They don't cut any current funding. They only cut proposed increases; if the budget is set to increase item X by 7%, they only increase it by 5%.
They never talked about killing Social Security. One senator suggested placing it under sunset laws. That means it comes up for renewal every x number of years. They always renew the programs and no Republican is going to vote not to renew SS.
Because the voters would revolt
Their money masters really want them to though
Of course they would. That is why nobody is going to end SS. It is not in the interest of anybody to abolish it--even the "money masters". They would lose the most.
We do have to make changes in it because by about 2037 revenues will only cover about 70% of benefits--due primarily to the decline in the birth rate (not because anybody "borrowed" the money).
There is not a single program that helps the poor and disadvantaged that was not due to Dems and was opposed by the Reds. The Dems are the ones who pass legislation for them. You are right-wing wrong.
The poor still get all that free stuff even when Republicans are in power. They never bother to change any of it, they just increase the funding.
The rich get the free stuff. They just tell you the poor are taking your money, while they live like kings. Poor work hard for survival wages.
It is not supposed to result in an amendment; the purpose is to change the operation without having to amend the Constitution.
The states have the power to determine how their electors are chosen, so how can it be unconstitutional?
I don't think it is a good idea and probably will never go into effect.
The poor still get all that free stuff even when Republicans are in power.
They never bother to change any of it, they just increase the funding.
They never talked about killing Social Security. One senator suggested placing it under sunset laws. That means it comes up for renewal every x number of years. They always renew the programs and no Republican is going to vote not to renew SS.
The rich get the free stuff. They just tell you the poor are taking your money, while they live like kings. Poor work hard for survival wages.

Pitting rich against poor is just partisan politics to generate hate of one side so you vote for the other.
The constitution is quite clear about election responsibility. It is reserved for the States. Any attempts to override state laws would be a violation and, therefore, require an amendment to change.
Now your being obtuse and dishonest. This is about the Congress usurping States rights.
Again, it's a moronic idea and will only fail because we have a constitution that prevents the Federal Government from interceding.
That's because it is the law. Be more honest, if that is even possible.
They being the Democrats right? Of course, intelligent people know that once free stuff starts getting handed out, it is nearly impossible to take it away without severe election consequences.
So, the media, Biden and the Democrats were lying again? True.
Unfortunately, class envy is how Democrats remain in power. By fear mongering the American sheeple.![]()
Ah, but the refugees to whom you refer as illegal aliens are not representing the governments that they're fleeing.
Again, no treason applies.
One mustn't engaged in a battle of wits while unarmed.
I'm very sorry that they did away with the Saturday morning cartoons, thus depriving your mind from grasping something it understands.
I guess you need to be on "ignore" for a while.
What free stuff do thee wealthy get?
Allowing illegal aliens to vote in elections is a crime, traitor
Tax breaks.
COVID funds.
Bailouts.