Social Security Cuts
-
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?
-
Legacy you know exactly why that is.
The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes.
That's the strategy.
And it's humorous that heck bitches about hidebound Republicans and then posts: Kevin Drum.
Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.
But that doesn't sell votes....
WSS
-
And that's the trouble. Obamao will spend whatever more taxes we pay. He'll spend it on anything
that endears him and the national dems to their leftist base.
-
Legacy you know exactly why that is.
The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes.
That's the strategy.
And it's humorous that heck bitches about hidebound Republicans and then posts: Kevin Drum.
Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.
But that doesn't sell votes....
WSS
Legacy you know exactly why that is.
The problem is not that we want more and don't want to pay taxes, it's that the majority of less productive citizens want more and demands someone else pay the taxes.
That's the strategy.
And it's humorous that heck bitches about hidebound Republicans and then posts: Kevin Drum.
Personally I'd be okay with taking a little cut or paying a little more if I thought for one second it was going to be that across the board shared sacrifice.
But that doesn't sell votes....
WSS
This is a classic of the Browns Board genre. It really is. This is a thread about making tough choices on Social Security, and about how Americans almost always avoid the tough choices and instead demand to have someone else's benefits cut, but not theirs. We used one of the most often recommended remedies, chained CPI (as Krauthammer said yesterday, if we can't even agree to do chained CPI, something that just about every commission on entitlement reform has recommended, we're hopeless), the one the president just put on the table publicly, as a starting point. I put up a chart from the CPO that scores all of available policy choices we have and how effective they are at cutting benefits or raising revenue. I asked which ones you guys would prefer, since you're all on the page that the deficit is growing too large and entitlements need to be cut. And not one of you gave a real answer.
Leg then demanded that benefits stay at their current level, and that spending on "programs for zeros" be cut instead. I asked him to explain, and he created a scenario that is not practical, possible, or doable. We went back and forth on why that is, how SS is separate from the regular budget, and then Leg said I wouldn't "explain the logic behind why it's ok to cut workers benefits, but not non-workers."
Eventually seeing that his idea really isn't a solution that exists in the real world, Leg then posted a bunch stories from his personal experience dealing with poor people, and all the bad decisions they make.
Then I posted a quote from Kevin Drum that seemed particularly appropriate because it fit the thread perfect: most people who are loudest about reducing the deficit and the debt are not serious about doing it, but instead are really talking about cutting programs for poor people. Because we just watched exactly that in this thread. After years of listening to everyone on the board screech about spending and deficits and debt ...not one of you chimed in with an actual proposal to fix Social Security. But we did get lots of idea about how to cut money for poor people!
Yep, Drum was sure wrong about that!
And then, to top it off, Steve then brought it home with yet another post steering it back to his old saw/wheelhouse: lazy people vote for more benefits, and the Democrats' strategy is to give it to them.
And scene.
-
And Steve, Kevin Drum isn't even acceptable to you? One of the most respected liberal commentators on the right, known for his fairness and use of charts, graphs, and evidence? He's "hidebound"? Either you know nothing of his work, or you simply don't accept that liberal political/economic opinions can or should exist. Or maybe, just maybe, you might want to think about how often you break out your "hidebound/acolyte" smear.
-
Steve, you talked about shared sacrifice. Well, what does that look like for you in terms of Social Security reform?
-
Oh cripe we just heard Ed Schultz and Bernie Sanders spout the same thing.
" We don't care if it would help or not we don't care whether or not it's the right thing to do. We must stand firm as Democrats!"
Oh by the way yes you're exactly right that is the Democrats strategy. It works.
WSS
-
That's what Leg said too - we shouldn't cut benefits. That's what lots of people are saying.
But first of all, no one cares what Ed Schultz says. And Bernie Sanders didn't say what you said he said. Bernie Sanders isn't even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders thinks we shouldn't cut benefits.
Try and stick to the topic. I already know your perverted idea of Democratic politics. What's shared sacrifice look like to you in terms of Social Security?
-
Plus you really have noticed the president's campaign for the last five years, haven't you?
Please don't tell me you haven't understood that it's almost 75 percent tax the rich tax the rich tax the rich.
I don't have access to Lexis Nexis, I'm sure everything works that well now, but I'd like to see how many hits for fair share or doing their part comes up.
WSS
-
-
Yes that is what leg said. So what? What I say is that I'm happy to give up a little bit if everybody's on the same page.
So you're telling me I mis understood Bernie Sanders and he's all for it?
Wss
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