What's new
By:

I can’t afford this Trump economy

Red said:
truthsocial.com

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

RECIPROCAL TARIFFS TAKE EFFECT AT MIDNIGHT TONIGHT! BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, LARGELY FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MANY YEARS, LAUGHING ALL THE WAY, WILL START FLOWING INTO THE USA. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN STOP AMERICA’S GREATNESS WOULD BE A RADICAL LEFT COURT...
truthsocial.com truthsocial.com
Click to expand...
Straight up fascist propaganda, no other way to see it. Blatantly false. But hordes of the cult will believe it.
 
Red said:
Yeah, thought about it for awhile, but finally chose “civil war” as my first choice in your “how will it play out” thread. He’s not going anywhere if he’s still alive come Nov., 2028.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo9par4ie6A
Click to expand...

Not only a ballroom but also a golf course and paved over the rose garden and made the oval office into a gaudy tacky gold shrine to himself.
He seems like he is trying to make the Whitehouse his permanent home.
 
Republicans have been having wet dreams over privatization of SS for as long as there’s been SS. Can’t possibly be a surprise that Republicans want to hurt workers….

www.marketwatch.com

All the reasons privatizing Social Security would be a terrible idea

Converting Social Security into millions of individual investment accounts would end the program as we know it.
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set off a firestorm this week when he said that the Trump administration had just taken the first steps toward a “back door for privatizing Social Security.”

Bessent, speaking to reporters at MAGA news site Breitbart, said this was a feature of the $1,000 investment accounts created for newborns by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump recently signed into law.

“At the end of the day, I am not sure when the distribution level date should be, whether it should be 30 and you can buy a house? Should it be 60? But in a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security,” Bessent said. “If, all of a sudden, these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that’s a game-changer, too.”

Whatever Bessent and the administration really think, let’s make one thing absolutely clear. Converting Social Security into millions of individual investment accounts, as some on the right have proposed, would not merely constitute “privatizing” Social Security. It would involve breaking up or ending Social Security as we know it — abolishing the program and putting something new in its place.

Truly “privatizing” Social Security would mean handing over administration of the program and its trust fund to a private company, such as Fidelity or Vanguard, or possibly taking it public on the stock market. There is nothing particularly wrong with this idea in theory, but it would make zero sense in practice. Social Security is already run on a shoestring, while its investment policy — bonds, bonds and only bonds — has been set by Congress. How a private company could add value while extracting a profit for its own stockholders is hard to imagine.

But this is not what has been proposed. Instead, proponents of “privatizing” Social Security are talking about winding down the Social Security trust fund itself, in whole or in part, and replacing it with tens of millions of individual investment accounts. Some or all of the 12.4% flat Social Security payroll taxes would go into these accounts instead of the Social Security trust fund.

This is what Scott Bessent was alluding to when he told Breitbart that the new individual investment accounts were a back door to privatization. And, most famously, this is what President George W. Bush actually proposed 20 years ago — a proposal that sank like a lead balloon.

Whatever you think of this idea, it would be the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it.

The current program is what’s known as a defined-benefit program, or pension. You are not responsible for the investment returns. What you get out each month in retirement simply depends on what you put in while you were working.
But Social Security is also an insurance program.

It insures us against poverty in old age. That’s why each of us gets credit for 90% of the wages we earn up to a low level, currently $1,226 a month, but much lower percentages for the wages we earn above that. The top priority of the program is that everybody who qualifies gets at least something to live on in retirement.
It insures us against longevity. Social Security pays you until you die, whether that happens when you are young or very, very old.

And it insures us against inflation. The annual cost-of-living adjustment, although it comes a year in arrears, raises benefits in line with consumer prices.
Gradually converting some or all of this program into about 250 million individual accounts would change all of that. (There are currently about 180 million workers paying into the system and 70 million beneficiaries drawing from it.)

The new accounts would have no defined-benefit feature. What you got out at the end would depend not only on your contributions but also on your investment returns. Crucially, the accounts would also have no insurance feature. Higher earners would not cross-subsidize low earners. Those who died young would not cross-subsidize those who lived to 110. Nobody would protect your retirement income from inflation.
This is one of those ideas that sounds better the less you think about it. Once you get into the details, as people did when Bush proposed the idea, it gets less appealing.
 
Last edited:
Red said:
Republicans have been having wet dreams over privatization of SS for as long as there’s been SS. Can’t possibly be a surprise that Republicans want to hurt workers….

www.marketwatch.com

All the reasons privatizing Social Security would be a terrible idea

Converting Social Security into millions of individual investment accounts would end the program as we know it.
www.marketwatch.com www.marketwatch.com

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set off a firestorm this week when he said that the Trump administration had just taken the first steps toward a “back door for privatizing Social Security.”

Bessent, speaking to reporters at MAGA news site Breitbart, said this was a feature of the $1,000 investment accounts created for newborns by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump recently signed into law.

“At the end of the day, I am not sure when the distribution level date should be, whether it should be 30 and you can buy a house? Should it be 60? But in a way, it is a back door for privatizing Social Security,” Bessent said. “If, all of a sudden, these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that’s a game-changer, too.”

Whatever Bessent and the administration really think, let’s make one thing absolutely clear. Converting Social Security into millions of individual investment accounts, as some on the right have proposed, would not merely constitute “privatizing” Social Security. It would involve breaking up or ending Social Security as we know it — abolishing the program and putting something new in its place.

Truly “privatizing” Social Security would mean handing over administration of the program and its trust fund to a private company, such as Fidelity or Vanguard, or possibly taking it public on the stock market. There is nothing particularly wrong with this idea in theory, but it would make zero sense in practice. Social Security is already run on a shoestring, while its investment policy — bonds, bonds and only bonds — has been set by Congress. How a private company could add value while extracting a profit for its own stockholders is hard to imagine.

But this is not what has been proposed. Instead, proponents of “privatizing” Social Security are talking about winding down the Social Security trust fund itself, in whole or in part, and replacing it with tens of millions of individual investment accounts. Some or all of the 12.4% flat Social Security payroll taxes would go into these accounts instead of the Social Security trust fund.

This is what Scott Bessent was alluding to when he told Breitbart that the new individual investment accounts were a back door to privatization. And, most famously, this is what President George W. Bush actually proposed 20 years ago — a proposal that sank like a lead balloon.

Whatever you think of this idea, it would be the beginning of the end of Social Security as we know it.

The current program is what’s known as a defined-benefit program, or pension. You are not responsible for the investment returns. What you get out each month in retirement simply depends on what you put in while you were working.
But Social Security is also an insurance program.

It insures us against poverty in old age. That’s why each of us gets credit for 90% of the wages we earn up to a low level, currently $1,226 a month, but much lower percentages for the wages we earn above that. The top priority of the program is that everybody who qualifies gets at least something to live on in retirement.
It insures us against longevity. Social Security pays you until you die, whether that happens when you are young or very, very old.

And it insures us against inflation. The annual cost-of-living adjustment, although it comes a year in arrears, raises benefits in line with consumer prices.
Gradually converting some or all of this program into about 250 million individual accounts would change all of that. (There are currently about 180 million workers paying into the system and 70 million beneficiaries drawing from it.)

The new accounts would have no defined-benefit feature. What you got out at the end would depend not only on your contributions but also on your investment returns. Crucially, the accounts would also have no insurance feature. Higher earners would not cross-subsidize low earners. Those who died young would not cross-subsidize those who lived to 110. Nobody would protect your retirement income from inflation.
This is one of those ideas that sounds better the less you think about it. Once you get into the details, as people did when Bush proposed the idea, it gets less appealing.
Click to expand...
And there are a dozen modern 1st world democracies out there right now with functioning pension systems for taking care of retirees, and they are doing way better than we are, where the old are provided for, their rent is subsidized (and even house payments to varying degrees), and they receive enough to have a reasonable retirement at a reasonable age. For most developed countries that is around 66 years. They are seeing an increase in the full retirement age in many developed countries because they are all facing a bubble as the boomers all retire, which has been raising the age for retirement. But still, most every other developed nation has this figured out. Why are we so stuck on this ****? Why can't we figure it out as well? Mainly the answer to that is 2-fold: 1) the 2-party system which makes it so there is little to no competition of ideas, hence nothing driving to get to the best solutions, and 2) lobbying or "legal bribery" which keeps the rich in charge and the politicians in their pockets. We are the only major developed democratic nation with only 2 political parties. We are also one of the only countries that allows lobbying as unfettered as we do, where even the Supreme Court can be bought off by billionaires and have it brought to light, complete with evidence, yet with ZERO consequences. The only other nations that fit this mold are authoritarian regimes, like Russia, Venezuela, and Turkey, where the authoritarians have already taken over. They have 2 political parties or fewer and allow billionaires to control their politicians, while the rich get richer. We have devolved until we have more in common with these dictatorships than we do with any of the other democracies around the world. Trump seizing full power will complete our transformation to Russia-West.
 
Is project 2025 really the end of the world like you guys think?

Project 2025, led by the Heritage Foundation, is a conservative initiative aimed at preparing a policy agenda for a future Republican administration. Its proponents highlight several aspects they view as positive, focusing on reducing government size, promoting economic growth, and aligning policies with traditional values. Below are the key positive aspects as articulated by supporters, based on available information and perspectives from posts on X:

1. **Reducing Government Overreach and Bureaucracy**:
- Project 2025 proposes shrinking the federal government by eliminating or downsizing agencies like the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Supporters argue this reduces wasteful spending and restores decision-making power to states and local communities, fostering more tailored governance.
- The plan aims to privatize functions like the National Weather Service and Amtrak, which proponents claim could improve efficiency and reduce taxpayer burdens by leveraging market-driven solutions.

2. **Economic Growth and Deregulation**:
- The initiative advocates for significant deregulation, particularly in agriculture, energy, and business sectors. Supporters argue this will lower compliance costs, potentially reducing consumer prices (e.g., cited examples include lowering egg prices by easing agricultural restrictions).
- Tax reforms, such as a simplified two-rate individual tax system (15% and 30%) and reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 18%, are seen as pro-growth measures. Proponents believe these changes will stimulate investment, job creation, and economic prosperity, especially for small businesses and entrepreneurs.
- Cutting capital gains taxes and eliminating taxes on tips are framed as ways to increase disposable income for workers and incentivize economic activity.

3. **Restoring Traditional Values**:
- Project 2025 emphasizes policies that align with conservative social values, such as promoting traditional family structures (married, heterosexual households) and protecting religious freedoms. Supporters see this as a counterbalance to progressive ideologies they view as divisive, like diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
- The plan’s focus on protecting “life from conception” and limiting abortion-related policies (e.g., via the Comstock Act) is viewed as a moral victory for pro-life advocates, aligning with the values of many conservative voters.

4. **Strengthening National Security and Immigration Control**:
- The initiative proposes stricter immigration policies, including mass deportations and enhanced border security. Supporters argue this protects national sovereignty, reduces strain on public resources, and prioritizes job opportunities for American citizens.
- Plans to strengthen the military by focusing on readiness and traditional recruitment standards (e.g., reversing policies on gender-affirming care) are seen as bolstering national defense.

5. **Enhancing Executive Accountability**:
- The reintroduction of Schedule F, which allows the president to reclassify and replace certain federal employees, is defended as a way to ensure the executive branch aligns with the elected administration’s agenda. Supporters argue this reduces obstruction from unelected bureaucrats, making government more responsive to voters.
- Streamlining federal agencies is seen as a way to eliminate inefficiencies and ensure taxpayer dollars are used effectively.

6. **Promoting Energy Independence**:
- Project 2025 advocates for expanding domestic energy production, particularly fossil fuels, by reducing environmental regulations and defunding climate change initiatives. Supporters claim this will lower energy costs, enhance energy security, and support industries like oil and gas, which employ millions of Americans.

7. **Education Reform and Parental Rights**:
- By proposing to eliminate the Department of Education and redirect funding to states, supporters argue Project 2025 empowers parents and local communities to control curricula and school policies. This is seen as a way to prioritize parental rights and reduce federal influence over education.
- Ending programs like DEI in schools is viewed as refocusing education on merit and core academics, avoiding what some call “ideological indoctrination.”

### Context and Perspective
Supporters of Project 2025, as reflected in some X posts and conservative commentary, view it as a bold blueprint to counteract decades of perceived government overreach, progressive policy dominance, and bureaucratic inefficiency. They argue it aligns with the priorities of many Americans who value limited government, economic freedom, and traditional values. For example, the Heritage Foundation emphasizes that the plan reflects input from over 100 conservative organizations, suggesting broad grassroots support within the conservative movement.

However, these positives are not without controversy. Critics argue that the plan’s deregulation could harm public health and the environment, its social policies may exclude marginalized groups, and its personnel reforms risk politicizing the civil service. The feasibility of many proposals, like eliminating entire departments, is also uncertain due to congressional and legal hurdles.

### Conclusion
From a supportive perspective, Project 2025 is seen as a transformative agenda to streamline government, boost the economy, strengthen national security, and restore traditional values. Its focus on deregulation, tax cuts, and state-level control resonates with those who prioritize individual liberty and limited federal intervention. For a detailed look at the proposals, the “Mandate for Leadership” document is available at www.project2025.org.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top