Repub Influencer (Millionaire?) Matt Walsh Calls for Elimination of Social Security Prior to Election, and the Dems Loving it?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Lightbeamrider

Lightbeamrider

Well-known member
May 10, 2026
558
350
63
Generating all kinds of hatred directed at boomers who are considered leeches, Matt Walsh and some prominent Repubs (Ben Shaperio Dana Loesch Peter Schiff) are jumping on the eliminate Social Security Retirement bandwagon so they can keep their 6.2%. 12.4 if self-employed. Politicians include. All Repubs and it looks like the movement is picking up steam in Repub circles. To provide a flavor

https://twitter.com/x/status/2107529492172587213

Started out with a 2% employer/employee split and expanded thru the years to 12.4% employer/employee split. There was

About $1.131 trillion in net payroll tax contributions for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) program alone was collected in calendar year 2025 and deposited as cash into the Treasury’s general fund.
I do not know of any politician who would favor eliminating 1.131 Trillion from the General Fund so payers could keep their 6.2%. Do you?
 
GROK

Very few elected Republicans have publicly endorsed eliminating Social Security for current elderly recipients. Most party leaders and candidates, including Donald Trump, have pledged not to cut benefits for people already retired or near retirement. Documented exceptions or near-exceptions include:


  • Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said in a 2010 campaign appearance that it would be his objective “to phase out Social Security, to pull it up from the roots and get rid of it,” along with Medicare and Medicaid. He has not made this a current legislative priority in the same terms.
  • Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has called Social Security a “legal Ponzi scheme” and argued it (and Medicare) should be converted from mandatory entitlement spending to discretionary spending that Congress must reauthorize periodically.
  • Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) released a 2022 “Rescue America” plan that called for all federal legislation to sunset and require reauthorization every five years; critics noted this would place Social Security and Medicare under recurring review. Scott later stated he did not intend to sunset those two programs specifically.
  • Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) has recently described Social Security on the Senate floor as the largest program “wasting our tax dollars” and a “scam.”
 
I don't think that dog is gonna hunt. I believe it was last week I was reading how there is a bill in congress or committee or some kind of rumor as such. Anyway the bill aims to lower the full retirement age to 60 for folks who have worked manual labor and jobs where you are on your feet. So to me at least it seems like their are some at least who want to go in the opposite direction.

I think every politician is aware that trying to cut or do anything with SS that is perceived as negative is a poison pill. Back in the early or mid 2000's during the Bush admin they were talking about changing SS so that you could self direct SS. Or more or less pick where your money would be invested. I was in favor of that then and I still I am.

I do believe that they would have to have a real debate, because with that large of an amount of money. There is very real chance of fraud going to happen. I would think if we where to do that then we would also need to define what age groups could do so. As well as I would hope that they would make a curriculum for money management mandatory at the high school level.

As well as they would have to put up some kind of guard rails as to what percentage could be invested into riskier things such as bit coin and etc. So anyway I don't think there is anyway we could get rid of SS or would it be wise to. We are a consumer economy and our money is borrowed into existence. We don't teach thrift as a society nor do we truly practice it. To get rid of the barely adequate safety net we have would be utter foolishness. I think they need to make changes so that there is a safety net now and in the future.

The way they set it up back in the day made sense in a manner. As we were a nation pumping out children. However, in the 70's when they decided to murder future generations in the womb. They made the system unsustainable in the form that they had set up.
 
The spirit of Antichrist is a spirit that breaks covenants. This argument ignores the fact that people their whole lives paid money into Social Security because it was supposed to be a government mandated retirement account. The money doesn't belong to the government, they are simply the trustee of money that belongs to those that paid into it. But then the government called it "entitlement" like welfare. So equating Social Security to welfare portrays this as a kind of government welfare for retired people. But instead of investing this money wisely, the government was a deceitful trustee. It used the money for its own purposes until the US government was broke. So now, instead of the average American paying $367,000 into Social Security during their lifetime, having it invested wisely so that it had grown into $1.24 million as a result of matching employer contributions. That in turn would mean they could collect $60,000 a year without touching the principle. Instead the average payment is $25,000 a year, a fraction of what any half decent investment plan would have yielded. So already half of the retirement has been robbed, now they want to take the other half. And it is worse than that. Let's say I collect my retirement benefit for five years and then die. My retirement account should have been worth $1.24 million and I collected 125k which is basically interest on that account. Do my heirs get the $1.24 million when I die? No, the government gets that. How many people die while collecting 0 or a small fraction of that Social Security account? Government gets all that.

Social Security has been a scheme to keep Americans poor and it began during the Great Depression. Let no crisis go to waste. Welcome to the Antichrist spirit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HealthAndHappiness
This reminds me if folks have two of you living off of SS. It is called the SS Spousal benefit. For those that qualify, what it is if one spouse makes I believe it is 50% or less. Going from memory so check me if you feel that you may qualify. Anyway if you make 50% or less a month for example one spouse makes $1000 and the other $400 a month. The Spousal benefit will bump it up so that lower earner makes 50% of the greater. So what it will do is one spouse will make $1000 and the other $500. So anyway you have to call in or do a in person visit and request this benefit to be able to receive it if you qualify.
 
stilllearning said:
This reminds me if folks have two of you living off of SS. It is called the SS Spousal benefit. For those that qualify, what it is if one spouse makes I believe it is 50% or less. Going from memory so check me if you feel that you may qualify. Anyway if you make 50% or less a month for example one spouse makes $1000 and the other $400 a month. The Spousal benefit will bump it up so that lower earner makes 50% of the greater. So what it will do is one spouse will make $1000 and the other $500. So anyway you have to call in or do a in person visit and request this benefit to be able to receive it if you qualify.
Click to expand...
Correction, if you make less than 50% of the greater. 50% or less should be less than 50%.
 
stilllearning said:
I don't think that dog is gonna hunt. I believe it was last week I was reading how there is a bill in congress or committee or some kind of rumor as such. Anyway the bill aims to lower the full retirement age to 60 for folks who have worked manual labor and jobs where you are on your feet. So to me at least it seems like their are some at least who want to go in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/2107869264308773351
stilllearning said:
I
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back