In June of last year, I covered a thread that summed up part (a very small part) of the Democratic Party's problems: they see everything as a comms problem with a comms solution.
Having spent most of their lives in academia and then government, comms is everything to them, and they've never had to operate in the real world and come up with real-world solutions. Instead, they truly believe talking -- nay, lying -- about something over and over will change people's minds on that particular issue.
Every single person reading this thread pays into Social Security with the expectation that we'll get Social Security payments around the age of 65. Social Security, of course, is going to be insolvent long before this writer gets to retirement age and few politicians seem interested in fixing the fiscal problems it has.
Instead, the Democratic Party has decided to make this a comms issue, too. And an insulting one at that.
Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan said twice that it's our 'f***ing money' and he's yet to propose a bill that would let us access our money and invest it in ways that will earn us more for retirement.
Now Tammy Duckworth is doing the same thing.
Social Security is YOUR money. Hands off.
— Tammy Duckworth (@SenDuckworth) August 14, 2025
Stop. Just stop.
My father died at the age of 73. I ran the most basic of numbers, and I estimated he had anywhere between $130,000 - $160,000 of 'his money' left in Social Security when he died. Why didn't his surviving family get his money?
To add insult to injury, Dad died on April 9, 2020 -- meaning he was entitled to his March Social Security payment. The government deposited it into his bank account, only to withdraw it a few days later. This 'error' took my mother weeks to correct.
So much for 'his money,' right?
My ex-husband died in January 2024. His children won't see a fraction of 'his money' that he paid into Social Security for the 30+ years he worked. Wasn't that 'his money' -- and shouldn't that money go to his heirs?
We have no say in how Social Security is invested. We have no ability to withdraw that money until the government says so, and when we die, that money -- our money -- just disappears into some anonymous government coffer.
When -- not if, but when -- the fiscal situation with Social Security becomes untenable, I guarantee you Democrats like Duckworth and Pocan will set their eyes on our 401(k)s and IRAs. They'll decide that money -- which is actually our money -- is really the government's to seize and redistribute as they see fit.
After all, there are some people out there who don't have retirement accounts, and that's unfair. The fact that politicians drove Social Security to insolvency with 'our money,' is irrelevant to them, of course.
There's a reason why Democrats have single-digit leads with only three groups: women ages 30-49, and seniors 65+. Those are the ones least likely to suffer when Social Security goes under, and the 'it's your money' rhetoric plays well at the local AWFL coffee clatch.
For the rest of us, we see this for what it is: an insult to our intelligence and our futures.
Democrats can pretend otherwise, but they can do so on someone else's dime.
