No, Senator Gillibrand. Republicans do not want to "cut" your Social Security.
They want to END it.
And before you clutch your pearls โ let me explain the difference between cutting a thing and FREEING you from it, because judging by this graphic, that distinction ran right past you like a deer across the interstate.
Here is what you are actually defending.
Take an average American. Started work in 1981. Earned the national average wage every single year of his life. Over 46 years, he and his employer were FORCED to surrender 12.4 percent of every paycheck โ roughly $250,000 โ into your beloved system. What does he get back? Maybe $2,100 a month, IF he lives long enough to collect it. And when he dies, there is no account with his name on it. No balance. No nest egg. Nothing for his kids. Nothing for his grandkids. The money does not pass down. It evaporates.
Now run that EXACT same money โ same dollars, same 46 years โ into a Thrift Savings Plan invested in an S&P 500 index fund. The same TSP our military uses. Through the 2008 crash, the 2022 downturn, every ugly year included.
That same worker retires with somewhere north of TWO MILLION DOLLARS.
He could draw more than four times what your check pays him, every single month โ and the balance keeps GROWING. And when he dies? His children inherit the rest. Generational wealth. A head start. A family that climbs instead of starting from zero every single generation.
So let us put your two parties side by side, since you were kind enough to bring a map. You brought the map; you just skipped the math, which tracks.
What Democrats leave your kids when you die: $0.
What Republicans โ starting with George W. Bush in 2005, when he proposed personal retirement accounts and your party, running on dial-up in a fiber-optic world, shrieked that letting people OWN their own money was "destroying Social Security" โ want your kids to inherit: a MILLION dollars and then some.
Read that twice. Bush tried to let working Americans build wealth their families could KEEP. Your side called it an attack on the elderly. Quinn's First Law of Liberalism: liberalism always produces the exact OPPOSITE of its stated intent. You named it "Security." You engineered a machine that guarantees your kids start broke. Mission accomplished.
And here is the part that should make every working family furious. A system that leaves your children NOTHING is not a bug to your party. It is the product. A population with no inherited wealth is a population that needs the next government check, and the one after that, and votes accordingly. The antebellum South understood the value of a permanent dependent class. So does your fundraising team. Different century, same arithmetic.
This is not complicated, Senator. It is grade-school compound interest โ which I realize is weapons-grade material in your caucus.
And spare me the lecture from someone who wrote her own pension. You and your colleagues draw a FERS pension on TOP of the Social Security the rest of us are chained to, so forgive me if I do not take retirement advice from a woman who made certain she would never have to live on the thing she is fundraising to "protect."
What is next? You ask me to flip four Senate seats to "protect" the very system quietly looting my grandkids' future... wait. You already did that. That IS the post.
But what do I know. I am only a science teacher who can run a compound-interest calculation without a staffer holding the crayons.
@catturd2@GuntherEagleman@JoJoFromJerz
#MAGA #Veterans #Trump
Whatโs better than a rare Super Delta formation featuring the Thunderbirds and the @USNavy Blue Angels over Washington, D.C.?
Watching it from four different views for #UFCWhiteHouse as part of #Freedom250. ๐บ๐ธ