Social Security Cuts
-
Ahh yes. It's a totally outlandish and ridiculous notion to suggest that the federal government in their entire existence has ever paid for a right pocket expenditure from money they "find" in their left pocket.
I know how SS works, professor. But thanks for the reminder.
Also to suggest that the fed gov resides in any realm of reality is laughable in itself. And before I get another lecture, yes I'm aware of the complexity & scale of the US budget, so I "can't compare apples to oranges" (make sure you've cleared plenty of space so you don't injure your finger when you wag it) - but how do you manage your budget at home when the heating bill jumps 20%? You don't just not do heat anymore (as the cat's already out of that bag). You adjust another area of your budget for that month (or any arbitrary length of time we choose here). And you don't just say "I get more money now (you're welcome)" to whomever is cutting those checks like our govt does either.
Lets try and abstain from using "reality" when discussing the US budget, and our tax system, shall we?
Why? It's just math + political reality, neither of which you seem to want to live in.
So do it. Come up with your very own Al Gore lock box plus. A new, dedicated funding mechanism worth tens of billion a year.
The US GDP is 15.09 trillion. .6% of that is around 90 billion. Go right ahead.
I apologize if I'm not wowed by suggestions that this can be done by cutting "programs for zeros."
Why? It's just math + political reality, neither of which you seem to want to live in.
So do it. Come up with your very own Al Gore lock box plus. A new, dedicated funding mechanism worth tens of billion a year.
The US GDP is 15.09 trillion. .6% of that is around 90 billion. Go right ahead.
I apologize if I'm not wowed by suggestions that this can be done by cutting "programs for zeros."
Come into the grey area- the water's fine.
No need to get rid of the "programs for zeros". Trimming some fat would be nice.
"Go right ahead" ok, "here it goes":
The US spent $1.03 trillion on welfare in 2011 or 6% of the GDP since you happen to be "wowed" by percentages.
Quote:
[According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.]*
How about reducing that figure back to 2008 levels by putting the thinking caps on? There's your $90 billion solution plus an additional $100 billion in "fun money".
Any more brain busters?
*link: ( I'm on my phone)
-
Why? It's just math + political reality, neither of which you seem to want to live in.
So do it. Come up with your very own Al Gore lock box plus. A new, dedicated funding mechanism worth tens of billion a year.
The US GDP is 15.09 trillion. .6% of that is around 90 billion. Go right ahead.
I apologize if I'm not wowed by suggestions that this can be done by cutting "programs for zeros."
Come into the grey area- the water's fine.
No need to get rid of the "programs for zeros". Trimming some fat would be nice.
"Go right ahead" ok, "here it goes":
The US spent $1.03 trillion on welfare in 2011 or 6% of the GDP since you happen to be "wowed" by percentages.
Quote:
[According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.]*
How about reducing that figure back to 2008 levels by putting the thinking caps on? There's your $90 billion solution plus an additional $100 billion in "fun money".
Any more brain busters?
*link: ( I'm on my phone)
Come into the grey area- the water's fine.
No need to get rid of the "programs for zeros". Trimming some fat would be nice.
"Go right ahead" ok, "here it goes":
The US spent $1.03 trillion on welfare in 2011 or 6% of the GDP since you happen to be "wowed" by percentages.
Quote:
[According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.]*
How about reducing that figure back to 2008 levels by putting the thinking caps on? There's your $90 billion solution plus an additional $100 billion in "fun money".
Any more brain busters?
*link: ( I'm on my phone)
Leg, are you serious? Your proposal is to take all federal welfare spending, which includes things like Medicaid, and tell everyone you have to get by with the money we spent on those programs in 2008? And that's how you want to save Social Security?
Again, I apologize for suggesting that you're not living in the real world, because I have to suggest it again.
-
Also, do you want to go into why most of those programs increased between 2008 and 2011, and why The Daily Caller is picking those years in order to get their splash headline?
Something happened around 2008. Hmm. It'll come to me.
-
Come into the grey area- the water's fine.
No need to get rid of the "programs for zeros". Trimming some fat would be nice.
"Go right ahead" ok, "here it goes":
The US spent $1.03 trillion on welfare in 2011 or 6% of the GDP since you happen to be "wowed" by percentages.
Quote:
[According to the CRS report, which focused solely on federal spending for federal welfare programs, spending on federal welfare programs increased $563.413 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $745.84 billion in fiscal year 2011 — a 32 percent increase.]*
How about reducing that figure back to 2008 levels by putting the thinking caps on? There's your $90 billion solution plus an additional $100 billion in "fun money".
Any more brain busters?
*link: ( I'm on my phone)
Leg, are you serious? Your proposal is to take all federal welfare spending, which includes things like Medicaid, and tell everyone you have to get by with the money we spent on those programs in 2008? And that's how you want to save Social Security?
Again, I apologize for suggesting that you're not living in the real world, because I have to suggest it again.
Leg, are you serious? Your proposal is to take all federal welfare spending, which includes things like Medicaid, and tell everyone you have to get by with the money we spent on those programs in 2008? And that's how you want to save Social Security?
Again, I apologize for suggesting that you're not living in the real world, because I have to suggest it again.
2008 was 5 years ago. Not 55. You're reacting like I've sent us back to the 30s and the Great Depression. This is hilarious. So NOW the $90bil in cuts are a problem? its ok to cut 90 bil from earners, but not non-earners? Please explain that logic to me.
Even if we didn't revert all the way to 2008 levels (a $190 billion reduction) but only trim $90 bil from that "increase" where is the foul when that's what we're asking to deplete from the SS disbursements.
-
I'm not going to spend more than a few minutes picking at your ridiculous plan that no one would ever consider, but ...what do you do to raise the necessary revenue in the years 2014-2050, and beyond? You just invented a scenario that would never, ever happen (also would probably be illegal) and then produced $190 billion in savings for one year. What do you do for the other 75? Do you actually imagine that each year the Congress is going to figure out what the SS shortfall is, then figure out which past year would complete the "amount of federal welfare money" plus "yearly SS shortfall" equals "tax revenue" equation, and then revert back to that year's spending?
Boy. You're going a long way to try and imagine that fixes to the Social Security system don't involve fixes to the Social Security system. Except that they do.
Again, you can cut benefits or raise more FICA revenue somehow, or do some combination of both.
And I get it that you don't like me lecturing you, and it's making you dig in. But damn, man. Come on.
-
If you don't believe me, and you really think this type of plan is possible or even doable and wouldn't get you laughed out of the building, see if you can find me anyone worth a damn who has proposed anything even remotely like it.
I can't even think of anyone who has proposed fixing Social Security by covering the shortfall each year in perpetuity by finding money in the regular budget.
-
Except you haven't (or won't probably) explain the logic behind why it's ok to cut workers benefits, but not non-workers.
I'm not looking into the nitty gritty of annual US budgets or else I'd be up in Washington seeking to do that. As for extrapolating my "plan" over a given period of time: do you think that Welfare benefits will eternally sit at 2011 levels or will they increase too? Meaning, with some effort and the eschewing of the Washington habit of only doing work so it becomes a part of your campaign for your next term, the money can be found. Money can switch pockets. And it doesn't have to be a " well lets look back at what we spent here and see if we can move stuff there for next year" type of thing. It involves retooling. Redesign. And god forbid some fucking-ass innovation (for once) instead of "settling" on this tired ass "lets just raise taxes" schtick.
-
Just think about Medicaid on its own, which is the biggest piece of federal welfare spending.
In 2008, Medicaid spending was $201 billion. This year it's projected to be $276 billion. That's because of a bunch of factors, namely more people who qualify for the program and the increase in health care costs. This is health care for the elderly, nursing home patients, poor families, poor children, etc.
Do you imagine, even for a second, that you can impose Medicaid outlays to stay at 2008 levels even though the costs to care for the people who qualify for the Medicaid program cost about $75 billion more than you want to pay? And that then we're going to give that $75 billion to Social Security recipients?
It's an absurd notion. It's a brain fart.
-
Just think about Medicaid on its own, which is the biggest piece of federal welfare spending.
In 2008, Medicaid spending was $201 billion. This year it's projected to be $276 billion. That's because of a bunch of factors, namely more people who qualify for the program and the increase in health care costs. This is health care for the elderly, nursing home patients, poor families, poor children, etc.
Do you imagine, even for a second, that you can impose Medicaid outlays to stay at 2008 levels even though the costs to care for the people who qualify for the Medicaid program cost about $75 billion more than you want to pay? And that then we're going to give that $75 billion to Social Security recipients?
It's an absurd notion. It's a brain fart.
Just think about Medicaid on its own, which is the biggest piece of federal welfare spending.
In 2008, Medicaid spending was $201 billion. This year it's projected to be $276 billion. That's because of a bunch of factors, namely more people who qualify for the program and the increase in health care costs. This is health care for the elderly, nursing home patients, poor families, poor children, etc.
Do you imagine, even for a second, that you can impose Medicaid outlays to stay at 2008 levels even though the costs to care for the people who qualify for the Medicaid program cost about $75 billion more than you want to pay? And that then we're going to give that $75 billion to Social Security recipients?
It's an absurd notion. It's a brain fart.
Not to cross pollinate threads, but yes. Instead of the cigarette tax hike (or in concordance with it for better results) how about applying the god damned crippling volumes of research that links (cause and effect) of smoking to hypertension, diabetes, & CVD? It's your right to smoke, but your beta-blockers, insulin, aspirin, and warfarin regimens won't be covered by Medicaid anymore. Sorry.
-
And neither will your multiple periodontal surgeries, to save your teeth, then your complete dentures when all of your teeth finally fall out.
But keep sucking down those Newports, chum.
-
Your portable oxygen units because your lungs are so covered in tar that your body had lost the ability to absorb oxygen from the air for your respiration? No longer covered.
Your rascal that you ride from dr appt to dr appt because your weight is so out of control from your diabetes that your knees are destroyed and that you got for free thanks to Medicaid? No longer covered.
How about the multiple surgeries to try to repair the neuropathy you're experiencing in your extremities thanks to your diabetes? No longer covered.
-
Except you haven't (or won't probably) explain the logic behind why it's ok to cut workers benefits, but not non-workers.
I'm not looking into the nitty gritty of annual US budgets or else I'd be up in Washington seeking to do that. As for extrapolating my "plan" over a given period of time: do you think that Welfare benefits will eternally sit at 2011 levels or will they increase too? Meaning, with some effort and the eschewing of the Washington habit of only doing work so it becomes a part of your campaign for your next term, the money can be found. Money can switch pockets. And it doesn't have to be a " well lets look back at what we spent here and see if we can move stuff there for next year" type of thing. It involves retooling. Redesign. And god forbid some fucking-ass innovation (for once) instead of "settling" on this tired ass "lets just raise taxes" schtick.
Except you haven't (or won't probably) explain the logic behind why it's ok to cut workers benefits, but not non-workers.
Are you really at that level where you think that all of that federal welfare spending goes to people who don't work? Holy fuck. If so, no. Then I won't explain the logic. Because there isn't any in the question. You're way, way off. And also ignoring my posts, where I say that I'm not sure chained CPI/cutting people's benefits is the best idea either, but that I'd considerate it because there aren't any good options. The other options are forms of means testing, raising retirement age, and raising taxes. None of the options are good.
Or, you know, we can do what you did, which is reach way, way into your ass and pull out a plan to use on an episode of Fantasy Island.
I'm not looking into the nitty gritty of annual US budgets or else I'd be up in Washington seeking to do that. As for extrapolating my "plan" over a given period of time: do you think that Welfare benefits will eternally sit at 2011 levels or will they increase too? Meaning, with some effort and the eschewing of the Washington habit of only doing work so it becomes a part of your campaign for your next term, the money can be found. Money can switch pockets. And it doesn't have to be a " well lets look back at what we spent here and see if we can move stuff there for next year" type of thing. It involves retooling. Redesign. And god forbid some fucking-ass innovation (for once) instead of "settling" on this tired ass "lets just raise taxes" schtick.
You're just shying from tough choices that are right in front of your face, inventing shit that would never work as alternative and no one would even propose, and then accusing everyone else of not being serious.
If you want to keep benefits at their current level, which I think is preferable, think about other ways you can do it. You can reduce or remove benefits from people who are so wealthy the additional $14K a year doesn't matter to them. That's one way. You can raise the retirement age a year. That doesn't get you very far, and has the problems Steve and I were discussing, but it gets you about 1/6th of the way there.
Problem is, even if you did all of those things, you still have to raise someone's taxes if you want to keep benefits at their current level. We could talk about whose taxes you might raise in that scenario. But let's not wish a real problem away because we're frustrated with the way Washington works, or how it's explained to you.
Let's just come to grips with something very American: we demand a lot of government. Not as much as other countries, but a lot. We just don't like paying for all of the things we demand. And the size of the deficit and the debt is basically the size of that disconnect. And it's always interesting when it comes time to pay up because the math has gotten too scary. What do we do then? We scream, "Don't cut our benefits! Cut all that spending!" Also, "Stop raising taxes!" Even when those are the only two choices. Because those are the only two things the government does.
Have a good night.
PS - Don't worry. I know I'm an asshole sometimes.
-
How about the 3x/week dialysis because of kidney failure as a result of diabetes? Because your shit diet and shit smoking habit has destroyed the microvasculature that supplies/ supports the filtration apparatus in the working portion of your kidney.
And when Medicaid pays out shit compensation to docs for these treatments the hospital conglomerates just pass that cost (from an abysmally low reimbursement fee schedule) along to the the other patrons. This why "healthcare costs" are high.
I can keep going if you want.
-
Your portable oxygen units because your lungs are so covered in tar that your body had lost the ability to absorb oxygen from the air for your respiration? No longer covered.
Your rascal that you ride from dr appt to dr appt because your weight is so out of control from your diabetes that your knees are destroyed and that you got for free thanks to Medicaid? No longer covered.
How about the multiple surgeries to try to repair the neuropathy you're experiencing in your extremities thanks to your diabetes? No longer covered.
Your portable oxygen units because your lungs are so covered in tar that your body had lost the ability to absorb oxygen from the air for your respiration? No longer covered.
Your rascal that you ride from dr appt to dr appt because your weight is so out of control from your diabetes that your knees are destroyed and that you got for free thanks to Medicaid? No longer covered.
How about the multiple surgeries to try to repair the neuropathy you're experiencing in your extremities thanks to your diabetes? No longer covered.
that knee you blew out playing football no longer covered. that nagging pain in your arm from that bike accident no longer covered. knees starting to go out because of all that running.........etc. I mean after all it was your choice to go out and get injured.
-
And neither will your multiple periodontal surgeries, to save your teeth, then your complete dentures when all of your teeth finally fall out.
But keep sucking down those Newports, chum.
And neither will your multiple periodontal surgeries, to save your teeth, then your complete dentures when all of your teeth finally fall out.
But keep sucking down those Newports, chum.
I'll just leave you with Kevin Drum, because it's so true:
"This is, obviously, the problem of government in a nutshell: everyone wants spending to be cut, but no one wants spending to be cut on them. They want it to be cut on other people.
In particular—and please excuse the wild guess here—I imagine that most people who have a serious jones for cutting federal spending are really only interested in cutting spending on poor people."
-
Your portable oxygen units because your lungs are so covered in tar that your body had lost the ability to absorb oxygen from the air for your respiration? No longer covered.
Your rascal that you ride from dr appt to dr appt because your weight is so out of control from your diabetes that your knees are destroyed and that you got for free thanks to Medicaid? No longer covered.
How about the multiple surgeries to try to repair the neuropathy you're experiencing in your extremities thanks to your diabetes? No longer covered.
that knee you blew out playing football no longer covered. that nagging pain in your arm from that bike accident no longer covered. knees starting to go out because of all that running.........etc. I mean after all it was your choice to go out and get injured.
that knee you blew out playing football no longer covered. that nagging pain in your arm from that bike accident no longer covered. knees starting to go out because of all that running.........etc. I mean after all it was your choice to go out and get injured.
Ummm I don't think I get your point. I go pay for Advil when I get a headache.
-
And neither will your multiple periodontal surgeries, to save your teeth, then your complete dentures when all of your teeth finally fall out.
But keep sucking down those Newports, chum.
I'll just leave you with Kevin Drum, because it's so true:
"This is, obviously, the problem of government in a nutshell: everyone wants spending to be cut, but no one wants spending to be cut on them. They want it to be cut on other people.
In particular—and please excuse the wild guess here—I imagine that most people who have a serious jones for cutting federal spending are really only interested in cutting spending on poor people."
I'll just leave you with Kevin Drum, because it's so true:
"This is, obviously, the problem of government in a nutshell: everyone wants spending to be cut, but no one wants spending to be cut on them. They want it to be cut on other people.
In particular—and please excuse the wild guess here—I imagine that most people who have a serious jones for cutting federal spending are really only interested in cutting spending on poor people."
Not really. As a healthcare professional, every patient I sit down with, I want them to understand that they need to make a personal investment in their health. And it's not money. In my case it involves their mouths. The only way treatment can be successful is if the patients take ownership of their health and make it a priority. It isn't a water into wine thing that I do. It's a lot of work on my part and the patients. They have to be committed to it. And that's where I think welfare (in the healthcare realm) has failed our country and its people. They have no reason to commit. The individual responsibility is not there. "Somebody will fix it later"
Do i see a disproportionate amount of "poor people" whose mouths have gone to shit? Yes. Why? Well education for starters. Most don't know any better. And some or most just don't care because its not a priority. They don't value it.
That's not to say plenty of "rich" people don't come in with "Grinch teeth". Again, education and a lack of value applied to their oral health.
-
that knee you blew out playing football no longer covered. that nagging pain in your arm from that bike accident no longer covered. knees starting to go out because of all that running.........etc. I mean after all it was your choice to go out and get injured.
Ummm I don't think I get your point. I go pay for Advil when I get a headache.
Ummm I don't think I get your point. I go pay for Advil when I get a headache.
I was making a parallel for you. You are railing away at peoples decisions that end up costing money. IE. having your knee reconstructed because you were to physical. = Having your knee reconstructed because you are too damn fat.
Since we are denying people care for problems that they caused themselves.
-
And here's more Drum:
"This is a bit of an obvious point, but I want to make it anyway: pretty much every liberal, even those who generally support the idea of adopting chained CPI as a more accurate measure of inflation, should be opposed to President Obama's proposal to adopt chained CPI.
The reason is simple: chained CPI represents a cut in the growth rate of Social Security benefits. It's arguably something that's worth accepting as part of a larger bargain that would cut benefits a bit and raise taxes a bit in order to improve Social Security's finances, but it makes no sense on its own. Social Security is separate from the rest of the federal budget, and its benefits should never be horse-traded away for miscellaneous changes elsewhere.
If Republicans are ever in a mood to consider a serious Social Security deal that's designed to improve its solvency in a balanced way, that's fine. I'm ready to listen. But that's not on the table. Until it is, chained CPI shouldn't be on the table either."
-
And neither will your multiple periodontal surgeries, to save your teeth, then your complete dentures when all of your teeth finally fall out.
But keep sucking down those Newports, chum.
I'll just leave you with Kevin Drum, because it's so true:
"This is, obviously, the problem of government in a nutshell: everyone wants spending to be cut, but no one wants spending to be cut on them. They want it to be cut on other people.
In particular—and please excuse the wild guess here—I imagine that most people who have a serious jones for cutting federal spending are really only interested in cutting spending on poor people."
"In particular—and please excuse the wild guess here—I imagine that most people who have a serious jones for cutting federal spending are really only interested in cutting spending on poor people."
Don't forget about minorities! We hate minorities too!
I mean wow. Just wow.
All I'm asking is the federal govt to tighten its belt a little. And suggesting that some tightening be done on (for whatever reason) the seemingly "untouchable" class.
Why haven't you answered my question about the logic behind why this is so evil?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login