised benefits.
Rich Republicans are the people calling Social Security an entitlement or a giveaway. Their poor constituents who live on Social Security after they retire, I think, naively think their elected officials will stop benefits going to "those people" and their own benefits will increase.
The single BEST policy? Eliminate the income cap ($176,100 in 2025). Elon Musk paid his obligation for his Tesla earnings 15 minutes into the new year. 94% of us pay into Social Security all year.
"If the cap for Social Security had not existed (there is no cap on Medicare taxes) the some 6% of U.S. workers who earn more than Social Security’s taxable maximum would contribute more than $388 billion to Social Security. If the earnings maximum had been eliminated, just the handful of people — a bit more than 229 — earning over $50 million a year would have paid $3.6 billion in Social Security tax, which is more than 77% of American workers — earning less than $57,000 per year – paid in Social Security tax.
Let me repeat: 229 of the highest-paid Americans — if the law would change and they paid Social Security tax all year round — would pay as much tax as 77% of Americans"
Entitlement is a complicated concept. Rs project it means an undeserved right, as in royalty by birth. While at the same time, they claim white Christian men are dominant and entitled by birth. I think the term is so abused we need to use a better one- like essential services. Rs have been so relentless at maligning all things “government”, too many can’t even name a single service as citizens they own and receive. I hope, at least, this abuse and rape of democracy (which is why it hurts so much) might shine a bigger light on the fact that WE own the government, and hire regular citizens (at a bargain low salary) to provide us with services. A tiny percentage of the “government” is “political” or even elected- and I would argue, they are the most prone to corruption. It’s so simple, it’s dangerous: we get really good services, if we elect really good people to mind the laws and do the hiring.
We used to call them "benefits." Republicans started calling them "entitlements." The base interprets that as "THOSE people are getting things that are rightfully yours!" I don't doubt they think they'll become rich once Leon Muskrat weeds out the "fraud, waste and abuse."
My understanding is that, although Americans do pay into these funds, the payouts are so huge, year after year, and with increase in older population, that these programs require other financial outlays to remain solvent. It's not exactly a pay in, pay out system.
One solution is to raise the cap. Currently, there are no Social Security taxes on earnings over $176,100. That means a lot of wealthy freeloaders, who have made and make their money due to a strong America (although Trump is working to weaken it). I propose raising the cap to $500,000.
As I understand, if high earners began paying more into the program, they'd also be entitled to take more out of it, so this increased spending would offset some of the gains the higher tax revenues would bring. It seems there needs to be a multi point approach, of which this could be a part.
there is, as I understand it, a cap on payouts, essentially reducing the amount a person can receive based on their other resources, so the wealthiest don't get more.
Your benefits are reduced if you are under retirement age and make above a determined limit ($23,400 in 2025). You'll lose $1 for every $2 you make over that limit.
I would add that the wealthy can afford to pay into supplemental retirement program, which lower income people may not be able to do. Social security is taxed if one has an income above a certain level, which usually means income from supplemental, non-Roth IRAs, etc.
"The maximum (monthly) benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2025, your maximum benefit would be $4,018. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2025, your maximum benefit would be $2,831. If you retire at age 70 in 2025, your maximum benefit would be $5,108."
Krugman noted that if the original Trump tax cuts were allowed to expire, that money would fund Social Security for years. It should also be noted that when Republicans talk about possible shortfalls, they never suggest sourcing money from the rich (e.g., letting the tax cuts expire or raising the SS cap). They always target the poor or middle class, the people who can least afford it.
Just to add a little to this comment: Krugman wrote that "we could raise enough money to sustain Social Security as it is simply by not letting Republicans cut taxes for the rich."
Nope! It's called an "investment in your future" system. We pay in; they invest; we receive after retirement what they perceive we should have. I'm sure there's an algorithm for that part. 🤭
Nope, the Social Security Trust Funds are solvent: $2,721,466,000,000 (That is TRILLION) in reserves at the end of 2024. Republicans convinced people that the government was raiding the fund. Excess revenue goes into Treasury securities which earn interest (like the old Savings Bonds).
One of the problems is too few workers to retirees. In 1950, there were 24 births per 1000 women. That has dropped to 12 per 1000. 76 million Boomers started retiring in 2011. The Trust Funds will have to start redeeming securities in 2034.
It is time for some of that "Good Trouble" John Lewis reminded us of before he passed. We should remember Congressman Lewis and all of those brave Civil Right Fighters by doing as they have done. It is time to " "Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living!" Mother Jones said that. She was from an earlier time in American history. Further back in our history we received assistance from France during our American Revolution. A French phrase we should all learn: coup d'é·tat.
I am not able to find an authoritative voice for this quote: "It is Time to Raise Some Hell!" It is time and we should. 😎
Where can we find some lawyers, not on drumpf's payroll, with enough guts and brawn to file impeachment papers for him, JDV, and the Muskrat, etc.? I think every single Republican who's been kissing his ass should be impeached or fired, too!! Enough of this crazy shit!! IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!!!!!!
Lawyers are already at it. We need to get patriotic Republicans who oppose the coup by Putin/Trump. 22 senate Republ;icans voted to fund Ukraine. Dozens of Republican House members.
We need to pressure them. Call. Write. Picket. Sit in.
Yup — if there’s a demo / protest near you, go to it. Haven’t seen any down heah in Charleston, SC, so I’m flying up to DC tomorrow to participate in the Demonstration / Protest for Democracy on the National Mall. Y’all come, heah!!
Folks, let’s give them a break! They’re in a hurry to get their words out to all of us. Copy editing is a dinosaur in the publishing world these days, even the New York Times and everyone else has terrible copy editing. So let’s just say we knew what they meant and let it go with that. I am an English major and a grammar policeman too but I’m pretty much ready to give everybody a break at this point, it’s the thought that counts. And when you dictate, which they do, I hope you all have had the experience of AutoCorrect taking over and saying a whole bunch of different things than you meant. And if you don’t proofread very very carefully, you get into a mess. Here’s an example. I was saying something about a lawyer, and AutoCorrect changed it to “liar” and then quickly changed it to “warrior” . I told the friend I was writing to, as a lawyer, I know all of those could be true at any given moment and with any given lawyer.. ha ha
I share Randi's confusion. Would the sentence not be clearer and more accurate if it said, "since Republicans insisted on perpetuating enormous tax cuts..." ??
Text is different on phone and computer. On computer, text reads, "since those budgets (that is the Democrats budgets) refused to perpetuate...". On phone, text reads, "since Republicans refused to perpetuate..."
YES, THIS is indeed the point. If MAGA were not wresting the government from the people, I would say don't shut down the government, because people get hurt. I've never advocated this in the past. MAGA is hurting EVERYONE all the time. Democrats should NOT vote to keep them going. DEMS, DO NOT VOTE FOR MAGA. VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE.
There is no MAGA political party. It is Republicans. The Republicans are MAGA and MAGA are Republicans. Republicans in Congress are letting Trump establish his kingship. Republicans on the Supreme Court and other courts are allowing Trump to be above the law. Republicans are your family and neighbors. And THEY did this.
The old Republican Party, which was important to America, has disappeared, so I prefer to call it MAGA. In any case, the majority of Americans (I think) want to remain self-governing. Therefore, Congress should vote for the people.
Michiganders who voted for Slotkin also don't like that she (and Peters) won't return their constituents' emails or calls beyond the random boilerplate "we're working hard... "
^^^ This from the person who said "hold us accountable" in the response to the Joint House speech/Republican rally.
Voters are trying to draw some lines, but if our elected officials won't draw any lines - we're all in a world of hurt and it is getting worse.
Christopher: I have more than one question and issue w Slotkin's responses but I think it's best to watch it for one's self and decide whether you feel that her answers addressed the questions asked and whether her answers were 'effective' (for want of a better adjective right now).
Again, I found it maddening - but maybe that's just my response? (I have other adjectives, too)
Thanks again for the link. So I just watched and found Slotkin's answer extremely disappointing. She didn't mention a single point brought up by Jen and her bottom line was "both parties need to do better." Good grief. Give me a break. Dems are NEVER going to win with this kind of communication and approach.
Yes. Exactly. I also found the “... let me highlight my background for you again… … and the Dems are back on their heels…. “ etc disappointing - as one response. She is not a strong messenger and I heard lots of equivocating when discussing leadership. And guess which lines Faux News and other outlets seized on to repeat? We need to do better and I worry (fear) that we can’t respond quickly enough if Slotkin is being brought out to speak “for” the Dems. Not working.
It’s time for the Democrats to take a stand and not wimp out. There is very little difference between passing this CR and shutting down the government. They should all say that since Trump is such a great deal maker, he needs to use his skills to negotiate a deal with the Democrats. It’s up to him and the Republican leadership of the Senate.
Rethuglicans have drunk the Kool Aid, bought into and believe their own propaganda, and have recited daily the mantra taught to them by Saint Ronnie Raygun: tax cuts are good for the economy! The modern GQP has assembled a huge group of people who have been taught to hate 'The Other' and are prepared to put some of them/us in jeopardy of death and starvation - on the streets. This will destroy the Economy, the Government, cause many unnecessary and preventable deaths and reduce the Dollar to play money with no value. But they are true believers and tRump+Musk are leading their lemmings to the cliff. I just don't know if we can keep them from dragging us after them - or killing us for not believing their woo.
My senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, had a virtual town hall last night and said that he is very concerned that in a shutdown, Russel Vought will destroy government even further. With that concern, aren't the senate Democrats really limiting their bargaining power?
Much appreciated if Senator Whitehouse could explain what he and his colleagues are now doing to stop or slow the destruction of our government. Am I missing something?
I'm curious to hear how Sen Whitehouse thinks a shutdown would amplify Vought's ability to destroy our government? What would the mechanism of that be? If we can see it coming, maybe we can thwart it.
So, Jennifer, your column is a grand and necessary antidote to the Dems (and I count myself among them) cowering before the cabal of forces (foundationally some corporations and it seems most billionaires) dedicated to sucking the life out of 'we the people' in pursuit of more, more, more. This is baked into their characters and their world view, and has always seemed to me like the nuttiest of ideas. There are natural limits, aren't there? We need to prod our representatives to get off the Billionaire gravy train and do what needs to be done to preserve those they supposedly are in Washington to work for.
With 217 votes to pass this disaster, which Dems broke ranks? Time to take names and “primary” them, starting now! Is there any hope in the Senate? What are people thinking of? Are there no sane legislators? SHAME!
1 democrat broke rank in house, ?? In senate. Fetterman is a $46 million dollar rich democrat that is going to break ranks there. He said he’s not going to burn down the house or village or some such nonsense. Blech.
Fetterman is an example of Democrats getting excited about a so-called break-the-mold candidate. There was a Democratic primary, and a better candidate, but no, voters fell in love with the hoody, the shorts, the seeming "Everyman." The lesson for Democrats should be to put forward the candidate who has experience instead of relying on superficial. glitz pumped up by the mainstream media. That is also how the Democrats ended up with Krysten Sinema as the Senator from Arizona.
Back in 2016 because I perceived how great a threat was Donald Trump, I began to look at the inner workings of the two political parties. I concluded Republicans have a problem with principles but are extremely well organized and operationally competent.Democrats on the other hand, have great principles and aspirations, but stop there.
From 2016 till today, Democrats do not effectively organize, they do not effectively mobilize, and they keep leaving gettable votes on the table. Instead they seem to just proclaim Trump and MAGA will defeat themselves. They tell us R's own words and actions will energize voters without any real input from D's. After Trump won in 2017, they continued dangling all these issues that were supposedly self-executing. They told us abortion would create a Blue Wave, that all these other righteous stances would magically execute electoral victories. And they are doing it to this day.
Meanwhile, Republicans were then and are still taking over local governments, training candidates, writing and now executing Project 2025, controlling the media narrative, pumping out propaganda, destroying the Democratic brand in voters minds and gaming election systems. All these things were then and are still noted in real time, but the Democratic Party just uses these facts to collect small donor money.
That money has gone to consultants. Democrats focus on arcane and far-fetched theories of victory like the so-called Blue Wall for the electoral college instead of going to every voter in this country and convincing them to vote for us. While Republicans run wild in the state houses across this country, Blue voters in Red states are not of interest to D's. Consultants must be applying a profit-margin theory to votes - that we won't get enough votes in rural areas to win the electoral college, as if the presidency is the only election.
Now here we are. Republicans control Washington and influential states. They are amorally running amok with zero push back from Democrats. As stated in today's column, if R's can't pass a budget and the govt shuts down, it's our fault. If D's try and pass a budget but R's block it, it's D's fault. Carville tells us to roll over and play dead and voters will automatically rise up and give D's control. This has not worked yet and I don't see it working now.
I have been watching the Ken Burns documentary on the Roosevelts. It includes the story of the Progressive political movement and how its ideals made it into law. The Roosevelts seized the stage in a time when both political parties were evolving to meet the changes of the Industrial Age. It is a good reminder that partisan identities are not fore-ordained.
We are now in the Information Age. All the progressive reforms from a hundred years ago are being actively murdered by the Gilded Age plutocrats' descendants. But this time, they have taken care to bamboozle Americans into thinking they are the good guys. This may be a time for a new Progressive Party to go to war against the billionaires again. I realize the danger of a third party is that it hands the election to the wrong guy by siphoning off votes. However, we might as well go for broke as whatever the D's are doing keeps handing the election to the wrong guy anyway.
When both parties are failing to meet the moment and there are more Independent voters than dyed in the wool R's or D's, a New Progressivism merits real consideration. The grassroots energy is there. Where are the organizers?
Now that’s some good thinking! New Progressives—if them Dems keep sitting this out a la Carville we can build the New Progressives on the ashes of the Democratic Donkeys.
I remember the past well. Corporate centrists lead the Democratic Party because they bring in the big bucks. Liberals were so outnumbered and criticized that they tried to reinvent themselves as progressives. The progressives have not fared much better as the Democratic leadership refused to elevate their stature with committee chairmanships. The Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's in the Democratic Party have done nothing to invigorate the party but rely on the status quo. As you say, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
Both political parties are beholden to the wealthy because elections often come down to who has the biggest war chest. Decades of promises made and promises broken have turned off many voters. People understand more than we give them credit for. They understand that the system is rigged and that there is an enormous level of income and wealth inequality.
And then there is the general decline in character, values, and morals within society. I grew up in a time when everyone understood right from wrong and good from bad. Anti-semitism and racial prejudices existed, but they were not spoken about in polite company. Today, most people define their lives not by how they live their life, or the friendships they have, but on how much they own and how well they live. The American culture reeks of materialism. It is glaringly obvious when you travel abroad and see how the rest of the world lives.
While these are broad generalizations, I do think they explain why there is not a bigger outcry about what is happening in Washington. Also, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people reading and commenting on these substacks are older, retired people who have the time. Younger people are busy with work and family. They may read the headlines, but the fine points matter little because most believe that the politicians are working first and foremost for the wealthy. In fact the whole system favors the wealthy.
I was pretty irritated by the Politico article that was stating that "Democrats were backed into a corner" as to the budget that the House passed. The media is doing the same damage that has transpired for the last ten years and that is helping to enable Trumps agenda. We need the Senate to stand their ground and not pass that horrible bill that was sent to them. If we get a shutdown then so be it. The alternative is worse. I read that Musk is going after Social Security and that is the red line in the sand as far as I am concerned. Trump and Musk have to be stopped and the only way to do that is to not fold under budget pressures that are entirely of the Republicans making.
"The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree of public welfare may require it. . . The health and vitality of our people are at least as well worth conserving as their forests, waters, lands and minerals, and in this great work the national government must bear a most important part. The men of wealth who to-day are trying to prevent the regulation and control of their business in the interest of the public by the proper government authorities will not succeed, in my judgment, in checking the progress of the movement. But if they did succeed they would find that they had sown the wind and would surely reap the whirlwind, for they would ultimately provoke the violent excesses which accompany a reform coming by convulsion instead of by steady and natural growth." Teddy Roosevelt.
There are too few reminders that Medicare and Social Security are NOT "entitlements." Workers (at least those at the lower end of the income spectrum) pay into these insurance programs throughout their working lives. In the case of Medicare, they continue to pay premiums (in some cases, quite substantial) once they are eligible for services. In other words, they HAVE PAID AND CONTINUE TO PAY for these programs. They're NOT freebies.
The fact that the government has, over the years, raided these funds for other purposes does not somehow negate the reality that older adults should receive the benefits they paid for.
Medicaid is in a different category. But it provides a vital service that enables people to stay at work, to ensure the health of their children, and to care for their older parents who need services not covered by Medicare. It is inhumane but also stupid in terms of impact on the economy reality to cut this essential program.
Actually, "entitlement" means that one is fairly owed something that one has earned. The Republicans have been chipping away at the meaning of the word for years. Republicans act as if they are entitled to rewrite the English language. They are not.
I prefer to think of it as a "loan". We pay the gov't a Social Security Tax - loaning them money - that they can use to make things better through various public services and investments. When we retire, the gov't pays us back.
Your Social Security withholding while working pays for retirees benefits.
When you retire, current employees pay for YOUR benefits.
It's not a loan.
True, but if we explain to people that it's a loan (because that's pretty much how it works in practice), they might not see it as the gov't just giving money to people who think they're entitled to it somehow.
Think like a Trumpist......
Either way, we are entitled to the money we were promised when we paid our taxes.
Yeah, the graffiti written on Mitch McConnel's door in KY during the pandemic comes to mind: "Where's my fucking money?"
When the GOP get overdrunk on power, they can't help revealing their intention to either steal--or at least privatize--the Social Security trust fund.
Our payroll deductions went into the Social Security (SS) Fund.
SS benefits are paid out of that fund.
The Government for decades borrowed money from that fund (sold treasury bonds/notes to the SS Fund) in order to help cover deficit spending.
It was always expected that the fund might grow (investing in more securities) & shrink (selling held securities).
The long term expectation was that the economy would grow with more paying in than what was being paid out. Unfortunately the explosion of Baby Boomer and their longer life expediencies has created a problem.
The SS Fund actually grew for a long time, but is currently cashing in on those Treasury securities.to pay benefits.
Regarding statement that a large part of the Federal Budget goes to Social Security - it is expenditures to pay back those loans, paying out the Treasury securities that are being redeemed by the SS Fund.
Since the government is running a deficit, you can think of this as replacing debt owed to the SS Fund with new debt owed to other buyers of Treasury securities.
Money spent on SS benefits has no net affect on the national debt.
As concerns the payroll taxes of current workers, there is an issue regarding the state of the SS Fund when they retire. There are many options on how to handle that, but that is too much to cover here.
Simple solution. Call Social Security and Medicare “Earned Benefits.” Earned because work (for the most part) is how you have the benefits when you’re older.
Come to think of it, doesn't social security call it earned benefits?
Their definition of entitlement has come to mean something that one THINKS they are owed, as Andrew Cuomo believes he is owed an elected post of leadership and trust. "Fairly" is out. And BTW: the day after New Yorkers blithely reelect him, he will switch his party affiliation.
"Republicans act as if they are entitled to rewrite the English language."
I don't think Republicans were responsible for the following:
Sex change operation ---> "gender affirming care"
pregnant woman ----> "pregnant person"
breast feeding ----> "chest feeding"
woman ----> oh, wait, there is no definition for that one...
illegal aliens ----> "undocumented workers", "migrants"
Gee Hal, hope your military pension & health care will be safe from President Musk. And it's fine you are a political independent. That said, when you have to choose between the party that exults gratuitous evil and cruelty versus the well meaning if bumbling party -- I think your choice is clear. Surely you agree?
"That said, when you have to choose between the party that exults gratuitous evil and cruelty versus the well meaning if bumbling party -- I think your choice is clear."
Most times I vote for the Libertarian candidate. But when it came time to choose between a convicted felon and a walking low-IQ word salad, yeah, the choice was clear...and more Americans agreed with me.
Trump is a convicted felon, the walking low-IQ word salad, and a grifter. I see you bought into the "conservative" talking points about Candidate Harris without actually listening to her, not to mention the nonsense bullet points in your original comment. Libertarian is a euphemism for a "small government conservative" trying to sound smart (in other words, I've got mine, to heck with everyone else). I've known plenty of "Libertarians" who constantly complain loudly about taxes and government spending and yet still gladly have their hands out.
"Trump is a convicted felon, the walking low-IQ word salad, and a grifter."
Yet he is President...again. Doesn't speak well for Kamala or the Democrats.
"I see you bought into the "conservative" talking points about Candidate Harris without actually listening to her..."
I watched every interview she had and yes, she is that bad. She didn't have the spine to attend the Al Smith Dinner because there would be no teleprompter support. She didn't do Joe Rogan because Kamala couldn't do three hours unscripted.
"Libertarian is a euphemism for a "small government conservative" trying to sound smart..."
Well, this libertarian actually believes in a small (and limited) federal government. The alternative is what we already have, which is practically unlimited government, regardless of which party is in charge. At least Trump is making an attempt to pare down the waste which, by the way, Democrats don't seem to care about.
I bet you anything that Kamala's IQ is aat least 50 points higher than that of the orange felon.
Why are you even reading and posting comments on The Contrarian> Go back to watching your Faux Entertainment channel.
Trump, for all his faults, can at least carry on a conversation without a teleprompter and creating word salad responses. How long was it after Kamala's anointing before she she actually had her first interview? And two notable no-shows: the Al Smith Dinner (no teleprompters allowed) and Joe Rogan (typically around three hours unscripted). And of course her love of yellow school busses, Venn diagrams and the passage of time.
I read and post on this forum because I choose to. Now you can choose to block me as many others have simply because they can't stand any opposing view inside this liberal echo chamber, and I am perfectly fine with that. Understand that being in an echo chamber doesn't necessarily make you any smarter, but it will make you more closed-minded. Democrats used to brag about being tolerant and inclusive...I guess those days are gone.
If the choice had been clear the race would not have been so close. I'd rather have a decent person as President instead of an amoral felon....regardless of which one was dumbest. And the jury is out on that.
"I'd rather have a decent person as President instead of an amoral felon..."
I agree that we should elect people to office who have good moral character, but our political parties care more about power than anything else.
The fact that the "amoral felon" beat out Kamala doesn't speak well for her or her party.
And how often did your libertarian candidates win,eh? Y'all are responsible for electing Mango Mussolini in 2016.
Hillary Clinton – 65,845,063
Donald Trump - 62,984,828
Difference: 2,860,235
Michigan
Trump: 2,279,805
Hillary: 2,268,193
Margin: 11,612
3rd party votes: 242,919 (20.9x margin)
Electoral Votes: 16
Wisconsin
Trump: 1,409,467
Hillary: 1,382,210
Margin: 27,257
3rd party votes: 151,382 (5x margin)
Electoral Votes: 10
Pennsylvania
Trump: 2,912,941
Hillary: 2,844,705
Margin: 68,236
3rd party votes: 212,461 (3x margin)
Electoral Votes: 20
Total electoral votes: 46
Votes needed to win: 270
Clinton EC votes without MI, WI, PA:232
Clinton EC votes with MI, WI, PA: 278
"And how often did your libertarian candidates win,eh?"
I don't care. I have the freedom to vote for whomever I choose. BTW, how many votes did Jill Stein get?
So women are not persons?
Men are persons too - can they get pregnant?
Hal, it's called "marketing." Not sure why your list offends so many people.
Medicaid is primarily there to provide funds for the care of disabled children and adults who cannot care for themselves. I know this because I am the mother of a child born with multiple birth defects, who was loved by all who knew him.
2/3 of Medicaid recipients are the elderly and disabled, but Republicans convinced their followers that "those people" (read: BLACK) were exploiting Medicaid to have more children so they could collect more welfare.
I would love to know who initially began calling them "entitlements" and wring their necks!
Republicans.
Whodathunkit??
1. No one has raided the Trust Fund. You need to learn how it works.
2. When has the government, in the last 85 years, NOT paid benefits?
“The Social Security trust funds are financial accounts in the U.S. Treasury. There are two separate Social Security trust funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund pays retirement and survivors benefits, and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund pays disability benefits.
Social Security taxes and other income are deposited in these accounts, and Social Security benefits are paid from them. The only purposes for which these trust funds can be used are to pay benefits and program administrative costs.
The Social Security trust funds hold MONEY NOT NEEDED IN THE CURRENT YEAR to pay benefits and administrative costs and, BY LAW, invest it in special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. A market rate of interest is paid to the trust funds on the bonds they hold, and when those bonds reach maturity or are needed to pay benefits, the Treasury redeems them.”
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.htm
Thanks for the clarification. You encouraged me to do some reading that did, indeed, identify some ways in which I was mistaken. My main point still stands, though. Social Security is not a give-away. People have paid into SS in good faith and have earned their payments. We need to enact policies that ensure those who follow will also receive the promised benefits.
Rich Republicans are the people calling Social Security an entitlement or a giveaway. Their poor constituents who live on Social Security after they retire, I think, naively think their elected officials will stop benefits going to "those people" and their own benefits will increase.
The single BEST policy? Eliminate the income cap ($176,100 in 2025). Elon Musk paid his obligation for his Tesla earnings 15 minutes into the new year. 94% of us pay into Social Security all year.
"If the cap for Social Security had not existed (there is no cap on Medicare taxes) the some 6% of U.S. workers who earn more than Social Security’s taxable maximum would contribute more than $388 billion to Social Security. If the earnings maximum had been eliminated, just the handful of people — a bit more than 229 — earning over $50 million a year would have paid $3.6 billion in Social Security tax, which is more than 77% of American workers — earning less than $57,000 per year – paid in Social Security tax.
Let me repeat: 229 of the highest-paid Americans — if the law would change and they paid Social Security tax all year round — would pay as much tax as 77% of Americans"
https://larson.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/many-rich-americans-have-already-paid-their-2025-social-security-taxes#:~:text=A%20Primer%20On%20Social%20Security%20Finances&text=If%20the%20cap%20for%20Social,%24388%20billion%20to%20Social%20Security.
Entitlement is a complicated concept. Rs project it means an undeserved right, as in royalty by birth. While at the same time, they claim white Christian men are dominant and entitled by birth. I think the term is so abused we need to use a better one- like essential services. Rs have been so relentless at maligning all things “government”, too many can’t even name a single service as citizens they own and receive. I hope, at least, this abuse and rape of democracy (which is why it hurts so much) might shine a bigger light on the fact that WE own the government, and hire regular citizens (at a bargain low salary) to provide us with services. A tiny percentage of the “government” is “political” or even elected- and I would argue, they are the most prone to corruption. It’s so simple, it’s dangerous: we get really good services, if we elect really good people to mind the laws and do the hiring.
We used to call them "benefits." Republicans started calling them "entitlements." The base interprets that as "THOSE people are getting things that are rightfully yours!" I don't doubt they think they'll become rich once Leon Muskrat weeds out the "fraud, waste and abuse."
"...WE own the government."
Nope. The very rich own the government.
My understanding is that, although Americans do pay into these funds, the payouts are so huge, year after year, and with increase in older population, that these programs require other financial outlays to remain solvent. It's not exactly a pay in, pay out system.
One solution is to raise the cap. Currently, there are no Social Security taxes on earnings over $176,100. That means a lot of wealthy freeloaders, who have made and make their money due to a strong America (although Trump is working to weaken it). I propose raising the cap to $500,000.
Eliminate the cap entirely. They will still be billionaires.
should there be a cap at all? the amount would be negligible to the wealthy and save Social Security for those who need it.
There is no cap on Medicare tax. There shouldn't be one on Social Security.
As I understand, if high earners began paying more into the program, they'd also be entitled to take more out of it, so this increased spending would offset some of the gains the higher tax revenues would bring. It seems there needs to be a multi point approach, of which this could be a part.
There is a limit on how much social security anyone gets. In 2024 it was $3822 at full retirement age. At 62 it is $2710.
there is, as I understand it, a cap on payouts, essentially reducing the amount a person can receive based on their other resources, so the wealthiest don't get more.
Your benefits are reduced if you are under retirement age and make above a determined limit ($23,400 in 2025). You'll lose $1 for every $2 you make over that limit.
I would add that the wealthy can afford to pay into supplemental retirement program, which lower income people may not be able to do. Social security is taxed if one has an income above a certain level, which usually means income from supplemental, non-Roth IRAs, etc.
Maybe the "cap" should be based on your income, as in "if you earn more than $500,000 per annum on your wealth, you do not collect SS".
No, because there's a maximum benefit payout.
"The maximum (monthly) benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2025, your maximum benefit would be $4,018. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2025, your maximum benefit would be $2,831. If you retire at age 70 in 2025, your maximum benefit would be $5,108."
https://www.ssa.gov/faqs/en/questions/KA-01897.html
Please read Paul Krugman's very recent explanation of how Social Security works. You make it sound like the program has to be bailed out with taxpayer money each year, yet this is NOT the case. To be sure this is easy for you, see: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#trash/WhctKLbVhfKqbkxSBhCDWQvHNBpwLpxxXKCxdcmWpVTxfgGjcRKvgMJnRPLCQHGTQzGPRvG
Krugman noted that if the original Trump tax cuts were allowed to expire, that money would fund Social Security for years. It should also be noted that when Republicans talk about possible shortfalls, they never suggest sourcing money from the rich (e.g., letting the tax cuts expire or raising the SS cap). They always target the poor or middle class, the people who can least afford it.
Just to add a little to this comment: Krugman wrote that "we could raise enough money to sustain Social Security as it is simply by not letting Republicans cut taxes for the rich."
Please be advised that the Krugman link does not load.
Is it this article?
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-clean-little-secret-of-social
Excellent article! Thank you for posting the link.
Nope! It's called an "investment in your future" system. We pay in; they invest; we receive after retirement what they perceive we should have. I'm sure there's an algorithm for that part. 🤭
Nope, the Social Security Trust Funds are solvent: $2,721,466,000,000 (That is TRILLION) in reserves at the end of 2024. Republicans convinced people that the government was raiding the fund. Excess revenue goes into Treasury securities which earn interest (like the old Savings Bonds).
One of the problems is too few workers to retirees. In 1950, there were 24 births per 1000 women. That has dropped to 12 per 1000. 76 million Boomers started retiring in 2011. The Trust Funds will have to start redeeming securities in 2034.
It is time for some of that "Good Trouble" John Lewis reminded us of before he passed. We should remember Congressman Lewis and all of those brave Civil Right Fighters by doing as they have done. It is time to " "Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living!" Mother Jones said that. She was from an earlier time in American history. Further back in our history we received assistance from France during our American Revolution. A French phrase we should all learn: coup d'é·tat.
I am not able to find an authoritative voice for this quote: "It is Time to Raise Some Hell!" It is time and we should. 😎
Impeach. Feathers of Hope. https://jerryweiss.substack.com/p/remove-impeach-impeach
Where can we find some lawyers, not on drumpf's payroll, with enough guts and brawn to file impeachment papers for him, JDV, and the Muskrat, etc.? I think every single Republican who's been kissing his ass should be impeached or fired, too!! Enough of this crazy shit!! IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!!!!!!
Lawyers are already at it. We need to get patriotic Republicans who oppose the coup by Putin/Trump. 22 senate Republ;icans voted to fund Ukraine. Dozens of Republican House members.
We need to pressure them. Call. Write. Picket. Sit in.
Yup — if there’s a demo / protest near you, go to it. Haven’t seen any down heah in Charleston, SC, so I’m flying up to DC tomorrow to participate in the Demonstration / Protest for Democracy on the National Mall. Y’all come, heah!!
I'm confused by this:
"However, since Republicans refused to perpetuate enormous tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich, they never agreed."
Doesn't this mean the opposite of what the Republicans want to do, i.e., perpetuate the enormous tax cuts etc.? What am I missing here?
Had to have been an error in writing, I thought the same thing. Obviously they didn’t mean that
An error in copy editing!
Yes, they also misused "whit" and "wit". "Cared not one whit." I know. It's not important, but it's something a copyeditor would have caught.
Folks, let’s give them a break! They’re in a hurry to get their words out to all of us. Copy editing is a dinosaur in the publishing world these days, even the New York Times and everyone else has terrible copy editing. So let’s just say we knew what they meant and let it go with that. I am an English major and a grammar policeman too but I’m pretty much ready to give everybody a break at this point, it’s the thought that counts. And when you dictate, which they do, I hope you all have had the experience of AutoCorrect taking over and saying a whole bunch of different things than you meant. And if you don’t proofread very very carefully, you get into a mess. Here’s an example. I was saying something about a lawyer, and AutoCorrect changed it to “liar” and then quickly changed it to “warrior” . I told the friend I was writing to, as a lawyer, I know all of those could be true at any given moment and with any given lawyer.. ha ha
It's missing a comma "since Republicans refused, (in order) to perpetuate". I had to think about it for a minute!
Maybe. An awkward sentence even with a comma.
There should be no surprise at their inability to write clearly. Sorry.
Yes, should have been "insisted on perpetuating".
I share Randi's confusion. Would the sentence not be clearer and more accurate if it said, "since Republicans insisted on perpetuating enormous tax cuts..." ??
Text is different on phone and computer. On computer, text reads, "since those budgets (that is the Democrats budgets) refused to perpetuate...". On phone, text reads, "since Republicans refused to perpetuate..."
Agreed. Was about to post same question.
Say it loud say it clear. It is the people’s government. They cannot steal it.
YES, THIS is indeed the point. If MAGA were not wresting the government from the people, I would say don't shut down the government, because people get hurt. I've never advocated this in the past. MAGA is hurting EVERYONE all the time. Democrats should NOT vote to keep them going. DEMS, DO NOT VOTE FOR MAGA. VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE.
There is no MAGA political party. It is Republicans. The Republicans are MAGA and MAGA are Republicans. Republicans in Congress are letting Trump establish his kingship. Republicans on the Supreme Court and other courts are allowing Trump to be above the law. Republicans are your family and neighbors. And THEY did this.
The old Republican Party, which was important to America, has disappeared, so I prefer to call it MAGA. In any case, the majority of Americans (I think) want to remain self-governing. Therefore, Congress should vote for the people.
Americans don't like Musk.
Michiganders who voted for Slotkin also don't like that she (and Peters) won't return their constituents' emails or calls beyond the random boilerplate "we're working hard... "
^^^ This from the person who said "hold us accountable" in the response to the Joint House speech/Republican rally.
Voters are trying to draw some lines, but if our elected officials won't draw any lines - we're all in a world of hurt and it is getting worse.
That was a maddening interview to watch.
Thanks for continuing to write, Jennifer.
I didn't see the interview (can't stomach Meet the Press). Jen didn't tell us how Slotkin answered the question. I sure would like to know.
Christopher: I have more than one question and issue w Slotkin's responses but I think it's best to watch it for one's self and decide whether you feel that her answers addressed the questions asked and whether her answers were 'effective' (for want of a better adjective right now).
Again, I found it maddening - but maybe that's just my response? (I have other adjectives, too)
Here's the link. It's about 10 minutes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/embedded-video/mmvo233900613524
Thanks again for the link. So I just watched and found Slotkin's answer extremely disappointing. She didn't mention a single point brought up by Jen and her bottom line was "both parties need to do better." Good grief. Give me a break. Dems are NEVER going to win with this kind of communication and approach.
Yes. Exactly. I also found the “... let me highlight my background for you again… … and the Dems are back on their heels…. “ etc disappointing - as one response. She is not a strong messenger and I heard lots of equivocating when discussing leadership. And guess which lines Faux News and other outlets seized on to repeat? We need to do better and I worry (fear) that we can’t respond quickly enough if Slotkin is being brought out to speak “for” the Dems. Not working.
💯🎯
Great! TY very much. 🙏
I think the opposite. The Dems should NOT SAVE THE GOP. Let them not pass this budget.
It’s time for the Democrats to take a stand and not wimp out. There is very little difference between passing this CR and shutting down the government. They should all say that since Trump is such a great deal maker, he needs to use his skills to negotiate a deal with the Democrats. It’s up to him and the Republican leadership of the Senate.
I am so tired of ignorant news anchors, corrupt news anchors, and the people who employ them to subvert common sense and mislead the unwary.
Rethuglicans have drunk the Kool Aid, bought into and believe their own propaganda, and have recited daily the mantra taught to them by Saint Ronnie Raygun: tax cuts are good for the economy! The modern GQP has assembled a huge group of people who have been taught to hate 'The Other' and are prepared to put some of them/us in jeopardy of death and starvation - on the streets. This will destroy the Economy, the Government, cause many unnecessary and preventable deaths and reduce the Dollar to play money with no value. But they are true believers and tRump+Musk are leading their lemmings to the cliff. I just don't know if we can keep them from dragging us after them - or killing us for not believing their woo.
My senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, had a virtual town hall last night and said that he is very concerned that in a shutdown, Russel Vought will destroy government even further. With that concern, aren't the senate Democrats really limiting their bargaining power?
Much appreciated if Senator Whitehouse could explain what he and his colleagues are now doing to stop or slow the destruction of our government. Am I missing something?
He said he’s hoping to agree to a short CR, but isn’t that giving away the bargaining power?
You bet they are. They have almost fully amputated their lower torsos to save face after all republicans in the house bent the knee.
We cannot allow fear to lead us.
I'm curious to hear how Sen Whitehouse thinks a shutdown would amplify Vought's ability to destroy our government? What would the mechanism of that be? If we can see it coming, maybe we can thwart it.
"While the cat's away, the mice shall play."
So, Jennifer, your column is a grand and necessary antidote to the Dems (and I count myself among them) cowering before the cabal of forces (foundationally some corporations and it seems most billionaires) dedicated to sucking the life out of 'we the people' in pursuit of more, more, more. This is baked into their characters and their world view, and has always seemed to me like the nuttiest of ideas. There are natural limits, aren't there? We need to prod our representatives to get off the Billionaire gravy train and do what needs to be done to preserve those they supposedly are in Washington to work for.
With 217 votes to pass this disaster, which Dems broke ranks? Time to take names and “primary” them, starting now! Is there any hope in the Senate? What are people thinking of? Are there no sane legislators? SHAME!
1 democrat broke rank in house, ?? In senate. Fetterman is a $46 million dollar rich democrat that is going to break ranks there. He said he’s not going to burn down the house or village or some such nonsense. Blech.
Fetterman is an example of Democrats getting excited about a so-called break-the-mold candidate. There was a Democratic primary, and a better candidate, but no, voters fell in love with the hoody, the shorts, the seeming "Everyman." The lesson for Democrats should be to put forward the candidate who has experience instead of relying on superficial. glitz pumped up by the mainstream media. That is also how the Democrats ended up with Krysten Sinema as the Senator from Arizona.
Fetterman seems to have been largely MIA on many votes.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2025/02/report-shows-fetterman-has-missed-the-most-senate-votes-so-far-this-year.html
Fetterman is an inarticulate blithering fool…. Heard him last night being interviewed and he could hardly put two sentences together.
That stroke didn't do him any good, either.
Back in 2016 because I perceived how great a threat was Donald Trump, I began to look at the inner workings of the two political parties. I concluded Republicans have a problem with principles but are extremely well organized and operationally competent.Democrats on the other hand, have great principles and aspirations, but stop there.
From 2016 till today, Democrats do not effectively organize, they do not effectively mobilize, and they keep leaving gettable votes on the table. Instead they seem to just proclaim Trump and MAGA will defeat themselves. They tell us R's own words and actions will energize voters without any real input from D's. After Trump won in 2017, they continued dangling all these issues that were supposedly self-executing. They told us abortion would create a Blue Wave, that all these other righteous stances would magically execute electoral victories. And they are doing it to this day.
Meanwhile, Republicans were then and are still taking over local governments, training candidates, writing and now executing Project 2025, controlling the media narrative, pumping out propaganda, destroying the Democratic brand in voters minds and gaming election systems. All these things were then and are still noted in real time, but the Democratic Party just uses these facts to collect small donor money.
That money has gone to consultants. Democrats focus on arcane and far-fetched theories of victory like the so-called Blue Wall for the electoral college instead of going to every voter in this country and convincing them to vote for us. While Republicans run wild in the state houses across this country, Blue voters in Red states are not of interest to D's. Consultants must be applying a profit-margin theory to votes - that we won't get enough votes in rural areas to win the electoral college, as if the presidency is the only election.
Now here we are. Republicans control Washington and influential states. They are amorally running amok with zero push back from Democrats. As stated in today's column, if R's can't pass a budget and the govt shuts down, it's our fault. If D's try and pass a budget but R's block it, it's D's fault. Carville tells us to roll over and play dead and voters will automatically rise up and give D's control. This has not worked yet and I don't see it working now.
I have been watching the Ken Burns documentary on the Roosevelts. It includes the story of the Progressive political movement and how its ideals made it into law. The Roosevelts seized the stage in a time when both political parties were evolving to meet the changes of the Industrial Age. It is a good reminder that partisan identities are not fore-ordained.
We are now in the Information Age. All the progressive reforms from a hundred years ago are being actively murdered by the Gilded Age plutocrats' descendants. But this time, they have taken care to bamboozle Americans into thinking they are the good guys. This may be a time for a new Progressive Party to go to war against the billionaires again. I realize the danger of a third party is that it hands the election to the wrong guy by siphoning off votes. However, we might as well go for broke as whatever the D's are doing keeps handing the election to the wrong guy anyway.
When both parties are failing to meet the moment and there are more Independent voters than dyed in the wool R's or D's, a New Progressivism merits real consideration. The grassroots energy is there. Where are the organizers?
Now that’s some good thinking! New Progressives—if them Dems keep sitting this out a la Carville we can build the New Progressives on the ashes of the Democratic Donkeys.
I remember the past well. Corporate centrists lead the Democratic Party because they bring in the big bucks. Liberals were so outnumbered and criticized that they tried to reinvent themselves as progressives. The progressives have not fared much better as the Democratic leadership refused to elevate their stature with committee chairmanships. The Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's in the Democratic Party have done nothing to invigorate the party but rely on the status quo. As you say, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
Both political parties are beholden to the wealthy because elections often come down to who has the biggest war chest. Decades of promises made and promises broken have turned off many voters. People understand more than we give them credit for. They understand that the system is rigged and that there is an enormous level of income and wealth inequality.
And then there is the general decline in character, values, and morals within society. I grew up in a time when everyone understood right from wrong and good from bad. Anti-semitism and racial prejudices existed, but they were not spoken about in polite company. Today, most people define their lives not by how they live their life, or the friendships they have, but on how much they own and how well they live. The American culture reeks of materialism. It is glaringly obvious when you travel abroad and see how the rest of the world lives.
While these are broad generalizations, I do think they explain why there is not a bigger outcry about what is happening in Washington. Also, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people reading and commenting on these substacks are older, retired people who have the time. Younger people are busy with work and family. They may read the headlines, but the fine points matter little because most believe that the politicians are working first and foremost for the wealthy. In fact the whole system favors the wealthy.
I was pretty irritated by the Politico article that was stating that "Democrats were backed into a corner" as to the budget that the House passed. The media is doing the same damage that has transpired for the last ten years and that is helping to enable Trumps agenda. We need the Senate to stand their ground and not pass that horrible bill that was sent to them. If we get a shutdown then so be it. The alternative is worse. I read that Musk is going after Social Security and that is the red line in the sand as far as I am concerned. Trump and Musk have to be stopped and the only way to do that is to not fold under budget pressures that are entirely of the Republicans making.
"The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree of public welfare may require it. . . The health and vitality of our people are at least as well worth conserving as their forests, waters, lands and minerals, and in this great work the national government must bear a most important part. The men of wealth who to-day are trying to prevent the regulation and control of their business in the interest of the public by the proper government authorities will not succeed, in my judgment, in checking the progress of the movement. But if they did succeed they would find that they had sown the wind and would surely reap the whirlwind, for they would ultimately provoke the violent excesses which accompany a reform coming by convulsion instead of by steady and natural growth." Teddy Roosevelt.
Bully! TR had some serious flaws but he took on the big trusts — we need a trustbuster today — or a Muskbuster!
After decades of watching Meet The Press, we had to stop soon after Kristin Welker took the helm -- way too softball.
I stopped watching MTP when Welker had the moron as her guest on her first program. This after watching MTP from childhood.
I believe the MSM is responsible for the moron being elected both times. They continually give him a platform to spew his lies.
"However, since Republicans refused to perpetuate enormous tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich, they never agreed."
I think Ms. Rubin must mean the opposite of what this sentence seems to say.
More like:
However, since Republicans INSISTED ON PERPETUATING enormous tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich, they never agreed.
Much better!