Mitch McConnell: We must cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security to reduce the deficit

[eagle1462010]

US Debt Crisis 2018 - Perfectly Explained

 

[pismoe]

you feckin 'seniors' are old anyway Camp . What good is there in keeping you old , unhealthy , frail senior guys going over the good of the USA even if the 'pap' you post was true Camp ?? [just my attitude Camp]

Remember when trumpanzees made up lies about "death camps", folks?

--------------------------- Thank YOU Bode , and i mean , what good are the old Senior like me good for eh ?? What good as many Seniors less robust then i have bones thathurt , they are going senile , their teeth are falling out , eyes are going but they need to eat at least once a day . And senility already mentioned but do - femi nazi - type women go senile as they age and how old are you Bode ??

 

[Crepitus]

Are you denying Republicans are not suggesting lowering Medicare and Medicaid benefits?

Yep, not for those already on Medicare. No one is going to go without healthcare. There are plenty of clinics for the poor in this nation.

People go without healthcare now. There are not plenty of clinics for rhe poor. Free clinics are rare.

No, they don't. If anyone needs care, they get it. There isn't anyone dying in the streets like you want us to believe.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Then get a job that has health coverage. Oh, those are taken by illegals, sorry.

Ah, the famous conservative goal post move.

Also, illegals by and large aren't getting jobs with good benefits. That was kind of a stupid thing to say

 

[joaquinmiller]

What politician would consider alienating over 40 million voters? What party would even entertain such an idea. That is a reach even for the "The Sky is falling" crowd.

Mitch McConnell.

I read the article. There are no specifics about cuts in the article. The entire budget will have to be cut and that will include I hope returning social security and medicare to their original purpose and sequestering payroll taxes from the general fund. You may thank that leftist icon LBJ for placing social security taxes in the general fund. Before social security and medicare are cut any polictian desiring reelection must make across the board cuts in every federal expenditure. When you get something specific I would like to hear it. You leftists are like the boy who cried wolf. No one believes you anymore.

That's a misunderstanding of what LBJ did. SS taxes were never placed in the General Fund, but for a time, they were accounted as items in a unified budget.

Debunking Some Internet Myths- Part 2
(See also, MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY- Part 1)


Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

 

[Crepitus]

What politician would consider alienating over 40 million voters? What party would even entertain such an idea. That is a reach even for the "The Sky is falling" crowd.

Mitch McConnell.

How about not allowing Social Security to people that haven't paid into it?

We already have that. Do you think we have people collecting that didn't contribute? Can you show some evidence or link?

What politician would consider alienating over 40 million voters? What party would even entertain such an idea. That is a reach even for the "The Sky is falling" crowd.

Mitch McConnell.

How about not allowing Social Security to people that haven't paid into it?

We already have that. Do you think we have people collecting that didn't contribute? Can you show some evidence or link?

Where does the money for refugees come from? Free medical, food, Housing, education, etc.

Goal post move.

 

[Camp]

So, voters have to decide if they want to risk losing programs that have successfully served and protected Americans for generations or throw it all away by voting for guys like Heller and his fellow Republicans. Maybe exchange a bunch of proven programs for a gamble with privatization and a toss of the dice.

 

[danielpalos]

discretionary spending has to go before entitlement spending. we have a general welfare clause not a general warfare clause.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, voters have to decide if they want to risk losing programs that have successfully served and protected Americans for generations or throw it all away by voting for guys like Heller and his fellow Republicans. Maybe exchange a bunch of proven programs for a gamble with privatization and a toss of the dice.

Logically speaking, you are presenting an either or fallacy by driving to extremes. Either a program exists in it's current form or it is eliminated.

Not the case. There are meaningful reforms that can be made outside of those two extremes which will allow those protections to exist in the future. For example: Full retirement age has already been raised. Increasing the income cap from the current $127,000. Changing from a strickly payroll system to include passive income (interest, dividends, & capital gains from stocks). Means testing for "high income" retirees that have no need for Social Security. Etc.


.>>>>

 

[miketx]

If Nevada Sen. Dean Heller is re-elected he could be the deciding vote to reduce or even kill Medicare and other benefits that help senior citizens and veterans. Heller is in favor of more tax cuts for rhe wealthiest Americans and paying for them by taking away important benefits to veterans and seniors. He may very well be the deciding vote.

Notice the liar posts no "evidence"? That's because it's a lie.

 

[Camp]

So, voters have to decide if they want to risk losing programs that have successfully served and protected Americans for generations or throw it all away by voting for guys like Heller and his fellow Republicans. Maybe exchange a bunch of proven programs for a gamble with privatization and a toss of the dice.

Logically speaking, you are presenting an either or fallacy by driving to extremes. Either a program exists in it's current form or it is eliminated.

Not the case. There are meaningful reforms that can be made outside of those two extremes which will allow those protections to exist in the future. For example: Full retirement age has already been raised. Increasing the income cap from the current $127,000. Changing from a strickly payroll system to include passive income (interest, dividends, & capital gains from stocks). Means testing for "high income" retirees that have no need for Social Security. Etc.


.>>>>

OK, I think I checked out the AARP link in this thread. I guess we mostly hear from rhe extremes of this issue, like most issues. Moderates get ignored.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, voters have to decide if they want to risk losing programs that have successfully served and protected Americans for generations or throw it all away by voting for guys like Heller and his fellow Republicans. Maybe exchange a bunch of proven programs for a gamble with privatization and a toss of the dice.

Logically speaking, you are presenting an either or fallacy by driving to extremes. Either a program exists in it's current form or it is eliminated.

Not the case. There are meaningful reforms that can be made outside of those two extremes which will allow those protections to exist in the future. For example: Full retirement age has already been raised. Increasing the income cap from the current $127,000. Changing from a strickly payroll system to include passive income (interest, dividends, & capital gains from stocks). Means testing for "high income" retirees that have no need for Social Security. Etc.


.>>>>

OK, I think I checked out the AARP link in this thread. I guess we mostly hear from rhe extremes of this issue, like most issues. Moderates get ignored.

I get ignored a lot. LOL.


.>>>>>

 

[Camp]

If Nevada Sen. Dean Heller is re-elected he could be the deciding vote to reduce or even kill Medicare and other benefits that help senior citizens and veterans. Heller is in favor of more tax cuts for rhe wealthiest Americans and paying for them by taking away important benefits to veterans and seniors. He may very well be the deciding vote.

Notice the liar posts no "evidence"? That's because it's a lie.

Where is the lie? What specifically do you consider a lie in the post?

 

[miketx]

If Nevada Sen. Dean Heller is re-elected he could be the deciding vote to reduce or even kill Medicare and other benefits that help senior citizens and veterans. Heller is in favor of more tax cuts for rhe wealthiest Americans and paying for them by taking away important benefits to veterans and seniors. He may very well be the deciding vote.

Notice the liar posts no "evidence"? That's because it's a lie.

Where is the lie? What specifically do you consider a lie in the post?

All of it.

 

[Mr Natural]

It’s always been the republican wet dream to eliminate the two most successful government programs instituted by the two most hated democrat presidents.

 

[Camp]

If Nevada Sen. Dean Heller is re-elected he could be the deciding vote to reduce or even kill Medicare and other benefits that help senior citizens and veterans. Heller is in favor of more tax cuts for rhe wealthiest Americans and paying for them by taking away important benefits to veterans and seniors. He may very well be the deciding vote.

Notice the liar posts no "evidence"? That's because it's a lie.

Where is the lie? What specifically do you consider a lie in the post?

All of it.

None of it. You can not show a lie so you just say "all of it" so you don't have to be specific. I pointed out he voted for the Ryan budget in 2015 and it called for 140 billion dollars in cuts. All you have to do is Google or Bing "Ryan 2015 Budget" to confirm Heller already voted for slashing Medicare.

 

[miketx]

If Nevada Sen. Dean Heller is re-elected he could be the deciding vote to reduce or even kill Medicare and other benefits that help senior citizens and veterans. Heller is in favor of more tax cuts for rhe wealthiest Americans and paying for them by taking away important benefits to veterans and seniors. He may very well be the deciding vote.

Notice the liar posts no "evidence"? That's because it's a lie.

Where is the lie? What specifically do you consider a lie in the post?

All of it.

None of it. You can not show a lie so you just say "all of it" so you don't have to be specific. I pointed out he voted for the Ryan budget in 2015 and it called for 140 billion dollars in cuts. All you have to do is Google or Bing "Ryan 2015 Budget" to confirm Heller already voted for slashing Medicare.

Prove it troll.

 

[kyzr]

It’s always been the republican wet dream to eliminate the two most successful government programs instituted by the two most hated democrat presidents.

It may be the top wet dream of the 1%ers, but not of the Trump populists. We want them protected/saved, not bankrupt.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Same old same old from democrats.

 

[Mr Natural]

It may be the top wet dream of the 1%ers, but not of the Trump populists. We want them protected/saved, not bankrupt.

Then why would you vote republican if you want them saved?

A conflict of interest if ever there was one.

 

[Camp]

If Nevada Sen. Dean Heller is re-elected he could be the deciding vote to reduce or even kill Medicare and other benefits that help senior citizens and veterans. Heller is in favor of more tax cuts for rhe wealthiest Americans and paying for them by taking away important benefits to veterans and seniors. He may very well be the deciding vote.

Notice the liar posts no "evidence"? That's because it's a lie.

Where is the lie? What specifically do you consider a lie in the post?

All of it.

None of it. You can not show a lie so you just say "all of it" so you don't have to be specific. I pointed out he voted for the Ryan budget in 2015 and it called for 140 billion dollars in cuts. All you have to do is Google or Bing "Ryan 2015 Budget" to confirm Heller already voted for slashing Medicare.

Prove it troll.

Prove what? Heller voting for the Ryan budget to slash Medicare is enough proof for my OP.