McCarthy: Democrats Must Cap Spending to Avoid US Debt Default

No, it was DESIGNED and CREATED by bipartisan committees.

It was NOT just "discussed".

And, YES, Republican leadership STATED that they would vote as a block against the ACA on the grounds that then needed to demonstrate their power after their catastrophic election cycle.

There has NEVER been a point in time when healthcare couldn't be addressed by either party.

In fact, there have been a number of improvements made after the ACA was passed into law.

 

the way the GOP wants to "reform" Social Security is to cut benefits, especially benefits to the lower end of the income area where SS and SSI are used for elderly persons.

What can be done is the following: allowing more and more to put into the SS and Medicare systems. This would mean eliminating the pensions on the military and having them pay into SS, similar to what happened in 1986 with the elimination of CERS and putting into FERS. You also need to have 403 and 457 plans modified so that the employee in those programs pay into Social Security. And you need the illegals to also pay into social security by requiring them to pay taxes on the cash they receive for working. Another possibility is to increase the cap on Social Security wages and make them unlimited while capping the max benefit at current levels. In addition to this rule, there needs to be stricter tax laws on stock options and other schemes, probably eliminating them, so that the upper-income class cannot legally avoid paying into social security.

 

Amen!

I'd add that those who are more than 65yo (or whatever the number) and who are making large yearly incomes do not need the support of SS payments. We can decide what "large" means. Maybe it means 10X or 15X median retirement income. If post retirement income is at that level, it can be reasonably construed that the individual has significant additional wealth and does not "need" SS support.

That is, we should look at SS as insurance against need.

As you point out, there are lots of adjustments that can be made to "save" SS.

 

I respect your position.

I'd point out that the pension idea is going away, and there are issues concerning how Americans will afford retirement given soaring healthcare costs, housing costs, etc.

 

In the mid to late 1980s, I read Proceedings Magazine, the UNNI magazine. Occasionally, they would have articles and jokes about the cost of some items. For instance, the cost of a toilet seat on a ship would cost $10,000 in 1985 dollars for instance, or that hammers would cost like $45 a piece while the store at the Ace Hardware Store would cost maybe $5 max. And then there is the M2 Bradley, the concept to replace the M113. And four general later, the cost skyrocketed to three times the original cost because they added systems to the original concept. As a result, the M2 is familiar with everything but an expert at none sort of thing. And it is not even the best IFV out there. Today, with cost overruns already embedded in the Defense contracts, we see the fraud, waste, and abuse firsthand.

 

I wouldnt worry too much about it, if history has proven anything is that mankind loves to fight, and wars are inevitable.. I not to found of this war financing though, "See Ukraine" we clearly could use that around our own neighborhood.

 

Plus, private corporations are moving away from pension plans.

And, I doubt anyone is going to complain about that, given current law and the success corporations have had in raiding those pension funds.

 

The reason were in this unbelievable $31.5 Trillion dollars is there NO! incentive to Budget, it's just Spend Spend Spend and nobody with any guts votes to not raise the debt ceiling. I'm hoping it doesn't get raised, causes an UNBELIEVABLE Ruckus and then when they come back to the table some fiscal sanity can be accomplished. Every American tax payer is burdened with almost $250,000 of a share of this, while the non tax paying government leeches pay nothing. This debt is unsustainable and one way or another it's going to crash our economy. Better to get together and make some common sense concessions instead of going through this nonsense until it topples, because we allowed the fiscal insanity to continue.

 

I have repeatedly stated let's have one but in the meantime China continues to expand it's forces as we are depleting our own stores.

 

What the GOP wants is higher benefits from a better designed system why do you object?

And next you'll want to eliminate IRAs and 401-k's and force people to put all their retirement funds into a government run system?

Increase the amount people pay in then raise their benefit accordingly, it's only fair.

 

It was as they promised and they didn't have to pass it without those alleged cost reductions but THEY DID and bragged about it as it was a total failure. They changed the bill and took out what the Republicans had voice support and that's why it got none. The Reps knew what would be the result and they were correct.

And now the Dems are holding the budget and the credit of the United States hostage refusing to negotiate some fiscal restraint so we stop having to do this constantly.

 

The significant benefits didn't have to do with cost reduction.

So, it seems even YOU knew the result of blocking the cost reductions!! Good for you!

No, it is McCarthy who is doing that, obviously. He even says so. Why would you not listen to the Republican speaker of the House??

 

There is an interesting compromise proposed by the bipartisan bridge builders caucus that could be the tool to end this potential stalemate in a win / win manner.

 

It’s McCarthy who is threatening default.
And there’s a simple solution. Remove the debt cap.
You can still have a conversation about the deficit with the threat of default.

 

Congress inserts provisions such as this into legislation all the time. Democrats pretending they don't and this is a magical bill that cannot have sidebars is beyond absurd. If Democrats are unwilling to have a good faith conversation about our debt when raising the debt ceiling the issue is on them.

 

McCarthy is the one threatening default.

 

Then what WAS the purpose? It was passed knowing the cost to the working people would up DRASTICALLY? They did it on purpose?

 

You know, if federal policy makers and leaders had followed the advice of William Buckley and Milton Friedman 30 years ago, the cartels would possibly not exist today. Had the prohibition been lifted in 1980, and the trade of drugs be retained by pharmacists and other regulated and tax paying entities, the cartels would not have near the $ or success they've had.

 

You will have to have a subscription to read but here is a link to Buckley's reply to the New York Bar association. If you can open and read it make sure that as you read you us Mr. Buckley's voice and canter as your "narrator" as only he could speak the words.

He and Friedman I can well imagine would SUPPORT our efforts to stop the influx on fentyal and to continue that war. And again we are not going to balance the federal budget by stopping all domestic law enforce of which I agree with most decriminalization of non-narcotic drugs.

 

There's no link there, but it's OK. I was a regular watcher of Buckley's NPR show back in the old days. For several years he would hold a formal debate.

There is no rational way to defend prohibition. It simply doesn't work, even when applied for more than a century. Yes, it's great for prisons and police states, but it doesn't really work at stopping crime. Indeed, as we learned with the Volstead Act, it creates crime and corrupts the police. It's a lose-lose situation favored only by the religious busy-bodies who think they are blessed to tell everybody else how to live their lives. Religious busy-bodies were largely responsible for Harrison.

 

Everyone pays into social security in some relationship to their future return. It’s a premium not a tax. The reason for the cap in social security premiums at a certain level is because there is also a cap on benefits received. To raise taxes on the high end without raising the benefit too would turn it into a welfare program.

 

I have at least 3 automobile diseases and have had contact with literally tens of thousands of others across the world. Yes they love their free healthcare, and after listening to how it works from them and their stories, I can't believe people are so stupid as to think things work better here for most people. Yes if you have a lot of paper money things work well in the US, but for most people, studies conclude it does NOT. Also if I heard their stories and couldn't understand how they loved their system I certainly wouldn't expect it to be because I missed something, rather I know better then the people living with said system. Because I can site my personal experience with no specifics as to what my insurance carrier is or what specific plan I buy into. Just know that it was very easy to find affordable adequate healthcare in America.

There you go again quoting bullshit. IF you don't believe me take a look at my story above, since we all know that people can't lie to make up points on the internet, and that personal experiences are the best form of evidence when comparing something with the naunce and complexity of health care.

Look closely and you see that's only if you go by what studies and statistical evidence. We all know something as simple and straightforward as comparing healthcare outcomes between several countries for the can be done with little more than personal experience.

That's America Grapeape love it or leave it!

 

Holy crap. Talk about editing others posts to your political advantage.