this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
278 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22104 readers
5547 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

An internal Social Security Administration memo from March 13 reveals plans to require internet identity verification for phone benefit claims, forcing those unable to use online systems to visit physical offices.

The memo, authored by acting Deputy Commissioner Doris Diaz, estimates 75,000-85,000 people would need in-person visits despite month-long wait times and office closures.

This change would severely impact the 40% of beneficiaries who rely on phone service.

Meanwhile, the agency is cutting 7,000 employees (12% of staff) and closing offices. The memo acknowledges these changes will cause "service disruption," "operational strain," and "budget shortfalls."

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

once these assholes are dead by whatever means necessary, we can solve the whole Social Security problem (and many others) by restoring top marginal rates to the levels that built a strong safety net and prevented runaway wealth accumulation in the 1%

during WWII the wealthiest paid between 80-95%. from the New Deal until Reagan destroyed the country in the 80s, top rates were well above 50 percent.

Taxing the ultra rich is how America funded higher education, built the highway system, funded social welfare, uplifted 2 generations, built a global manufacturing and technology economy, and created a prosperous middle class. we did it by keeping oligarchs in check. in a strictly enforced progressively tiered system, top marginal tax prevents the obscene accumulation of wealth

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

First things first - the irony that boomers and the poor in red states are the ones to be most impacted by this. So, good for them for getting exactly what they voted for. Congrats! The system worked for them! I hope the coming cratering of their financial worlds.

Now, some perspective. My first client as a young federal consultant was SSA. My project was to transition all of SSA’s call centers from old analog phones to VoIP phones. At that time there were something like 36 call centers from Guam to the east coast providing almost continuous phone support to every American citizen calling in.

And you know what? It’s not just SSA they serve. They also answer and serve Medicare and Medicaid callers needing help. Think it’s just a phone agent in India? You had to be an American citizen, get the job, and then go to 13 weeks of training to handle multiple systems and agency policies. Then, if you got through that, they would sit you as a probie with an experienced agent and then if you passed that, then you were a full time agent.

At the time that we delivered our project, SSA handled upwards of 1 billion calls a year from the American public. There is no system in the world that can replace the people it takes to run that. No amount of AI can work a JAWS terminal. What does that matter? JAWS is assistive reading software for terminals. Ever see someone who is legally blind navigate a system tree and help someone file a death benefit completely by themselves with the caller being none the wiser? I have, and that’s because SSA had a strong mandate to hire employees with disabilities. They even had an entire office dedicated to it. We had agents that were legally blind, deaf, and in one case both. But with assistive technology, so much is possible. Now you eliminate the job that a disabled citizen could do and you cut their benefits and leave them out in the cold on their own? Yeah, that’s this regime for you.

The largest teleservice centers employed over 1000 agents. What will you tell the 1000+ agents who worked in the Birmingham, AL TSC besides “You’re fired”? I'm not sure if anyone has paid attention, but it’s not like the American South has been a hotbed of economic resilience - and now you’re going to spike it with 1000 newly unemployed folks, so have fun with that in this economy and job market.

It’s easy to call trump and elon idiots. They are. They are textbook examples of what syphillis and ketamine do to the brain. But to say they’re just creating a bunch of new unemployment cases is underselling it. They are destroying a service that literally every American calls at some point in their lives, either for themselves or for a loved one (like reporting or starting a death benefit).

They’re too stupid and arrogant to understand the live wire that social security is, for better or for worse. When people stop receiving checks they rely on for food, don’t have any assistance with extortionist healthcare, and can’t get any help with identity theft, maybe they’ll realize how bad this really is

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Look, the majority of old fuckers of my generation who are going to be on social security are people who votes consistently in every election for Republicans so I'm just going to be okay with the collateral damage at this point.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 3 days ago

“It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it!” 🏆

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I really really want to see how this would play out. If we're going to go down let's at least see the republicans who voted for this go down with us.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

I mean if democracy is restored by pissed off octogenarians I'm in.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

America needs something better than the ponzi scheme (sorry comrades, the Muskrat did not come up with this criticism, but is just using it to destroy it senselessly) that is social security but Trump’s idea to destroy Social Security, pocket the money, and flip off the poor is not helping.

[–] [email protected] 104 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Oh for fuck’s sake. Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. Would people stop with that bullshit already?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.

No one said it was.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The literally said

America needs something better than the ponzi scheme

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

America needs something better than the ponzi scheme

The linked article does not contain the word, "ponzi". Do you have a link for your quote?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The person who was replied to first said it. Here's a link https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/17048154

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Dumb and blind is not a good combination. Good luck with your social security disability claim though.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

What are you talking about?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Cool, me too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

Not by technical definition perhaps but it is an unsustainable system.

There are better systems out there like Singapore’s mandatory savings policy.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 4 days ago (2 children)

An unsustainable system that has been in use since 1937?

I don't think you know the meaning of words.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Righties are masters of hypocrisy and doublethink

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

As a firm believer of Market Socialism, I don’t really consider myself right wing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're kidding right, yeah he's kidding. Lol good one

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Nope, I believe the workers should own the means of production. That is by definition, Socialism.

The current system of Social Security could even be fixed if they remove the cap / tax the rich but it is clear that most here don’t want that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Alright, that is kind of the definition, but right now isn't the time to push for it, there's a fascist dictator consolidating power in the White House

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

An unsustainable system that has been in use since 1937?

Yes

The reason why Social Security is unsustainable is because population growth is slowing down. In a few decades from now, there will be more old people than young people.

Even with the current demographic situation, people are getting less than what they pay in.

It is expected to start creating deficits in 2037.

Singapore’s CPF meanwhile is sustainable although Social Security is not unfixable either.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

It’s been “going broke” all 40 years I’ve been alive. But yeah sure it’s “broke” now.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

I don’t give a fuck how it is done, I WILL be getting my FULL social security benefit upon retirement.

This was never a problem until Ronald Reagan dipped into the social security fund.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Singapore's CPF is garbage and has far more (and far more obvious) problems than Social Security. The only truly sustainable social safety net is universal basic income and universal healthcare. Anything else is just a bandaid.

Having said that... if the bandaid is all you currently have available, then don't fucking rip it off.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Agreed on UBI and Universal Healthcare.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What is it that's unsustainable with social security?

Benefits increase GDP growth, cushions impact on performance of market upheavals, increases political stability, reduces poverty, increases health and productivity and of course increases happiness.

It would seem to me that it's a sound investment for both economic, societal, moral and selfish reasons. Please tell me where my analysis or the data doesn't support my conclusion.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

My understanding (not op) is the most unsustainable thing is that the cap for payments doesn't adjust for inflation, meaning the rich don't pay as much as they used to. If we don't fix that, one day payments will be cut to around 80 percent of what they are. Not world ending, but something that would be easily fixable if we weren't ruled by sociopaths preaching sociopathy as the new religion.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

Why doesn't the working class, the larger of the two, simply not eat the owning class?

Jokes aside; seems to me the problem is that policy is set on feelings rather than reality, and then the argument of "not sustainable" gets irrelevant (which is why the policy carries on even though demonstrably wrong).That I can understand, cutting off one's nose to spite the face kinda deal. But if you're spiteful, it might be a reasonable (although not rational) choice.

If you're looking for efficient and/or rational policy, you need more mature representatives, simple as.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yes, Social Security has problems right now that are not impossible to overcome.

The main reason why Social Security is unsustainable is because population growth is slowing down. In a few decades from now, there will be more old people than young people.

Even with the current demographic situation, people are getting less than what they pay in.

Singapore’s CPF meanwhile is sustainable but Social Security is not unfixable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The reason why Social Security is unsustainable is because population growth is slowing down. In a few decades from now, there will be more old people than young people.

Even with the current demographic situation, people are getting less than what they pay in.

The program is expected to begin running deficits every year starting in 2037.

Singapore’s CPF meanwhile is sustainable although Social Security is not unfixable.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Seems like you're running in to the same problems the rest of the world has, only slower. You don't even have to come up with a solution, just steal one.

Besides, the state retirement fund is only structured that way as a cash buffer, borrowing the retirement fund of a whole generation. You could just as well go back to how it was done in the 70ies with the retirement fund actually built from people's taxes, and not from the next generation's - boom, no more problems with uneven generation populations.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

its been working for longer than your mother has.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The reason why Social Security is unsustainable is because population growth is slowing down. In a few decades from now, there will be more old people than young people.

Even with the current demographic situation, people are getting less than what they pay in.

It is expected to start creating deficits in 2037.

Social Security is not unfixable.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Go to YouTube and search for "Sam Seder Social Security", and then realize why he's making this face at you right now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

You mean the person who literally proves my point that it is unsustainable as it is right now?

He literally states that the trust fund is going to run out in the 2030s and gives wealth disparity as the reason. I agree and it is a problem that can be fixed, all you have to do is to remove the cap, of course the MAGAites is not going to slightly raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and they aren't going to create a reasonable replacement (like Singapore CPF).

[–] [email protected] 44 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Raise the fucking cap then, its not hard to fix you people just dont want to fucking do it, youd rather seniors starve and die.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Don't raise the cap remove it altogether. It should never have existed in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Seeing your downvotes, it seems 7 people don’t like the idea of taxing the rich.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

All well. Not everyone can be convinced of a good idea.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

youd rather seniors starve and die.

Don’t put words in my mouth.

I believe Social Security is perfectly fixable with the main obstacle being republicans being republicans.