McConnell Blames Entitlements, Not GOP, for Rising Deficits

*******

I said the starvation reference to a post claiming starvation in America

You put words in my mouth then call me unhinged?

On the French Revolution

Let them eat cake

 

Greater *******

You were the one who said "starvation" and "french revolution"

She never said it. Google should be your friend.

BTW, you have come unhinged, apparently. The atypical loss of temper is a pretty big giveaway. If I didn't know better I'd think that your account been hacked.

 

Only an arrogant ******* would claim the
French Revolution isn't about what we all learned in school

 

Only an arrogant ******* would claim the
French Revolution isn't about what we all learned in school

 

Good thoughtful post. We can (and I would say we have to) cut way back on SS and HHS. And I would need to analyze Medicare more before I would say we can't cut it either.

Before he passed, my father was moved over to Medicare Advantage. I wonder how many here know what this is. We didn't before he was placed on it.

Turns out, Medicare Advantage is a program where the feds turn over particular accounts to a private insurance company to handle. So, the Feds say (for example) to United Healthcare, "here's $500,000 for Mr. Jones's health care costs. You don't get anymore from us, for him. See if you can make a profit." And of course, the insurance companies are happy to try.

The point of this is: it is my understanding (told to me by my father) that what Medicare Advantage is, is a way for the Feds to stop the hemorrhaging on Medicare. By giving a set amount of $ to an insurance company to handle, the Feds can say "no more payments than this amount" -- because they don't handle it anymore.

It was our understanding from this that the Feds did this for the reason that otherwise, they can't stop themselves from spending.

So from all this, I can't say that I would agree that Medicare can't be cut.

 

@Ottomaton

On being hacked

Ive always thought you were knowledgeable and arrogant

You're proving im the real pgabriel right now

 

Well, I disagree with many of the premises of your post.

Certainly, the politicians would "pay" politically for going against "geezer power," but it's going to have be done at some point. The question is: when, if ever, will the retired and elderly (and others that take government benefits) see that they are bankrupting the nation for the following generations?

If a person depends on the government for the largest part of their retirement, then I would certainly say that that person is not being very wise. I would put it that way. Really, it's best not to depend on the government for anything, if you don't have to. And the extent that you "have to" should be minimized.

Here's a few other things: you didn't come out and say this, but it seems evident in your comments: "people have been paying into these systems their whole lives, it's their money." I had a buddy say this to me the other day.

But:

--people are taking out way more than they put in. That's a big reason for the deficits and growing debt.

--OTOH, let's say I'm wrong: people are only taking out only as much as they put in. If that's the case, then why do you (or they) need the government? You (or they) had the money in the first place. Why do they need the government to take it away from them when working, only to give it back later?

The 1% argument is just...."I can't even." The 1% or the top 10% were paying a hugely disproportionate part of the taxes, prior to the Trump tax cut. Maybe the difference is that I don't view the rich as evil. (And no, I don't count myself among them.) A person once said to me: "Has a poor person ever given you a job?" Well no, they haven't. Usually it's someone wealthy or a corporation that does that. (Unless you are an entrepreneur; and even then your clients are almost of necessity people with money.)

I've spoke to the defense spending issue elsewhere in this thread I think. SS, Medicare and Medicaid account for 67% of federal spending. They are the elephants in the room.

 

Not sure how the French Revolution got into this thread, but maybe it's just as well.

Here's another thought: there are those here (and elsewhere) who are saying "Trump's tax cuts are increasing the deficit! He's not cutting any spending! He's fiscally irresponsible! Impeach! etc..."

What if: Trump knew that the tax cut would make the economy white hot, as perhaps we have never seen in our lifetimes (and I think this is the case), but he also knew that that tax cut would increase the deficit, at least in the short term?

What if he also knew that it's very politically hard to make spending cuts? (As it seems anyone in DC would know.)

Then, perhaps, the new "alarmist" reports come out about the increasing deficit -- and they provide the political cover to reduce spending? And maybe....making such spending cuts would not have been politically possible otherwise?

Trump, you magnificent *&%$#. Playing chess indeed.

 

I don’t post here often but read regularly. I don’t get the thinking of cutting taxes then cutting the budget, it seems backwards to me. That’s like you create a problem to solve rather than solving a problem.

Look taxes are necessary to maintain our country. People have been paying into these programs for years and you are going to limit their access? I have a pension from work where I contribute each month. I contribute less to it than social security and will receive almost double from it. So don’t act like people are getting too much from social security.

You want to get serious about the deficit. Raise taxes and cut spending. Come on Republicans you have total control of the government be fiscally responsible and make it happen.

 

No, you are wrong. People starve in the United States and die from it. It's mostly children if that matters.

 

I'm amazed that people who think of themselves as intelligent continue to go down the idiotic rabbit hole of cutting the entitlements for people who have paid in to them their entire lives so that assholes can continue to get tax cuts. It's revolting.

Hey idiots, do you know how to solve entitlements? Stop using that money as a slush fund for other things and stop cutting taxes for people that don't need tax cuts. Problem solved.

 

Signed,
An ******* that would want to more than double spending

 

Prove it

You have a low opinion of Americans if you think we let people starve

 

If people starve to death, it is statistically insignificant, similar to death by lightning strike.

Also, most of the starvation deaths are as you said, children and more specifically infants where availability of food isn't the problem. It's death by neglect.

 

You’re gonna have to prove that. The food insecurity thing isn’t simply lack of food. It has a component of access to nutritious food in it. I also didn’t see how exactly they compiled their data. It certainly doesn’t make intuitive sense with what I see on a daily basis. I certainly can’t remember anytime in my life when I’ve seen people or kids starving in America. Further, as you move further down in income the greater the obesity and diabetes rates are.

I can’t find anywhere that shows children dying or suffering from starvation or malnutrition in America unless they were tortured or abused. I can find cancer and AIDS victims suffering and dying to those things. I can find lots of articles and studies discussing childhood obesity. We know this is a major problem. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html

If you can show me some good data to the contrary I’d love to see it but I simply can’t find anything that supports what you are saying.

 

SS and Medicare have always been Pay As You Go. The current working generation has always paid for the current retirees.

If switched to a more "forced IRA" SS, there would have to be a transition period and the people who are just entering the work force when the law goes into effect would be the first ones to retire with SS being 100% their money. BTW this is a tragically bad idea. Wall Street would find a way to enrich themselves at the expense of the retirees.

What I did come out and say is that the federal government has made a promise to the workers who have paid into SS their entire working life.

There will be SS reform in the not-so-distant future. The two most likely changes are to increase SS deductions and to tax the SS benefits more aggressively for higher "earners".

 

I remember from years and years ago you seemed like a nice person.

As the internet ages so do all of us. Some of "us" change as we get older. My advice to you is, you should try to channel a bit of the person that you used to be.

 

when ss came about people lived 4 years on it. Now they live 20 yearscoupled with declining birth rates

It will need a major overhaul

 

At least i dont call people unhinged after saying they said some ish they didn't

All of you giys are sensitive about losing arguments. He made it personal calling me unhinged

Wouldn't give a **** if you don't think my response to him was nice

 

The whole argument is silly.
1. Somebody said starvation doesn't happen in the U.S. That was incorrect it does.
2. I never claimed it was an epidemic.
3. Why is that the argument? Is @pgabriel saying that hunger and malnourishment is okay as long as we don't have tens of thousands of people actually dying from starvation?

We know that there are hunger and malnourishment. That is a real problem.