Should GOP Cut Medicare and Social Security This Year?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#1 Posted by mattbbpl (15296 posts) -

The author of this article states that the GOP should cut Medicare and Social Security this year. What's noteable is that he recognizes the political pitfalls of doing so, recognizes that Republicans are in a hole this cycle, and effectively argues that the party should make these cuts while they can/are in peril anyway and punt the midterms in the process.

I'm not as convinced as he appears to be that the GOP is set up to lose the House and/or the Senate, but I found the political gambit interesting. Do you think they should cut these programs, and if so are you willing to punt the midterms to do so?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/04/23/paul-ryan-congress-scale-back-medicare-social-security-year-column/540339002/

Avatar image for sonicare
#2 Posted by sonicare (56023 posts) -

They should visit the tax plan instead. Tax custs are horribly irresponsible at this time.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#3 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (9488 posts) -

They have a good shot considering they control both chambers and the executive branch, however I see a huge collective action problem. The GOP as a whole wants to cut both but they would need to shed even more representatives and senators if they wanted to do so (further detracting from 2020 presidential odds as well). However, no one wants to be the elected official risking re-election. Self preservation is a natural instinct for politicians and I doubt many of them are eager to put their heads on the chopping block.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#4 Posted by mattbbpl (15296 posts) -

@sonicare: Yeah, but that won't be happening. It's literally the only accomplishment they were planning to run on.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#5 Posted by Gaming-Planet (19210 posts) -

They should stop spending people's social security.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
#6 Edited by KungfuKitten (25184 posts) -

What effect would this have exactly? Because if there are people in need of care who could then no longer afford that care, I bet the society as a whole is going to pay more than they save by removing social nets.

I suppose it's fun to think of those who need care as the poor and the unimportant. Maybe the unfortunate that you or your children will never be part of. Or maybe as the fraudulent (although fraud is typically a rich man's trade). Thing is that these unimportant people are often relatives or friends of the people that the right do value. Who then can no longer do their jobs because they have to do the caring, and no longer have the money that they so heartwarmingly deserve. They get burned out. Especially with middle and lower class (what? 80% of the USA or something?) You see that if one family member gets real ill it sucks every other family member's wallet empty before they die. And the poor people who would have gotten care could have become good workers themselves.

I've seen this happen in my country and I don't see how it would be that much different over in the USA really. You get more confused people on the streets who may have gotten help otherwise. Here specifically we got confused people who blow themselves up with the gas in their apartments and stuff since we started kicking people out of healthcare to save money. Altogether I never found the dismantling of social security to look all that great in my country, not for the poor and not for the rich... but hey maybe it will be different where you live.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#7 Edited by Serraph105 (32240 posts) -

I mean, politically speaking, if you know you're screwed anyways you should probably do whatever you want while you have the chance.

That said I definitely don't agree that this should be done. I know that it was always the plan to do so, but I don't see how any good can come out of paying for the tax cuts for the rich that republicans passed by taking away people's social security and access to healthcare.

EDIT. And people call USAToday the liberal media. Idiots.

Avatar image for drunk_pi
#8 Posted by Drunk_PI (2617 posts) -
@Serraph105 said:

I mean, politically speaking, if you know you're screwed anyways you should probably do whatever you want while you have the chance.

That said I definitely don't agree that this should be done. I know that it was always the plan to do so, but I don't see how any good can come out of paying for the tax cuts for the rich that republicans passed by taking away people's social security and access to healthcare.

EDIT. And people call USAToday the liberal media. Idiots.

I don't read much of USA Today but it's an opinion article, which I can assume that the author's opinions do not reflect on the news organization.

That said, both SS and medicare/medicaid are important since people rely on it for their health and well-being. And just because you cut costs doesn't mean you're saving in the long term.

It's like getting rid of a fuel-efficient, reliable car because it's expensive but then buying an old, broken down car because it's "cheaper." Then you have to worry more about maintenance. Now you're getting late for work. Now your options become limited because your mode of transportation will not work. Government bureaucracy can be annoying but simply cutting things doesn't make it better. I mean, hell, you can save money by cutting funds for a fire department but then all the sudden your fire departments can do their jobs properly due to outdated equipment and lack of personnel.

Get rid of these programs, people get in more debt, unable to care for themselves, and poverty increases. The amount of idiocy in this country is staggering. Instead, why not work to make it efficient so that it works for the people?

Avatar image for Serraph105
#9 Posted by Serraph105 (32240 posts) -

@drunk_pi said:
@Serraph105 said:

I mean, politically speaking, if you know you're screwed anyways you should probably do whatever you want while you have the chance.

That said I definitely don't agree that this should be done. I know that it was always the plan to do so, but I don't see how any good can come out of paying for the tax cuts for the rich that republicans passed by taking away people's social security and access to healthcare.

EDIT. And people call USAToday the liberal media. Idiots.

I don't read much of USA Today but it's an opinion article, which I can assume that the author's opinions do not reflect on the news organization.

That said, both SS and medicare/medicaid are important since people rely on it for their health and well-being. And just because you cut costs doesn't mean you're saving in the long term.

It's like getting rid of a fuel-efficient, reliable car because it's expensive but then buying an old, broken down car because it's "cheaper." Then you have to worry more about maintenance. Now you're getting late for work. Now your options become limited because your mode of transportation will not work. Government bureaucracy can be annoying but simply cutting things doesn't make it better. I mean, hell, you can save money by cutting funds for a fire department but then all the sudden your fire departments can do their jobs properly due to outdated equipment and lack of personnel.

Get rid of these programs, people get in more debt, unable to care for themselves, and poverty increases. The amount of idiocy in this country is staggering. Instead, why not work to make it efficient so that it works for the people?

I agree with your analogy. The problem is that people disagree on what makes the country efficient.

Avatar image for PraetorianMan
#10 Posted by PraetorianMan (1882 posts) -

No, as bad as it seems now they do have a lot more to loose by doing something like this. Right now it looks like the GOP may lose the house: if they cut SS the senate is going to get blown out too

Avatar image for judaspete
#11 Posted by judaspete (2291 posts) -

I say do it. Baby Boomers voted these guys in to cut government spending, so cut government spending on Baby Boomers.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#12 Edited by Jacanuk (13240 posts) -
@mattbbpl said:

The author of this article states that the GOP should cut Medicare and Social Security this year. What's noteable is that he recognizes the political pitfalls of doing so, recognizes that Republicans are in a hole this cycle, and effectively argues that the party should make these cuts while they can/are in peril anyway and punt the midterms in the process.

I'm not as convinced as he appears to be that the GOP is set up to lose the House and/or the Senate, but I found the political gambit interesting. Do you think they should cut these programs, and if so are you willing to punt the midterms to do so?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/04/23/paul-ryan-congress-scale-back-medicare-social-security-year-column/540339002/

Yes GOP should cut both.

It´s about time we learn people that work pays and not welfare

But with that said it will never get passed, and midterms are just around the corner and soon Democrats will have both chambers.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#13 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30654 posts) -

@Jacanuk: doesn’t welfare in the US have work requirements to it? Also, a lot of welfare recipients are children, the elderly, and the disabled.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#14 Posted by Serraph105 (32240 posts) -

Another aspect of this discussion is what would happen if republicans make a big show of trying to cut SS and Medicare and end up coming up short on the votes. Would it only further depress republican voters and make them less likely to come out to the polls?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#15 Posted by mattbbpl (15296 posts) -

@Serraph105: I think depress? Unless something has changed, Republican voters support those systems by a 2:1 ratio.

Avatar image for narlymech
#16 Posted by narlymech (1522 posts) -

Really they should cut funding for the wall and military, and not people's benefits

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#17 Edited by LJS9502_basic (163251 posts) -

They shouldn't touch social security. Employers and employees pay into that. It's not the governments to spend.

And don't we pay into Medicare as well?

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#18 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2966 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:

They shouldn't touch social security. Employers and employees pay into that. It's not the governments to spend.

And don't we pay into Medicare as well?

Yes we do, but we need to realize that social security is not going to be around forever. It has literally been going bankrupt and none of us will ever see that money so the question remains: why are we still paying into it? I mean why do we have to pay into medicade also?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#19 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163251 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu said:
@LJS9502_basic said:

They shouldn't touch social security. Employers and employees pay into that. It's not the governments to spend.

And don't we pay into Medicare as well?

Yes we do, but we need to realize that social security is not going to be around forever. It has literally been going bankrupt and none of us will ever see that money so the question remains: why are we still paying into it? I mean why do we have to pay into medicade also?

Because government shouldn't have spent it. It's not okay for them to do that. It's not their money.

Avatar image for sayyy-gaa
#20 Edited by sayyy-gaa (5840 posts) -

@mighty-lu-bu: we are paying into it because the Baby Boomers have retired and they are the largest generation of Americans and our nation's history. They will also live longer than any generation before them. They are earned these benefits. It sucks for us that we won't see it I agree. But does that mean our parents and our grandparents should not receive them?

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#21 Posted by mattbbpl (15296 posts) -

@sayyy-gaa said:

@mighty-lu-bu: we are paying into it because the Baby Boomers have retired and they are the largest generation of Americans and our nation's history. They will also live longer than any generation before them. They are earned these benefits. It sucks for us that we won't see it I agree. But does that mean our parents and our grandparents should not receive them?

Medicare and Social Security, or a similar combination, will need to exist. They have quietly been two of the most effective anti-poverty measures we've ever implemented, and the fact that shifting income distributions have eroded their funding doesn't make them less necessary.

50% of a sizable (and reliable) voting block finding themselves in poverty won't last long.

Avatar image for drunk_pi
#22 Posted by Drunk_PI (2617 posts) -
@Jacanuk said:
@mattbbpl said:

The author of this article states that the GOP should cut Medicare and Social Security this year. What's noteable is that he recognizes the political pitfalls of doing so, recognizes that Republicans are in a hole this cycle, and effectively argues that the party should make these cuts while they can/are in peril anyway and punt the midterms in the process.

I'm not as convinced as he appears to be that the GOP is set up to lose the House and/or the Senate, but I found the political gambit interesting. Do you think they should cut these programs, and if so are you willing to punt the midterms to do so?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/04/23/paul-ryan-congress-scale-back-medicare-social-security-year-column/540339002/

Yes GOP should cut both.

It´s about time we learn people that work pays and not welfare

But with that said it will never get passed, and midterms are just around the corner and soon Democrats will have both chambers.

People are working more (whether it's more overtime or having more than two jobs) and getting less, especially in areas where expenses are going up. Even if you get a job that pays $40-$50,000, it's no guarantee that it'll be a "living wage" in the area that you work.

It's asinine to see people commute one/two hours to work that pays a meager salary despite serving or working in the area. It's asinine to see people pay thousands in schooling, whether trade or college to get a job that pays barely anything. It's asinine to see houses and apartments being built but the price tag becomes exorbitant because it's "luxury" despite using cheap construction and being built in shoddy areas.

Even more asinine to see people such as yourself complain about "entitlements." I'm fortunate with my situation but I constantly interact with people who can't afford to live/work in my area despite serving the community, going to school, and working in the same area. The people I do know that do live here are fortunate to have those entitlements because they are old, retired, and too sick to work.

Get off your high horse and live in the real world. People are working. Welfare exists to help alleviate problems and care for people who cannot work. But hey, attack poor people. It's easy for people such as yourself. Don't attack the truly entitled: The rich who benefit from tax cuts; corporations with deductions; politicians who can vote for a pay raise anytime; and Trump, especially Trump.

@perfect_blue said:

@Jacanuk: doesn’t welfare in the US have work requirements to it? Also, a lot of welfare recipients are children, the elderly, and the disabled.

But according to Faux News, welfare recipients are rich black people and illegals smoking dope and riding cadallics.

Obviously.

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#23 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (9589 posts) -

@judaspete said:

I say do it. Baby Boomers voted these guys in to cut government spending, so cut government spending on Baby Boomers.

That isn't how it would work. Baby boomers would be grandfathered in to keep full benefits and then millennials like me would just not be able to get social security before age 75 or so.

Avatar image for tryit
#24 Edited by TryIt (5528 posts) -

while you guys talk about this keep this in mind.

Your SS payments you make out of your paychecks is separate from taxes.

The 'agreement' is, I pay you over decades, I get that money back for this purpose which we agree on. Thus it IS an 'entitlement'.

Just like if I take a loan out with a bank the bank is entitled to getting that money back based on the agreement we signed.

isnt it ironic how in our culture it is so easy to understand why a bank is entitled to getting its money back on a loan but describing the same thing in regards to a person is a challenge.

So if you want to cut it, then give me my money back.

Avatar image for plageus900
#25 Posted by plageus900 (2461 posts) -

Sure, cut it and give me back every dime I've paid into it.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#26 Posted by mattbbpl (15296 posts) -

@tryit: Funny related story. My parents are having a difficult time reconciling their conservative views now that they're retired, and I was speaking with them about these two programs.

They stated that they should be ended entirely, but not for the Boomer generation because they'd already paid into it. After pointing out that for them to continue getting it current workers would need to continue paying into it, my father lost his mind.

Avatar image for horgen
#27 Posted by Horgen (117407 posts) -

@mattbbpl said:

@tryit: Funny related story. My parents are having a difficult time reconciling their conservative views now that they're retired, and I was speaking with them about these two programs.

They stated that they should be ended entirely, but not for the Boomer generation because they'd already paid into it. After pointing out that for them to continue getting it current workers would need to continue paying into it, my father lost his mind.

He doesn't know that the money paid into those programs have for ages been used as funding for other deals?

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#28 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6811 posts) -

@mattbbpl: they should do it, but after that they should also get rid of the patents, IP, infinite trademarks and anti free market regulations. Government should not be in the business of running the economy through their commie bureaucratic laws. Let the pure free market operate you commie scam artists.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#29 Posted by mattbbpl (15296 posts) -

@horgen: He knows the mechanics of the systems, but years of listening to Limbaugh and Fox have left his political views a bundle of contradictions

Avatar image for mariokart64fan
#30 Posted by mariokart64fan (20741 posts) -

@mattbbpl: no how about raise taxes on rich give to poor

Avatar image for lamprey263
#31 Posted by lamprey263 (35160 posts) -

I think a typical Republican wants that, and they probably want it right now badly as they realize this party is done, and while they still have power they need to scorch the earth. I mean, "should" is relative to one's political agenda, but the only one who'd probably understand and want and benefit from such a policy probably has a secret stash of snuff films on 8mm and a butler that disposes of the bodies of dead hookers for them. "Should" is relative, and to any decent human being such policy should never happen.