He'll "Always Protect" Social Security Until He Doesn't
From the
Washington Examiner:
President Trump said during his State of the Union address that he
would "always protect" Medicare and Social Security, despite saying just
last month that he would be open to cutting the entitlement programs.
In late January, during an interview
with CNBC at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, when Trump
was asked if cuts to entitlements would ever be in consideration, he
answered yes.
“At some point, they will be,” Trump said, before
highlighting U.S. economic growth. “At the right time, we will take a
look at that."
Trump went on to suggest that he would consider cutting
spending on Medicare, the federal government's healthcare program for
the elderly.
“We’re going to look,” he said.
During his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, however, he said the opposite.
"And we will always protect your Medicare, and we will always protect your Social Security. Always," he said. ...
Depends on how you parse it, especially the word "your". Could mean that he will protect Medicare and Social Security for everyone or everyone currently contributing. But the use of "your" could mean that the protection will only extend to those already on Medicare or collecting Social Security. Remember, it's the language of political speak.
ReplyDeleteIt's all speculation. “We’re going to look,” means just that, that they are going to take a look. We already know that these programs are insolvent. I, personally, am worried as a am on SSDI and have been for over 10 years, I need a raise not any cuts. Looking at something is better than a false promise of increasing everyone's SS by $200/ month which would never happen. Let's hope for the best and plan for the worst.
ReplyDeleteThe programs are not insolvent. If you had enough money in the bank to live on for the next 30 years, would you say you were insolvent? No, No other government program is funded so far into the future. All other government programs, including the military, are funded only until the end of the fiscal year. As long as a government program is funded by taxes, it is not "insolvent". As for what Trump says, believe him. Mick Mulvaney has already convinced him the social security disability is not part of "social security". If reelected, Trump will be gunning for all of social security and Medicare.
ReplyDelete@11:45PM
ReplyDelete"Looking at something is better than a false promise of...."
Hmm, if I were in your position, I would think it preferable to cast my vote for a candidate with plans to strengthen the program and increase benefits rather than a candidate whose party is committed to destroying the program, and who claims to have no plans to cut benefits, but is in fact making it harder to qualify for SSD/SSI and surrounding himself with advisors who want to make even bigger cuts. Just two cents from someone who doesn't think living in poverty is worth it as long as I get to watch an orange orangutan do awful things to women and people of color.
Mr. Hall, love the blog but comments like @9:49 above are out of order due to the personal insults. And yes the current president is a leader in the field. SSA cuts are political suicide and should not be taken seriously. Increases are financially unfeasible based on the scope of benefits to 65+ million benes and recipients. This is just scare mongering.
ReplyDelete"Increases are financially unfeasible...."
ReplyDeleteThat's "scare mongering," and only true as long as you feel it's necessary to preserve the ability of individuals to hoard billions of dollars at low tax rates (or tax-free in many cases), and do nothing particularly productive with most of it.
I love how it's just a fact beyond discussion that we can't afford ____ (in this case, increases to SSA benefits). Yet we can increase the defense budget by tens of billions of dollars without any house/senate debate adding to the already ridiculous expenditures without anyone batting an eye.
ReplyDeleteWe can afford lots of things, even with our pathetic taxation system. It's just a matter of what we choose to spend the money on. And it's infuriating that this system, where half of all federal dollars go to the imperialist war machine one way or the other, is beyond question and there's no room to ever lower any of that absurdly large spending--it's just a given.
Use your imaginations and envision a different, better society with different resource allocations you dull, crushed souls!
The military budget is out of control, not social security. The tax cuts merely made it possible for billionaires to store more money they don't need. Raise the cap on self-employment tax and social security tax, and the program will be fine. Watch when some of these billionaire hedge fund folks need a bail out, they will get it without much accountability.
ReplyDelete"Use your imaginations and envision a different, better society with different resource allocations you dull, crushed souls!"
ReplyDeleteOkay, Venezuela is the first that comes to mind. It's a socialist paradise, isn't it? They put all of Bernie Sanders ideas into practice and it worked out wonderfully for them, didn't it?
Perhaps for some context, the DoD budget, not including other agency monies spent of defense-related issues, is over $22K per second. Compare that to the annual Social Security benefit.
ReplyDeleteEvery serious civilized democracy has a public pension plan. To say it's not possible in the wealthiest country in all history is ridiculous. Multi billionaire oligarchs always want to treat the population like it's third world. An intelligent working and middle class would hits the streets and shut the country down over this.
ReplyDeleteAnon 9:58 "Increases are financially unfeasible."
ReplyDeleteHuh? They may not be feasible without some raise in taxes. But like anon 4:23 stated you need to raise the cap on the Social Security tax. That would fix a lot with SSA.
@ 949AM "strengthen the program and increase benefits"
ReplyDeleteStrengthening the program makes sense but has nothing to do with increasing benefits. Increasing benefits (other than COLAs) would require raising the tax rate on everyone. Try and sell that to Congress or anyone who is in political office.
In the last few years the program has been strengthened by cutting out the file and suspend so one's spouse could receive benefits on one's record trick. Only the well off ever took advantage of this ploy. It was good it was done away with.
@5:32 PM
ReplyDeleteWow. You really should consider pulling the Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck/Fox News IV out of your arm for a few minutes. Its causing you to think and say ridiculous things.
@5:32 PM
ReplyDeleteModest tax increases on citizens capable of paying higher tax-rates will not cause the U.S. to experience the societal problems Venezuela has faced in recent decades. Those problems stem from corrupt autocratic leadership of the sort you'd notice is practiced by our current president if you'd look beyond the talking points fed to you by him and his sycophantic lackeys.
Always figured they would move my full retirement and medicare age to 70 making it nearly impossible to get full benefits while blathering about how long people live, but i sure do see the current group of retirements going out before 70. such a deal.
ReplyDelete@5:32
ReplyDeleteAs to Venezuela, I'm not sure anyone is suggesting we shift our entire economy to producing a single commodity (oil), resulting in an economic crisis when the price of said commodity collapses, and also put ourselves in a position where we could be isolated from the global economy on the whims of foreign powers. Neither of these are particularly socialist or capitalist policies, they are just dumb (as to the single commodity economy. Venezuela being isolated isn't really within their control).
@9:05
Yeah, the corruption doesn't help, but plenty of countries have corruption and I don't think that alone will lead to an economic crisis in most cases.