Republicans plan to “rein in” social security and Medicare if they take control of congress

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'd be happy to talk about Social Security and Medicare right after we have the discussion on the defense budget. We spent $320 million a DAY in Afghanistan for 20 years. Has there been any public discussion of pulling back or meaningfully re-programming those funds.

We need to do both. And we need to increase tax revenue. The budget deficit is out of control right now, and the only sustainable path is to attack it from all sides, as well as by inflating the currency to reduce the effect of the debt. This is all necessary to insure the future solvency of the republic. Not sure why people don't understand this or why neither major political party is willing to make a national issue out of balancing the budget (despite all kinds of hand-waving, the Republican party has done nothing meaningful about deficit reduction in the last few decades).

And, yes, this includes cuts to SS and Medicare because those are two of our three largest spending progams (the third being the military). The current situation is unsustainable, and all other spending is trivial by comparison.

Exactly. Dummies vote against their self interest. There is no cure for stupid.

This isn't stupid. I've voted against my self-interest many times, on principle alone. More people should do this, and vote for the best long-term policies for the country, rather than in their own short-term interest (i.e. voting themselves money).

And, to be clear, I'm no fan of the Republican party (especially its current incarnation), but these are discussions that we need to be having, and I will support anyone who makes an honest attempt at balancing the budget and paying down the debt. I am skeptical that the Republican party will actually do this, but we shall see.

Social security, healthcare, education - this IS where we should be investing as a country. We need more support for these elements of our “infrastructure”, not less. Cutting back on social security when the living wage in this country has plummeted in real terms (while of course the rich get richer) further decimates any safety nets. Pensions barely exist anymore and not every employer offers 401k - let alone not every worker has any money left over to pay into an account. So we further demolish any semblance of middle and working class? Either you’re rich or you’re in the gutter.

+1

Trickle down and other Republican wealth redistribution policies have gutted the middle class and moved something like trillions of dollars to the wealthy. I’m not excited that certain people put arbitrary things like “getting rid of debt” below fixing some of the policies that have made life miserable for millions. We used to have a middle class. Then the GOP offshored all their jobs and got everyone’s money.

The GOP didn’t mind debt when they were giving billionaires tax cuts, not to mention its Democrats who have balanced budgets and lowered our debt historically. But somehow they forget this and really want to hurt poor people.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I’d pay more taxes to ensure there were things like universal healthcare for those who wanted it.

You are missing the point. We cannot pay for the services that government provides _now_. Just to continue these, and balance the budget, you will need to pay significantly more in taxes (in the 50-100% more range). This does not get more services, does not get universal health care, or anything else. If you want that, you will have to pay even more (and convince the rest of the country to do that, too).

This isn't politics--just math.

And anyone who doesn't understand this is either innumerate or is happy to pass current expenses to future generations and put the future of the republic at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, I’d pay more taxes to ensure there were things like universal healthcare for those who wanted it.

You are missing the point. We cannot pay for the services that government provides _now_. Just to continue these, and balance the budget, you will need to pay significantly more in taxes (in the 50-100% more range). This does not get more services, does not get universal health care, or anything else. If you want that, you will have to pay even more (and convince the rest of the country to do that, too).

This isn't politics--just math.

And anyone who doesn't understand this is either innumerate or is happy to pass current expenses to future generations and put the future of the republic at risk.

Well raise taxes or cancel an aircraft carrier or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, I’d pay more taxes to ensure there were things like universal healthcare for those who wanted it.

You are missing the point. We cannot pay for the services that government provides _now_. Just to continue these, and balance the budget, you will need to pay significantly more in taxes (in the 50-100% more range). This does not get more services, does not get universal health care, or anything else. If you want that, you will have to pay even more (and convince the rest of the country to do that, too).

This isn't politics--just math.

And anyone who doesn't understand this is either innumerate or is happy to pass current expenses to future generations and put the future of the republic at risk.

“Balanced budget” hawks like you don’t understand economics. If we have to balance the budget during economic recessions then we would be voluntarily prolonging the recession and harming our own economy. Talk about being innumerate!

[Anonymous]

“Balanced budget” hawks like you don’t understand economics. If we have to balance the budget during economic recessions then we would be voluntarily prolonging the recession and harming our own economy.

We are not in a recession and have not balanced the budget in over twenty years, most of which have also been during a recession. I'm open to the idea of not having a balanced budget every single year, but it needs to balance over time, which it currently does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a the end game except to hurt poor and working class people? First, social security and Medicare aren’t “entitlements”, but regardless.

Are Republicans that committed to hurting people and why? They’re not committed to actual fiscal responsibility otherwise they’d never approve tax cuts for billionaires or thwart closing tax loopholes for the rich.

So again, what’s the endgame. Many red state citizens would be devastated if social security goes away, not to mention Medicare (the one health system in the US that works relatively well).

Maybe this is what needs to happen. Many red states state budget significantly come from the government as well. Time to cut that off if you want lower govt spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

“Balanced budget” hawks like you don’t understand economics. If we have to balance the budget during economic recessions then we would be voluntarily prolonging the recession and harming our own economy.

We are not in a recession and have not balanced the budget in over twenty years, most of which have also been during a recession. I'm open to the idea of not having a balanced budget every single year, but it needs to balance over time, which it currently does not.

??? Most of the last 20 years have NOT been a recession. There were plenty of opportunities to balance the budget then. Instead we just gave out tax cuts to rich people and businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, I’d pay more taxes to ensure there were things like universal healthcare for those who wanted it.

You are missing the point. We cannot pay for the services that government provides _now_. Just to continue these, and balance the budget, you will need to pay significantly more in taxes (in the 50-100% more range). This does not get more services, does not get universal health care, or anything else. If you want that, you will have to pay even more (and convince the rest of the country to do that, too).

This isn't politics--just math.

And anyone who doesn't understand this is either innumerate or is happy to pass current expenses to future generations and put the future of the republic at risk.

They could undo the unfunded 2017 tax cuts and it would cover a lot of what is being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP: that is a fair enough viewpoint, but are you willing to pay 50-100% more in taxes to achieve this? Do you think that you can convince your friends and neighbors to do the same? If not, then how do you propose that we balance the budget? Or are you happy to ignore that problem and let future generations deal with it?

And are you willing to deport people who are here illegally? Because they DO cost this country money, and lots of it. And substantially tighten our borders? And are you willing to become more, well, America-centric? Because that’s what it takes.

You might want to look at facts before repeating an anti-immigrant canard. Undocumented workers pay into the system through payroll taxes but are ineligible for many of those same benefits. They pay state and local sales and use taxes. They pay property taxes, either directly or indirectly through rent. Meanwhile they’re doing the jobs Americsns are unwilling to do. They are integral to the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interesting thing is that if the benefits for the elderly are indeed dismantled, they won’t be able to rely on their kids since the US has no culture of taking care of elders really

I disagree. MANY American families take loving care of their aging family members.

[Anonymous]

Don't worry they are only going to screw the 40-and-unders. The old folks will be just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, I’d pay more taxes to ensure there were things like universal healthcare for those who wanted it.

You are missing the point. We cannot pay for the services that government provides _now_. Just to continue these, and balance the budget, you will need to pay significantly more in taxes (in the 50-100% more range). This does not get more services, does not get universal health care, or anything else. If you want that, you will have to pay even more (and convince the rest of the country to do that, too).

This isn't politics--just math.

And anyone who doesn't understand this is either innumerate or is happy to pass current expenses to future generations and put the future of the republic at risk.

They could undo the unfunded 2017 tax cuts and it would cover a lot of what is being discussed.

Republicans have gone out of their way to make sure that social security and other programs become insolvent. Separately, but related inasmuch as the GOP wants to get rid of the (constitutionally mandated) postal service, it’s the GOP that has created a situation in which the USPS appears to be on the brink of disaster, and not only that but they’ve blocked the USPS from creating a banking service within itself that would not only fund the USPS and allow it to modernize but would also bring low cost banking to just about everywhere in the US, including many areas that are currently only served by predatory pay day loan type places.

Bill Clinton summed up the GOP: “The Republicans are pretty simple, actually, and pretty straightforward. They say, ‘I want you to be very miserable. And I want you to be very angry. And I want you to vote for us, and we’ll make it worse, but we’ll blame them.” That’s all the GOP offers. Misery and blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a the end game except to hurt poor and working class people? First, social security and Medicare aren’t “entitlements”, but regardless.

Are Republicans that committed to hurting people and why? They’re not committed to actual fiscal responsibility otherwise they’d never approve tax cuts for billionaires or thwart closing tax loopholes for the rich.

So again, what’s the endgame. Many red state citizens would be devastated if social security goes away, not to mention Medicare (the one health system in the US that works relatively well).

Maybe this is what needs to happen. Many red states state budget significantly come from the government as well. Time to cut that off if you want lower govt spending.

+1 States that rely heavily on federal aid as a % of their state's total budget are mostly red states.

Rs favorite TX and FL rely more on federal aid than CA.

McConnell and Rand Paul's state heavily rely on federal aid. I would love to see how they would fair without federal aid.

[Anonymous]

All my MAGA Aunties and Uncles would be FURIOUS if the Rs cut their SS/medicare. Maybe Pps are right and they'll only cut it for people they calculate aren't voting R anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All my MAGA Aunties and Uncles would be FURIOUS if the Rs cut their SS/medicare. Maybe Pps are right and they'll only cut it for people they calculate aren't voting R anyway.

They divide between the MAGAs and the fiscal conservatives is huge, some politicians pretend they are both. Trump, for all his talk about cutting spending, was all about massive spending. A lot of the MAGA appeal is it's populism and populists love their pork.