this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
177 points (99.4% liked)

politics

21931 readers
3734 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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 16 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours 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.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours 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.

[–] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours 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 -3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours 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 -4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours 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.