Why Social Security Isn't a Ponzi Scheme: Understanding Real Issues Behind the Program's Challenges

Elon’s comment about Social. Security being the “biggest Ponzi scheme of all time” is, at best, delusional, at worst, disinformation.

First up, The Oligarchs Who Came to Regret Supporting

Soc. Sec. is a great concept & program, but has been abused by Congress, not by the American people who are owed what they earned & were promised.

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme because it operates on a fundamentally different model. In a Ponzi scheme, early investors are paid with the money from new investors, and there’s no actual investment or sustainable source of funds. Over time, Ponzi schemes collapse because the returns promised to investors exceed the money coming in from new participants.

Social Security, on the other hand, is a pay-as-you-go system where current workers pay into the system through payroll taxes (FICA) to fund benefits for current retirees. While it faces long-term funding challenges, the program is not designed to deceive people or collapse when the money runs out, like a Ponzi scheme. Social Security benefits are based on earnings history, and the system is backed by law, not fraudulent promises.

The issues arise from mismanagement, such as Congress diverting funds from the Social Security trust fund for other purposes, and demographic shifts (like an aging population) putting pressure on the program’s finances. But these are solvable through adjustments, rather than being a sign of a fraudulent scheme.

Why do Trump, Musk, MaGA & their corrupted GOP hate Social Security (Social Programs and seemingly the American citizen)?

​President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have recently taken actions that have raised concerns about the future of Social Security. Their administration has initiated measures aimed at reducing government spending, which some critics argue could negatively impact Social Security services and benefits. For instance, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Musk, has proposed closing Social Security offices to streamline operations, potentially making it harder for beneficiaries to access essential services. ​

Additionally, a leaked memo suggests that Trump and Musk are considering cuts to Social Security to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. This proposal has sparked criticism, with opponents arguing that such cuts would harm millions of beneficiaries. ​

However, the Trump administration maintains that it does not intend to reduce Social Security benefits. A recent White House fact check asserts that President Trump will always protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, refuting claims about potential cuts. ​

These contrasting actions and statements have led to confusion and concern among the public regarding the administration's true intentions for Social Security. While some measures aim to reduce government spending and address alleged fraud, others fear these actions may inadvertently undermine the program's integrity and accessibility.​

Compiled with aid from ChatGPT

What's the Deal With Who Broke Social Security?

If I understand Social Security funding correctly, we contribute to it throughout our working lives, with the expectation of receiving benefits in retirement. However, at some point, Congress began using these funds for other purposes, shifting the system to rely on younger workers to pay for current retirees.

To fix this, we need to stop diverting Social Security funds, accept the financial burden of covering current and soon-to-retire beneficiaries, and transition to a system where each generation's contributions are preserved for their own future benefits. This would make Social Security self-sustaining and potentially even profitable.

Sounds good, but let's look at that more closely, as there are a few clarifications and nuances to consider:

1. How Social Security is Funded:

   • Workers pay into Social Security via payroll taxes (FICA), which are split between employees and employers.
   • These funds go into the Social Security Trust Fund, which is used to pay current beneficiaries.
   • Originally, the program operated on a "pay-as-you-go" system, meaning today's workers fund today's retirees.

2. Congress and the Trust Fund:

   • In years when Social Security collected more than it paid out, the surplus was placed in the Social Security Trust Fund, which was legally required to be invested in U.S. Treasury bonds (essentially loaning money to the federal government).
   • Congress has indeed spent this money on other government expenses, but Social Security still holds Treasury bonds as IOUs that the government is obligated to repay.

3. The Current Problem:

   • With an aging population, fewer workers are paying in compared to the number of retirees collecting benefits.
   • The Trust Fund is projected to be depleted around the 2030s, at which point Social Security will only be able to pay out what it collects from current workers, leading to an estimated 20-25% cut in benefits unless changes are made.

4. Proposed Fix & Challenges:

   • Stop using Social Security funds elsewhere: This would require Congress to change how surplus funds are handled (e.g., investing them differently or keeping them separate from general government spending).
   • Continue paying current retirees: This means we still have to cover benefits for those who paid in under the old system. That could require raising taxes, cutting benefits, or using other government funds to bridge the gap.
   • Phase into a self-sustaining system: If we ensure that every worker's contributions stay within the system and are not used elsewhere, it could eventually become fully self-funding—but this transition period would be financially painful.

5. Alternative Fixes Being Considered:

   • Raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap (currently, only income up to ~$168,600 is taxed for Social Security).
   • Gradually increasing the retirement age.
   • Adjusting benefit formulas to reduce payments for wealthier retirees.
   • Creating new sources of revenue (e.g., taxing investment income for Social Security).

In short, Social Security could become self-sustaining again, but getting there would require either temporary sacrifices (higher taxes, lower benefits, or both) or major restructuring of how it's funded and invested.

So it's correct in that the money was mismanaged by Congress and it can indeed be made a functional payout system if it's not abused.

Congress has used Social Security funds for other government expenses by requiring the surplus to be invested in U.S. Treasury bonds rather than keeping it separate. This means that while Social Security technically has its own trust fund, the money has been loaned to the government, which must pay it back with interest. Some see this as mismanagement because it allows Congress to use Social Security funds for other budgetary needs instead of ensuring they remain exclusively for future retirees.

And yes, if Social Security funds were protected from being used elsewhere and properly managed, it could function as a self-sustaining system—especially if adjustments were made to address demographic changes (like fewer workers per retiree). The challenge is getting Congress to make those changes instead of continuing to use Social Security as a stopgap for other spending.

This doesn't seem complicated. Fixing what was broken does.

The concept is simple: stop raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, ensure contributions are used only for their intended purpose, and adjust for demographic shifts.

The hard part is fixing the damage already done:

• Paying back the money that was "borrowed" through Treasury bonds.
• Covering the gap as fewer workers support more retirees.
• Overcoming political gridlock, since no one wants to be the politician who raises taxes or cuts benefits.

If the system had been managed properly from the start, we wouldn’t be facing a crisis. Now, fixing it requires tough choices—ones that politicians have been kicking down the road for decades.

Elon Musk has labeled Social Security as "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time," suggesting that it is unsustainable and fraught with fraud and waste.

Regarding his role with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk has been granted significant authority by President Trump to streamline federal operations and reduce waste. This includes targeting entitlement programs like Social Security for potential cuts.

However, this concentration of power has raised concerns. A federal judge recently ordered the urgent release of DOGE records, citing "unprecedented" authority and "unusual secrecy" within the department.

In summary, while Musk's characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme reflects his critical stance, his expanded role under the current administration has sparked debates about transparency and the potential impact on essential social programs.

No, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme in the classic sense. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment scam where returns are paid to earlier investors using money from new investors, rather than from actual profits. The scheme collapses when there aren't enough new investors to pay the older ones.

Social Security, on the other hand, is a pay-as-you-go system where current workers fund the benefits of current retirees. While it shares some characteristics with a Ponzi scheme—relying on new participants to sustain payouts—it is not fraudulent, as it's a government program designed to be transparent and structured for long-term sustainability (even if mismanaged at times).

The real issue isn't fraud but demographics—fewer workers per retiree and longer life expectancies, which strain the system. Fixing it requires adjustments, not scrapping it altogether.

The best way to fix Social Security without harming retirees or workers requires a balanced approach that spreads the burden fairly. A mix of these solutions could restore long-term stability:

1. Stop Using Social Security Funds Elsewhere

• Ensure payroll taxes go only to Social Security, not other government spending.
• Invest surplus funds in higher-yield but safe assets instead of just U.S. Treasury bonds.

2. Gradually Adjust Payroll Taxes (Without Overburdening Workers)

• Raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap (currently ~$168,600). Wealthier individuals would contribute more.
• Slightly increase payroll tax rates (e.g., by 1% over time) to strengthen funding without major financial strain.

3. Small, Gradual Adjustments to Benefits

• Protect lower-income retirees from cuts.
• Slightly adjust the benefit formula for higher earners so they receive proportionally less.
• Raise full retirement age gradually (e.g., by a few months per year), but not so much that it harms those in physically demanding jobs.

4. Expand the Revenue Base

• Tax investment income for Social Security (e.g., capital gains or dividends above a certain threshold).
• Implement a Social Security surtax on very high earners to help close the funding gap.

5. Phase in Changes Over Time

• Any tax or benefit adjustments should be gradual, preventing financial shocks to current retirees or workers.

By combining these steps without drastic cuts or sudden tax hikes, Social Security can return to sustainability while ensuring that people get the benefits they paid for.

President Trump's appointment of Elon Musk to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has sparked both support and criticism. Supporters argue that Musk's innovative approach could streamline federal operations and reduce waste. Critics, however, express concerns over the concentration of power and potential lack of transparency in DOGE's operations.

Additionally, Musk's recent comments labeling Social Security as "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" have intensified debates about his suitability for this role, given the sensitivity surrounding entitlement programs.

In summary, while Musk's appointment aligns with Trump's agenda to overhaul federal efficiency, it raises valid concerns about transparency, accountability, and the potential impact on essential social programs

Compiled with aid from ChatGPT

Social Security Shortfall: Decades of Neglect, Borrowed Funds, & Political Inaction

DOGE wants to cut $1 trillion this year. But it's not looking at big spending drivers

One thing can be sure, the Trump administration will do what they can to make this more difficule than it needs to be. Cutting "21% within 6-8 years for those currently on Social Seucirity" will be devestating for millions of reitred Americans who did nothing wrong and do not deserve this.

It's very important to be aware of what the Ambassador is saying here in this video, it's not long, excuse the stupid ad for a minute at the beginning...Conservatives inspired by Hungary should "dig into the facts," Fmr US Ambassador to Hungary Pressman says, a Trump administration position now still empty.

So. It appears that the 21% reduction in Social Security benefits refers to projections indicating that, without legislative action, the Social Security Trust Funds are expected to be depleted by 2033. At that point, beneficiaries could face an automatic 21% cut in benefits.

 
npr.org This situation underscores the urgency for policymakers to implement reforms to ensure the program's long-term solvency.

While President Trump has publicly committed to preserving Social Security benefits, his administration's budget proposals have included significant cuts to related programs, such as Social Security Disability Insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid.
en.wikipedia.org These proposed reductions have raised concerns about the future of Social Security and the potential for benefit cuts if the program's financial challenges are not addressed.

In summary, the mentioned 21% cut reflects projected automatic reductions in Social Security benefits anticipated to occur by 2033 if no corrective measures are taken. While the Trump administration has not explicitly proposed such a cut, its budgetary actions have sparked discussions about the program's sustainability and the need for legislative intervention to prevent future benefit reductions.

The projected depletion of the Social Security Trust Fund by 2033 isn't due to a single administration’s mismanagement, but rather decades of systemic issues, demographic shifts, and policy decisions. Here are some key factors:

1. Demographic Shifts

• The Baby Boomer generation is retiring in large numbers, significantly increasing the number of beneficiaries.
• At the same time, birth rates have declined, leading to fewer workers paying into the system.
• People are living longer, meaning they collect benefits for more years than originally anticipated when Social Security was designed.

2. Payroll Tax Shortfalls

• Social Security is primarily funded by payroll taxes (FICA).
• The Reagan administration raised payroll taxes in 1983 to pre-fund the system for Boomers, but that surplus is now running out.
• Wages have not kept pace with inflation, meaning payroll tax revenue hasn’t grown fast enough.
• The payroll tax cap (currently $168,600) means high earners stop paying into Social Security beyond a certain income level.

3. Policy Decisions

• Bush Tax Cuts (2001, 2003): These cuts reduced overall revenue but were not offset by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere.
• Obama Payroll Tax Holiday (2011-2012): Temporarily lowered payroll tax rates to boost the economy but slightly reduced Social Security revenues.
• Trump Payroll Tax Deferral (2020): Allowed employers to delay payroll taxes during COVID-19, impacting Social Security revenue.

4. Congressional Inaction

• Congress has known about Social Security’s financial challenges for decades but has failed to act.
• Past fixes (Reagan-era reforms) extended solvency but didn’t make permanent structural changes.
• Proposals to raise the payroll tax cap, adjust benefit formulas, or increase retirement ages have been debated but not implemented due to political gridlock.

Bottom Line

No single president or party is solely responsible. The issue has been decades in the making, with demographic changes, wage stagnation, and policy decisions all playing a role. Without reforms, automatic benefit cuts (~21%) will occur around 2033 when the trust fund runs dry, leaving only payroll tax revenue to sustain payments.

The financial instability of Social Security is primarily due to a combination of government mismanagement, demographic shifts, and a failure to make necessary adjustments over time. Here’s a breakdown of where the fault lies and why the system is in its current state.

---

Who’s Most Responsible for the Shortfall?

1. Congress (Both Parties) - Kicking the Can Down the Road

   • Lawmakers have known for decades that Social Security would face funding issues, yet they’ve avoided making politically difficult decisions to fix it.
   • Since the 1983 reforms under Reagan, Congress has made few major adjustments, despite clear warnings from the Social Security trustees.
   • Both Democrats and Republicans have refused to take decisive action, fearing voter backlash.

2. Presidents and Tax Policies That Reduced Revenue

   • The Bush Tax Cuts (2001, 2003) significantly reduced government revenue without offsetting spending cuts or other sources of funding.
   • The Trump-era payroll tax deferral (2020) allowed businesses to delay payments, impacting Social Security’s revenue stream.
   • Payroll tax holidays (Obama, 2011-2012) also reduced short-term funding for Social Security.

3. The Payroll Tax Structure Itself

   • Social Security is primarily funded by current workers paying for retirees (a pay-as-you-go system), rather than individual savings accounts.
   • The cap on taxable earnings (currently $168,600) means high earners stop contributing after a certain point, limiting revenue.
   • Wages have not kept up with inflation, meaning contributions have not increased as much as necessary.

4. Funds Being ‘Borrowed’ from Social Security

   • The Social Security Trust Fund was not "raided" in the sense of money being stolen, but its surplus has been borrowed by the federal government for decades and replaced with Treasury bonds.
   • This means Social Security holds IOUs from the government, and when it needs money, the government has to find funds elsewhere to repay those bonds.

---

Where Did the Money Go?

1. It’s in U.S. Government Bonds

   • The Social Security Trust Fund has been loaned to the federal government in exchange for Treasury bonds, which have to be repaid from general revenue.
   • This allowed Congress to use Social Security surpluses to fund other government programs without raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere.

2. Wars, Tax Cuts, and Other Spending Priorities

   • The surplus was used to fund wars (Iraq, Afghanistan), tax cuts, and other spending priorities instead of being saved strictly for Social Security.
   • This wasn’t technically “theft,” but rather a way for the government to finance operations without raising taxes or borrowing from external sources.

---

Why Do Today’s Workers Fund Retirees?

Social Security was never designed as an individual retirement account where your contributions are saved for you. Instead, it’s a pay-as-you-go system, where current workers pay for today’s retirees.

• When the program started in 1935, there were 16 workers per retiree—plenty of contributions to sustain the system.
• Today, that ratio is about 2.7 workers per retiree and shrinking.
• Because Baby Boomers are retiring in massive numbers, the amount being paid out is exceeding what’s being collected.

---

How Could This Have Been Avoided?

1. Gradual Adjustments Over Time

   • Raising the payroll tax cap (so higher earners contribute more) decades ago could have kept the system stable.
   • Small increases in the payroll tax rate over time could have built a larger reserve.

2. Keeping Social Security Funds Separate from General Government Spending

   • Had the government not borrowed from Social Security, the trust fund would be in a stronger position today.

3. Investing Surplus Funds More Effectively

   • Some argue that allowing Social Security to invest in the stock market (like private pensions do) could have generated more revenue.

---

Bottom Line: Who’s to Blame the Most?

• Congress (Both Parties) for failing to act despite decades of warnings.
• Presidents who supported tax cuts and policies that reduced Social Security revenue.
• The structure of the system itself, which relies on a shrinking workforce supporting a growing retiree population.

Had lawmakers made modest adjustments decades ago, we wouldn’t be facing the prospect of automatic benefit cuts today. Instead, political fear and short-term thinking have left us in a position where drastic measures will be needed to maintain Social Security's solvency.

The confusion caused by Elon Musk's DOGE team regarding Social Security data stems from a misinterpretation of how the SSA's antiquated computer systems handle birth dates. The SSA's database, which still relies on COBOL-based systems, sometimes uses placeholder or default birth dates when actual birth records are missing or improperly formatted.

For example, if a person’s birthdate is unknown or was never properly entered, the system might assign a default date like January 1, 1900, or even January 1, 1800 in older records. This can create the illusion that there are beneficiaries listed as being over 150 years old when, in reality, these are simply clerical placeholders rather than actual living recipients.

Musk’s DOGE team allegedly found these entries and misinterpreted them as proof that deceased individuals were still receiving benefits. They then exaggerated the scale of the issue, claiming that over a million Social Security beneficiaries were between 150 and 159 years old. This led to unfounded accusations of fraud and waste.

Former SSA commissioner Martin O'Malley later debunked these claims, clarifying that these were just database anomalies rather than evidence of widespread fraud. The SSA does have mechanisms to verify whether beneficiaries are still alive, including cross-referencing with death reports from hospitals, funeral homes, and Medicare data.

In summary, the issue was a mix of outdated database practices, placeholder birth dates, and a lack of understanding of how government computer systems work, which led to misleading accusations about fraudulent Social Security payments.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Elon Musk's "Social Security is the Biggest Ponzi Scheme Ever" is nonsense

Elon Musk's statement that Social Security is the "biggest Ponzi scheme ever" is not accurate because it misrepresents how Social Security works and how it differs from a Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a type of investment scam where returns to earlier investors are paid using the contributions of newer investors, rather than from profits generated by the business or investment itself. Eventually, Ponzi schemes collapse when there aren’t enough new investors to sustain the payments.

In contrast, Social Security is a government program designed to provide a safety net for retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors. Social Security operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning current workers pay into the system through payroll taxes, and those funds are used to provide benefits to current retirees. While it faces long-term funding challenges (due to demographic shifts like the aging population), it is fundamentally different from a Ponzi scheme because:

1. Legal and Transparent: Social Security is a legally established, government-run program with clear rules and oversight, unlike the fraudulent nature of a Ponzi scheme.

2. Redistribution, Not Investment: Social Security is a social insurance program that aims to reduce poverty among elderly Americans, not an investment opportunity where participants expect profits. Contributions are used to pay benefits to people who need them, with the understanding that current workers will eventually become beneficiaries themselves.

3. No Promise of Return on Investment: Unlike Ponzi schemes that promise high returns to investors, Social Security provides benefits based on formulas tied to lifetime earnings, but there's no guaranteed return like an investment might promise.

4. Sustainability Issues, Not Fraud: The main issue with Social Security is that it faces funding shortfalls as the number of retirees increases and the working-age population decreases, which can be addressed through reforms (such as raising the retirement age or adjusting payroll taxes). It is not an intentional scam like a Ponzi scheme.

In essence, calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is misleading and overlooks the program's legitimate role in providing financial security to millions of Americans.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Walkabout Thoughts #33

My thoughts, Stream of consciousness, rough and ready, while walking off long Covid and listening to podcasts…


Weather for the day… 44 degrees and light clouds lots of blue sky

Podcast for the day podcast “Pod Save America“ episode, “

Instagram post for the day

Olympic Mountains today

“Trump has reminded us that misogyny is a feature not a bug in the Republican Party”

“Pompeo hates Nikki Haley”

Paraphrasing “Nikki Haley is just a Kevin McCarthy“

So I told my adult trans kid I’d like to take them and their trans spouse out for that kid's birthday next weekend. I said pick a place and we'll go there. Thinking that’s part of a gift. And their response was, "Oh so I choose?" Yeah. Sure. In part because of their dietary requirements being hard for me to track. And thinking about that, as many do (with a roll of the eyes, and I’m not saying I’m doing that, but people do), it occurs to me...Why do so many seem so attuned to their physiology regarding diet? That’s annoying to many who are not. But here’s the thing. As we’ve become more educated and knowledgeable about diet and an awareness of things, why would we not become more attuned to ourselves, internally? And how is that a bad thing? One might argue even that it’s bullshit. But if you’re eating healthier because of it, then how is that bad? It’s annoying to others, sure. But what if it’s not imaginary? When I was a kid, and this is how I’m viewing this whole issue… I was fifth or sixth grade, my mom took me over to a friend's house. Some woman who had a couple of Siamese cats (that's another story). While I was talking to this woman when we first got there, I felt my body invaded. It was a weird kind of rush. I could see her breathing down on me, standing a few feet from my mom and I inside the front door. I couldn’t put my finger on the feeling I was having until later. But I started not feeling well later that day. The next day I felt worse and my mom said the woman was talking to her on the phone and said she thinks she came down with something. By the next day I was feeling so bad my mom took me to the doctor. And he said, "You’ve got the flu or something." I told him I knew it, and then about the woman, realizing I felt I was catching something from her, apparently a virus. I felt something invading my body while talking to her, probably my immune system over responding. Years later, a doctor told me that my allergies were my immune system overreacting too rapidly to invading elements. And if it was slower, my body could adjust and I wouldn’t have all these allergy issues. This was back in the early 70s by that time. So the doctor when I was a kid, in his office, said, "I’m sorry but it’s impossible that you’re feeling ill or could have felt her give you the flu as you stood in front of her. It takes about two weeks for you to feel the symptoms." I didn’t know what to do with that. He’s a doctor. I was a kid. But the thing was, he’s right about a week or two to feel the symptoms. But I wasn’t feeling the symptoms the day I met that woman. I was feeling an invasion and my immune system reacting. I’ve always been very tuned into my physiology. And I’ve always been discredited on that. But it’s been proven to be accurate over my 67 years. By time I hit my teens, it wasn’t quite as accurate, as you get older, it diminishes. But still seems to be more awareness than other people I've known. Getting back to my original premise… I do also believe that food is medicine, or can be. Sure, some take things to extremes. Some always do. But there is logic, and science in it. Eat healthier, you're healthier. Eat poorly, your health will suffer for it, though you may not notice it at first or until you're old, and some can handle that better than others. At least some of these people, with our better education and knowledge today than we had so long ago when I was a kid, if they're more tuned into their bodies now and trying to eat better… other than being annoying to some of us, what the hell is the problem with that? Don’t get me wrong. I like eating meat. But ethically and morally, I realized once a society gets to a place where they don’t have to hunt and kill for their food, why are we still killing other species for food? Not to mention, eating a lot of meat in a diet is unhealthy and can kill you over time. Granted not everybody, but we’re not all the same, biologically speaking. That’s why one person can smoke as much as another, yet one gets lung, cancer and dies and the other lives to 100 and is healthy. But it doesn’t mean everybody’s wrong. And that doesn’t mean we’re always correctly righteous in our annoyed beliefs.

It occurs to me that with some people, probably younger than me, who are doing what they're doing today about their diets and stuff, as I was discussing above, people traditionally did pay attention only once they had health problems. When they were told to log their health statistics, day by day. Which I’ve been doing since I got long Covid back in April, almost a year ago. So if they don’t need to log it all to figure things out, and can simple tell, more power to them. I’ve been getting a lot of migraine visuals lately. I used to get maybe a migraine every year or two, or every so many years. I would go a little blind, start to see visuals, start seeing bright colors at about a half an hour before the pain hit. Which could last for three days. I read somewhere that as you get older you don’t necessarily get the pain, but the visuals. So I counted in my log today and found I had migraine visuals, seven times in the past 30 days. Which I assume has got to be because of long Covid. It's disturbing.

Speaking of which, I read somewhere else that long Covid can thicken your vagus nerve. Is that good or bad? Probably bad, right? Which are the issues I’ve been having, vagus nerve issues. Since this is the second time, I am sure, as I had long Covid the first time lasting 8 to 14 months long, I have to wonder if repeated long Covid physically changes/damages something? And if one's vagus nerve gets thickened? Does that mean you’re not having permanent issues while things being magnified? Like when I first got it, that was really bad and I had to go into the ER with couple paramedic visits due to my pulse/BP shooting up and I became hyper sensitive to certain foods. As this has is faded, will it never go completely away because I may now have a thicker vagus nerve? Does thicker mean it's more functional or less, and if more that seems to be over reacting to things. Just great. 

Here’s a nightmare scenario. My poor son and his girlfriend have been dealing with her heart issues for a year now. Something she’s perhaps been ignoring for years, as we tend to do when it's not obvious what the problem is. She’s been having seizures and things that she didn’t recognize until the doctors figured it out and gave her meds. They couldn’t get the meds figured out. They'd get them "figured out" and then they'd fail before she could go home from the hospital stay. "Hello again, hi, bye!" Sorry. That was a like, cute one year old I just walked by with his mom… Anyway she left their city to go to Seattle and then back home and then back again and then back home but didn’t make it. Had to stop at another hospital in another city and on and on for a year. So I said to my son, at least once, did she have Covid? And he said, "Yes." I told him then that she may have had long Covid and not even known it. And if that’s the case, it magnifies things. I wrote a book about it, "Suffering Long Covid" And I published it. He gave her a copy but he doesn’t think she read it. Which may be good because there’s some hard realities in that book. Anyway, as of yesterday they finally think they’ve got things worked out and she can come home. But we’ve heard this so many times. "Hi". This time it was my postal woman delivering mail a few blocks from my house. I'm headed onto my 3rd mile now [I jumped back up from below, later on, so that explains my mileage being out of sequence, shit happens...]. So anyway, all the medication they tried on her has reacted in ways they didn’t expect and... that’s what long Covid does to you. So, as time passes, a long Covid phase for her fading, it could be that meds will start to work correctly, as they seem to be. Finally. But I don’t know. She’s got some good doctors, at some good hospitals, who know what they’re talking about, and they think Covid is definitely a factor. Now that could mean the initial week or so of Covid damaged her heart. Or that the long Covid issues were screwing with her results. There’s also a study that says it can kill off some of the muscle cells inside your heart which cannot grow back and that’s a serious concern. So you could end up with a heart transplant. But here’s hoping next week they’re both finally having dinner together and this nightmare can finally be, if not over, better controlled. I think they’re giving her a pacemaker now. Which is sad because no one needs a pacemaker in their 30s, although sometimes you do.

I think I walked a mile last walk and the time before that, or at least the last time anyway. I’m just starting my 2nd mile and at the end of that I’ll see if I can walk a third. I’d like to at least do that today. So far my right knee is holding out…

Regarding this bullshit about Medicare and Social Security with Republicans. There’s a news clip of one of them saying that those things are very important but so is military spending. But we review military spending every year. Well, dumb ass. The obvious difference there, which only a disingenuous fool couldn’t see, is that we don’t know from year to year how much military spending we will need with a current forecast. But we know that American citizens, our human beings still need to live and survive, to have healthcare and money to live on they expected, some for over 50 years. Kind of not an ever-changing thing like a military budget. That is so simple to understand and obvious that it’s offensive that a professional adult politician would speak such dumb words in public. But then, his voters probably won't notice. He's a Republican. (No, not all Republicans are dumb, but MAGA has altered the stats on that) So...

That was centered around comparing thing as "citizens need" to "military budget". Ron Johnson said that about those, I wanna call them "entitlements", because we should be entitled to them and we funded them ourselves as citizens, he says it’s a Ponzi scheme. Well, if you look at it critically, it’s not. Unless you’re a Republican, apparently. But let’s say it is. Well, then? Fix it! Something Republicans hate to do. Fix things. Because it opens them up to criticism and hard work. And compromise. They love breaking things and shutting things down and defunding things and crippling government. You know it’s a lot easier to take a sledgehammer and destroy a house then it is to build one that’s viable and functional that you can live in.

By the way, Rick Scott in Congress ,who is so against Medicare and Social Security? We need to recognize the company he used to work for, who was fined over $1 billion for fraud in those areas. Makes you wonder why he hates social security and medicare so much.

By the way, even Mitch McConnell can’t stand Rick Scott.

Thinking about this for a second. When you see news clips of some Republican, talking to a group of senior citizens about how we need to kill Medicare and Social Security, and they don’t say anything. Or maybe even applaud? Those are not people who need Social Security, or Medicare. Those are wealthy seniors who just see it as taking their tax money. First of all, fuck them. If you got that much money, you should be taxed. Get these Republicans in a room with a good deal of America who need help. The middle class, not the upper class, not the upper middle class. As I understand it, there’s wealthy people who actually use Medicare, while some refuse to rightly indicating it's kind of immoral. Yes, ethically if you paid into it, you deserve it. But if you don't need it and other do and you are after all a part of a nation, a society, yeah, like I don't know...help others? And I would bet they take Social Security, too.

I don’t know what the stats are on this, but if wealthy Americans are paying into Social Security all their lives? And they don’t need it at all in any way, shape or form? How about we don’t give it to them? Wouldn't that help? I mean, if I were a wealthy person, that would be my attitude about it? I have plenty, give it to those who need it. It's charity, it's partiotism.

OK, on the issue of privatizing Social Security, or for that matter, Medicare… or most things...No! Time and again we have seen Republicans push for the privatization of  things, at times even convincing Democrats, as it has so often turned out to be a complete disaster. One that they keep trying to keep alive. Ideology over reality, as usual. You don’t privatize prisons! It’s ethically and morally wrong. Just as the State, with a capital "S", should not kill its own citizens, so I'm against capital punishment (except for maybe people like Trump, who have massively harmed massive amounts of people). When the State takes away a person's, freedom, and imprisons them, that should be the government, not a for profit business picking up that responsibility. That is the government shirking ITS responsibility. That should be an alternate motto of the Republican Party: Shirk Responsibility!

OK I’m about quarter-mile into my 3rd mile (just after seeing the 1 year old and saying hi and bye), and my knee tweaked. I could maybe finish the 3rd mile, but it's safer to turn around and walk back. Let it rest and try again another day. Rehab can be painfully slow, but if you overdo it like (as with long Covid), you’ll really regret it and it can then take longer. When I get home, I need to stretch like the VA nurse said, and then ice it.

And now Adam Schiff is on the podcast…

So my blog is called murdockinations.com, and it’s about the machinations of, if not the phenomenal, the phenomenological mind of this sci-fi/horror writer and filmmaker/documentarian. Just wanted to make that clear...

Excellent! Adam Schiff just said that McConnell and Rrump stacked the courts and they need to be unstacked, and the only way to do that is to expand SCOTUS. And he’s looking at term limits. Finally, thank God. America’s been broken. It needs fixing. I don’t want to expand the SCOTUS but we have to fix things and sometimes it’s uncomfortable. He also mentioned Gerrymandering, as far too often the minority is running things or choosing the president. The minority needs a voice, obviously, but they don’t need control. Obviously.

In the end today, I got in 2.5 miles (6,115 steps) before having to turn home as my knee had finally had it for the day, even if I hadn't. Hang in there little guy.

Cheers! Sláinte!