• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Entitlement Reform

will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

  • yes

    Votes: 10 23.3%

  • no

    Votes: 33 76.7%
  • Total voters
    43
  • Poll closed .
R

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
9,358
Reaction score
5,420
will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

they want to get rid of social security and medicare so badly. They want to tell Americans that there is no more money so it has to go.

raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits

instead of making it solvent.
 
programs that i have paid into for my entire career are not "entitlements." however, to answer the question, i will be voting against Trumpists.
 
rickc said:
will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

they want to get rid of social security and medicare so badly. They want to tell Americans that there is no more money so it has to go.

raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits

instead of making it solvent.
Click to expand...

Can you cite any FACT that supports your ravings?
 
Helix said:
programs that i have paid into for my entire career are not "entitlements." however, to answer the question, i will be voting against Trumpists.
Click to expand...

That is one way to look at SS/Medicare but not quite the honest way. These (social insurance?) systems were designed (promised?) to remain (forever?) pay-as-you-go systems whereby current workers fully supported (via flat/regressive payroll taxation) current retirees. Once the 'need' for that system to change is asserted then 'reform' must happen whether you like it or not.

The basic issue is whether congress critters 'reform' (change?) the system by A) using general revenue to make up the shortfall in FICA payroll tax revenue or B) cutting (limiting?) SS/Medicare benefits to stay within the actual (current?) yield of FICA taxation revenue. There is, of course, a third (non-reform?) option - C) increase the (flat/regressive) FICA tax rate to meet (or exceed) the cost of maintaining SS/Medicare benefits at the current (including adjustment for inflation) levels.

The bottom line is that what we have paid via past FICA taxes has been spent (remember that these are pay-as-you-go systems - not some personal investment accounts) and if we keep the FICA (payroll taxation) rates the same it is simply not possible for fewer workers to support more retirees (with 'promised' COLA adjustments).
 
code1211 said:
Can you cite any FACT that supports your ravings?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is not possible to spend ever more without taxing ever more. The republicant plan is to tax less (or at least no more) and therefore must be accompanied by spending less (or borrowing more which they have asserted is no longer going to be done).
 
No, they can keep their greedy hands off SS and Medicare. Any investing or "reforming" is just another scam/scheme for "they want to get their hands on the money."
 
I am probably going to vote Republican because I am voting against the current Democratic goals of uncontrolled immigration, political correctness, identity politics, higher taxes, more social welfare programs, and a whole slew of Progressive-Left ideals that I oppose in principle.

Hence voting FOR those Republican goals of an improved economy, fair trade, solid borders, Second Amendment and other individual rights, etc.

I will also be hoping that the Republican's opt to reform Social Security by increasing the FICA to cover benefits promised in the original plan.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
That is one way to look at SS/Medicare but not quite the honest way. These (social insurance?) systems were designed (promised?) to remain (forever?) pay-as-you-go systems whereby current workers fully supported (via flat/regressive payroll taxation) current retirees. Once the 'need' for that system to change is asserted then 'reform' must happen whether you like it or not.

The basic issue is whether congress critters 'reform' (change?) the system by A) using general revenue to make up the shortfall in FICA payroll tax revenue or B) cutting (limiting?) SS/Medicare benefits to stay within the actual (current?) yield of FICA taxation revenue. There is, of course, a third (non-reform?) option - C) increase the (flat/regressive) FICA tax rate to meet (or exceed) the cost of maintaining SS/Medicare benefits at the current (including adjustment for inflation) levels.

The bottom line is that what we have paid via past FICA taxes has been spent (remember that these are pay-as-you-go systems - not some personal investment accounts) and if we keep the FICA (payroll taxation) rates the same it is simply not possible for fewer workers to support more retirees (with 'promised' COLA adjustments).
Click to expand...

i prefer increasing the revenue stream to keep the programs solvent. i would accept and vote for an increased contribution on my part, raising the contribution ceiling, and diverting money from the general fund into the programs if necessary. i will vote against raising the retirement age / privatization / gutting the programs.
 
Helix said:
i prefer increasing the revenue stream to keep the programs solvent. i would accept and vote for an increased contribution on my part, raising the contribution ceiling, and diverting money from the general fund into the programs if necessary. i will vote against raising the retirement age / privatization / gutting the programs.
Click to expand...

It is important to stick to viable options and the bolded above option is not among them. That should be obvious since the 'general fund' (federal discretionary 'budget') currently has a negative balance. The simple truth is that annual federal income tax revenue would have to be increased by about 40% just to eliminate the current deficit spending.

The raising the contribution ceiling idea is usually coupled with (even more) 'means testing' of benefits which amounts to violating the basic premise that you started with - being 'entitled' to get a fair (equal or proportional?) return on past SS/Medicare contributions when one retires. We already 'means test' SS/Medicare benefits - those that earn "too much" must pay federal income tax on their SS benefits (thus, effectively, they are giving some back) and must pay higher premiums for their Medicare benefits (thus they get reduced subsidies).

EDIT: It seems that you like option "C" in the post to which you replied. That was last done in 1986? and is my choice as well.
 
Last edited:
rickc said:
will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

they want to get rid of social security and medicare so badly. They want to tell Americans that there is no more money so it has to go.

raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits

instead of making it solvent.
Click to expand...

Don't lie.

Nobody has said anything about getting rid of social security or medicare.
 
The GOP is not going to do anything to SS and the two Meds. It’s campaign rhetoric and nothing more.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is important to stick to viable options and the bolded above option is not among them. That should be obvious since the 'general fund' (federal discretionary 'budget') currently has a negative balance. The simple truth is that annual federal income tax revenue would have to be increased by about 40% just to eliminate the current deficit spending.

The raising the contribution ceiling idea is usually coupled with (even more) 'means testing' of benefits which amounts to violating the basic premise that you started with - being 'entitled' to get a fair (equal or proportional?) return on past SS/Medicare contributions when one retires. We already 'means test' SS/Medicare benefits - those that earn "too much" must pay federal income tax on their SS benefits (thus, effectively, they are giving some back) and must pay higher premiums for their Medicare benefits (thus they get reduced subsidies).

EDIT: It seems that you like option "C" in the post to which you replied. That was last done in 1986? and is my choice as well.
Click to expand...

my preference is to tax all individual income as income above a cap, which could be negotiated. as for the payroll, i'd raise the contribution ceiling. i see no good reason to toil at some make-work job into my seventies unless i really dig it. there should be some benefits of living in a first world society even if they don't fit neatly into laissez faire. that's part of what pulled me away from libertarianism, though i still sympathize with the lean, and defend it from time to time.
 
Mycroft said:
Don't lie.

Nobody has said anything about getting rid of social security or medicare.
Click to expand...

you have got to be kidding me.

it has been a republican dream for decades

i believe health care is the most important issue to American voters. i don't believe the republican congress is on the same page as the voters. but americans keep electing those who will just make their lives harder. makes no sense to me.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...l-security-20181019-story.html?outputType=amp
 
Helix said:
my preference is to tax all individual income as income above a cap, which could be negotiated. as for the payroll, i'd raise the contribution ceiling. i see no good reason to toil at some make-work job into my seventies unless i really dig it. there should be some benefits of living in a first world society even if they don't fit neatly into laissez faire. that's part of what pulled me away from libertarianism, though i still sympathize with the lean, and defend it from time to time.
Click to expand...

The problem with that idea is that it skews (changes) these social programs from being all workers must help support current retirees to only some (the richer?) workers have that responsibility. In other words, it simply becomes yet another means tested income redistribution program or: from each according to their ability (to pay more taxes), to each according to their need (for more government assistance).
 
Mycroft said:
Don't lie.

Nobody has said anything about getting rid of social security or medicare.
Click to expand...

That is much like saying that nobody has proposed getting rid of the 2A. The difference is only in the rate at which they want to move toward the end goal. It is certainly hard to argue that the SS/Medicare programs are now too generous (or costly) and not to assert that they should be done away with in current form.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is much like saying that nobody has proposed getting rid of the 2A. The difference is only in the rate at which they want to move toward the end goal. It is certainly hard to argue that the SS/Medicare programs are now too generous (or costly) and not to assert that they should be done away with in current form.
Click to expand...

Reform does not equal repeal.
 
rickc said:
you have got to be kidding me.

it has been a republican dream for decades
Click to expand...

Present a Republican who has proposed legislation to repeal SS or Medicare, please.

i believe health care is the most important issue to American voters. i don't believe the republican congress is on the same page as the voters. but americans keep electing those who will just make their lives harder. makes no sense to me.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.lati...l-security-20181019-story.html?outputType=amp
Click to expand...

You are free to believe anything you want. There are people who disagree with you. But that doesn't give you the right to lie about what those people say.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
True, yet a reduction in retirement benefits is not the only (or even best) option for reform.
Click to expand...

That's a matter of opinion and is something that can be worked out by the various Congressmen...if they want to.
 
Mycroft said:
That's a matter of opinion and is something that can be worked out by the various Congressmen...if they want to.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is the basic point of this thread. For some reason it has been stated by many (yet far from all) republicants that rasing taxes is "off the table" and therefore any reform must consist of a reduction in social spending (aka 'entitlement' benefits).

The problem is that congress critters of both parties would much rather borrow and spend than to tax and spend. That bipartisan 'compromise' (refusal to tax enough to cover spending) has resulted in making the cost of national debt service rise as a (mandatory?) annual 'budget' priority.

Since we are now at the (insane?) point where even cutting 100% of non-defense 'discretionary' federal spending would still leave a federal 'budget' defict then the only option other than raising taxes is to cut 'mandatory' federal spending (putting SS, Medicare and Medicaid on the chopping block).

https://thinkprogress.org/republicans-voted-tax-bill-cut-medicare-social-security-pay-488a9bcbba7d/
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly, which is the basic point of this thread. For some reason it has been stated by many (yet far from all) republicants that rasing taxes is "off the table" and therefore any reform must consist of a reduction in social spending (aka 'entitlement' benefits).

The problem is that congress critters of both parties would much rather borrow and spend than to tax and spend. That bipartisan 'compromise' (refusal to tax enough to cover spending) has resulted in making the cost of national debt service rise as a (mandatory?) annual 'budget' priority.

Since we are now at the (insane?) point where even cutting 100% of non-defense 'discretionary' federal spending would still leave a federal 'budget' defict then the only option other than raising taxes is to cut 'mandatory' federal spending (putting SS, Medicare and Medicaid on the chopping block).

https://thinkprogress.org/republicans-voted-tax-bill-cut-medicare-social-security-pay-488a9bcbba7d/
Click to expand...

Before we even get to the point of dealing with government spending, we first need a Congress that WANTS to deal with government spending.

Raising taxes will stifle our economic recovery. That is not the answer.
 
Rosie1 said:
No, they can keep their greedy hands off SS and Medicare. Any investing or "reforming" is just another scam/scheme for "they want to get their hands on the money."
Click to expand...

It's going bankrupt and something must be done. We have to face the reality that cuts are necessary (or tax increases). It's going to be a painful, but necessary fix.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I am probably going to vote Republican because I am voting against the current Democratic goals of uncontrolled immigration, political correctness, identity politics, higher taxes, more social welfare programs, and a whole slew of Progressive-Left ideals that I oppose in principle.

Hence voting FOR those Republican goals of an improved economy, fair trade, solid borders, Second Amendment and other individual rights, etc.

I will also be hoping that the Republican's opt to reform Social Security by increasing the FICA to cover benefits promised in the original plan.
Click to expand...

So, you obviously got your idea of what the Democrats are FOR from what Republicans told you Democrats are for. To my knowledge there isn't a single Democrat running on any of those items save for expansion of Medicaid or Medicare to address health care.

Just between you and me, its a little more intellectually honest (and intellectual) to use the actual platform of Democrats against them, not what the opposition tells you the platform is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom