A Republican Plan I Fully Support

[g5000]

As everyone should know by now, the federal debt is my number one issue.

Not homos, not guns, not inflation, not even Trump or abortion.

The federal debt is by far the greatest threat to the future security and existence of our democracy. I consider any party which adds to our debt an enemy of our country, which means I cannot support the Republicans or the Democrats.

The motto of our country is, "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

As such, I have put forth proposals many times on this forum about what should be done to eliminate the debt with my first key proposal being the elimination of tax expenditures which are costing us $1.4 trillion a year.

My second proposal has been that we need to increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index that age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Social Security and Medicare are the proverbial "third rail of politics". Well, fuck that. They are going to be completely insolvent in a few years and a solution needs to be found YESTERDAY.

The only Republican in modern times I have heard mention raising the retirement age was John Boehner when he was Speaker of the House. So he earned a few cool points in my book.

And now this:

Republicans, Eyeing Majority, Float Changes to Social Security and Medicare​

​

Congressional Republicans, eyeing a midterm election victory that could hand them control of the House and the Senate, have embraced plans to reduce federal spending on Social Security and Medicare, including cutting benefits for some retirees and raising the retirement age for both safety net programs.

Prominent Republicans are billing the moves as necessary to rein in government spending, which grew under both Republican and Democratic presidents in recent decades and then spiked as the Trump and Biden administrations unleashed trillions of dollars in economic relief during the pandemic.

 

[g5000]

Several conservative Republicans vying to lead key economic committees in the House have suggested publicly that they would back efforts to change eligibility for the safety net programs. The conservative Republican Study Committee in the House, which is poised to assume a position of influence if the party claims the majority, has issued a detailed plan that would raise the retirement age for both programs and reduce Social Security benefits for some higher-earning retirees.

 

[marvin martian]

As everyone should know by now, the federal debt is my number one issue.

Not homos, not guns, not inflation, not even Trump or abortion.

The federal debt is by far the greatest threat to the future security and existence of our democracy. I consider any party which adds to our debt an enemy of our country, which means I cannot support the Republicans or the Democrats.

The motto of our country is, "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

As such, I have put forth proposals many times on this forum about what should be done to eliminate the debt with my first key proposal being the elimination of tax expenditures which are costing us $1.4 trillion a year.

My second proposal has been that we need to increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index that age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Social Security and Medicare are the proverbial "third rail of politics". Well, fuck that. They are going to be completely insolvent in a few years and a solution needs to be found YESTERDAY.

The only Republican in modern times I have heard mention raising the retirement age was John Boehner when he was Speaker of the House. So he earned a few cool points in my book.

And now this:

Republicans, Eyeing Majority, Float Changes to Social Security and Medicare​

​

Congressional Republicans, eyeing a midterm election victory that could hand them control of the House and the Senate, have embraced plans to reduce federal spending on Social Security and Medicare, including cutting benefits for some retirees and raising the retirement age for both safety net programs.

Prominent Republicans are billing the moves as necessary to rein in government spending, which grew under both Republican and Democratic presidents in recent decades and then spiked as the Trump and Biden administrations unleashed trillions of dollars in economic relief during the pandemic.

Why do you have "pro-life" in your signature when you're not pro-life?

 

[MarathonMike]

My second proposal has been that we need to increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index that age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

I agree with you that the national debt is literally a time bomb that we don't seem to give one hoot about. So are you saying don't let people start getting SS and Medicare until age 70? What do you mean index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward?

 

[whitehall]

What "tax expenditures"?

 

[g5000]

I agree with you that the national debt is literally a time bomb that we don't seem to give one hoot about. So are you saying don't let people start getting SS and Medicare until age 70? What do you mean index the age to 9 percent of the population going forward?

Yes, people should not be collecting Social Security or qualifying for Medicare until they are 70.

We are living much longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. That's just common sense.

9 percent? I'll explain.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. SS was not intended for everyone to collect. It was meant for the outliers who outlived the odds.

Back then, you "died with your boots on".

In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of the population was over the age of 65. That's where my 9 percent figure comes from.

Today, 16 percent of the US population is over 65. This is an unsustainable trend, and is why both programs are going to be insolvent in a few years.

A smaller and smaller percentage of the population is supporting a larger and larger percentage. We cannot keep this up.


The Democrat solution is to increase payroll taxes. Democrats never saw a tax increase they don't like.

 

[g5000]

What "tax expenditures"?

Deductions, exemptions, and credits.

They cost $1.4 trillion a year.

For every dollar which is deducted, exempted, or credited, that's a dollar that has to come out of someone else's pocket in the form of higher tax rates, or that dollar has to be borrowed from China or other countries.

Since Americans won't tolerate the level of tax rates to balance out all the tax expenditures, we end up adding more and more to the federal debt. That debt is future spending brought forward and will have to be paid by the yet unborn.

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

 

[gipper]

Yes, people should not be collecting Social Security or qualifying for Medicare until they are 70.

We are living much longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. That's just common sense.

9 percent? I'll explain.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. SS was not intended for everyone to collect. It was meant for the outliers who outlived the odds.

Back then, you "died with your boots on".

In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of the population was over the age of 65. That's where my 9 percent figure comes from.

Today, 16 percent of the US population is over 65. This is an unsustainable trend, and is why both programs are going to be insolvent in a few years.

A smaller and smaller percentage of the population is supporting a larger and larger percentage. We cannot keep this up.


The Democrat solution is to increase payroll taxes. Democrats never saw a tax increase they don't like.

Did I miss something or did you forget to mention the much more costly benefits handed out to big corporations, the MIC, and billionaires?

 

[g5000]

Did I miss something or did you forget to mention the much more costly benefits handed out to big corporations, the MIC, and billionaires.

Yes, you missed something.

The very first thing I mentioned were tax expenditures. You may know them as "tax loopholes" or "carve-outs".

 

[MarathonMike]

Yes, people should not be collecting Social Security or qualifying for Medicare until they are 70.

We are living much longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. That's just common sense.

9 percent? I'll explain.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. SS was not intended for everyone to collect. It was meant for the outliers who outlived the odds.

Back then, you "died with your boots on".

In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of the population was over the age of 65. That's where my 9 percent figure comes from.

Today, 16 percent of the US population is over 65. This is an unsustainable trend, and is why both programs are going to be insolvent in a few years.

A smaller and smaller percentage of the population is supporting a larger and larger percentage. We cannot keep this up.


The Democrat solution is to increase payroll taxes. Democrats never saw a tax increase they don't like.

I am always against anything that appears unsustainable and our entitlements are certainly in that category. Makes sense to me.

 

[g5000]

Did I miss something or did you forget to mention the much more costly benefits handed out to big corporations, the MIC, and billionaires?

If by "benefits" you mean subsidies such as low interest loans, protection from foreign competition, government grants, etc., those add up to about $100 billion a year.

That's a drop in the bucket compared to tax expenditures.

However, if we eliminated those subsidies, we'd no longer have a need for the capital gains tax or the estate tax.

 

[MarathonMike]

As everyone should know by now, the federal debt is my number one issue.

Not homos, not guns, not inflation, not even Trump or abortion.

The federal debt is by far the greatest threat to the future security and existence of our democracy. I consider any party which adds to our debt an enemy of our country, which means I cannot support the Republicans or the Democrats.

The motto of our country is, "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

As such, I have put forth proposals many times on this forum about what should be done to eliminate the debt with my first key proposal being the elimination of tax expenditures which are costing us $1.4 trillion a year.

My second proposal has been that we need to increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index that age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Social Security and Medicare are the proverbial "third rail of politics". Well, fuck that. They are going to be completely insolvent in a few years and a solution needs to be found YESTERDAY.

The only Republican in modern times I have heard mention raising the retirement age was John Boehner when he was Speaker of the House. So he earned a few cool points in my book.

And now this:

Republicans, Eyeing Majority, Float Changes to Social Security and Medicare​

​

Congressional Republicans, eyeing a midterm election victory that could hand them control of the House and the Senate, have embraced plans to reduce federal spending on Social Security and Medicare, including cutting benefits for some retirees and raising the retirement age for both safety net programs.

Prominent Republicans are billing the moves as necessary to rein in government spending, which grew under both Republican and Democratic presidents in recent decades and then spiked as the Trump and Biden administrations unleashed trillions of dollars in economic relief during the pandemic.

We also need to put a freeze on the number of Federal employees except for border and immigration. Then go department by department to make cuts of 5 to 10 percent. We forget that for every government employee there is also a pension so we continue paying for that person for as long as they live in retirement.

 

[flacaltenn]

My second proposal has been that we need to increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index that age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Social Security and Medicare are the proverbial "third rail of politics". Well, fuck that. They are going to be completely insolvent in a few years and a solution needs to be found YESTERDAY.

Soc Sec WENT insolvent about 2012. Pay-outs have exceeded FICA taxes by at LEAST $30Bill every year since and kept INCREASING. Just gets new DEBT issued from a "Trust Fund" that doesn't have liquid nickel/dime in it.

The "time to FIX IT" was back in the Clinton era when the Repubs proposed a VOLUNTARY "partial opt-out" on future benefits in exchange for REDUCED FICA tax (also partial). THIS would have been an actual ASSET to the Trust Fund TODAY and yesterday if the Dems didn't kill that proposal.

Would have been TOTALLY PAID FOR because at the time SS was running $100Bill/year SURPLUSES that Congress was just squandering and pouring into the Gen Fund to make the deficit looks smaller in those years.

Raising the age is a non-starter. So is means-testing. The program was intended to be UNIVERSAL and meaningful. And people are retiring younger because they CAN BECAUSE of Soc Sec. Dont want to live in a country where we force ROOFERS to climb ladders until they turn 70 after paying into Soc Sec for FIVE or SIX more years. Just REDUCES the almost NEGATIVE return on investment that Soc Sec is at age 62.5 or 65.0.

You make those changes and America will NEVER AGAIN TRUST the Federal Govt with a "Trust Fund" or "UNIVERSAL anything".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

As everyone should know by now, the federal debt is my number one issue.

Not homos, not guns, not inflation, not even Trump or abortion.

The federal debt is by far the greatest threat to the future security and existence of our democracy. I consider any party which adds to our debt an enemy of our country, which means I cannot support the Republicans or the Democrats.

The motto of our country is, "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

As such, I have put forth proposals many times on this forum about what should be done to eliminate the debt with my first key proposal being the elimination of tax expenditures which are costing us $1.4 trillion a year.

My second proposal has been that we need to increase the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index that age to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Social Security and Medicare are the proverbial "third rail of politics". Well, fuck that. They are going to be completely insolvent in a few years and a solution needs to be found YESTERDAY.

The only Republican in modern times I have heard mention raising the retirement age was John Boehner when he was Speaker of the House. So he earned a few cool points in my book.

And now this:

Republicans, Eyeing Majority, Float Changes to Social Security and Medicare​

​

Congressional Republicans, eyeing a midterm election victory that could hand them control of the House and the Senate, have embraced plans to reduce federal spending on Social Security and Medicare, including cutting benefits for some retirees and raising the retirement age for both safety net programs.

Prominent Republicans are billing the moves as necessary to rein in government spending, which grew under both Republican and Democratic presidents in recent decades and then spiked as the Trump and Biden administrations unleashed trillions of dollars in economic relief during the pandemic.

I don't know where you got this idea that the Democrats solution was to raise taxes. If so, it's the first time I ever heard of it. And if that's what they wanted to do, why not now when they have total control of the White House and Congress?

Most Americans (left and right) want to keep these programs. If we want to keep them, fine, but they must be funded which again is a tax increase.

I come from a construction family. Most of my family members barely made it to 65. It's easy to talk about extending the retirement age when you sit behind a desk all day, but it's quite a different story when you have to use your body day in and day out to make a living. For most people, your body wasn't designed to do that kind of work when you get older.

Even in my former career as a tractor-trailer operator, your response time gets slower as you age. You can't think quickly as you once did. You don't want to be in your smart car when a 69 year old is piloting a 80,000 lbs vehicle behind you when traffic comes to a sudden stop in a snow storm.

George Bush had the best idea: allow people to take a small part of their SS contributions and invest it in their own IRA. As people see the growth of their money, they will want to be able to take a higher and higher amount of their SS money to invest of their own. Eventually SS will become a thing of the past.



So they raise the retirement age. What you'll end up with is tens of thousands of people applying for disability. Then you solved very little.

What your plan will do is get more people applying for disability, or laid off from their job because health insurance is too expensive to keep those employees. It's a failure no matter how you look at it.

 

[scruffy]

Tell them to stop raiding the coffers.

 

[kyzr]

I don't know where you got this idea that the Democrats solution was to raise taxes. If so, it's the first time I ever heard of it. And if that's what they wanted to do, why not now when they have total control of the White House and Congress?

Most Americans (left and right) want to keep these programs. If we want to keep them, fine, but they must be funded which again is a tax increase.

I come from a construction family. Most of my family members barely made it to 65. It's easy to talk about extending the retirement age when you sit behind a desk all day, but it's quite a different story when you have to use your body day in and day out to make a living. For most people, your body wasn't designed to do that kind of work when you get older.

Even in my former career as a tractor-trailer operator, your response time gets slower as you age. You can't think quickly as you once did. You don't want to be in your smart car when a 69 year old is piloting a 80,000 lbs vehicle behind you when traffic comes to a sudden stop in a snow storm.

George Bush had the best idea: allow people to take a small part of their SS contributions and invest it in their own IRA. As people see the growth of their money, they will want to be able to take a higher and higher amount of their SS money to invest of their own. Eventually SS will become a thing of the past.

So they raise the retirement age. What you'll end up with is tens of thousands of people applying for disability. Then you solved very little.

What your plan will do is get more people applying for disability, or laid off from their job because health insurance is too expensive to keep those employees. It's a failure no matter how you look at it.

1. Agree that raising the retirement ages is a MUST. But not to 70. The 62 should go to 64, and the 66 to 67. PLUS remove/raise the cap. That fixes SS.

2. Fixing Medicare will be more difficult.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2016/03/27/7-ways-to-fix-medicare.aspx

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/369151-fix-what-weve-got-and-make-medicare-right-this-year

https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-save-and-fix-medicare

https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/health/medicare-and-medicaid/2012-05/The-Future-Of-Medicare.pdf

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. Agree that raising the retirement ages is a MUST. But not to 70. The 62 should go to 64, and the 66 to 67. PLUS remove/raise the cap. That fixes SS.

It's already 67 for people retiring now. I don't think raising that to 68 will help much. And here we are as always, tax the rich to solve our problems. If we keep taxing the rich for everything we want or everything we currently have, we won't have many rich people in the future.

Like I said, if we want these programs (and we do) we simply have to pay for them. I've been out of work since the beginning of covid, but when I was working, I can't tell you the last time we had an SS or Medicare contribution increase. Why is that? Because if we actually had to pay what it costs for these programs, more and more people would be demanding we get out of them and try something else, like the private sector. Democrats are not about to let go of that power over the people.

 

[TNHarley]

Goddamn, I absolutely despise you federal supremacists.
First, you faggots make me pay into this bullshit. Then tell me you want to cut what i get and make me wait longer?
Fuck you.

 

[22lcidw]

Yes, people should not be collecting Social Security or qualifying for Medicare until they are 70.

We are living much longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer. That's just common sense.

9 percent? I'll explain.

When Social Security was enacted in 1935, only 5.4 percent of the US population was over the age of 65. SS was not intended for everyone to collect. It was meant for the outliers who outlived the odds.

Back then, you "died with your boots on".

In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of the population was over the age of 65. That's where my 9 percent figure comes from.

Today, 16 percent of the US population is over 65. This is an unsustainable trend, and is why both programs are going to be insolvent in a few years.

A smaller and smaller percentage of the population is supporting a larger and larger percentage. We cannot keep this up.


The Democrat solution is to increase payroll taxes. Democrats never saw a tax increase they don't like.

We were told there would be no problems by the then politicians. Promises were made...gifts were exchanged. They lied. And they put the Social Security extractions into the general fund to pay for massive corruption.