Update: Vice President Kamala Harris is now the Democratic presidential nominee
- Thread starter DC_Dude
- Start date
Appreciate the fact check. Yup, it was in fact was a bipartisan bill that both sides agreed on. They sneakily put it on the floor on election night though, when no one was around to contest it and ended up in situ. They’re gonna vote on it again and the only hurdle I see is that ginormous $196 billion price tag over ten years.Naw I think you are right. I went and read the CBO's letter about the bill and it's actually not bad...I think this was a bi-partisan bill as well...Think that video is inaccurate....
Long-Term Effects of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023
News Provided By
Congressional Budget Office
November 08, 2024, 22:27 GMT
Share This Article
The Congressional Budget Office was asked to provide information about how enacting H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023, would affect the finances of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the finances of that fund combined with the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund over the next 75 years, 2024 to 2098.
H.R. 82 would eliminate the windfall elimination provision (WEP) and the government pension offset (GPO). The WEP reduces benefits for retired or disabled workers who have fewer than 30 years of significant earnings from employment covered by Social Security if they also receive pensions on the basis of noncovered employment. The GPO reduces the spousal or surviving spousal benefits of people who receive pensions on the basis of noncovered employment.
CBO’s analysis shows that the elimination of the WEP and GPO, as specified in H.R. 82, would permanently increase outlays for scheduled Social Security benefits—that is, the amounts that the program would pay if it continued to pay benefits as scheduled under current law, regardless of whether the program’s two trust funds had sufficient balances to cover those payments. That increase in Social Security benefits would drive the program’s spending even further above its revenues than it is already projected to be under current law.
CBO also estimated the effects of H.R. 82 on payable Social Security benefits. Payable benefits are the benefits that the program could provide if its outlays were limited to the amounts that could be funded by its annual revenues after the exhaustion of the trust fund balances.
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
You just read:
Long-Term Effects of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023
News Provided By
Congressional Budget Office
November 08, 2024, 22:27 GMT
Share This Article
Distribution channels:
EIN Presswire's priority is author transparency. We do our best to weed out false and misleading content. The content above is the sole responsibility of the author who makes it available. If you have any complaints, kindly contact the author above.
Author Contact
Long-Term Effects of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023
In response to a request from Senator Grassley, CBO provides information about how enacting H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023, would affect Social Security’s finances over the next 75 years.www.cbo.gov
email us here
More From This Source
Long-Term Effects of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2023
Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2024
H.R. 3675, Western Water Accelerated Revenue Repayment Act
View All Stories From This Source
We’ll see how this one plays out but I don’t think it’s the doom and gloom social media made it out to be. This disinformation era is wild on both sides.
This....It's sad bro.....
That's why I am waiting to see who he names over HHS and CMS.....That will be very telling...
Seema Verma was head of CMS in his first administration and she was not radicle like some of the names I am hearing floated around....Very reasonable....
THIS....I think it's more on the other side, but you are 100% correct. Both sides have been putting alot of BS out on social media....
Anything for clicks and views....
Trump didn't really gain amongst any group....
Not Latino men
Not black men
Not white women
He got a larger percentage of them because Kamala's people stayed home.
She had 10million less votes then Biden did
Trump had basically the same 75 million that he had in 2020.
Not Latino men
Not black men
Not white women
He got a larger percentage of them because Kamala's people stayed home.
She had 10million less votes then Biden did
Trump had basically the same 75 million that he had in 2020.
the pop vote doesnt really matter...its possible to win the pop vote and still lose the electoral
Certified results in all 50 states and the District of Columbia show Clinton winning nearly 65,844,610 million votes — 48 percent __ to Trump’s 62,979,636 million votes __ 46 percent — according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
“Kamala’s people”? Who are “Kamala’s people”?
Its definitely disproportionate and heavily one sided, no question but that doesn’t excuse liberals from knee jerk reacting to shit at times either.
I’d say it’s about 99%-1% on average..
Look at chu. Touch your nose
The popular vote is just an illustration as to what happened in the states
Both sides?!?!
Have yall not learned anything? If you talk to Trump supporters, they would say the same thing.Its definitely disproportionate and heavily one sided, no question but that doesn’t excuse liberals from knee jerk reacting to shit at times either.
I’d say it’s about 99%-1% on average..
The price is the price tho
You have to see that 1 / 8 of the vote that went for Biden stayed home.
I believe that this 12.5 % was silently angry about how the entire switch at the top went down. Along with inflation apathy.
Democrats (her people) angry but not mad enough to vote for Trump over their couch.
Where are the Anti Kamala Genocide whining dick sucking Palestine cum eating faggots now?
Repost?
Turn it to glass!! Did those idiots forget Trump had a fucking Muslim ban!!!!?!??? YOU STUPID PIECES OF SHIT!!!!!
Wrong. Without blue states some of the red states would be poorer than some African countries.
Several states that typically vote Republican (“red states”) receive more in federal funding than they contribute in federal taxes. This indicates a net positive balance, meaning they are subsidized by the federal government. According to a 2024 analysis by MoneyGeek, the following red states are among the most federally dependent:
1.West Virginia: Receives $2.91 for every dollar paid in federal taxes.
2.Alaska: Receives $2.65 per dollar.
3.Mississippi: Receives $2.66 per dollar.
4.Alabama: Receives $1.90 per dollar.
5.Kentucky: Receives $1.68 per dollar.
6.Arizona: Receives $1.62 per dollar.
7.Montana: Receives $1.43 per dollar.
These figures highlight the extent to which these states rely on federal funding relative to their tax contributions.
