Since Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) led Republicans in shouts of “Liar!” when President Biden said in his State of the Union address that “some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset every five years,” Republicans have been swamping social and news media with accusations that Biden was lying.
“Voters need fact-based information to elect people who will enact the policies a majority of us want.
We need politicians to participate in the reality-based community.”
Truer words have yet to be uttered!!!
I remain confused as to why Medicare and Social Security are referred to as 'entitlements'. They are 'a return on investment', something I hope the so-called conservatives can understand. Entitlements makes it sound like they are handouts like Medicaid, Food Stamps and Welfare and using that term when referring to Medicare and Social Security seems to confuse the so-called conservatives as to what they really are. Presidents Roosevelt and Johnson saw the American people as a whole weren't doing very well preparing themselves for retirement, both medically and financially and the two programs were enacted. It was not a grab at individual freedom that led to their enactment. It was a need well demonstrated by the American people who had shown they weren't doing it voluntarily..
Regarding the funding of Social Security: Nowhere in this discussion -- nor, actually, in any print discussion I've seen in well over a year -- have I seen any mention of substantially raising the salary limit on which Social Security taxes must be paid. The current limit is $160,200. If it were raised to $200,000 for next year, and raised at least 10-12 percent every year after that, Social Security could be solvent for some considerable period. Heck, why not make the limit $400,000? There is no reason for the fat cats to get off. Those whose maximum taxable earnings are well below the taxable threshold already pay higher tax rates than many of the wealthy, and it shouldn't be that way. I'd be happy to have all taxable earnings/compensation subject to Social Security taxes (and I'm reasonably well off). Then we might be able to have a reasonable national health system that wouldn't leave anyone out but the middle men and the insurance industry... Now there's an idea.
There’s nothing new about Republican ‘voodoo economics.’ It was writ large during Reagan’s first term:
1) sharply cut taxes for the rich;
2) big boost in defense spending; and then
3) ‘starve the beast of social expenditures.’
David Stockman, Reagan’s first Budget Director, initially was outspoken on this trilogy. [He had spent two post-grad years studying theology at Harvard.] Subsequently (while still budget director) he gave an interview in which he acknowledged that he (and Reagan) hadn’t a clue as to what they were doing.
From Stockman to New Gingrich to Paul Ryan…to Kevin McCarthy’s Yahoo economics gang are variations on the theme of voodoo economics.
Liar liar, pants on fire refer to Gangrene Greene, Muddle-Minded-McCarthy, Bullshit Boebert, and the rest of the Republican Trickle Down Gang.
The Democrats initiated the New Deal, the Great Society, the Fair Deal, and, most recently, President Biden’s ‘here’s the deal.’ By contrast we have the REPUBLICAN RAW DEAL: lower taxes for the rich and sharply cut ‘social programs,’ without specifically naming them.
I taught economics for two decades. My summary of Democratic and Republican ‘policies:’
DEMOCRATS FOR THE PEOPLE, REPUBLICANS SCREW THE PEOPLE.
HCR contributes to the problem if she describes Social Security financing as "unstable." She needs to understand it better. All pension systems undergo demographic upheaval and interest rate upheaval and need adjustment if they are to continue serving the public. That doesn't make them unstable. But Social Security isn't a pension system. It's social insurance from a mutual insurer that's owned by its policyholders... the citizens of the United States. As we know, insurance premiums can go up. If you need the coverage--i.e., a guaranteed income after a lifetime of work--you pay the premiums. And here is the main point: no private or public/private entity can shoulder the burden of the market risk and longevity risk associated with financing a nation's retirement at a low and efficient price... only a sovereign government has the depth, length and authority to do that. I have studied retirement systems in five countries. Privatization, or a market-based solution, creates a new set of problems without solving the challenge of financing a large elderly population. It is not the magic solution that the International Monetary Fund recommended during the 1990s, when deregulation was all the rage. All of the arguments against Social Security--like 'generational warfare' nonsense or 'I could get a better return in the stock market'--are based on untruth and sleight-of-hand. SS is not a bad deal vis-a-vis the stock market. It's a great deal from a risk POV. It is not an expense bleeding the country dry. It adds a trillion dollars a year to consumption, and that trillion trickles up, not down. If we would rather go back to mass elderly poverty, let's say so.
You left out a very important option for stabilizing Social Security funding. **Raise the minimum wage**!
Social Security is funded by a percentage of wages, so this will increase funding without affecting costs or benefits.
“The statement that Biden won the 2020 presidential election also comes from the reality-based community.” Thank you, Professor. The repub spin continues attempts to block possibilities for funding critical programs like Social Security and Medicare. Our taxes can protect the needs of citizens by taxing the wealthy and corporate America. And recognizing that medical care and safety nets are rights not bargaining chips that are on the chopping block every year. Social Insecurity is the repub budget strategy that needs to be off the table.
As Biden said in his State of the Union address, we who receive Social Security are receiving what we earned in our work years: every single dollar. My monthly Social Security payment from the US government is all I have to live on - less than $2,000 a month. No family. No offshore funds or whatever. These politicians are practically to a person, wealthy, if not really rich.
Not only all that you mentioned, but Anna Paulina Mayerhofer identified herself as "Jewish" while she was in the Air Force, where she was known as an Obama supporter and self-declared "liberal;" as late as 2018, weeks before Charlie Kirk hired her as a Tik Tok "Influencer" for his group Turning Point, she told friends she didn't know what "conservative" was. According to long-time acquaintances going back to her Air Force days, she has a history of "saying and doing whatever it takes" to please whoever it is she is involved with. Plus she has "airheaded bimbo" tattooed on her forehead in flashing neon.
(It also promised to “sell off all non-essential government assets, buildings, and land, and use the proceeds to pay down our national debt,” without defining “non-essential.”)
Beyond getting screwed by anti-competitive near-monopoly pricing for an increasing array of goods and services, Republicans are adamant about taking up a non-voluntary collection from the general public to fulfill the dreams of billionaires, is this case cashing public property to deliver to their patrons in the form of tax cuts and subsidies.
"Biden wants to raise taxes; Republicans want to cut benefits,"
Whoops, there it is again. Throw paid into assistance to seniors off the train to save seats for the ultra-wealthy. I see a pattern forming here. Oh, and child labor law violations are spiking, so in response, Iowa Republicans want to scale back child labor laws, and hold employers harmless if the kids are injured or killed on the job. Equal opportunity sociopaths. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/11/us-child-labor-laws-violations
And why do people vote for them?
Unfortunately, I believe Senator Scott's idea of selling "non-essential" 🤨 US assets includes the Statue of Liberty.🗽
This is so troubling to me and I can’t see a way to combat it. Republican voters seem to believe their representatives or they simply feel the lies don’t matter. I am shocked that this is happening in my country.
The Republicans have bought into DOUBLETHINK completely. Reread 1984.
“All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.”
Americans need to be reminded that Congress, particularly Republicans, have not and cannot pass bills today with any reliability. Republicans have not passed many effective bills other than tax cuts in 23 years. Haven't passed a major infrastructure bill since the Eisenhower interstate highway system. Haven't passed a useful healthcare bill since the Hill Burton Act that built modern hospitals all over the US, including most of the rural hospitals that are now closing for lack of funding.
Republicans, particularly with sunsets on every bill passed will have us looking like Turkey after the earthquakes in no time. Just photograph those earthquakes and headline them "US Under Republican Control by 2030". Collage those photographs across a map of the US and headline it "US, nothing standing by 2050 under Republicans".
The reality is we can pay for social security and Medicare for all if we stop funding never ending war.
I find the talk about "reality-based community" confusing. When applied to Republicans, it really means "reality-creating partisan cohort," a reality not discerned, but constructed by action. The rest of us, I hope, live in a "reality-based democratic polity" in which fact and logic, evidence and argument, prevail, with respect, civility, and decency to boot.