TRUMP and the GQP is coming for your Social Security, Medicare and VA Healthcare

[ComradeKayAdams]

23 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

https://thehill.com/finance/3850036-republicans-social-security-medicare-debt-ceiling/

This seems an accurate portrayal of top R's stance on medicare and SS.  Scott was clearly targeted by Biden.  I think scrapping everything every 5 years is nuts.

 

Comments?

 

Yes, it’s just about what we’d expect from GOP mouths. Economic libertarianism is their underlying philosophy. The New Deal and the Great Society are what they hope to eventually dismantle, if afforded the right political circumstances. The trouble for them is that American society in the 2020’s is no longer the same as it was during the era of Goldwater and Reagan. Voters will not forgive the GOP if they ever push too hard for Medicare and Social Security “reform.”

 

I agree with you on the irrationality of habitual 5-year sunset legislation. It would make governance overly chaotic and turn our government into something as unstable as Italy’s.

 

Regarding Social Security: on an academic level, I’d be very much open to adjustments and alterations that would include private/public hybrids. The original motivation for SS, however, must remain honored. On a practical level, I can’t trust Republican politicians to operate in good faith here. The overturning of Roe v. Wade was that “crossing the Rubicon” moment, at least for me personally, when it comes to trusting anyone politically conservative ever again.

 

Regarding Medicare: I’ve lived in France before and have traveled throughout Europe, so naturally I’m in favor of just scrapping Obamacare altogether and opting for a single-payer healthcare system. Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All Act of 2021 (H.R. 1976) is my preferred version, which includes primary care plus long-term care, mental health, vision, dental, and prescription drugs. I’d also throw in certain portions of the biomedical industry (assuming they were not already in her bill). We are WAY overdue for universal healthcare. It should have been done 75 years ago, though better late than never! I would consider following Australia’s early 1980’s model for transitioning to a new healthcare system. I’d also pay for M4A with Wall Street speculation taxes, a ~25-33% reduction of our horrifically bloated military budget, and a more progressive federal income tax code beyond the current 10-12-22-24-32-35-37% version.

[BillStime]

 

Fighting to save Social Security and Medicare...

 

[BillStime]

 

[SoCal Deek]

On 2/10/2023 at 9:40 AM, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Yes, it’s just about what we’d expect from GOP mouths. Economic libertarianism is their underlying philosophy. The New Deal and the Great Society are what they hope to eventually dismantle, if afforded the right political circumstances. The trouble for them is that American society in the 2020’s is no longer the same as it was during the era of Goldwater and Reagan. Voters will not forgive the GOP if they ever push too hard for Medicare and Social Security “reform.”

 

I agree with you on the irrationality of habitual 5-year sunset legislation. It would make governance overly chaotic and turn our government into something as unstable as Italy’s.

 

Regarding Social Security: on an academic level, I’d be very much open to adjustments and alterations that would include private/public hybrids. The original motivation for SS, however, must remain honored. On a practical level, I can’t trust Republican politicians to operate in good faith here. The overturning of Roe v. Wade was that “crossing the Rubicon” moment, at least for me personally, when it comes to trusting anyone politically conservative ever again.

 

Regarding Medicare: I’ve lived in France before and have traveled throughout Europe, so naturally I’m in favor of just scrapping Obamacare altogether and opting for a single-payer healthcare system. Pramila Jayapal’s Medicare for All Act of 2021 (H.R. 1976) is my preferred version, which includes primary care plus long-term care, mental health, vision, dental, and prescription drugs. I’d also throw in certain portions of the biomedical industry (assuming they were not already in her bill). We are WAY overdue for universal healthcare. It should have been done 75 years ago, though better late than never! I would consider following Australia’s early 1980’s model for transitioning to a new healthcare system. I’d also pay for M4A with Wall Street speculation taxes, a ~25-33% reduction of our horrifically bloated military budget, and a more progressive federal income tax code beyond the current 10-12-22-24-32-35-37% version.

“You” would pay for it? I believe you meant to say that taxpayers other than you would pay for it. But why squabble over trivial matters? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 2/10/2023 at 10:33 AM, Tenhigh said:

I understand both the cap and problems with the entitlement, apparently my issue today is communicating my point. 

I followed you, and you were correct.  I can’t say if Alf didn’t correctly make his

point or not.  He’s always struck me as a good guy. 
 

That said, the “sounds fair” part makes a lot more sense when the minimum wage guy is heroically set upon at 6.2%, while the greedy bastard pays 0% because he makes $160k or more.  That the greedy dude was relieved of nearly $10,000 of his hard earned money (plus another $10k from his employer) muddies the point a bit. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

14 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

“You” would pay for it? I believe you meant to say that taxpayers other than you would pay for it. But why squabble over trivial matters? 

 

Taxpayers “OTHER THAN” me? So you’re calling me a freeloader? I’m in the fourth federal income bracket and live in the middle of NYC. Sure, I would happily pay more taxes if it means M4A. Even on a selfish level, it would save me a lot of hassle and money on health care costs over the course of my lifetime.

 

But yes, like you said, why squabble over trivial matters…such as any productive political conversation with you. I’ve patiently and politely explained multiple times to you concepts in macroeconomics like flat taxes and why they don’t work and why no one in the modern industrialized world implements them. Unfortunately, your reading comprehension and attention span are far too poor for anything to process.

 

So please stop responding to my posts ever again and please block me now if you think you’ll be unable to resist stalking me again in the future. I find you obnoxious and incapable of anything beyond childish personal attacks. You can go stick to your apparent raison d’etre here, which is insulting Tibsy and BillStime and bragging how wealthy and therefore how much better you are than everyone else here…like the fake little Christian that you are.

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Taxpayers “OTHER THAN” me? So you’re calling me a freeloader? I’m in the fourth federal income bracket and live in the middle of NYC. Sure, I would happily pay more taxes if it means M4A. Even on a selfish level, it would save me a lot of hassle and money on health care costs over the course of my lifetime.

 

But yes, like you said, why squabble over trivial matters…such as any productive political conversation with you. I’ve patiently and politely explained multiple times to you concepts in macroeconomics like flat taxes and why they don’t work and why no one in the modern industrialized world implements them. Unfortunately, your reading comprehension and attention span are far too poor for anything to process.

 

So please stop responding to my posts ever again and please block me now if you think you’ll be unable to resist stalking me again in the future. I find you obnoxious and incapable of anything beyond childish personal attacks. You can go stick to your apparent raison d’etre here, which is insulting Tibsy and BillStime and bragging how wealthy and therefore how much better you are than everyone else here…like the fake little Christian that you are.

Classy response Kay. I love the personal attack reaction when someone pushes back against your ‘comrade’ leanings. Just because I comment on your latest verbose manifesto doesn’t mean I’m stalking you.

 

I’ve said on here many times that I’m not a big healthcare voter, or consumer…thankfully. I just think you’re missing a major piece of the equation, when you simplify the issue down to ‘paying for it by raising taxes’. The missing piece is what happens to all the money currently being spent by businesses on healthcare? Do people’s take home pay increase? Do the cost of services decrease? This is a very complicated issue. 

[BillStime]

What?

 

 

[BillStime]

Oh - they’re coming for it alright - 

 

 

[BillStime]

But but but... what?

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

Still at it 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 Sarah Huckabee Sanders is killing it.

 

 

[BillStime]

Millionaires for billionaires

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

Millionaires for billionaires

 

 

I don't blame DeSantis and the others for at least addressing the obvious upcoming shortfalls in social security. Something needs to be done; something will be done. There's only 3 possibilities:

1. Raise taxes on somebody.

2. Trim somebody's expected benefits.

3. Make somebody work longer.

 

But this is such a 1990s way of doing politics. Remember the Clinton era, Simpson-Bowles, committees to study/recommend changes, all that "good policy" stuff? All that "we're all adults here" number crunching stuff?

 

That's not how we do it anymore. Trump will have a field day ignoring the problem and telling Republican voters that DeSantis wants to take away their social security. And then if he somehow makes it to the general, Biden will have a field day saying the same thing.

It's the new politics. Ignorance is bliss. Lie to the people that "I will fix it" (details TBA). 

Edited July 23, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[John from Riverside]

This stuff is all scary as ***** to me. I’m at the point now in my life where I’m going to need that Social Security and VA healthcare.

[Precision]

16 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I don't blame DeSantis and the others for at least addressing the obvious upcoming shortfalls in social security. Something needs to be done; something will be done. There's only 3 possibilities:

1. Raise taxes on somebody.

2. Trim somebody's expected benefits.

3. Make somebody work longer.

 

But this is such a 1990s way of doing politics. Remember the Clinton era, Simpson-Bowles, committees to study/recommend changes, all that "good policy" stuff? All that "we're all adults here" number crunching stuff?

 

That's not how we do it anymore. Trump will have a field day ignoring the problem and telling Republican voters that DeSantis wants to take away their social security. And then if he somehow makes it to the general, Biden will have a field day saying the same thing.

It's the new politics. Ignorance is bliss. Lie to the people that "I will fix it" (details TBA). 

 

I'm glad that someone is at least discussing the issue.  The past few administrations were fiscally irresponsible in their management of the federal budget.   The national debt is now at the point where there is no program (including SS and Medicare) that will not require cuts.    

 

Just a few numbers to bring this into reality, we are currently at $32 Trillion in debt and rising.  This works out to over $250K/taxpayer or around $100K for every man, woman and child in the US. 

 

 

In 5 years, interest payments on the debt will exceed our spending on defense.....

Interest costs on US national debt to exceed defense spending by 2028

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, Precision said:

 

I'm glad that someone is at least discussing the issue.  The past few administrations were fiscally irresponsible in their management of the federal budget.   The national debt is now at the point where there is no program (including SS and Medicare) that will not require cuts.    

 

Just a few numbers to bring this into reality, we are currently at $32 Trillion in debt and rising.  This works out to over $250K/taxpayer or around $100K for every man, woman and child in the US. 

 

 

In 5 years, interest payments on the debt will exceed our spending on defense.....

Interest costs on US national debt to exceed defense spending by 2028

Most likely nothing will be done until the point where everyone is forced to do something by circumstances and events.  Two parts politics and one part procrastination.  Sadly, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of finance knows all this debt accumulation is unsustainable and it will never be paid back.  There will be some form of default, either direct or indirect. 

A problem is the government spends too much money on too many programs.  We can debate which programs and to what extent but that's just an exercise in futility.  Most people see the solution as the other guy either pays more or gets less and they're left alone.  Another problem is consumers have way too much debt too. 

What I think is holding up action and solutions is citizens have no clear and obvious collective interests as a nation.  Well the collective interest people don't understand is a debt crisis will emerge, when or how is uncertain, and the value of the money they hold either through wages, investment, or savings will drop while the cost of everything they need will increase.  Just like it has in the past 1 1/2 years but not by 8 or 9 percent but by 10 to 100 times worse.  Then everybody will be looking around at each other wondering how we let it get to this point.  

Edited July 24, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[Precision]

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Most likely nothing will be done until the point where everyone is forced to do something by circumstances and events.  Two parts politics and one part procrastination.  Sadly, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of finance knows all this debt accumulation is unsustainable and it will never be paid back.  There will be some form of default, either direct or indirect. 

A problem is the government spends too much money on too many programs.  We can debate which programs and to what extent but that's just an exercise in futility.  Most people see the solution as the other guy either pays more or gets less and they're left alone.  Another problem is consumers have way too much debt too. 

What I think is holding up action and solutions is citizens have no clear and obvious collective interests as a nation.  Well the collective interest people don't understand is a debt crisis will emerge, when or how is uncertain, and the value of the money they hold either through wages, investment, or savings will drop while the cost of everything they need will increase.  Just like it has in the past 1 1/2 years but not by 8 or 9 percent but by 10 to 100 times worse.  Then everybody will be looking around at each other wondering how we let it get to this point.  

I could see a scenario of something like a combination of increasing the maximum Social Security taxable wages faster than inflation and an inflation adjusted reduction in non-discretionary spending.  Over time this could at least balance the budget.  The solution will no doubt have higher earners almost exclusively paying more with minor spending cuts.  I think the debt hangs around forever and becomes a smaller number (and issue) compared to GDP over time. 

 

I don't think most Americans care or are smart enough to understand the repercussions of a default.  I do think there is a "class" of Americans that understand how truly terrible a default or austerity measures could be economically and regarding civil unrest.  Hopefully these people can influence the executive and legislative branches into at least running a balanced budget for a few years. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

5 hours ago, Precision said:

I could see a scenario of something like a combination of increasing the maximum Social Security taxable wages faster than inflation and an inflation adjusted reduction in non-discretionary spending.  Over time this could at least balance the budget.  The solution will no doubt have higher earners almost exclusively paying more with minor spending cuts.  I think the debt hangs around forever and becomes a smaller number (and issue) compared to GDP over time. 

 

I don't think most Americans care or are smart enough to understand the repercussions of a default.  I do think there is a "class" of Americans that understand how truly terrible a default or austerity measures could be economically and regarding civil unrest.  Hopefully these people can influence the executive and legislative branches into at least running a balanced budget for a few years. 

Unfortunately, most of the debate about the debt is centered on pointing fingers at which party is more irresponsible than the other along with who is threatening to take away people's "benefits". 

 

It's like two guys arguing over how to split the dinner check on the deck of the Titanic while the ship is sinking.  

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

🎯

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[John from Riverside]

Now that I’m retired and a veteran I’m paying much closer attention to these bills that affect veterans healthcare
 

Don’t mess with it we earned it

[Tommy Callahan]

Lefty fear mongering 

[John from Riverside]

On 10/19/2023 at 2:59 AM, Tommy Callahan said:

Lefty fear mongering 

I really don’t understand how you can say that whenever it’s literally coming out of their mouths

 

It’s one of the few things that I give Donald Trump credit for at least for now he’s not for messing with old peoples money

[Tommy Callahan]

12 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

I really don’t understand how you can say that whenever it’s literally coming out of their mouths

 

It’s one of the few things that I give Donald Trump credit for at least for now he’s not for messing with old peoples money

Cause the game has been played out a million times.  

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

The embedded tweet actually softballs it. He didn't just "imply" that he thinks cutting Social Security and Medicare is necessary. He flat-out said it. By the way, this seems to have been in early 2019 as he's identified as "Chairman Elect" of the Republican Study Committee, and he became Chairman in 2019.

So while I don't think he's wrong - in my opinion, we do need to consider how to rein in spending on all entitlement programs - there's no denying that he does want to cut these programs.

Interesting what will happen when this runs up against Trump's "pretend the problem doesn't exist" campaign.

[Tommy Callahan]

4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Trump's "pretend the problem doesn't exist" campaign.

Always the orange guy.

 

Never mind we are sure the dems will never talk about those realities. cause they believe they can just tax their way out of it.  you know, the rich need to pay their fair share talking point, while ignoring the rich pay the majority of said receipts.

 

 

 

Since 2020 alone, federal receipts have gone up 25% or a billion dollars per quarter.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGRECPT

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

Always the orange guy.

 

Never mind we are sure the dems will never talk about those realities. cause they believe they can just tax their way out of it.  you know, the rich need to pay their fair share talking point, while ignoring the rich pay the majority of said receipts.

 

 

 

Since 2020 alone, federal receipts have gone up 25% or a billion dollars per quarter.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGRECPT

 

 

 

 

I agree with you.

But you're missing my point.

Dems = consistent position on cuts to entitlements: No cuts. We will deal with it (tax increases, probably, plus other things like raising the full social security entitlement age again) when the crisis comes.

Repubs = inconsistent position. Deficit hawks in control of the House, a big-time deficit spender as the presidential candidate. It is fair to question "so what DO you want the government to do if you win?"

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Always the orange guy.

 

Never mind we are sure the dems will never talk about those realities. cause they believe they can just tax their way out of it.  you know, the rich need to pay their fair share talking point, while ignoring the rich pay the majority of said receipts.

 

 

 

Since 2020 alone, federal receipts have gone up 25% or a billion dollars per quarter.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGRECPT

 

The "Trump's "pretend the problem doesn't exist" campaign" is pretty funny considering that's what the Dems are doing with entitlements. 

 

But that also begs the question what else did Trump "pretend didn't exist"?

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

Or you can stop giving all your donors tax cuts 

 

 

[John from Riverside]

On 11/27/2023 at 2:48 PM, BillsFanNC said:

 

Do you really think we could get his fat ass down the chimney

 

Come on man

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]