GOP Going After Medicare/Social Security

Hello Lesh,

Lesh said:
To pay for their Donor Relief Act "tax cuts"

Slowly but surely, Republicans that supported the trillion dollar Trump tax bill are revealing their true motivations: slashing Medicare and Social Security.

During a Sunday interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) urged entitlement reform as the deficit continues to balloon as a result of the GOP tax cuts.

“I do think we need to deal with some of our spending,” Stivers said. “We’ve got try to figure out how to spend less.”

Stivers, who also serves as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), is a self-proclaimed “budget hawk” and frequently criticized national debt levels under the Obama administration. Despite his previous trepidation at increasing the deficit, he voted in favor of a costly tax bill that even the White House admitted would not pay for itself over time.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the Republicans haven't gone way beyond cutting taxes to unsustainably low levels. Why have they not decided that the government should PAY THE RICH with borrowed money.

They no longer seem worried about the debt at all. So why are they agreeing to pay any tax at all?

If they think the government is a free cash piggy bank, why not just go all the way?

And, of course, under this plan, the rich get paid the most.

Now, wouldn't that be the holy grail of tax bills for them?

I don't see what's holding them back.

Clearly they have no pride nor responsibility to the national budget.
 
Flash said:
I know guys who paid more into the system than the cap. People like pipefitters who worked several jobs around the country or world started over with each new job.

I don't think they need to raise the retirement age (it will be 67 soon) but they should eliminate early retirement. Currently, over 70% of SS beneficiaries retire early. I know a lot of people who retire as soon as they hit 62. They would reduce spending by billions.
Click to expand...

We all have opinions.
 
LV426 said:
You need early retirement to get sufficient churn in employment. By holding onto jobs for a few more years, the Boomers are delaying the capacity of the next two generations to advance their careers and increase their income.

Also making people work to age 67 is bullshit anyway. And it forces higher health care costs on the employers because older people generally need more health care than younger ones.
Click to expand...

There are currently more job openings (6.7 million) than unemployed people (6.3 million).

Allowing people to collect full SS benefits at full retirement age without a monetary penalty only encourages people to work longer because they can get an extra $2000 a month on top of their current salary. Any churning in employment is discouraged by current policy.
 
Several posters have suggested policies to make Social Security fiscally solvent which will be required eventually.

Based on the original post that means they are "going after" Social Security which is all the Republicans are doing by urging reforms. Medicare is in more urgent need of reform than SS.
 
Jack said:
There will probably be a compromise, raise the cap and raise the age of retirement and throttle back any increase in benefits.
Click to expand...

President Obama wanted to reduce the annual COLAs because the current formula increases benefits higher than inflation.
 
Lesh said:
To pay for their Donor Relief Act "tax cuts"

Slowly but surely, Republicans that supported the trillion dollar Trump tax bill are revealing their true motivations: slashing Medicare and Social Security.

During a Sunday interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) urged entitlement reform as the deficit continues to balloon as a result of the GOP tax cuts.

“I do think we need to deal with some of our spending,” Stivers said. “We’ve got try to figure out how to spend less.”

Stivers, who also serves as chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), is a self-proclaimed “budget hawk” and frequently criticized national debt levels under the Obama administration. Despite his previous trepidation at increasing the deficit, he voted in favor of a costly tax bill that even the White House admitted would not pay for itself over time.
Click to expand...

Of course they are.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

Fweedumb.
 
Flash said:
President Obama wanted to reduce the annual COLAs because the current formula increases benefits higher than inflation.
Click to expand...

No one will go after the real culprit, militarist occupation of the planet and endless war, which will eventually have to be brought to bear at home to contain the masses.
 
LV426 said:
And right now, anyone collecting Social Security is getting more than they contributed because of inflation.

So we can definitely remove the cap on taxable income and cap benefits for the wealthy. There's no rule that says we can't do that. Just the arbitrary and ambiguous rules you come up with on the fly to justify your own garbage position.
Click to expand...

Higher income (top 50%) already pay 96% of all federal income taxes. It is ridiculous to make them also pay more of Social Security benefits when there are reforms which could be made to reduce benefit spending without hurting anybody who needs it.

The garbage position is the knee jerk reaction to increase taxes instead of reducing spending.
 
Flash said:
Higher income (top 50%) already pay 96% of all federal income taxes. It is ridiculous to make them also pay more of Social Security benefits when there are reforms which could be made to reduce benefit spending without hurting anybody who needs it.

The garbage position is the knee jerk reaction to increase taxes instead of reducing spending.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon cannot account for $21T it spent between 1998 and 2015. The garbage position is that we don't have enough $ to keep up societally with all the other advanced post-industrial nations on the planet and join the 21st century.
 
LV426 said:
Right now, the Millennials are the largest generation in American history and are the largest generation in the workforce. The oldest Millennial is about 38. It will also surprise you to learn that people don't live forever, and as the Boomers die off, they will collect less benefits. There's no rule that says we can't temporarily raise the Social Security or Medicare tax to dela with the influx of Boomers into those programs, then lower those rates once the Boomers die and the smaller Gen Xers enter retirement.

Your problem, and the problem with all Conservatives, is that you only see life as a zero-sum game...that there ultimately has to be a winner and a loser. And you think that because your brain is only wired for binary thinking and is fundamentally and functionally unable to grasp complex concepts.
Click to expand...

It is not a zero-sum game to reduce or eliminate benefits for those who have no need for them. It is a zero-sum game to want to raise SS taxes on those making over $128,400. Your problem is that you make assumptions about people's political ideology if they don't follow the lock-step party line.
 
LV426 said:
We knew they would. This has been the Conservative playbook since 1980: explode the deficit with tax cuts that never deliver on promises made of them, then scream about the deficit the tax cuts created, then propose closing the deficit by going after social programs to which they're ideologically opposed, but could never repeal through conventional legislation because they lack the courage, will, and support.

It's fiscal terrorism.
Click to expand...

Income tax cuts do not affect Social Security revenue; so, any claim that tax cuts are seeking to reduce SS benefits is just trash or lack of understanding. As many Republicans members of Congress have reelection campaigns to "save" SS and Medicare as benefits. Older voters are the most reliable Republican supporters and they are not about to risk political suicide by cutting those benefits.
 
Fentoine Lum said:
And predation. Concentrated wealth and power does whatever it can get away with, and we haven't as citizens given them any reason for pause as of yet.
Click to expand...

... and, in walks President Trump. Got to hand it to them, they sure know how to work a crowd.
 
LV426 said:
After the last 17 years, Conservatives don't ever get to try and impugn the legitimacy of any think tank that does the work of figuring this out. Conservatives have lied to us about their tax cuts. About their trickle-down economic policy. About their fiscal policies. And every single time, Conservatives have been wrong about what they predicted. Every. Single. Time.
Click to expand...

Even the liberal think tanks don't claim removing the cap will cover the shortfall. That was a liberal site that said it would only cover 25-90%.
 
Flash said:
Higher income (top 50%) already pay 96% of all federal income taxes. It is ridiculous to make them also pay more of Social Security benefits when there are reforms which could be made to reduce benefit spending without hurting anybody who needs it.

The garbage position is the knee jerk reaction to increase taxes instead of reducing spending.
Click to expand...

That argument always amuses me. What you are actually saying is they have all the damn money. The concentration of wealth is so bad, that a smaller percentage of people pay the taxes. That does not mean their wealth is being confiscated. Their tax rates have actually been cut over and over since Reagan. But they have nearly all the fucking money and get more every year. That is is why they pay a bigger chunk, but their percentage of their taxes paid drops every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top