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

[cpwill]

Remember the whole Kyle Bass fiasco?

Why don't you show us?

That's pretty old analysis. If i remember correctly, the S.S. trust fund depletion was moved up to 2034 because of a rebound in employment and FICA revenue.

Why is it providing poorly? It's doing exactly as it was intended..

People can already invest in private retirement accounts.

Production collapsed.

See above. You're not being honest here, and this type of confusion continues to make its rounds as a result of people who should know better attempting to sound off.

Wait. Are you an MMTer?

 

[Kushinator]

Wait. Are you an MMTer?

MMT'ers believe in sectoral balance theory of growth nonsense.

Remember when you and a few others were obsessed with Kyle Bass and believed Japan was going to face some sort of currency crisis like 8 years ago? What was the fanboy terminology again... oh yeah the debt time bomb.

 

[poweRob]

Fox "news" doing their part to help sell Republicans notion that people should work longer.

If you retire early, you could be harming your health: new study

A new study done by researchers at Binghamton University, State University of New York, suggests that early retirement may accelerate cognitive decline in late adulthood. Here are the details.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Peter]

Fox "news" doing their part to help sell Republicans notion that people should work longer.

If you retire early, you could be harming your health: new study

A new study done by researchers at Binghamton University, State University of New York, suggests that early retirement may accelerate cognitive decline in late adulthood. Here are the details.

www.foxnews.com

Yep, it's always nice to see the pampered stars of Fox who will no doubt retire early urging manual workers keep working until they drop.

Yep, how dare the poor and middle class enjoy the fruits of their labour in early and all that matters is share price so keep workingso the rich can get even richer and not have to worry about paying the pensions people worked for.

 

[LouC]

Yep, it's always nice to see the pampered stars of Fox who will no doubt retire early urging manual workers keep working until they drop.

Yep, how dare the poor and middle class enjoy the fruits of their labour in early and all that matters is share price so keep workingso the rich can get even richer and not have to worry about paying the pensions people worked for.

 

[mrjurrs]

Since the 1960's when Medicare started, how many times have Republicans reduced benefits?

I don't know, how many times have they threatened to do so?

 

[cpwill]

Remember the whole Kyle Bass fiasco?

I do indeed remember the Kyle Bass dustup. Do you know what the definition of a "Red Herring Fallacy" is?

Why don't you show us?

Well, you're the one who's studied this stuff. You tell us - when interest rates rise, what happens to the cost of borrowing? Does it go down? Or up?

That's pretty old analysis. If i remember correctly, the S.S. trust fund depletion was moved up to 2034 because of a rebound in employment and FICA revenue.

Given that what we are talking about is whether or not the program is guaranteed and stable to continue paying out what it's been paying out, that's a bit of a distinction without a difference. The cut is still scheduled, and it is still coming to today's retirees. That we have to combine the OASI fund with SDI to get to 2034, if that is what you are referring to, is not a feature, but a bug.

Why is it providing poorly?

Because it is structured badly for our needs.

It's doing exactly as it was intended.

It's doing exactly as it is designed. Intended..... would you say that it was intended to give the most to those who need it the least while leaving lower income workers still in or near poverty?

If the intent of the program is to suppress savings and levy a tax that falls heaviest on the middle and lower income strata in order to provide the largest checks to upper income retirees, while leaving lower income retirees near or in poverty, then, I suspect that's a program that's ripe for re-furbishing and re-directing, if not outright re-moval.

People can already invest in private retirement accounts.

People with good disposable income can. Too bad we take that away from them in FICA taxes and suppress savings via OASI, making it harder for them to do so, and less likely that they will manage :-/

Production collapsed.

See above. You're not being honest here, and this type of confusion continues to make its rounds as a result of people who should know better attempting to sound off.

This is an anonymous forum with a bunch of us idiots screaming into the void where no one of import will hear or do anything based on anything we say, ever. Nothing here is worth being dishonest over. The idea that we can - ad infinitum - always print more money to cover any gap whatsoever without massive negative impacts is foolish at an epic level.

 

[Kushinator]

I do indeed remember the Kyle Bass dustup. Do you know what the definition of a "Red Herring Fallacy" is?

It's a matter of refusal to learn from previous mistakes. The same narrative continues to arise in these types of discussions... because somehow this time it's different!

You tell us - when interest rates rise, what happens to the cost of borrowing? Does it go down? Or up?

How much has interest expense increased (is expected to increase)? It is your point after all. I will note that inflation has washed away roughly 10% - 13% of all debt in the span of 2 years.

The cut is still scheduled, and it is still coming to today's retirees. That we have to combine the OASI fund with SDI to get to 2034, if that is what you are referring to, is not a feature, but a bug.

You're still peddling old news. Nobody expected tax revenue to explode to the degree that it did in 2021 / 2022, and the growth in revenue still has not made its way into longer term budget projections.

Because it is structured badly for our needs.

That's a tautology.

It's doing exactly as it is designed. Intended..... would you say that it was intended to give the most to those who need it the least while leaving lower income workers still in or near poverty?

Stop with the semantics! We cannot deny the program's success when it comes to alleviating elderly poverty. That was the intent... that higher lifetime earners need less is another subject all together.

If the intent of the program is to suppress savings

This is another instance of missing the forest for the trees. Savings rates naturally decline as income grows (on a national level). Alleviation of poverty, and an 800%+ increase in real disposable income per capita will have that kind of impact.

Your article does not even attempt to claim S.S. is the cause. Try again!

Nothing here is worth being dishonest over.

I'm sure we've had this discussion before. Is it a refusal to learn?

The idea that we can - ad infinitum - always print more money to cover any gap whatsoever without massive negative impacts is foolish at an epic level.

Eventually it can reach a point where government spending crowds out private investment. But we've yet to see this happen. If and when it does, the ramifications will not be like throwing a lobster into a pot of boiling water. More along the lines of throwing it in a pot of water and slowing reaching that boiling point.

Some mega crisis reminiscent of some poorly written Ayn Rand novel is HIGHLY unlikely.

 

[cpwill]

It's a matter of refusal to learn from previous mistakes

On the contrary - Bass (who had been right when so many others were wrong on the previous major debt crises), was clearly incorrect on that one, and I was incorrect for accepting his analysis.

Everyone has been wrong at some point - and, agreed, I was certainly wrong, there .

However, to try to use that as some kind of answer here is a red herring fallacy.

The same narrative continues to arise in these types of discussions... because somehow this time it's different!

It's not the same narrative, however, I agree that the status of the U.S. OASI and Medicare trust funds are indeed a separate issue, and thus, different .

How much has interest expense increased (is expected to increase)?

Ah. So, it goes up, then. ?

It is your point after all. I will note that inflation has washed away roughly 10% - 13% of all debt in the span of 2 years.

That instead of being paid down is being refinanced - along with new debt that is ~27% of GDP - at the newer, higher interest rates.

You're pretty smart. My mortgage is currently at 2.75%, and it has increased in value since I purchased it. If I refinance it at 7%, and take out a home equity loan that puts my house underwater at 7.5% to buy a bunch of consumer items, am I fiscally better off, or worse off?

I know, I know "the government is not like your house budget because the government is immortal". No, it's not - nothing on this earth is immortal, outside of some religious claims involving the human soul - but the underlying rule here is the same; when you are rolling over and dramatically expanding your debt, higher interest rates hurt, vice help.

You're still peddling old news. Nobody expected tax revenue to explode to the degree that it did in 2021 / 2022, and the growth in revenue still has not made its way into longer term budget projections.

We don't have the tax data for 2022 yet, though hopefully you are correct. However, even if it pushes Medicare all the way back to 2027, and OASI all the way back to 2034, that doesn't change the fact that claiming these programs are "stable" is incorrect, nor does it alter the fact that they are currently scheduled under the current plan to begin sharply decreasing benefits to current seniors.

That's a tautology.

Eh tautology is a repetition in different words. Poorly designed programs and systems can still provide adequately.

Stop with the semantics! We cannot deny the program's success when it comes to alleviating elderly poverty. That was the intent...

Social Security very likely did have such an immediate term impact. If you made 2 years of payments and got 20 years of benefits, you did quite well indeed. Now its impact is, unfortunately, negative relative to a scenario where those monies were invested, instead, and the benefit of reducing poverty is poorly achieved because we continue to pay more benefits to the wealthy and fewer to the poor.

that higher lifetime earners need less is another subject all together.

On the contrary, that we give the most to those who need it the least and the least to those who need it the most is directly part of OASI's structure.

This is another instance of missing the forest for the trees. Savings rates naturally decline as income grows (on a national level). Alleviation of poverty, and an 800%+ increase in real disposable income per capita will have that kind of impact.

Now that is an interesting discussion, but it seems we would suffer from a paucity of counter examples. Do you have some good comparative analysis with modern nations who have not created socialized old-age-pension like programs, which would allow us to tease that out?

Your article does not even attempt to claim S.S. is the cause. Try again!

It's not exactly a new point.

 

[cpwill]

I'm sure we've had this discussion before. Is it a refusal to learn?

Perhaps so, however, my point stands - nothing here is worth being dishonest over.

Eventually it can reach a point where government spending crowds out private investment. But we've yet to see this happen.

Oh sure - we are far from the scenario I painted. My point was simply that the claim that there was no point at which we could not endlessly just print more money to make our selves ever wealthier was wrong. Eventually, yes, the system breaks. Yes, you can destroy the value of your own currency.

If and when it does, the ramifications will not be like throwing a lobster into a pot of boiling water. More along the lines of throwing it in a pot of water and slowing reaching that boiling point.

Either way, not so good for the lobster, eh?

 

[Kushinator]

However, to try to use that as some kind of answer here is a red herring fallacy.

This time it's different.

Ah. So, it goes up, then. ?

As does revenue, expenditure, etc..... Furthermore, i highly doubt interest rates will be at these levels much longer. The 10 year Treasury is still trading at around 3.5% with a Fed Funds Rate that's effectively 4.33%.

That instead of being paid down is being refinanced - along with new debt that is ~27% of GDP - at the newer, higher interest rates.

Debt is never paid down. It continues to be rolled over and over with new debt issuance. Interest expense is paid for with additional debt issuance.

I know, I know "the government is not like your house budget

Households do not create the money used to pay their expenses. You should know better.

but the underlying rule here is the same; when you are rolling over and dramatically expanding your debt, higher interest rates hurt, vice help.

This can eventually happen... but it's not some catastrophic event like what happened to Greece.

We don't have the tax data for 2022 yet

We know that revenue increased by more than $850 billion for FY 2022.

However, even if it pushes Medicare all the way back to 2027, and OASI all the way back to 2034, that doesn't change the fact that claiming these programs are "stable" is incorrect

Any program can face instability by political decree.

View attachment 67433525

You are aware that Feldstein's work has largely been invalidated due to ambiguity of assumptions and a basic computational error? I would hope the authors of that paper were more careful when drafting their conclusions. There is way better research available if you're so inclined. You'll find that Australia, or example, has lower personal savings rates than other OECD nations while being far less reliant on public insurance.

nothing here is worth being dishonest over.

I would imagine you cite the Feldstein research, not because you've found it in a blaze of personal study, but because it tends to support your belief system. After all, he has been a most vocal advocate of S.S. privatization.

My point was simply that the claim that there was no point at which we could not endlessly just print more money to make our selves ever wealthier was wrong. Eventually, yes, the system breaks. Yes, you can destroy the value of your own currency.

You are attacking a strawman. It's a more eloquent way of arguing, "why don't we just give everyone $1 million and everyone will be millionaires".

Either way, not so good for the lobster, eh?

That's assuming nothing is done in the future to address structural imbalances.

But this time, it's different?

 

[cpwill]

This time it's different.

I was also wrong (much to my regret) when I thought in 2015 that Trump had virtually no chance of winning the Presidency. That, also, does not have any bearing here to the question of whether or not the federal government can literally print money ad infinitum, which was the claim being discussed.

So, different country, different topics, different parameters so.... yes, though I don't know what you think the "it" is. Do you think the fact that Bass was wrong about Japanese sovereign debt means it is impossible for countries to print money to the point where their currency collapses?

As does revenue, expenditure, etc.....

Sure, but, since we are continuing to run a (large) deficit, those items don't really reduce our debt burden, especially not to the point of overwhelming the increased costs that are a result of higher interest rates.

Furthermore, i highly doubt interest rates will be at these levels much longer.

That will be excellent if so. However, you also argued that inflation had peaked in May of 2022, and were assuring us in June of 2021 that the inflation we were seeing then was merely "a transitory period as the market digests stimulus and supply chain disruption." and that "By the 4th quarter of 2021, we should see inflation fall considerably on the basis of headline and core."

So, whereas I was wrong to believe Bass' predictions about Japanese sovereign debt about a decade or so ago, you have - respectfully - been consistently incorrect on this actual topic. I hope you are right this time for our country's sake but, we dont' know yet.

Debt is never paid down. It continues to be rolled over and over with new debt issuance. Interest expense is paid for with additional debt issuance.

Households do not create the money used to pay their expenses. You should know better.

Okay, but the question was - is an entity put into a better situation fiscally if it increases its debt load while also rolling over debt at higher interest rates? You and I both know that the answer is "no".

This can eventually happen...

Indeed it can, which is why the argument put forward (that there was no limit) was incorrect.

We know that revenue increased by more than $850 billion for FY 2022.

Thanks for that source - that's good to see. I can't see where it states that numbers are adjusted for inflation, only that they are "not seasonally adjusted". Do you happen to know?

 

[cpwill]

Any program can face instability by political decree.

And the current political decree makes the benefits these programs are offering unstable and guaranteed to reduce, which is why it is not fully correct to describe them as stable and guaranteed to stay at current levels or grow.

You are aware that Feldstein's work has largely been invalidated due to ambiguity of assumptions and a basic computational error? I would hope the authors of that paper were more careful when drafting their conclusions.

I am aware that you claimed in post 133 that "Your article does not even attempt to claim S.S. is the cause," and that you were wrong And, now, because I posted a picture of you being incorrect about that particular, you are shifting goalposts.... which is interesting, given that it was you who accused me of dishonesty.

There is way better research available if you're so inclined. You'll find that Australia, or example, has lower personal savings rates than other OECD nations while being far less reliant on public insurance.

I happen to like the Australian example - but this paper here is failing to account for Australian's 9-12% savings going into their privatized retirement accounts.

I would imagine you cite the Feldstein research, not because you've found it in a blaze of personal study, but because it tends to support your belief system. After all, he has been a most vocal advocate of S.S. privatization.

It's a better system, so, good for him.

You are attacking a strawman.

I am not. The argument put forth in post 110 (which is what I was responding to) was that there was no limit. The point I made was that yes, reality would impose such a limit.

Now, if you want to point out that we are nowhere near that currently - sure, absolutely. But the argument being made was that the limit didn't exist.

That's assuming nothing is done in the future to address structural imbalances.

You are the one who came up with the Lobster analogy. I agree - and either way, the lobster gets cooked. Perhaps we should stop raising the heat.

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

This from the guy that claims that "...integrity matters to me."

Bullshite.

 

[reflechissez]

Yes, and fork them.

I would submit that Americans have the exact retirement and medical benefits that members of the House and Senate have.

They have the exact retirement and medical benefits that all other government employees have.

 

[Risky Thicket]

They do not receive the same medical benefits that federal employees have. Executive Medicine at Walter Reed for starters but there is more and in fact more proposed.

 

[bomberfox]

What ****ing liars Republicans are

Oh my gah. These people only exist to please the bosses and execs. Its like they want a workers revolution. Thats what would have happened if not for pro worker reforms.

 

[poweRob]

Oh my gah. These people only exist to please the bosses and execs. Its like they want a workers revolution.

I mean Ron Johnson is on video saying he wants to coax retirees back to work. These con politicians statements never reach all those old right wing retirees ears. Or else they'd become left wingers in a heartbeat.

 

[bomberfox]

I mean Ron Johnson is on video saying he wants to coax retirees back to work. These con politicians statements never reach all those old right wing retirees ears. Or else they'd become left wingers in a heartbeat.

Like heres the point also that really shows their idiocy. Lots of employers are laying off employees even in times of record profitability. We are entering a new era of robber barons.

 

[Kushinator]

That, also, does not have any bearing here to the question of whether or not the federal government can literally print money ad infinitum, which was the claim being discussed.

You've turned it into a strawman.

Do you think the fact that Bass was wrong about Japanese sovereign debt means it is impossible for countries to print money to the point where their currency collapses?

What does this even mean though? Give me a hypothetical example of what you're describing.

Sure, but, since we are continuing to run a (large) deficit, those items don't really reduce our debt burden, especially not to the point of overwhelming the increased costs that are a result of higher interest rates.

The deficit was actually just under $1 trillion for FY 2022 (if we adjust for student loan charge offs), which is nothing short of miraculous given that it was $984 billion for FY 2019. I'm just not understanding the concern.

However, you also argued that inflation had peaked in May of 2022

The YoY CPI peaked in June 2022.

and were assuring us in June of 2021 that the inflation we were seeing then was merely "a transitory period as the market digests stimulus and supply chain disruption." and that "By the 4th quarter of 2021, we should see inflation fall considerably on the basis of headline and core."

I wasn't able to predict Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Would you like it if i apologized for being off by about 6 months because i didn't foresee the worlds second largest energy producer invading its neighbor.

However, i'll take the 6 month buffer any day of the week.

So, whereas I was wrong to believe Bass' predictions about Japanese sovereign debt about a decade or so ago, you have - respectfully - been consistently incorrect on this actual topic.

I've been pretty damn accurate about an imprecise measurement of inflation.

 

[Kushinator]

is an entity put into a better situation fiscally if it increases its debt load while also rolling over debt at higher interest rates?

It's more complicated than that.

Indeed it can, which is why the argument put forward (that there was no limit) was incorrect.

Crowding out private investment is going to be an economic risk, as is the opportunity cost of not crowding in private investment without enough public expenditure. This happens especially during times of economic contraction, where investment dries up because businesses are unsure of the immediate timeline, and it's why economic stabilization policy is so important.

Thanks for that source - that's good to see. I can't see where it states that numbers are adjusted for inflation

Adjusting for inflation is a bit more tricky as it's a little noisy (FY does not begin at the same time as the indexing reference) and not really necessary because we can always create a ratio to GDP to give more of a historic comparison. However, if you're interested, you can use the same method the BEA uses to calculate real GDP by using the deflator.

only that they are "not seasonally adjusted"

This fiscal year data and wouldn't need to be adjusted for seasonality.

And the current political decree makes the benefits these programs are offering unstable and guaranteed to reduce, which is why it is not fully correct to describe them as stable and guaranteed to stay at current levels or grow.

If that's your position, then basically everything is not stable.

I am aware that you claimed in post 133 that "Your article does not even attempt to claim S.S. is the cause," and that you were wrong And, now, because I posted a picture of you being incorrect about that particular, you are shifting goalposts.... which is interesting, given that it was you who accused me of dishonesty.

This isn't the Feldstein paper. His research has largely been discredited for the reasons i have provided.

I happen to like the Australian example - but this paper here is failing to account for Australian's 9-12% savings going into their privatized retirement accounts.

I don't see how your reply is of any consequence:

~All in all, it would appear that in these countries over recent years, ‘active’ saving (that is, through traditional means of setting aside a portion of current income) has been increasingly supplanted by ‘passive’ saving (that is, using valuation gains, either realised or unrealised) as a means of accumulating wealth.~

Now, if you want to point out that we are nowhere near that currently - sure, absolutely. But the argument being made was that the limit didn't exist.

The argument was made that government doesn't run out of it's own money, and not some strawman where giving everyone $1 million / billion / trillion would create an instance where government wouldn't be able to meet it's liabilities.

I agree - and either way, the lobster gets cooked. Perhaps we should stop raising the heat.

Maybe maybe not. It is important to remember that things can change when you least expect it.

 

[poweRob]

Like heres the point also that really shows their idiocy. Lots of employers are laying off employees even in times of record profitability. We are entering a new era of robber barons.

All these layoffs and I'm old enough to remember just earlier this year all the "NO ONE WANTS TO WORK" chants coming from the same robber barrons then reiterated by the right wing echo chamber for a robber barron assist.

 

[bomberfox]

All these layoffs and I'm old enough to remember just earlier this year all the "NO ONE WANTS TO WORK" chants coming from the same robber barrons then reiterated by the right wing echo chamber for a robber barron assist.

Everything they do is designed to enrich the already wealthy. Their latest tax bullshit it designed to raise the cost of everything we buy during an inflationary period.. dinguses. The kokh brothers are only for the freedom of the aristocracy.

 

[poweRob]

Everything they do is designed to enrich the already wealthy. Their latest tax bullshit it designed to raise the cost of everything we buy during an inflationary period.. dinguses. The kokh brothers are only for the freedom of the aristocracy.

EVERYTHING they do is to enrich their donors. All the culture war shit, that is all a distraction. They know if they get their base mad enough they will always be reactionary to their culture war opposition no matter the policy. That's how they slide unpopular tax cuts for the rich and any other enrich the rich policies through. By keeping their base angry and reactionary.

 

[ouch]

This from the guy that claims that "...integrity matters to me."

Bullshite.

Here we are, 5 months later and a day after into the 11th hour with the MAGA GOP doing their best to crap all over the debt ceiling only for Speaker McCarthy to promise this.

McCarthy takes aim at Social Security, Medicare after debt deal

McCarthy intends to announce a bipartisan "commission" to examine ways to cut vital programs.

www.salon.com

After securing a debt ceiling agreement that caps federal spending and threatens food aid for hundreds of thousands of poor adults, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy made clear Wednesday that Republicans are not finished targeting the nation's safety net programs—and signaled a coming effort by the GOP to slash Social Security and Medicare.

In a Fox News appearance ahead of the House's passage of the debt limit legislation, McCarthy, R-Calif., said the measure is just "the first step" of the GOP's broader agenda, which includes further cuts to federal programs and massive tax breaks for the wealthy.