220
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] bfg9k@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago
[-] PeteZa@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago

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

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago

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.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

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

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] Seleni@lemmy.world 88 points 1 day ago

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

[-] megabits@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme.

No one said it was.

[-] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 43 points 1 day ago

The literally said

America needs something better than the ponzi scheme

[-] megabits@lemm.ee 1 points 34 minutes ago

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?

[-] prole 17 points 1 day ago
[-] megabits@lemm.ee 1 points 32 minutes ago
[-] prole 1 points 29 minutes ago

Cool, me too.

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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

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

[-] Kirp123@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago

An unsustainable system that has been in use since 1937?

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

Righties are masters of hypocrisy and doublethink

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

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

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

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.

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day 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.

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

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.

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours 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.

[-] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Agreed on UBI and Universal Healthcare.

[-] Num10ck@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

its been working for longer than your mother has.

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[-] SwampYankee@mander.xyz 9 points 1 day ago

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

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours 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).

[-] eric5949@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

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

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 5 points 22 hours ago

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

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago

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

[-] NimdaQA@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

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

politics

21970 readers
3713 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