Cuts to SS and Medicare

[Grumblenuts]

The benefit is based on individual contribution. Not on need, except for SSDI, and not how much wealth one has.

Irrelevant!
"Security" is based on need. "Social Security." Say it!
Why do you give a shit about what a tiny percentage of us obviously don't need and can easily afford? Get serious. Do you want to fix the projected shortfalls or not?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You don’t get to decide that.

Too late. Already did.. obviously.

No one is responsible for your retirement income but yourself.

No shit. "Social Security." Say it!

for many it is the difference between surviving and starving. yes

You put your left foot in
Get your foot chopped off
You put your right foot in
And shake it all about..
Worrrrrrrrky jerky..
Worrrrrrrrky jerky..
Put your left leg in
Get your leg torn off
You put your right leg in
And shake it all about..
Do the worrrrrrrky jerky..
Do the worrrrrrrky jerky..
And that's what this is about!

 

[Dagosa]

Yup. But Medicaid is more of a grant by the Fed with the entire program co funded by both and managed by the states. The big losers on cutbacks seems to be the poorer states who depend more on federal aid. Poorer Red states will take a big hit. Let’s see how they react to any suggestion that their republican govs now have to work with less money. The last thing that red states want is the Fed refusing to print more money.

Just like red state governors are now proud to be at the ribbon cutting ceremonies for infrastructure protects voted against by their brothers in Washington, they aren’t to keen on all that austerity for their states. Biden did well saying to the gop, “ meet you at the ribbon cutting ceremonies.”

 

[Dagosa]

we have never had a tax cut under any administration that only cut taxes on billionaires, that is leftist propaganda and a blatant lie. If the tax code favors the rich with loopholes, look at who wrote the tax code----------------the party that has controlled congress for most of the last 100 years---democrats.

Ha ha..
maybe so on the control. But it takes just one idiot with a match to burn a house down that takes months to rebuild by an entire crew. That pretty much happens when the gop has both houses and the presidency. They burn the house down then complain that it’s taking too long to rebuild it by the next crew. Pretty typical of late. A recession from the gop, followed by complaints that the Dems aren’t working fast enough to repair their burned down economy.

The repugnants love to take credit for that new house when they move in just before they start burning it to the ground.

 

[Redfish]

Why?

If its a tax as you claim, why shouldn't it be collected on all income?

 

[Redfish]

Ha ha..
maybe so on the control. But it takes just one idiot with a match to burn a house down that takes months to rebuild by an entire crew. That pretty much happens when the gop has both houses and the presidency. They burn the house down then complain that it’s taking too long to rebuild it by the next crew. Pretty typical of late. A recession from the gop, followed by complaints that the Dems aren’t working fast enough to repair their burned down economy.

The repugnants love to take credit for that new house when they move in just before they start burning it to the ground.

you are an ignorant arrogant asshole, nothing you have posted is even close to being true. What has filled you with so much hate?

 

[Dagosa]

you are an ignorant arrogant asshole, nothing you have posted is even close to being true. What has filled you with so much hate?

Ha ha
Are you having a tantrum ?

 

[Nostra]

The democrats ALWAYS restore the taxes on the wealthy when in power. Wtf are you talking about ?

Did they raise taxes on the rich in the past 2 years?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Nostra]

Do you really think posting this stuff reflects well on you, Simp?

 

[Mac-7]

Like what ? Don’t teach CRT in kindergarden ? You guys never come up with any cuts that matter.

How about dont teach racist black hate towards whites at all?

But you really stumbled over the part where I suggested cutting the civilian federal workforce by 25%

Thats called a reduction in force and its been done before

 

[Mac-7]

How does that help SS?

You can pretend that SS is not part of the federal budget but it is

If the budget goes belly up due to deficit spending it will be felt in SS & Medicare

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Irrelevant!
"Security" is based on need. "Social Security." Say it!
Why do you give a shit about what a tiny percentage of us obviously don't need and can easily afford? Get serious. Do you want to fix the projected shortfalls or not?

Your attitude is lacking nuance.
You’re not wrong that the wealthiest among us have gamed the system. You’re just targeting the wrong folks. The guy making $500k isn’t the problem. Nor the solution. His pockets aren’t nearly deep enough for the effort..

The money needed lies elsewhere.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You can pretend that SS is not part of the federal budget but it is

If the budget goes belly up due to deficit spending it will be felt in SS & Medicare

SS is self funded through individual contributions.
Not by the general fund. Therefore, the deficit has nothing to do with it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your attitude is lacking nuance.
You’re not wrong that the wealthiest among us have gamed the system. You’re just targeting the wrong folks. The guy making $500k isn’t the problem. Nor the solution. His pockets aren’t nearly deep enough for the effort..

The money needed lies elsewhere.

An attitude is all you have. One that defies logic.
That the wealthy game the system goes without saying. I'm "targeting" no one.
You're right. The 1% of guys and gals making $500K and up are not a real problem here. You're the one who's been falling on your sword trying to make them one. Remember? Wake up.

We'll obviously have to do more if their uncapped contributions prove insufficient.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

An attitude is all you have. One that defies logic.
That the wealthy game the system goes without saying. I'm "targeting" no one.
You're right. The 1% of guys and gals making $500K and up are not a real problem here. You're the one who's been falling on your sword trying to make them one. Remember? Wake up.

We'll obviously have to do more if their uncapped contributions prove insufficient.

Who’s first in line when you try to raise or eliminate the cap for those folks? The guys you agreed aren’t the problem.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Who’s first in line when you try to raise or eliminate the cap for those folks? The guys you agreed aren’t the problem.

Try not to confuse yourself further. You being too chicken to do what's obviously right under the circumstances will never solve the problem.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Try not to confuse yourself further. You being too chicken to do what's obviously right under the circumstances will never solve the problem.

Right?
Nowhere in the structure of SS is anyone obliged to carry anyone else. That’s your dubious machination.
SS operates on individual contributions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Right?
Nowhere in the structure of SS is anyone obliged to carry anyone else. That’s your dubious machination.
SS operates on individual contributions.

So I gather you're now admitting that "the rich" aren't really "the problem" and that "the problem" is actually making sure that S.S. stays funded well into the future. Way to catch up with the rest of us.

Now. No one is ever "obliged to carry anyone else." You're just flailing away again.. Poking at me with conservative talking point straw..

SS operates on individual contributions.

Technically, it's currently funded mostly by individual and employer contributions plus (supposedly) the interest the S.S. trust account generates by being "invested" in U.S. Treasury Bonds now that Congress has allowed the Fed to play such debt/money-supply increasing shenanigans. I would normally agree that the employer part should actually be credited to the employees, but you just accused me of lacking nuance so **** you.

Btw, "The SS was the organization most responsible for the genocidal murder of an estimated 5.5 to 6 million Jews and millions of other victims during the Holocaust." That's why I go to the trouble of writing "S.S." instead.

Ultimately, it does not matter how S.S. gets funded. Again, what matters is that it gets funded. Ensuring that the elderly enjoy "some measure" of self-respect and "security" is of national interest and concern. It's never been simply personal.

But let's get back to your problem with fairness since that seems to actually be your consistent, intractable beef. Go ahead. Explain how punishing the poor for not "earning" enough to receive S.S. benefits increases elderly self-respect nationwide? How does it make the elderly or infirm feel more self-reliant, dignified, or secure? How does making the 1% or above pay the same proportion of their income as anyone else reduce elderly self-confidence, -reliance, -respect, their dignity or security?

Try explaining why "sin taxes," which obviously serve as no impediment to the bad habits of the wealthy, get imposed upon everyone? Is that "fair"? Could it really be just to bash low and middle class workers into lower-insurance-risk-pool compliance to benefit the elite? Who has to worry about the price of gas at the pump? The rich or the rest of us? Have those with too much ever shoved their excess into your face? Was that being "fair" to you? To anyone?

 

[gipper]

Think!