"Republicans - will always protect Medicare and Social Security " > Speaker McCarthy

[Ug make hammer]

Of course he says that. Retirees are a reliable base for Republicans, while the working people who really pay for Medicare and Social Security, aren't so much.

Actually, it seems my understanding is out of date. With Trump on the scene, the GOP advantage among seniors was pared to 52%/47%

Republicans really need to bolster support among Black and Latino elders, or they're going to lose that age demographic. Given that Blacks in particular have lower lifetime earnings (and thus lower SocSec entitlements) they may have to do something quite out of character, and look after poor elders better.

More likely Democrats do that first, and Republicans play to their base (White elders). Because though it's dumb, the politics of division do actually work for Republicans. They can always say "Social Security isn't meant to be a pension scheme, it's insurance" to justify paying out more to rich elders (disproportionately White) and thus buying their votes.

Both sides engage in voter buying of course. I'm just ruminating on what a good strategy would be, and contrasting that with what the stupid GOP will actually do.

 

[Kushinator]

If Reagan had not raided the trust fund to pay for SDI back in the 80s, there would still be funds there.

There is no raid. People began living longer and population growth began to stagnate.

It's happening in every developed country.

Moreover, if big business and the billionaire/millionaire classes would pay taxes instead of ducking them, there would be funds to pay for the programs in perpetuity

Social security is plagued by demographics.

 

[bomberfox]

This from the same party that actually tried their hardest to privatize social security? lol!

 

[cpwill]

I guess the way I look at is Ryan showed what his priorities are

Sort of. Lowering tax rates isn't exactly harmful to the economy, and it's something he could get done.

However, he was working with a President who had run explicitly on refusing to reform the entitlements. So, that was not something he could get done.

When he ran as a VP candidate in 2012, part of that was getting Romney to commit to a platform of reforming the entitlements to make them sustainable.

Claiming that the first is somehow proof that the second or third didn't happen isn't a terribly convincing argument.

The GOP when he was in power cut taxes - that is what they DID. TCJA that you describe as a "slight decrease in nominal marginal rates" was obviously far more than that - it was a $1-2 Trillion tax cut, when the economy was in full employment, stock market healthy. So it increased deficits, rewarded the donor class, when no one can argue higher deficits were needed for the economy. It's no coincidence that it granted HUGE savings to...the donor class, with big reductions in corporate tax rates and the rate on pass-through income.

It's not much of a coincidence that the people who pay taxes will benefit when rates are cut, no. However, that Big Fancy Donor Class? It's mostly blue, nowadays - especially in the years under discussion, after Trump came on board.

The U.S. has the most progressive tax system in the OECD. Working backwards from that to try to claim that every tax cut's benefits go mostly to "the rich" is partisan jackassery trying to frame itself as math.

I'm interested and totally down for a good debate on the impacts of entitlement reform and tax reform, and the opportunities to combine the two. I'm not interested in spending a lot of time fielding what I consider to be bad-faith accusations that My Tribe Is For The People But The Other Tribe Is For The Bad Others. In this particular case, it's particularly poorly aimed because to the extent that the "Donor Class" had a lean post-2016, it wasn't towards Donald Trump's GOP, but towards the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, his "entitlement reform" plan (and it was a plan, not separate parts that we can ignore what we want) was also, you guessed it, a donor class dream come true. Cut rates, eliminated taxes on investment income, eliminated the estate tax, and then.....what do you know!.... imposed huge benefit cuts for seniors and the poor. It was a french kiss on the bare asses of donor class, and a big **** you to seniors and the poor who shouldered ALL the 'pain' of the 'reform.' It's just stupid policy, and it's no wonder it didn't pass. The donor class got their goodies, but why would anyone else support huge tax CUTS for the top 1/10th of 1% and massive pain for everyone else?

No, but opposition to it was only fueled by people who want communism and hate freedom and prosperity.

Paul Ryan's New-and-Improved Plan for Medicare and Medicaid Reform

Last year, Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, unveiled the Path to Prosperity, an impressive fiscal plan that, for the first time in memory, put one chamber of Congress squarely on the record as favoring significant entitlement reform. Today, Ryan has put forth...

www.forbes.com

Paul Ryan's actual plan (rough outline) basically shifted current Medicare from a single-payer model to an Obamacare-like model, with a public option, a plan he built with Alice Rivlin, President Clinton’s former budget director.

Furthermore, the ACA DID cut Medicare spending. It wasn't a proposal, but actually passed, got into law. Do you give the Democrats credit for that accomplishment, that not one Republican supported?

No, for two reasons:

1. They didn't reduce Medicare spending to make the program more sustainable, but so as to shift those funds over to a brand new entitlement (Obamacare subsidies).

2. They didn't actually make the cuts. They immediately passed the "Doc Fix", rescinding the cuts, thereby proving correct the critics who said it was an accounting gimmick, and that, in fact, the program was funded by far more deficit spending than it had been sold with.

In fact the GOP ran on how bad it was for Medicare to cut benefits - bad Democrats!!

Simply deeply slashing medical provider reimbursements is, indeed, a very bad way to cut Medicare spending. That is what Democrats proposed to do, whereas Republicans did not.

 

[cpwill]

His plan also conveniently enough required seniors to wait until age 70 to get Medicare benefits (and Social security).

No - Ryan released a proposal in 2010, which would have gradually raised retirement age for OASI purposes to 70 by the year 2100 (moving up one month every two years), at which point in time - presumably - advances in both medical science and workplace environments would make that much easier, just as today's working conditions are easier than they were 77 years ago.

I'm not a huge fan of increasing retirement ages - those who work lower income professions are often those who work harder physical jobs; meaning that their social (in)security support is relatively low, but its more difficult for them to work longer. However, one month movement every two years over the rest of the entire century is exactly the kind of incremental change that allows a program as structured to be sustainable.

If we refuse to change the structure or cut expenditures on upper income earners, then we are very likely going to end up raising the retirement age, as that will be seen as preferrable to a sudden cut of benefits to current retirees (which is the current plan).

Again, you want to ignore parts of his 'plan' and then pretend that those parts you want to ignore don't say something about the rest, what his priorities were, why the plan failed.

I mostly want the willingness to engage the issue realistically and attempt to find actual solutions that aren't just doubling down on tax-and-spend-and-increase-the-size-of-government-beyond-sustainability.

We aren't going to be able to pay for our entitlements as currently structured. It's not going to happen. Even back when marginal tax rates were in the 90's, we didn't get enough revenue as a % of GDP to cover what is coming. We had easier options a decade ago - now our options are far more constrained, and uglier. We will have even worse options a decade from now.

And, we will wait until then. Because we are stupid.

 

[cpwill]

WORK HARDER AND LONGER!!! is not my idea of 'peace' for those workers.

Full Disclosure: my own preference would be to switch to a system that would allow lower-income workers to keep retiring at 67 (the current age) or even earlier, with financial independence.

However, between waiting until 70 for full benefits, or having those benefits cut by a quarter or a third (the current plan), I'm thinking that the former is less-destructive.

 

[MTAtech]

No way does the Federal government spend more on Education than Defense. I'm pretty sure what you have there is all government spending (Federal, State, Local) combined.

Good catch. That’s all government spending.

 

[MTAtech]

Actually, it seems my understanding is out of date. With Trump on the scene, the GOP advantage among seniors was pared to 52%/47%

Republicans really need to bolster support among Black and Latino elders, or they're going to lose that age demographic. Given that Blacks in particular have lower lifetime earnings (and thus lower SocSec entitlements) they may have to do something quite out of character, and look after poor elders better.

More likely Democrats do that first, and Republicans play to their base (White elders). Because though it's dumb, the politics of division do actually work for Republicans. They can always say "Social Security isn't meant to be a pension scheme, it's insurance" to justify paying out more to rich elders (disproportionately White) and thus buying their votes.

Both sides engage in voter buying of course. I'm just ruminating on what a good strategy would be, and contrasting that with what the stupid GOP will actually do.

Ezra Klein has a great piece.

Three Reasons the Republican Party Keeps Coming Apart at the Seams​

 

[ColdHardTruth]

There is no raid. People began living longer and population growth began to stagnate.

There was actually. Reagan wanted an anti-missile defense system called "Strategic Defense Initiative (star wars for short) and the only way he was able to pay for it was to steal funds from social security.

A Day of Shame​

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.

Ronald Reagan And The Great Social Security Heist | FedSmith.com

The author says that the Social Security amendments passed under Reagan's presidency laid the foundation for 30 years of embezzlement of the trust funds.

www.fedsmith.com

It's happening in every developed country.

Social security is plagued by demographics.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Good catch. That’s all government spending.

I don't usually have much praise for local government, but at least they fund education.

Plain nationalism dictates that we move education funding away from local government (to State, or Federal, I'm OK with either) because it's the poor school districts which are dragging school averages down. And it's not just about parading good numbers: opening opportunities to every school student will improve the quality of all our professions, from plumbers to solicitors.

 

[poweRob]

This is my way to give Mr. McCarthy a if he truly means it while I also sport this look about his promise "to scrutinize every dollar spent" under his recognition that there is "no plan yet".


ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kevin-mccarthy-says-republicans-will-protect-social-security-what-s-that-mean/ar-AA16jHWH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=98a4327c6d7f4fda86683c449df405f8
“One thing I will tell you, as Republicans, we will always protect Medicare and Social Security,” McCarthy said in response to a question from HuffPost on Thursday. “We will protect them for the next generation going forward. But we are going to scrutinize every single dollar spent.”

Everybody in Washington wants to “protect” or “strengthen” Medicare and Social Security; it’s a perfectly anodyne statement that a member of any party could utter at any time without thinking.

McCarthy’s answer suggests that Republicans have no plan yet and that his biggest challenge will be trying to get his fractious caucus — which only elected him leader on the 15th ballot — to settle on a unified list of demands.

They are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this like usual. While he's saying this, republicans can't stop going in front of cameras and making excuses as to why they are attacking SS. And of course, like always, it's the worker's fault.

 

[CaughtInThe]

everyone bookmark this thread.

 

[Davin]

The only way to protect Medicare and SS is to make congress participants of it instead of their golden parachute coverage they get now.

 

[cpwill]

This from the same party that actually tried their hardest to privatize social security? lol!

Which, to be fair, would provide far - far - better results.

 

[bomberfox]

Which would provide far - far - results.

Not in the plan in which they made it which would have required investment in a stock market that is often less safe than what SS already invested in. The compulsory investment was still there, just instead of safer investments, the things we paid into would have been in private hands. Im ok with the commons. I remember rejecting it even as a libertarian.

 

[Helix]

The only thing standing between the Republican party and destroying these programs is a strategy that doesn't involve them getting horribly punished at the polls because of it.

 

[cpwill]

Not in the plan in which they made it which would have required investment in a stock market that is often less safe than what SS already invested in. The compulsory investment was still there.

So, I went and ran the numbers on that for every age cohort since the end of WWII. You can take the lowest scoring cohort, give them years of unemployment, keep them way below median income, and have their retirement year feature two back-to-back 2008-style market meltdowns, and they would still do better with private investment than current social (in)security payments.

For gen pop though? The math isn't even in the same ballpark. Private investment far and away outstrips OASI. :-/

 

[bomberfox]

So, I went and ran the numbers on that for every age cohort since the end of WWII. You can take the lowest scoring cohort, give them years of unemployment, keep them way below median income, and have their retirement year feature two back-to-back 2008-style market meltdowns, and they would still do better with private investment than current social (in)security payments.

For gen pop though? The math isn't even in the same ballpark. Private investment far and away outstrips OASI. :-/

It still would have REQUIRED investment in private markets that fluctuate more often than social security. Ill go back and look at your thread a bit later.

I’ve actually looked up current investments that are part of my employment package and currently all but a few options had me losing 20+ percent.

 

[cpwill]

It still would have REQUIRED investment in private markets that fluctuate more often than social security. Ill go back and look at your thread a bit later.

As did my proposal; you have to require investments, just as today we require FICA taxes. I look forward to your input in the thread .

I’ve actually looked up current investments that are part of my employment package and currently all but a few options had me losing 20+ percent.

They do fluctuate more; indeed. They also grow far, far, more, and, over a working lifetime, that is by far the more important factor.

 

[notquiteright]

This is exactly what the government should do. Take a hard look at every dime spent. We are wasting trillions of dollars and the people spending it just flat don't care. They spend it as if it is their money and they are Billionaires. It's not their money and they are not spending their money they are spending ours.

I don't see the Republicant's as the party that will take a hard look at anything but Social Security and Medicare. I don't see the American people putting up with that...

The Republicant's have controlled all branches of government far longer than the democrats and our deficit was 27 trillion BEFORE Biden took office. I don't see them balancing anything in a decade (or ever)...

 

[bomberfox]

Ill look into it again but i remember it raising red flags.

 

[bomberfox]

As did my proposal; you have to require investments, just as today we require FICA taxes. I look forward to your input in the thread .



They do fluctuate more; indeed. They also grow far, far, more, and, over a working lifetime, that is by far the more important factor.

Public ownership is the important factor. Its requiring the purchase of private goods which seems to contrast from the objections to obamacare. .

Im not sure if i should share the investment options specifically in my regard so i will leave out the specifics.

 

[cpwill]

Public ownership is the important factor. Its requiring the purchase of private goods which seems to contrast from the objections to obamacare. .

Im not sure if i should share the investment options specifically in my regard so i will leave out the specifics.

It requires private investment, certainly, as providing a better result than State "investment".

Rough numbers v specific fund names are fine . It's been an ugly down year across the market - your options there are roughly in line with the S&P 500.

 

[bomberfox]

It requires private investment, certainly, as providing a better result than State "investment".

Rough numbers v specific fund names are fine . It's been an ugly down year across the market - your options there are roughly in line with the S&P 500.

Well investment is investment. I tend to not differentiate. Ill give rough numbers to see if i am reading it right.

 

[ouch]

everyone bookmark this thread.

The Dem Party will have the expected chance to use McCarthy's own words in a strong campaign ad if and when the T-GOP guts SS and Medicare preparing the next generation going forward as they do what they may do to the other current generations trying to exist. His words will be extremely difficult to honor. “One thing I will tell you, as Republicans, we will always protect Medicare and Social Security,” “We will protect them for the next generation going forward." What they need to realize is it's the next generation going forward expecting to being securely raised, and, or assisted in life under their parents and grandparents help, in which will more than likely be deeply effected by any SS and Medicare cuts during such difficult times - thus also effecting the "next generation" in real time - day by day.