Now that Trump is prez, Democrat-fellating Axios admits there's a problem with Social Security

“Axios” is a leftist, Democrat-fellating website, so it totally ignores all serious problems when the Democrats control things, only mentioning ‘em when the Republicans are in control (no matter how weak, due to the senate filibuster).

So with Trump as prezzy and the GOP having a majority in congress, Axios is delighted to publish an article with the scary headline “Social Security’s day of reckoning is nearly here.”

Of course people who know anything about math have been warning about this for decades.  But of course Democrats in congress have blocked every effort to pass any rule changes that might have made the eventual fix less dire--because just admitting the problem would cause a few million voters to realize that SS was always a Ponzi scheme from the start: it could only work by taking money from the paychecks of an ever-growing number of working people to pay promised benefits.

Young Americans and stupid Democrats don’t realize that Social Security is funded by seizing 6.2% of every citizen’s paycheck--and employers are forced to pay ANOTHER 6.2% to the gruberment.  There’s also a cunning loophole that the if someone earns more than $176,000, there’s no SS tax on any earnings above that.  Cunning, eh?  Benefits the high earners, but why?

Another piece of stupidity:  You get SS benefits even if you have investment income of a million dollars a year.  There’s no limit.  Stupid.  Of course that’s not the big problem, but still...

Axios trivializes the long-known problems by writing that people have “fretted about” it.  How about “Warned, with copious figures, of the coming danger”?  “Fretted” is designed to soothe.  “Don’t fret little lady!”  You bet, sparky.

The problem--*as has been known for decades*--is that the total monthly “take” out of everyone’s paycheck AND the employer’s forced tax isn’t enough to cover the monthly “benefits.”  

It’s so simple a child could understand it.

Making things worse is that for decades congress has stolen hundreds of billions from the  retirement fund to pay for more porkbarrel spending by grandstanding congresswhores.

Wait, my bad: they didn’t “steal” those hundreds of billions, merely  “borrowed” ‘em.  Left IOU notes, just like borrowing from China, eh?

Congress was cunning enough not to steal ALL the money, but at current rates the last dollar will be gone barely 8 years from now--2033.  And then, unless magic happens, Axios says “recipients would see a steep cut to their monthly checks.”

Really?

Axios goes on to say “there are deep divides over how to address the imbalance.”  Wait...what “imbalance”?  This is the first time the article uses that word.  Are they talking about SS paying out more in “benefits” than the system takes out of your paychecks?  Yes, but they don’t say that--and you can guess why.

And the classic: 
>>Fiscal watchdogs—and the program's own trustees—have warned of its unsustainability for decades, *but what is different now is* that it is no longer a far-off problem.>>

You need to read that again to really appreciate the masterful way these shitheads excuse the failure by your dear “leaders”--corrupt rat-bastards for the most part--to fix the damn thing decades ago.  See, what’s different now is that the meltdown date is only 8 years in the future!

It’s like “Wow, who woulda’ thought time keeps on tickin’, eh?  You can’t blame US though, cuz we din’ know dat!”

Today the taxes taken from every American’s paycheck only cover 77% of monthly SS benefits, meaning that in 2033 the program could only pay that percentage of current benefits--*unless* congress borrows the rest from China (or similar). 

The average SS beneficiary gets about $2,000 a month, which would drop to $1,546.  

Of course congress won’t let that happen, because they wanna be re-elected, eh?  So they’ll just kick the can down the road, as they always do, eh?  They’ll do it by borrowing the extra billions needed every month, just like they do now with the rest of the money they DEMAND be spent.  Trump can’t cut a single program--not a single dollar--without some Democrat group suing--and the leftist judges always RULE that all the funds be restored.

Axios again:
>>The great question is how to solve this mismatch between the tax revenue that comes in and the benefits promised.>>

Ahh, this must be the “imbalance” mentioned many ‘grafs earlier. 

Axios laments that after the big “baby boom” when U.S. troops returning from overseas after WW2--grateful to be alive and eager to start families--Americans have been having fewer babies, thus fewer people entering the workforce and paying SS taxes.  But the number of people receiving monthly SS checks has steadily increased: 

In 2000 there were 3.4 workers per SS beneficiary.  Today that's down to about 2.7, and is predicted to reach 2.3 in ten years.

Eight years from now the shortfall between SS tax take and promised benefits is likely to be $350 billion per year.  Since the government is already projected to have to borrow a staggering $2.9 TRILLION in that year to cover spending already ordered by your stupid congress, adding $35O billion more may not seem like much, but it’s actually a 12% increase, which will move the date at which everything implodes closer. 

Today the government is forced to pay one TRILLION dollars a year just in *interest* on our national debt.  And by 2033 that’s likely to be almost two TRILLION a year. 
 
Finally, 40 paragraphs into its propaganda piece, Axios admits the real problem:
>>“Every dollar of benefits paid to a recipient translates into a tax increase for someone else.”>>

There it is, *finally--* the carefully-hidden secret of socialism, that politicians can’t give money to one person/group without taking it from someone else who worked for it...*unless* they either borrow *or just print* the money.  And corrupt or stupid or greedy politicians do both.

That explains why a majority in congress [spit] have ignored the well-known problems over the last 40 years.  Democrats didn’t want voters to realize the truth that Social Security was a ponzi scheme.  And most Republicans went along because they’re as addicted to being able to order massive spending as Democrats.

Axios now has an expert explain the obvious: "If *we* [i.e. congress] had done this decades ago, these changes would have been so much smaller. Instead we've [??] waited until the last minute.”

Conservatives have been warning congress about this for 40 damn years.  Congress refused to listen.  So what’s this “we” shit? 

There are 3 variables: raise taxes, cut benefits, or change the structure of Social Security so as to kick the can down the road.

Raising taxes:  As noted, half of SS is funded by the gruberment taking 6.2% of every paycheck you get (but only up to $176,000, at which point no more is taken).  The other half is paid by your employer--another 6.2%.  And if you’re self-employed you pay the entire 12.4%.  That’s a HUGE hit.

Democrats will demand that no benefits be cut by even a dollar--and Republicans will go along to avoid losing the next election.

Axios sees that if congress refuses to raise SS taxes or cut benefits, the only remaining option is to borrow the money--which would mean higher interest rates on U.S. borrowing. 

But after dumping this critical problem into Trump’s lap (so he can be blamed for not solving it), Axios wants to keep voters from realizing that the entire SS concept was a ponzi scheme doomed to failure--as are all socialist policies.  So they finish with:
>>The good news for current or soon-to-be retirees is that...Social Security will almost certainly be there for you.>>

Of course borrowing even more billions brings the inevitable implosion of the U.S. debt bomb years closer, but what difference does it really make whether it hits in 2050 or 2060, eh comrade?  You’ve lived a great life, voted Democrat every election, hate Trump and conservatives, probably have a trans kid or two, so not your problem, eh?

You don’t believe in life after death, so you’re confident there will never be any reckoning for your choices.  You can die at peace with the choices you made.  Hey, nations come and they go, right?  Besides, as AOC and the Dems constantly tell us, “America was never great,” so no real loss, eh?

What matter is that you supported open borders, unlimited immigration, public schools pushing sex-changes on kids, “undocumented Americans” and prison inmates, libraries hosting “drag queen story hours,” releasing crazy druggies so they could kill innocent girls.  Oh wait, you din’ think that could possibly happen.

Source: Axios

https://archive.is/VKaD0

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/29/social-security-trust-fund-2033