Millennials, Gen X and Gen Z say the system needs reform, an exclusive Newsweek poll found, amid fears the benefits won’t exist when they come to retire
Younger generations in the U.S., including millennials and Gen Zers, are much more likely to believe that the Social Security system needs reforming than those in their 60s and 70s, according to a recent survey conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies on behalf of Newsweek.
…
Some 40 percent of respondents said they believe that the Social Security program currently pays out more to retirees than it is receiving in Social Security tax payments, while 26 percent disagreed with this statement.
Gen Zers (ages 18-26), millennials (ages 27-42) and Gen Xers (ages 43-58) were more likely than boomers (59 and older) to think that Social Security should be reformed.
This is a propaganda article. It’s meant to start the idea that social security change should happen; Social Security had a surplus and was on track to support Gen Z with boomer level benefits until George W Bush drained the fund to pay for the Iraq war. A 100 billion+ surplus (which would have been 2T by 2011) was sucked dry at a billion dollars a day for a war that brought nothing but misery. This current crisis is brought to you by the Republicans.
Some bullshit conservative think tank is trying to spin up the idea of cutting benefits to prevent taxing billionaires. Don’t let the rich lie anymore. Make the rich pay!
Man, wish we could have put that money in some sort of locked box…
Oh yesh, the “locked box” tag lines. Again and again and again during speeches, debates, and articles. Back when news cycles and ongoing stories were measured in weeks rather than hours.
Social Security should be reformed. The surplus should be given back and laws passed that forbid touching it. Further:
Honestly, Social Security should also be responsible for paid sick/family leave, short term and long term temp/perm disability, unemployment, etc. We in the US could have it so much better…
There has never been a separate fund. The “money” is still there, its in IOU’s.
It’s probably important to consider that the Iraq war was enthusiastically bipartisan with one glaring exception: Bernie Sanders. Therefore, it’s not entirely honest to (rightly) fault the Iraq War as a starting point for the problems with SS and not also fault Democrats for their role in making those decisions.
This is the only way to fix the problem, but it’s never going to happen. Every two years we vote for legislators who are fabulously wealthy and have made all manner of corruption legal for federal legislators. (ie, loaning your campaign money at interest, insider trading, using classified briefings for stock moves, etc.)
Now’s a good time to repeat what I do every campaign season: Don’t give candidates your money. Put it in your investments, and then no matter who is elected, you will have some representation as both parties care more about the stock market than they do about you.
I mean…126 democrats in the house voted against it. Only 6 Republicans and one Independent (Bernie) voted against it. Democrats did play a role, but it’s not nearly so “both sides!!” as you’re trying to make it here.
The Social Security Trust Fund is nearly $3T
Not really. Bush ended Clinton’s budget surplus and replaced it with a budget deficit, and I won’t argue if you hold the wars responsible.
But SS is not part of the normal budget. It was running a surplus in the Bush years. There was a debate over what to do with the surplus.
Keeping it “stuffed in a mattress” would be irresponsible for the same reason most of us don’t keep our life savings in a checking account. Bush wanted to invest it in the stock market, but the public rightly thought that was too risky. So it was invested in the most risk-free asset: Treasury bonds.
That means that the government could spend the surplus, but they are required to pay it back with interest. Failing to pay back SS would trigger a default, no different than crashing through the debt ceiling.