Wednesday night, I did something I very rarely do: I turned on Fox News. Eight Republican presidential contenders debated one another in Milwaukee. Donald Trump, whose polling numbers reportedly are higher than the eight's combined, didn't attend. Instead, the ex-prez did an interview with Tucker Carlson on X (formerly Twitter) which, according to one update I saw, had at least 75 million hits, or viewers, or however they measure such things. So considering that most Democrats find Republicans on television to be unwatchable, and most of the GOP faithful apparently was watching their hero, I may have been the only one watching Fox.
I took it for the entire two hours. And in a way, it was pretty interesting. Because it turns out that, when Trump isn't in the room, the rest of the field was...normal. Kind of. Mostly.
The insta-analysts presumably will tell us that DeSantis emerged unscathed, Pence had a pretty good night, and it became evident why Vivek Ramaswamy is climbing in some polls. I thought Nikki Haley and maybe even Doug Burgum(!) acquitted themselves pretty well.
But here's the thing: with the notable exception of Ramaswamy, who has no government experience and shares Trump's penchants for rhetorical bomb-throwing and riding roughshod over political norms, most of the other candidates were within the guardrails we used to expect of a conventional conservative. On the whole, they expressed fairly conventionally conservative views. For example: they were asked whether Mike Pence did his Constitutional duty on January 6, 2021. It was a little hard to tell in the moment, but I think all the candidates agreed, some more enthusiastically than others. They all attacked the Biden administration, which is what one would expect of a conventional conservative candidate who is not distracted by culture war issues. I believe all of them self-identified as pro-life, and within that consensus, there was a variety of opinions and approaches as to what the party's pro-life policy should be, with one or two suggesting a national abortion ban after 15 weeks. They all came out in favor of stronger border controls, and against progressive education policies. It wasn't exactly taking a time machine back to 2012, but the zaniness of the last 8-9 years was relatively muted.
Even without Trump's presence, there were some populist instincts on display; for good or ill, Trump has reset the GOP's orbit in a more populist direction. There was definitely a contingent that wants us to limit or cut off aid to Ukraine. There was some pretty harsh rhetoric about border control. And there were some negative invocations of Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theory.
But taken as a whole, it gives one hope that somewhere, perhaps not even buried too deeply, the GOP can present itself as a fairly normal conservative political party.
But - we must remind ourselves that this crew is polling a cumulative 40% or something similar. The GOP voters are still smitten with Trump.
Thanks, Jim, for doing your political duty of watching the unwatchable for us.
ReplyDeleteThe pundits at the NYT have concluded that since no one emerged from the pack, and that they did not attack Trump, there was no reason for Trump to come to the next debate.
And, as one said, there is no reason to think that Trump would not win the debate if he came. All he has to do is his stand-up comic routine which has won him all the previous debates.
I found it interesting that these debates took place under a DEMOCRACY 24 banner! Do Republican's still believe in Democracy? Did they ever? Is this part of their "new populism?"
I think Republican voters believe in democracy; the standard bearer, Trump, has managed to bring Republican voters in record numbers in recent elections. (Which still wasn't enough to win the White House in 2020 or the Senate in 2022.)
DeleteAn argument could be made that their leader Trump. abetted by the populist right-wing media and social media, has bamboozled a huge chunk of those voters into thinking that their votes didn't count in 2020, hence "Stop the Steal". How many of those voters truly were bamboozled? Apparently, a distressingly high number. On the other hand, these allegedly-democracy-deprived Americans haven't really taken to the street in large numbers, even on January 6, so I find it hard to get a read on how deeply they believe the lie. Maybe they don't really believe it. Or maybe they believe it but can't be bothered to do anything about it.
I think Republicans believe in democracy for "me". Not sure how many of them believe in it for "thee".
DeleteEast Germany called itself the Deutsche Democratische Republik. The word "democratic" is one of the most abused words in the world. Nothing wrong with street demonstrations as long as they are peaceful. I wish there were more of them and that young people would rise up about the issues that will affect them for the rest of their lives. The electoral process has driven into a ditch. Unfortunately, the young seem to be mostly passive.
DeleteKatherine, I suspect you are right. Look at their fights against abortion ballot measures. Don’t let the people vote directly because they might not vote the way we want them to. Make it as hard as possible for poor people to vote as you can. Take away the polling locations in the poor neighborhoods ( and college campuses for the not poor young adults), fight measures that expand voting hours so that they can get off work and vote, ban mail in ballots. Heck, why not make it illegal to give out water to people forced to stand in lines for hours to vote?
DeleteI think that six out of the eight could be considered as fairly normal conservatives in ordinary times. I could be okay if they were the Republican candidate, or at least not in despair for the state of the union. Two of them I would absolutely not want anywhere near the White House. They are DeSantis, who has a serious authoritarian streak, and Ramaswamy (don't know if I spelled that right). Because he is a billionaire with no government experience, and has a bad case of Dunning-Kruger effect. We've been down that road with Trump. I'm just glad Elon Musk was born in South Africa, because he's the same way and would probably think about running if he could.
ReplyDeleteAbout the Republican focus on the border, they should know that most of the illegal drugs don't come in from people crossing the Rio Grande. But that's a subject for another day.
I didn’t see it. Actually I haven’t watched any presidential debates since about 1996. Based purely on a small amount of reading today, I have some interest in Haley. Maybe Hutchinson. I have no idea yet what Scott had to say. Apparently he didn’t say much. But I think Haley’s not seriously running now - she’s getting name recognition for a future run. I had to laugh at Pence’s on the job training dig at Ramaswamy. After all, he signed on as VP to a man who also had zero political experience, and whose wealth was inherited - mostly the result of his father’s corruption, followed by his own. I don’t know how Ramaswamy made his money, but I hope he’s not as corrupt as trump. Good on Christy and Hutchinson for refusing to say they will support trump if he’s the nominee ( which he will be if he’s not been sentenced to prison). Apparently DeSantis just repeated his culture war stuff and promised to put Hunter Biden in prison. Is Hunter Biden’s gun violation really the most serious issue facing this country? After all, this is the governor that just pushed through legislation that eliminates pretty much all gun laws, freeing Florida to become a new Wild West. Or is America’s most important issue banning drag queens….
DeleteScanning the news outlets - Fox says Ramaswamy was the biggest loser and Haley was the biggest winner. MSNBC says Ramaswamy was the winner and DeSantis was the biggest loser. Fox v MSNBC - so, can anyone discern their hidden agendas in these judgments?
ReplyDeleteVox said there were two winners: Donald Trump (since none of the candidates dealt him any serious blows) and the pre-Trump Republican party ( with Trump not there they actually talked about some policy issues).
DeleteAnd three losers: any alternative to Trump, since he didn't lose any points. And DeSantis, since he had a clumsy performance and didn't gain any ground. And Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, since apparently the audience got a little unruly with boos and cat calls. I thought that was an unfair judgement, because Baier and MacCallum asked intelligent questions and it's not their fault if people don't know how to behave in public. What are the moderators going to do, send them to time-out?
The NY Times panel of opinion writers had Haley as the winner, and Ramaswamy as the biggest loser not named Asa Hutchinson or Doug Burgum.
DeleteA Free Press article I saw earlier this morning stated that, in the post-debate media scrum, Ramaswamy was the guy all the networks wanted to talk to.
An interesting article by an expert in interpreting body language at Politico.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/24/republican-debate-body-language-00112711
It's interesting that the article's author passes no judgment on the veracity of the participants after talking about being a human lie detector in the early paragraphs. He seemed to paint complimentary portraits of all the candidates, possibly faulting De Santis for an angry visage. But any politician has to lie to please his audience. It starts out by telling them how great they are by just being Americans and ramps up from there.
DeleteAnne, I haven't watched debates since 1996, either. Not allowing Nader to debate in 2000 showed what a rigged system we have. I'll watch a 2024 debate if West is in it or some third party candidate.
Good point.
DeleteIt was an interesting experiment that the Politico author turned off the sound the first time he watched it to see the body language. I don't know that I believe either their body language or their words though.
DeleteI respect Christie and Hutchinson for refusing to bow to the Trump golden calf. Wish I thought either one had a chance.
I think Ramaswamy could be be a candidate who is more dangerous than Trump if he is more disciplined. He certainly seems to be going after the Trump cray-cray base.
ReplyDeleteHis aura is of youthful vigor and energy - which could serve him well should he find a way to lock up the Republican nomination and run against Joe Biden in the general election.
He reminds me of many people I've known over the years who are professional sales people. Having now seen him mixing it up with the other GOP candidates, my initial impression is that he's utterly amoral and will say whatever needs to be said to Get to Yes, i.e. to get people to vote for him.
When the debate moderators asked the candidates whether they would support Trump in the event that he secures the nomination and is convicted of crimes, his hand shot up first and highest.
It's entirely possible he's running to be on Trump's ticket as a veep candidate. Here's a paranoid plot line I just made up: let us suppose Trump wins the general election from a jail cell. Surely a Constitutional crisis would ensue. Recalling that the Trump legal brain trust cooked up the theory that Vice President Pence had the authority to declare the 2020 election null and void, let us suppose that the Trump team makes the argument that, as Trump is not available to be sworn in, his running mate should then be sworn in as president. Then President Ramaswamy's first and only presidential act is to pardon Trump and then step aside for the Great Man to re-occupy the Oval Office. The Constitution, laws and the good of the country would be no object.
I agree with you about Ramaswamy. He may be even more dangerous to the country than DeSantis, who is fading fast. Your conspiracy plot is all too realistic.
DeleteWell he's stroking all the MAGA errogenous zones. I'd be more worried if I thought he had a better chance than DeSantis. Which tells you how much I don't like him, because I really don't like DeSantis. Ramaswamy is just another rich guy who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. He knows bupkis about government and shows it by some of the things he says. I hope the financial bros are paying attention because he might know something about money (his), but he doesn't know much about actual economic systems.
DeleteLike you, I think he'd be more dangerous than Trump if he actually got to be the nominee. Because he'd be harder for Biden to beat with his supposed youthful and charismatic appeal (to those who make their decisions based on such things). Rssidual racism is a bad thing, but it might be one reason he doesn't get very far.
Katherine, FWIW - I don't know how many voters consciously say, "I want a youthful president", although it seems the sense of youthfulness worked for Kennedy and Obama. But there is little doubt that there is an asymmetry at work: I think a lot of voters could consciously conclude that Biden is too old and tired for four more years. And at least some of them won't find the prospect of Kamala Harris finishing out his second term to be appealing.
DeleteIf this is Ramaswamy's theory, then the conventional wisdom is: tack to the extremes during the primaries because that is where the motivated party voters are, and then tack back to the center during the general election to try to capture some swing voters. So we would look for Ramaswamy to say moderate, sensible and reassuring things during the general election.
I'd say Ramaswamy not being a Christian might work against him. But Trump isn't a Christian either.
DeleteWell, MAGA supporters, including well more than 50% of white Catholics, who claim to be christian, aren’t christian. But agree that being Hindu might cause him to lose votes from that crowd. Even more than the darker complexion will.
DeleteJim, I think Ramaswamy is as extreme as his rhetoric implies. It worked for trump so it could work for him too. As the saying goes, believe him when he tells you who he is.
People used to tell me that trump would drop the extremism if he became candidate. He didn’t. Then they said he would if he was elected. He didn’t. Now he doesn’t even pretend - praising the perpetrators of the violence of the Jan 6 insurrection as héros and patriots.
I don't think we'll have to worry about Ramaswamy being the candidate, because I'm pretty sure Trump will be. Little old things like felony convictions won't make him drop out. Biden may be old, but he's not a malignant narcissist. He has at least a better than even chance of prevailing against Trump again.
DeleteAnne, I got a warning from the America Media monitor that I was posting too much in a single thread. Have you received any warnings like that? I don't understand how conversation and debate can function. You've had exchanges over economic data and spurious claims about the last few years. I don't know how that can be done in one or two posts.
DeleteI don't think I've had any warnings yet. I usually just limit it to one or two comments. If someone on there is in an argumentative mood I figure I'm not going to win anyway so I just move on.
DeleteStanley I got messages today when I was trying to set someone right with economic facts instead of right wing talking points. The people I responded to had more comments than I had. Yet my response to his response to me - providing even more facts and sources wasn’t published I’m pretty fed up with America. For the last year and a half or so all of my comments are instantly held for review so I have no chance to edit. That happened after I mentioned censorship one time too many, pointing out that in spite of their claim that they want open discussion, they never had any articles by theologians who support womens ordination. I noted that Reese had been removed after Benedict became unhappy with his openness to publishing non- orthodox but still legitimate theologians.
DeleteLike you, I am reluctant to leave disinformation unchallenged.
I’m definitely not renewing my subscription.
Ok. I figured you might have gotten the same treatment. Yes, I've been blocked and passed. Sometimes I've had them removed, perhaps for being a bit sarcastic but not toward other commenters. Gets kind of bland. I think they may leave moderation to young interns and they get a bit carried away. Or they're Republican. I've seen some of their really conservative stuff come from young people.
DeleteYes, I miss Father Reed. It's been downhill from there.
The direction has been a lot more conservative in the last few years. A lot of very conservative younger writers, and interns too. I think you are right that interns are moderating.What does annoy me is spending half an hour composing, including fact checks for the most recent data, and then being criticized by another commenter for not addressing the comments I took issue with. But I did address them - in great detail with sources provided. I sent two emails to the Executive Editor tonight because I’m so very annoyed. Not only did I waste my time, they are letting misinformation stand unchallenged - as they do when you make comments they don’t publish on climate change based on your experience extensive scientific background.
DeleteYes, I agree. It's the work you put into it that just gets flushed. I guess it's an uphill battle.
DeleteOne new writer I follow is Eve Tushnet. She is smart and lesbian but she seems to adhere to the be gay but don't do gay philosophy. I don't know how long she can do that inner discord before something cracks.
I waste too much time and energy on it. They aren’t interested in facts’ as you know from experience. I write some comments - especially after generalities like - the economy under Biden is a disaster* - simply to correct misinformation that others will read who may not know what the facts are and may be open to learning . But I don’t think I will bother in the future.
DeleteI think there are many on the website that appreciate your research, including myself. But, yes, it doesn't help to have it all disappear into a trap door.
DeleteAbout Ramaswamy, now I am thinking, just let him keep talking and he will sink his own candidacy. If the Republicans need at least some buy-in from Blacks to win, and I think they do, he's not winning any friends among them by calling Black congresswomen, and well known Black authors "the new KKK", as he lately did.
ReplyDeleteHere's Niki Haley on Social Security retirement age.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/haley-says-65-is-way-too-low-for-retirement-age/vi-AA1fJ1CZ?ocid=socialshare&cvid=7354407dbfcd43e6a501b8a19c23d183&ei=30
She wants to raise it to what she won't say. Ok if you have a job like mine was. I didn't have to carry packs of shingles up a ladder. I worked to 68 but not full time. It's just another way to destroy social security. Anything but reduce the military budget, tax corporations and the rich.
If she becomes president, time to start setting fire to things and confronting in the streets. Oh sorry. We're not French. We're Americans. We stay in our pens.
I don't think Nikki is the one to cause the most concern. That would be the Orange Idol himself, DeSantis, and Ravaswamy. An unholy trinity for sure.
DeleteAgree with you, Katherine.
DeleteWell, yes, they all want to kill Social Security. But she says it out loud.
DeleteI’m all doing n favor of cutting ( not eliminating);the DoD budget, increasing taxes on the rich and corporations - up to a point.I don’t know what the corporate tax rate is now, but a few years ago it was way higher than many other developed countries, which is one reason many American corporations moved some operations overseas. Ireland became the “Emerald Tiger » moving from the poorest Western European country to the fastest GDP growth by joining the EU, then offering corporations tax incentives to move to Ireland - well educated population with English as their native language, combined with EU membership giving duty free access to all EU countries AND low corporate taxes. It worked very well for them.
DeleteWhen SS was originally set up to be age 65, the average person only collected for 3 years before dying. The lifespan has improved dramatically since then. With all the boomers retiring it’s become a huge problem. Nikki Haley isn’t promoting eliminating SS as some do, but pushing out the age for full retirement benefits.
My husband didn’t retire until 72, also a desk bound engineer. I had to quit at 67 because of my hearing. Both of us deferred collecting SS until 70 1/2 to maximize our retirement benefit. Since we know a lot of people retired from government careers because of where we live, we also know that their retirement after 30 years was way higher than my husbands - after 50 years in the SS system. He worked with another engineer on the same projects for decades, but his colleague was civil service not private company like my husband. The civil service retirement was 2-3 times higher than my husband’s SS. The current federal civil servants don’t have the same deal anymore. Not as good as the older generation of federal retired folk get. Still very generous compared to those who work for small companies in the private sector..
People who do labor that is so physically hard on the body might need a separate SS system.But that is unlikely to happen.
Right now Nikki Haley is my favorite Republican. I don’t agree with everything but I don’t agree with Biden on everything either. He’s the best option though if any of the “Unholy Trinity” is nominated- which is very likely to happen.. I might even vote for her if there were any chance she’d be nominated.Which she won’t be. I would consider voting Republican if it were Haley, Scott, or Hutchinson but the MAGAs don’t like moderates.
Extending the retirement age does not mean extending employment. I would expect these people to be fired and replaced by younger people. Nikki Haley and the rest of these elitists don't care about regular people. I don't think regular people are even real to them.
DeleteSingling out Social Security while ignoring the rest of the system is just what I'd expect from someone with $8M.
Stanley, you're right that people can get caught in a double squeeze between an increased retirement age and ageism which can lead employers to lay off older workers. Not to mention the toll on the body that a physical job takes over time.
DeleteThe retirement age is already 67-plus, depending on your date of birth. I don't think realistically it should be pushed farther. One thing I have personally noticed is that I no longer sleep as well and it takes me about ten hours to get eight hours of sleep. Meaning I would have trouble piling out of bed at 5:00 am like I used to to get to work on time.
Working longer isn’t desirable for many people. If I could hear, I would prefer working to being at home doing nothing all the time. I’m not a hobbyist- I don’t paint or garden etc. Even volunteer jobs are scarce if you can’t hear.
DeleteOne big problem with the system is that retirees are supported by those still working. The money we paid into the system went to the generation preceding us. Now it’s our kids and grandkids supporting our SS payments and they sure don’t want higher SS taxes. The SS system was founded in 1935 during the depths of the depression.That’s when age 65 was set too. But now the number of years we retired folk live is an average of about 12 years after turning 65 instead of three. I don’t know the answer. Obviously cutting military expenditures and using that money for SS would theoretically address some of the shortfall. But that would mean redesigning the entire SS funding system and somehow I doubt that Congress would ever come together to do that. But I agree that 67 is old enough for full retirement benefits. Even those of us whose main tool has been paper and pen or computers all,our lives are tired at this age. Unfortunately I think that we will just blunder on no matter who is in the WH or in control of Congress.
Actually what my dream retirement job once was is no longer out there. I used to imagine myself working part- time at the information counter in Barnes and Noble, helping people find the right books for their needs. Minimum wage, but I didn’t care about money, just doing something I would enjoy and that would help people in a modest way. When I’m at a cheap restaurant, and the server is clearly in their 60s or older, I leave really big tips because that’s a very tough retirement job and they don’t even get minimum wage - only about $2.50/hour. It’s all tips. In cheaper restaurants the food isn’t expensive and even if everyone leaves 20%, which most don’t, it doesn’t add up to much for a very tough and tiring job.
DeleteYeah the bookstores have taken a hit, there's not many left in actual buildings. One of me sisters (who doesn't live in our town) texted me recently to ask if I had checked out the new bookstore in our town; apparently it had been in the regional news. I didn't even know about it. I wish them luck, will have to check it out. It's down on 11th street, which is next to the tracks, where there are a bunch of bars and old vacant buildings. I have my doubts if anyone could make a living in this town selling books. Maybe it's a hobby for someone who inherited money, LOL.
DeleteThere is an actual Barnes and Noble in Omaha. My daughter-in-law loves that place and always takes me there when we are in Omaha.
About tips, apparently the tip economy is expanding. We were in the Subway sandwich shop the other day. Their prices have gone way up like everything has. I paid with a debit card, and there was an option to choose a 10, 15, or 20% tip. I did tip, because I suppose they don't pay the workers that well, but it wasn't a restaurant where they wait tables. Its basically an assembly line where you choose your toppings/trimmings.
When we were in California we went to a local center full of shops and restaurants to find sit down but inexpensive food after picking up the kids from soccer practice. I was shocked to see a real bookstore in the center - not even a chain store, but one that had been founded around 1850. I held up everyone because I simply had to go in. When we were in Oxford, England, we found independent bookstores everywhere - practically every block. It’s a dream city for book and bookstore lovers.
DeleteThe tip suggestions started showing up here about 2 years ago. Since we travel a lot, I read travel news and newsletters.These automatic tip suggestions are the canter of huge controversy along with the sit down restaurant (including fancy dinner night out places) surcharges, usually noted in small print at the bottom of menus - an extra fee not included in the food prices’ with the note that they do not take the place of a tip. It are added to your bill when they take your. Refit card for processing. Caveat emptor in restaurants these days. Since food prices in self/serve, takeout, and fancy restaurants reflect the increased costs already a lot of folk are looking at menus online ahead of time to avoid this extra fee (everybody is getting like the airlines and charging extra for what is supposed to be basic - like suitcases).
The sit down restaurant workers are paid so little that I tip generously. Our eldest son worked as a server a lot when in between jobs after college and during the recession that started in 2008. That’s when I first learned that servers in the USA don’t even get minimum wage. In European countries and Australia, they get minimum wage and full benefits - pension, paid holidays and vacations, etc. Around here the baristas, cashiers in carry out places like bakeries, no table service carry outs like Subway etc do get minimum wage, but demand for workers in those places is so high around here that most pay at least double the minimum wage, or more.So I don’t add a tip usually in those stores. In Europe, the only people who leave tips are American tourists!
Sigh. The surcharge - it’s added to the bill when they take your credit card. Look closely when they give it to you to sign. But it’s mandatory, so I now check out menus carefully to look for the fine print notice. I don’t mind tipping for service ( but the European and Australian tip less systems are way better - the servers are guaranteed a certain amount of income and are not subject to the whims of the customers, whether generous or cheap. Mostly cheap). Plus minimum wages in Europe are much higher than in the US. It was set at $7.25/ hour in 2009, so it’s not exactly a generous wage. Some states, mostly blue states, have increased it. In Maryland it’s now $12.80 for small businesses and $13.25 for large. In Calif it’s $15.50-16/ hour. Some cities there have a higher wage- many between $16-19.
DeleteThe only time I have heard of a restaurant surcharge here is if it is a party and the people are occupying several tables or maybe a whole room. I can kind of see it under those circumstances because it does cause extra work. But just as an add-on to someone's bill, it seems less than honest. Because they have raised the prices of the food but don't want to admit that they have.
DeleteIn the world of college tuition, the "service fees" can add thousands of dollars per year.
DeleteRegarding Social Security: in addition to payments that can seem inadequate, the system itself is financially precarious. According to this link, the government will have to stop paying full benefits in 2033. If I work until I'm 70, that will be two years (or less) after I retire.
Deletehttps://www.crfb.org/blogs/cbo-only-decade-until-social-security-insolvency
One aspect of our Social Security funding which I've always thought was screwy: for those of us who contribute to Social Security funding through our payroll taxes, there is a yearly income maximum, above which earners don't pay Social Security taxes. This article is a pretty good explainer.
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/02/should-we-eliminate-the-social-security-tax-cap-here-are-the-pros-and-cons#:~:text=The%20limit%20on%20annual%20earnings,of%20%2413%2C200%20from%20last%20year.
In brief:
For 2023, earners pay social taxes into the social security fund on their first $160K of earnings. Of course, the great majority of earners earn < $160K/year, so those earners pay the full 6.2% of their earnings into the Social Security fund (and the employers match that payment amount). But: for earners who make > $160K/year, they only pay taxes up to $160K of earnings. For any amounts they earn over $160K, they pay no social security taxes.
This amounts to a regressive tax: lower earners are paying 6.2% of their earnings into social security, whereas higher earners may be paying only 5%, 4% or less.
The explainer article I've linked to above takes a very brief look at a handful of proposals to address the issue, including a "donut hole" proposal that would keep the cap at $160K, but then reinstitute the tax as earnings climb past $400K/year. This would essentially preserve the income ceiling for the upper-middle-class earners, but would tax the upper-upper-middle-class and tycoons at a higher rate.
I would simply remove the ceiling and let it be a flat 6.2% tax all the way up to the yearly earnings of the Kochs, Soroses and Musks of the world. If that results in more money than the system needs - I am okay with that.
I don't know if this is true or not, but I have heard that the government has borrowed money from the social security funds to pay other bills, sort of a "rob Peter to pay Paul" scenario.
DeleteIt appears that is in fact true, but the government is required to pay back any funds borrowed with interest.
Deletehttps://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/social-security-verify/how-government-borrows-social-security-trust-funds/536-7f91dc65-145b-4241-a004-510b6b39ba5c
At least there should be fairness. Whatever is done to the young (when they get old) should be done to the old now. Haley was talking about grandfathering. This gets the vote of the old people versus the not yet old. It's hypocrisy.
DeleteIf the new generations are expected to work longer, then there should be job security measures. Either they are guaranteed jobs when they get older or are provided government jobs. Also, instead of complete retirement, perhaps some sort of fade where work ramps down from 40 per week to zero over a period as retirement annuity ramps up from zero to whatever. Or something like that. I believe the only problem these rich politicians have with social security is that it exists at all.