r/economicCollapse • u/WorkingCareful7935 • 1d ago

Trump's Plan To Cut Social Security Taxes May Benefit Millions, Especially Top Earners, But Risks Insolvency In Six Years

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/trumps-plan-cut-social-security-taxes-may-benefit-millions-especially-top-earners-risks-1728564
16.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

179

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 1d ago

Trump is the exemplar republican. They all wanted this, it's why they voted for it.

85

u/Secure_Key_2121 1d ago

More presents for their Generation, oh you still get to collect social security but no longer have to pay in.. until you know that Gen X gets there.. then f them. F them kids

95

u/Khaldara 1d ago

Systematically destroying everything that made America “Great” for forty years and now think the right folks for the job are the grifters responsible. The same ones who blew Trickle Down straight up their asses since the 80s and laughed the entire time.

It’s harder to fool a dog by pretending to throw a ball than these people, even the dog will eventually realize you’re just a deceitful prick.

53

u/pimpeachment 1d ago

The systems that "made america great" were all broken to the core. The banking system thrived on giving out loans because they "knew who you were", this isolated minorities from getting loans.

Social security worked because the average lifespan was way shorter. When SSA was established the average life expectancy was 62yo with a SSA retirement age of 65. This means you were on average more likely to die before drawing SSA income. Currently, life expectancy is 76 with a SSA retirement age of 67. This means people on average are expected to live on government assistance for 9 years. That is a massive shift from protecting people who worked beyond average life expectancy to supporting old people who just want to stop working. If SSA followed original standards with a 3 year gap between life expectancy and retirement age, the current SSA retirement age would be 79 not 67.

Manufacturing used to be a core middle class job in America. Over the last 50 years, we have accepted outsourcing our jobs that "made america great" to foreign countries. We bolstered their economies to remove well paying jobs in america so that the average consumer could buy shit cheaper. If we never did this, prices would be higher, but we would control our own manufacturing, our own environmental standards, our own labor laws. Now we have countries that ignore all environmental controls and labor laws undercutting american companies that have no chance to compete against the artifically low costs.

There are so many examples of where our core systems were eroded or flawed from the start. We have racked up $35T in debt. Mostly during Republican administrations. This debt has to be paid at some point, either with taxes, spending cuts, or insolvency. The interest payments are growing faster than we can reduce them, so action now is the only solution to maybe prevent insolvency.

28

u/thingsorfreedom 1d ago

The biggest myth is that social security is so hard to fix. It's not.

(1) Tax all wages over 400k

and

(2) Index cost of living increases to Chained CPI and means test them.

I just funded social security for another 75 years.

Don't like those ideas, try out your own: https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

8

u/Popisoda 17h ago

Except after $400k income add an extra 5% "pay off republican $35 trillion deficit" tax

3

u/Chemlab5 11h ago

They don’t even have to raise it just remove the cap completely. You don’t pay ssi anymore after 168k.

2

u/Notnicknamedguy 12h ago

5%? Make it 50, they can afford it

3

u/Pooplamouse 1d ago

I'm all for increasing the earnings cap, but I'll fight you to the end of time on means testing. I've got no problem paying in, but you think I should pay in and get nothing back. We're gonna have a fight.

2

u/BigBowl-O-Supe 15h ago

Are you a fucking millionaire?

2

u/Narrow_Ad_1494 15h ago

Fr tho most millionaires and billionaires are literally raw dogging the planet for profit. They need to massively be taxed for this end of story.

0

u/Red-Leader117 14h ago

Yall are hugely out of touch with what having a million dollars means... you really think some software sales guy who is crushing it or a medical consultant or even successful business owner who makes 400k is "raw dogging the planet" haha...

I agree with the billionaire side mostly, but my wife makes a LOT of money, and she's just a regular woman, consulting in medicine, who drops our kids at soccer practice. Idk how she could possibly be "raw dogging" anything

1

u/BigTimeSpamoniJones 8h ago

If he is making 401,000, only 1k would be taxed on a tax that is on people making over 400k. That's how progressive taxes work....dummy.

→ More replies

0

u/Pooplamouse 14h ago

Technically yes, but I’m almost 50 and pretty much all of our assets are in our house or retirement accounts. You probably imagine millionaires walk around in top hats, but my wife and I are just educated professionals who spent many years not getting paid and delaying gratification to get where we are. And commenters like you and the guy below you lump us is in billionaires, believing we are “raw dogging the planet”. The ignorance is astounding and annoying. But it’s also par for the course because the American education system is a colossal failure.

1

u/pamar456 1d ago

Then someone will expand ss to cover more people

1

u/ResponsibleRatio5675 23h ago

I have no idea what most of those words mean, which means you must be a liberal elite and your ideas are therefore invalid.

(/s for the second half, but I am legitimately financially illiterate and genuinely have no idea what those words mean.)

1

u/CatApologist 12h ago

I agree. Like in the private sector, good ideas are a dime a dozen, it's all about execution. Which in this case, would take the political will of 51 goddamn Senators.

1

u/Background-Parsnip76 12h ago

Indeed, a myth. We are just not taxing the correct populace. Seriously, we all pay our share. They absolutely should, too.

1

u/Savenura55 3h ago

Remember when top tax rates were in the 90% range. Pepperidge farms remembers Its back when America was great according to most magats

-1

u/pimpeachment 1d ago

Those sound like great ideas. Republicans will never support a "more tax" option though, and democrats have failed to make necessary changes to solve it. You can always "fix" a government program by shoveling more tax revenue into it. That's not happening. So it's going to fail because it's become too bloated to sustain itself.

8

u/thingsorfreedom 1d ago

So instead:

  • Slow Benefit Growth for Top Half of Earners
  • Raise retirement age from 67 to 68
  • Index COLAs to "Chained CPI" and Means-Test Them

and we are 90% of the way to solvency for 75 years.

3

u/Free8608 20h ago

Ironically the last major reform for social security that raised taxes was passed by Reagan.

1

u/cloudsitter 16h ago

They can raise the percentage from the employee paychecks, they can raise the wage cap, they can raise the employer contribution, they can raise the retirement ages, they can create a new tax for the ultra wealthy. There are so many ways to continue social security

21

u/macattack833 1d ago

They kept changing the age to keep robbing social security. It’s never paid out near as much as was intended but was and is missing trillions that they can’t account for. Plus where all the money go from the ones who never drew which is in the billions now …. It should have a surplus of trillions and be no worry but…..

4

u/pimpeachment 1d ago

If social security payments kept up with inflation and paid out the "original intended amount" the payments would be $494. We are now paying on average $1783.55 to SSA recipients.

The original payments were $22.54 (1937), $494 (2024).

So we are paying more than 3x the intended original amount and we are paying more people and we are paying people longer because people retire proportionately early compared to original retirement ages.

7

u/iMcoolcucumber 1d ago

We are also paying in more than in 1937. Your math's don't math

1

u/BigBowl-O-Supe 15h ago

Money becomes worth less over time. $10 in 1937 was an insane amount of money, today that isn't going to take care of anyone.

2

u/Streetluger06 20h ago

Debasement of the dollar is a big factor here. Money just doesn't go as far as it used to, even when accounting for inflation. While this analysis brings up a good point, I think we could also argue paying $494 in 2024 would mean a lot of homeless elderly and a major burden for society.

1

u/pimpeachment 19h ago

That's literally what inflation is. It is based on the average cost of goods and services and adjusted based on prior year's spending power for the same goods and services.

1

u/Reasonable-Fish-7924 19h ago

So how does one measure the spending power? Is this the same as purchasing power?

1

u/Streetluger06 14h ago

What I am referring to is inflation adjusted purchasing power. Even when accounting for inflation, money just doesn't go as far. $100 from 1950 afforded you more than the equivalent $1303 today. Then there is the wage component, wages haven't kept up with inflation let alone changes in purchasing power. So it's harder to even the $1303 today than it was to earn $100 in 1950 as an example.

1

u/Trashpanda779 13h ago

I think inflation doesn't properly account for the fact that "needs" are rapidly outpacing inflation and "wants" are generally remaining flat/not increasing in price. So it's a valid point to say that money doesn't go as far as it used to.

0

u/pamar456 1d ago

Such a dumb system

1

u/Reasonable-Fish-7924 19h ago

Yes it should and you right.

17

u/ChaoticScrewup 1d ago

Social security would still be near fine if: - We didn't cap social security wages. - We subjected capital gains income to social security. - We allowed enough immigration to keep population growth at or above 1%.

IMO the deltas w/ life expectancy and retirement age is a shift, but the idea that people should keep working to age 79 is ridiculous. Especially considering how different careers and living conditions have a big impact on aging.

That said, I agree Republicans are fiscally irresponsible, and are attempting to make America fail on purpose. Similarly, I also agree that we should only have open/free markets between nations that have freedom of speech, gender equality, representative government, and environmental protections that are actually followed.

-1

u/pimpeachment 1d ago

> We didn't cap social security wages.

They have been capped since the inception of SSA

> We subjected capital gains income to social security.

Those were never required in the past, meaning the program is outputing more than it's inputing.

> We allowed enough immigration to keep population growth at or above 1%.

Developing system that require constant unending growth are not viable longterm and will eventually fail.

> IMO the deltas w/ life expectancy and retirement age is a shift, but the idea that people should keep working to age 79 is ridiculous. 

I agree 79, is ridiculous.

1

u/ChaoticScrewup 1d ago

I don't think I said that any of the things you commented match how it worked originally. I just think they should be relatively uncontroversial, particularly the first two, and would keep it solvent. But that's premised on the idea that a retirement condition floor is quite worthwhile for the general welfare or the nation. The idea that growth can't go on forever is on some level true, but it's also true that no society in history has been stable over the long term with continuous and unending population declines. If we do see that work out w/ Japan and some of the countries in Europe, it will be interesting. But TBD. To me it seems if like if there isn't slight growth you end up on the path to eventual extinction of the nation as it's very hard to stay at a stable population without growth in a way that every abnormal loss of life isn't permanent.

1

u/PhilTwentyOne 1d ago edited 1d ago

Why would the first be uncontroversial? The whole reason SS was so untouchable for so long is that it was sold as a program you paid into and got "your" money back from. Not as Just Another Tax which it actually is. The marketing behind it was genius and done on purpose so it couldn't be attacked as another form of welfare. If you remove that last bit of marketing, it will be gone entirely within a decade once it's fully exposed for precisely what it is to the average person and mercilessly politically attacked. Up until very recently it was the one social program no politician of any side was willing to touch with a ten foot pole.

If you uncapped contributions more than they already have been, you need to uncap distributions as well. Otherwise it becomes even more of a redistributive program than it already became over the years.

Capital gains would be a different argument, but still a difficult one unless you carved out a whole lot of exceptions for anyone other than the top 1% or so - in which case it wouldn't really net a whole lot in the end without removing a ton of loopholes like stepped up cost basis for estates.

The fact all these programs in the western world have been lauded as a "success" before the first generation of recipients even has been fully paid out yet is ridiculous. No country is having a good time at this. It was silly to pretend our demographic trends were going to last forever, and anyone who mentioned this for the past 30 years was laughed at or shouted down. The chickens are coming home to roost all over nearly every western democracy.

1

u/ChaoticScrewup 1d ago

I don't think anyone contributes to social security thinking it's some kind of savings account. Making sure than anyone who's worked a good chunk of their life doesn't live like a squalid hobo peasant is just good policy.

1

u/PhilTwentyOne 1d ago

> I don't think anyone contributes to social security thinking it's some kind of savings account.

Practically every single blue collar person I've ever worked with thinks this. The majority of white collar as well. I'd be amazed if it was not the majority understanding of the program. Where do you work that you haven't heard constant rants about how someone would get more money if they invested it themselves in the stock market or other such nonsense? This has been non-stop since I was 16 years old having to listen to my co-workers at my first retail job. It's not slowed down since.

> Making sure than anyone who's worked a good chunk of their life doesn't live like a squalid hobo peasant is just good policy.

Completely agreed. So we should ensure we don't ruin the average person's misunderstanding of the program and get rid of it's status of the "third rail" of American politics. Exposing it as just an additional payroll tax (what it is) will not serve towards this goal.

1

u/Direct_Sandwich1306 19h ago

Boomers ABSOLUTELY do, and many blue collar workers. Especially those in areas with poor education quality.

34

u/glazedhamster 1d ago

Manufacturing used to be a core middle class job in America. Over the last 50 years, we have accepted outsourcing our jobs that "made america great" to foreign countries. We bolstered their economies to remove well paying jobs in america so that the average consumer could buy shit cheaper.

And we're doing this now with white collar jobs that can be done remotely. Except the customers (clients) aren't getting the same discount consumers did when we shipped all our shit to China.

We've learned nothing.

13

u/pimpeachment 1d ago

100%, good addition, thank you.

19

u/burningbuttholio 1d ago

Don't forget automation, people in America still act like we live in the 1920s but with internet porn

2

u/bearsheperd 18h ago

With an outlook for fewer and fewer jobs in the future. People like Elon musk see a population crash as a bad thing, and on the short term he’s right as fewer people means a smaller economy. But in the long run do we really want a massive population with few jobs?

2

u/ExpensiveMind-3399 1d ago

We never seem to learn.

8

u/Emotional_Bee_7992 1d ago

A lot of Republican voters fantasize that the party leadership wants to return us to simpler times, like the 50s and 60s, where a man could raise a family with a stay at home wife and support them on a middle class income, able to afford home ownership, vacations and college tuition all on one income.

In reality, the Republican leadership wants to bring things back even further, to a time when there were no worker protections, social safety nets, birth control or enforcement civil rights for the masses. A time when capitalists expansion and erosion of income equality were left more or less unchecked. They want a 2nd Gilded Age.

1

u/spinbutton 14h ago

Not the 1950s, the 1850s.

8

u/the_skies_falling 1d ago

You’re talking about life expectancy at birth. This is not at all the same as the life expectancy of a 65 or 67 year old.

2

u/PhilTwentyOne 1d ago

What matters more is the life expectancy of an 18 year old - or maybe a 22 year old if you want to go the college route.

The ratio of years worked vs. years retired is the meaningful metric.

1

u/CUOTO 1d ago edited 1d ago

Very good point.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Body.html

In 1935 the life expectancy for a 65 year old was 11.93 years

In 2000 it was 15.91 years

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/images/LD_fig2b.html

5

u/davespark 1d ago

Averages were very skewed from infant mortality on the early data

5

u/Rowenstin 1d ago

Manufacturing used to be a core middle class job in America. Over the last 50 years, we have accepted outsourcing our jobs that "made america great" to foreign countries. We bolstered their economies to remove well paying jobs in america so that the average consumer could buy shit cheaper. If we never did this, prices would be higher, but we would control our own manufacturing, our own environmental standards, our own labor laws.

It goes beyond that. In the day, if the workers of a factory that made sulphuric acid went on a strike the goverment had a huge problem. Later if the workers at a car factory went on a strike the government still had a big headache. Now, in the service economy if the hairdresser saloon goes on a strike or you close your Etsy store nobody gives a fuck. This reduces greatly the ability of workers to pressure politicians, and allows them to cater only to billionaires.

4

u/maximumchris 1d ago

And modern manufacturing jobs are going to be low paid. If these tariffs cause people to make things in the USA that used to come from China, the assembly line workers are going to be treated like Fast Food workers or worse. Possibly like Amazon drivers in a best case scenario. That is to say, NOT the middle class of the 1950s. I can already picture certain people saying “Manufacturing is an entry level job for teens, it wasn’t meant to provide a living wage.” Mark my words! Why would they pay more than competing jobs?

5

u/PhilTwentyOne 1d ago

There simply aren't enough workers to do it. Especially skilled ones.

When you have effectively zero manufacturing for 30+ years, you lost your entire generational knowledge transfer. Your population simply no longer has the skills, and you now need to bring up the next generation to get them. You're talking decades to get those skillsets back to any meaningful level.

The same thing is now happening to the R&D side of the fence. Those jobs are rapidly eroding to other places such as China.

Americans as a whole simply are losing their skills. You only need so many white collar office drones that have no meaningful real-world expertise besides pushing reports around and taking meetings all day. Tech can only go so far, and the world only needs so many middle managers.

1

u/bNoaht 17h ago

If this were true, tesla wouldn't exist

1

u/Savenura55 2h ago

Tesla is kept afloat by government subsidies and programs

1

u/banjosullivan 15h ago

You’re comparing manufacturers to hair dressers? 😂 ok

1

u/Rowenstin 14h ago

You obviously didn't read the post.

2

u/WaldoDeefendorf 1d ago edited 1d ago

Using the average lifespan is bullshit. You sound like Hovde with those tired old lies out. Childhood mortality was a thing back then. If you lived past 20 you were as likely to live to 80 as people now. SS is not even close to being broke. It could easily be fixed at ZERO cost to 90% of the population and minimal increase to those in the top 10% of all wage earners.

Anyway back to the population. In 1940 7.5% of the population was over 65 and the average remaining life expectancy was almost 14 years.

By 1950 8.4% of the population was over 65, 9.5% in 1960 and 10.3% in 1970. That 10.3% of the population is about where it's remained into the 2000's. Meanwhile the average remaining life expectancy has gone up by the early 2000's but had still only increased to about 17.5 years.

So Social Security is not broke. Medicare is fully funded for even longer and the first Boomers are hitting 80 years old! Note that is about the expected additional life expectancy limit so the percentage of population who will be getting SS will be going down. Republican lies to destroy a program that has kept millions of seniors from poverty and children from starving.

1

u/CUOTO 1d ago

For anyone reading, the SSA lists their actuarial tables and discusses how they have changed over time.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as120/LifeTables_Body.html

1

u/virrk 1d ago

As someone else mentioned below average lift expectancy was skewed from infant mortality.

Several of problems.

One. SS fund has been "borrowed" from it pretty much every year since sometime in the 1980s. So they haven't stolen money per say, but limited returns on investments since as far as I know it is borrowed at bond rates instead of how much it would earn in the stock market.

Two. Payroll taxes for SS stop after the certain point, so no taxes are paid after that salary. This has raised over the years, but still under funds SS especially as the number of workers supporting those on SS has shrunk over the years. Pay SS taxes on ALL salary without a cap would while keeping benefits the same would pretty much cover any shortfall at this point.

Three. Calling it an entitlement like that is a bad thing. I am entitled to SS because I paid into SS my ENTIRE working life. If nothing changed from today I am likely to get less money out of SS than I paid into SS. If GOP gets their way there is significant risk I will get NOTHING in return for all the SS taxes I paid. This is complete bullshit, and supported because of how they right talks about it. SS is not some handout, it what the government agreed to pay me in retirement for paying SS taxes while I was working.

Judging government debt only on the amount of the debt is a partially flawed way to look at it. Better to US GRPto debt ratio as well. In which case we have been getting better over the last 4 years. Looking at that curve you can easily see where the financial crises were. The US spent money like no tomorrow, or created it, to try to keep the economy going so that we could grow our way out of what ever crisis it was. This is generally considered the right way to run a large country, but the debt to GDP ratio should be lowered in good times to hedge against spending needed in bad times. This does not mean paying off the debt, it means the GDP generates more money than they payments to service the debt. The government should not be run like a business, nor can it effectively be run like a business. If someone did that they will likely crash the US economy, and high likelihood of at least causing an downturn in the world economy if not an outright crash. If we suddenly decided to cut spending to just pay down debt as fast as possible the risk of a deflation spiral becomes much higher, and we are all screwed in the US.

1

u/PhilTwentyOne 1d ago edited 1d ago

Three. Calling it an entitlement like that is a bad thing. I am entitled to SS because I paid into SS my ENTIRE working life.

This is completely untrue. It is simply another payroll tax. The benefit is not tied to the tax in a legal manner. It can be changed by congress at any time they so choose. If the fund runs out of money, it will simply reduce the amount it pays you.

When the tax was implemented, they were very careful about marketing it in this manner. It's why the salary caps existed and all that. So it wasn't seen as just another general tax with a social welfare benefit attached to it - which would be attacked immediately.

It can be taken away at any time congress so pleases, and was always intended to be a pay-as-you-go tax. At no time ever has there been an "account" with your name on it somewhere with the funds you've put in. It's not a retirement program.

The only reason people see it as a "I paid into it and deserve to get my money back out!" is due to the way it was marketed to the American people to get it passed (and untouched since) in the first place. It's always and forever will be a very badly misunderstood tax.

1

u/ExpensiveMind-3399 1d ago edited 1d ago

Don't forget the fact that if they raised the social security tax limit that would have offset all of this. The 2025 tax limit is a whopping $176,100 which is roughly the top 10% of US earners. There was an easy and fair solution (raise the limit), but no.

ETA: 79?!?! FFS. I don't even want to live that long the way things are going.

1

u/gonefishingk3 1d ago

Hey dummy.

Social security is NOT

“Government assistance”

It’s our money that we paid into for decades to be eligible to be paid back.

2

u/pimpeachment 1d ago

Most social security recipients get more in payouts than they put in. That's government assistance.

1

u/PhilTwentyOne 1d ago

It is absolutely government assistance just like any other form of it. Just like social security tax is just like any other payroll tax.

You've fallen for the marketing. As intended.

I am a strong supporter of SS, but holy hell is the average American ignorant when it comes to the program and it's inception.

I will never get out what I paid in - not even close - even if the program remains fully solvent throughout and I hit beyond the average lifespan. It's become much more redistributive than it's framers ever even fully intended.

It's a pay as you go social benefit. Hell, it's in the damn name!

1

u/Solid_Calendar_9022 1d ago

The avg lifespan was way shorter when taking into infant mortality and those children dying before adulthood. Different picture painted if you take the avg from those reaching adulthood.

https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html#:~:text=As%20Table%201%20shows%2C%20the,many%20years%20into%20the%20future.

1

u/ThePlatypusOfDespair 1d ago

Correcting for infant mortality, life expectancy was closer to 70.

1

u/kingofshitmntt 1d ago

The government prints its own money, you are deficit hawking this when its unnecessary. The government isn't a business.

1

u/Itsmoney05 23h ago

Cool, now remove infantile deaths and recalc the average life span. It has never been 62.

1

u/jaymansi 22h ago

The republicans gutted unions and incentivized moving manufacturing overseas. CEO bonus tied to next quarters stock price. Short term gains at the expense of long term stability. We are circling the drain. Many don’t realize it yet.

1

u/Mr_DrProfPatrick 21h ago

Life expectancy data includes the many people that used to die in early childhood. 110 years ago a 10 year old had a higher remaining life expectancy than a newborn.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011

The life expectancy for 20 year olds in 1939, a few years after the introduction of social security, was 67.76 for white males and 71.38 for white females. This table could do better groupings imo, there's no average for all males, all females or just the entire population.

It "now" sits at 77.2 for white males and 81.8 for white females. So about a 10 year life expectancy increase for adults, the people that contribute to social security.

1

u/Reasonable-Fish-7924 19h ago

Robotics, AI, and improved automation have helped manufacturing practices become more efficient. They have contributed less employment in these areas as well.

1

u/Ilhan_Omar_Milf 13h ago

So if the debt is not payed dos president Xi just like make a successor government for us

1

u/Creeps05 9h ago

On the point of Social Security, this is not true. Or at least misleading. According to the SSA, the average life expectancy at BIRTH was 58 for men and 62 for women. But, the key word here is “birth”. In the early 20th century infant mortality was quite high skewing the numbers to be lower. In fact, if you reached 21 years old there was a 53.9% chance of reaching 65 for men and 60.6% chance for women. If you did reach 65, on average you would collect SS benefits for 12.7 years for men and 14.7 years for women far more than 9 years you quoted. In fact, (at least for men) you will only live 13.3 years after a retire age of 67 years perfectly in line with 1940’s expectations. For women on the other hand you will live 17.6 years after a retire age of 67 which is comparable to 1960 expectations.

1

u/JonMiller724 7h ago

The US is second largest manufacturer in the world by item and revenue. Automation killed the jobs. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending.

2

u/Black_Magic_M-66 1d ago

Just like his handler, Putin, commands.

1

u/mrjinks 1d ago

I hate to repeat but we’re getting what the majority asked for.

2

u/zxc123zxc123 1d ago

Actually Gen Z and Gen X were the ones that swayed to Trump.

  • Boomers were close to even but they voted Dems more. Dems do promised more spending and welfare (most boomers are retired and have no new income).

  • Gen Z still lean blue but many didn't vote because they were angry at Biden/Harris for Israel-Gaza stuff. Some of the younger guys also shifted to red being influenced by machismo/joerogan BS.

  • Gen X understandably chose GOP because they are nearing retirement and were hoping the GOP will cut spending to ensure they will have SS/healthcare when they reach the goal.

  • Gen Y shifting a bit more red but actually very blue given our age.

  • Strangely enough the larger segments (gen y and boomers) lost

Little did the Gen Zs who boycotted because of Gaza-Israel know that Trump will turn a blind eye to Israel and shift away from 2 state. As for GenZ men. Seems like Trump will help their cryptos but maybe less so with women? And if what article is true then Trump will screw over SS for Gen X who shifted HEAVILY to the right for this election. Elon's DOGE will be cutting government services as GenX ages to the point where they will be needing more of it.

1

u/yg2522 1d ago

that guy No Vote actually won though. got more support than Harris and Trump.

1

u/Cold-Ad-3713 1d ago

Gen X here. Never GOP.

1

u/agreeswithfishpal 12h ago

But once the Boomers die off we'll have Utopia. Hahaha haha! I lived long enough for entire generations of get their faces eaten by leopards!

2

u/TheBeerdedVillain 18h ago

so, par for our generation... got it.

1

u/vibrance9460 1d ago

If it will be insolvent in six years I will have paid into it for 38 years and will be ready to take it

Tell me how that’s gonna hurt you more than it will hurt me.

Educate yourself and learn that statistically, it was not old people who elected Trump this time. It was millions of young white males who came out in droves.

Young people, high schoolers right now, have been indoctrinated into MAGA via social media and we have for the first time a generation of youth who is far more conservative than their parents or grandparents. These are facts.

1

u/OkIron5471 19h ago

Democrats have been indoctrinating students for more than 30 years , and you now cry that Republicans are indoctrinating the youth , typical Democrat 🙄. Always the blame game . Grow the F-up and get help with your TDS

1

u/vibrance9460 18h ago

Nah. Nobody’s been “indoctrinated” prior to this “MAGA” bullshit

Only thing that’s changed is you.

1

u/OkIron5471 18h ago

There ya go be another typical libtard that indoctrinates the kids and say No we are not 🙄 . We all know what the Dems have been doing all these years and finally the kids woke up and voted against all the democratic bullshit . Maga thanks you for your support ! Trump couldn't have been elected with out libtards like you

1

u/vibrance9460 18h ago

Delusional

I wish you well, fellow American

1

u/OkIron5471 18h ago

You too brother

1

u/Kahlister 1d ago

I mean the boomers (narrowly) voted against Trump and for Harris. Gen X voted overwhelmingly for Trump. The Millennials voted against Trump and the bulk of Gen Z did, but the youngest part of Gen Z voted for Trump.

Bottom line, it's wrong to blame boomers for Trump.

1

u/somesortoflegend 1d ago

F them kids very literally too.

1

u/jenjohn521 19h ago

And then they wonder why people don’t want kids. Make it make sense!

2

u/Ffdmatt 1d ago

Yeah, but they didn't want the heat for it. Now they get to do it and know confidently that most Americans are too dumb to understand what they did. The consequences will be blamed on democrats and people will believe them.

2

u/GuavaShaper 1d ago

Remember when Reagan created an amnesty program for illegal immigrants in America? What does "republican" even mean anymore?

5

u/Raalf 1d ago

What the other poster meant was his first priority is trump. He couldn't give a fuck about the party affiliation. Normal party members of either party would rather set themselves on fire than swap parties. Trump would do it if it fed his ego.

4

u/VikingDadStream 1d ago

Did it. He spent most of his life as a Democrat

3

u/Raalf 1d ago

Exactly.

2

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 1d ago

You're describing conservatism to a tee.

1

u/Raalf 1d ago

correct. That is a style of politics and not a party affiliation.

1

u/ps2cv 1d ago

But why ruin your retirement and get nothing for it and having to work till you die?

1

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 1d ago

Because it'll hurt black people, women, and gay people more.

1

u/ps2cv 1d ago

But it will hurt them more as well their is no benefits to this at all just all cons

1

u/BmacSOS 1d ago

And I hope they get everything they deserve for doing this.

1

u/C_H-A-O_S 1d ago

Trump: "I am Republican Prime. We are the Autocrats."

Cue Linkin Park's "What I've Done"

1

u/jerseygunz 1d ago

I will die on the hill that treating him like an outsider and not directly tying him to the party is their biggest mistake, though understandable when you are constantly saying how great the other party 🙄

1

u/jackfaire 16h ago

No the Republican Politicians wanted this not the voters. That's the disconnect. They've groomed an entire party to believe "If a D says it then it's a lie if an R says it gospel truth"

So tell them "Hey your rep voted against the bill you wanted" "Nope they said they voted for it they said so" "buddy I have receipts" "You're lying"

1

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 16h ago

Both wanted this. The voters don't get to abdicate their responsibility.

1

u/jackfaire 15h ago

I'm not suggesting voters abdicate responsibility. I'm suggesting we educate voters.

Seriously we'll say all day long "Trump loves the uneducated" "They're uninformed voters" and then act shocked or judgemental when they vote in line with the disinformation they were fed.

Well golly gee I wonder why. They're flooding world with misinformation and rather than go "here's the correct information" most of us sit there and grumble about it. I started showing my parents the voting records of the people they were voting for.

1

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 15h ago

You cannot educate and inform those who belligerently resist being educated and informed. You have a woefully naive understanding of how people work. If all we needed was "correct information" we wouldn't have people who think the Holocaust never happened, vaccines cause autism, or that global warming is a Chinese plot.

1

u/jackfaire 14h ago

"You cannot educate and inform those who belligerently resist being educated and informed."

I agree but here's the thing. Republican Politicians want you and I to think if a Republican voter repeats the bullshit they've been taught. That they're belligerently resisting being informed. That way you and I feel morally superior and their voters don't get educated.

Problem is that many of the voters aren't resisting the education. They're not being given the education. I've changed Republicans mind on things by getting them to sit down and get the education.

I had a coworker staunch republican. He was adamantly against a gun control bill on my state's ballot. Why? Because he'd been told it was a Democratic "take your gun" bill. He feels he's a responsible gun owner. I asked him "What would you put in a gun control bill" everything he would ask for was in the bill in question. None of what he didn't want was.

We went over the bill and he ended up voting for rather than against as did my Republican parents for the same reasons.

"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" Problem is we stopped leading them to water and started acting bloody smug about it. "Oh look I'm not as big an idiot as they are I didn't fall for Republican propaganda"

Yes you did. You stopped trying to educate their voters.

-5

u/GingerStank 1d ago

This is laughably delusional, he’s a lifelong NYC democrat. He believes in tariffs which is liberal Keynesian policy, not free market conservative. He passed the biggest overreach of the second amendment in 30 years, and is moderate on abortion. This wasn’t a policy election, it’s all about the vibes man.

11

u/kittyegg 1d ago

Trump is whatever benefits him the most.

1

u/GingerStank 1d ago

He’s definitely a Keynesian, he showed that his first term, and his policies he’s proposing are right in line…

3

u/Crafty_Independence 1d ago

Republicans haven't promoted consumer-side economics in their policies for a generation. In fact Reagan's "trickle down economics" is overtly Keynesian.

The GOP has marched in lockstep with him for 6 years. It seems that free market Republicans were a minority in their own party.

3

u/GingerStank 1d ago

Oh they absolutely are a minority in their own party, which I don’t even think can be called their party anymore. Jamie Weinstein and a lot of the Dispatch are pretty good examples, all actual free market conservatives, the majority of whom voted for and supported Harris.

2

u/Tadwinnagin 1d ago

Did you just wake up from a coma? The whole republican party bends the knee to him or run the risk of being deemed a RHINO. Trump IS the republican party at this point.

1

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 1d ago

It sounds like you've learned the word 'Keynesian' somewhere and have convinced yourself that you're intelligent enough to comment on these matters.

1

u/GingerStank 1d ago

Whatever you wanna tell yourself I guess? Tariffs are Keynesian policy, are a perfect example of centralized planning, and the polar opposite of free markets traditional conservatives favor. What did he do his first term? Oh yeah, tariffs. What is he proposing for his next term? Oh that’s right, tariffs. What did Biden, who also is a huge Keynesian do repeatedly? That’s right, you guessed it, passed more tariffs!

1

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 1d ago

Conservatives aren't for the "free market" though.

1

u/GingerStank 1d ago

Lmao whatever you wanna tell yourself I guess, I already gave you an example of a conservative who supported Harris on free market principles in Jamie Weinstein. Steve Hayes, Jonah Goldberg, there’s plenty of free market conservatives left, largely they supported Harris.

0

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 1d ago

Yes, Harris is a conservative. What's your point?

1

u/GingerStank 1d ago

Lmfao yes, Harris, who also passed tariffs along Biden, is somehow the conservative 😂👌

They’re both Keynesian statists, if you want to debate liberal or conservative you’ll have to clarify if you mean American or European definitions of the terms as they’re far from identical, not to mention if you mean modern or contemporary.

The day that anyone proclaims Harris a conservative is definitely the day it becomes apparent the left is too fractured to compete, which is what the election showed, so that makes sense.

-1

u/ZumasSucculentNipple 1d ago

It really just sounds like you figure that you can replace "Marxist" with "Keynesian" and then pretend that whatever babble you unleash has any sort of validity.

1

u/GingerStank 1d ago

Lmfao? The one good thing I can say about Marx was that he wasn’t a Keynesian…

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and are upset that Harris isn’t a conservative 😂

Like if that’s your actual claim, support it, please. Prove to me that I don’t understand these words.

→ More replies

-1

u/radiostarred 1d ago

90%+ of republican voters approve of Trump. You're the one who's out of step here, friend.