• @Boddhisatva
    link
    7815 days ago

    Trump has refused to say what he’ll do because threatening Social Security during an election would cost him a lot of votes from seniors. On the other hand, now that he has won, Republicans have started freely admitting that Project 2025 is the plan for this administration. Project 2025 has this to say about Social Security.

    Project 2025’s 900-page Mandate for Leadership fails to propose any solutions for Social Security and says, on page 710, that its proposals for the program could not be “covered here in depth.” Notably, that line was co-authored by economist Stephen Moore, who has advocated to slash and privatize Social Security, once calling it a “Ponzi scheme” and encouraging students to burn their Social Security cards. Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, has also gone on record to say the Mandate for Leadership manifesto is just the basis of their plan and “there are parts of the plan that we will not share with the left.” Last month, his organization called for raising the retirement age, and the author of that analysis, Rachel Greszler, is listed as a Project 2025 contributor.

    I would hazard to guess that the incoming administration will, at the very least, try to raise the Full Retirement Age to 69. I will be pleasantly shocked if they don’t try to privatize it as well.

    • @XeroxCool
      link
      2914 days ago

      710 pages into this mandate and they decide they don’t have room to talk about SS?

      • @MadBabs
        link
        1914 days ago

        They needed a lot of space to talk about pronouns and porn

    • HobbitFoot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      915 days ago

      A 2:1 ratio on Social Security age limits wouldn’t affect a lot of his base, so I can see Trump pushing it.

  • @Sgt_choke_n_stroke
    link
    3515 days ago

    He’s promised not to touch it. But this guy’s not gonna fix it either.

    • @lemmylommy
      link
      6615 days ago

      And his promises are not worth very much.

      • @SpaceNoodle
        link
        3915 days ago

        Best policy is to simply assume that he’s going to do the worst possible thing at every juncture.

      • @MimicJar
        link
        1014 days ago

        Which is sorta the problem with speculation in these threads. We can say “Trump said X”, but really his decisions are based on the number of hamburgers he had that afternoon or which voice whispered in his ear last. We only have wild speculation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2115 days ago

      Medicaid especially is in trouble. In two different budgets they tried to pull back on funding. Not sure how successful it was but they already tried.

      I once read that 2/3 of Americans are “affected” by Medicaid, not that they use it but that they are related to or are otherwise involved with someone who does. That’s a lot of face eating.

      • The Velour Fog
        link
        19
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        If they or their loved ones lose coverage, They’ll just blame the Democrats, or atheist transgender illegal aliens or something. They aren’t tethered by reality. They can just lay blame on a random boogeyman and sleep peacefully at night.

  • @radix
    link
    English
    1615 days ago

    The conventional wisdom is that Social Security is a so-called “Third Rail” of politics. Nobody is going to touch that and live to tell the tale.

    Of course, we would have had a similar thought about non-controversial stuff like “cooperating with the World Health Organization,” so there are no guarantees, but wholesale restructuring of the program would (hopefully) cause more backlash than any politician wants to deal with.

    The blueprints he’s working from doesn’t say anything about SS by name: https://www.newsweek.com/what-project-2025-could-do-social-security-1923892

    Despite being over 900 pages long and spanning most of the departments of government, including defense, homeland security, agriculture, education and energy, the mandate text does not provide direct policy positions on Social Security or its government agency.

    That’s not to say the program will be entirely unaltered, but that page suggests the extent of the (public) policy proposals seems to be raising the retirement age by a few years. Not great, but nobody seems to be loudly advocating for slashing existing benefits.

  • @Angrywaffle2
    link
    -114 days ago

    He has stated he wants to make social security tax free

  • @Jackthelad
    link
    English
    -5515 days ago

    People on Lemmy will tell you it’s going to disappear because orange man wants to kill everyone, or something.

    What is likely to happen is nothing.

    • @DomeGuy
      link
      3515 days ago

      Please understand that “nothing” means the built up surplus runs out and there will be not enough money to pay all benefits.

      The smart and easy fix would be to raise the cap on ss taxes while flattening the “you deserve more money because you made more money when you were working” weirdness.

      Instead, they’ll likely either do nothing and force the dems to fix it in four years, play with benefits to make the poor suffer, or try and replace it with a phased in 401k style stock market scam.

      (that last option, btw, is killing social security.)

    • @WoahWoah
      link
      21
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Yes, nothing, which means not fixing it. Which means it will be depleted in nine years. I guess it depends on how long his mom plans to stay alive.

      • sunzu2
        link
        fedilink
        114 days ago

        Trust fund will depleted which is what boomers want exactly… It is theirs anyway and they abiut to start dying off so why not enjoy it?

        • @WoahWoah
          link
          214 days ago

          Social Security has shifted far from its original intent. It was once a system where your taxes were set aside and invested, creating a fund for your own retirement. But over time, the baby boomer generation began drawing heavily from these reserves, turning what was meant to be a self-sustaining system into a pay-as-you-go model. Now, instead of relying on their own invested contributions, Social Security is sustained largely by taxing the younger generations to fund the retirees, shifting the burden and undermining the system’s original promise. This approach leaves younger generations on the hook, fueling concerns about the system’s long-term viability.