Posted on 12/02/2017 7:19:50 AM PST by Mariner
Florida Senator Marco Rubio admits that the Republican tax cut plan to aid corporations and the wealthy will require cuts to Social Security and Medicare to pay for it.
Rubio told reporters this week that in order to address the federal deficit, which will grow by at least $1 trillion if the tax plan passes, Congress will need to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security. Advocates for the elderly and the poor have warned that entitlement programs would be on the chopping block, but this is the first time a prominent Republican has backed their claims.
“We have to do two things. We have to generate economic growth which generates revenue, while reducing spending. That will mean instituting structural changes to Social Security and Medicare for the future,” Rubio told a crowd at a Politico conference. Rubio's talk of structural change is vague, but will likely include changing the rate and age of Social Security and Medicare payouts.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Any cuts to SS programs not directly related to retirement benefits are fine with me. SS pays for a lot of things it was never intended to pay for.
Micro Rubio ALERT!
I completely disagree. SS should stay universal, just like it is now.
As far as means testing goes, as a retired person, I planned for 30 years based on current SS rules. And, that is about the amount of time a working man needs to plan and save for a decent retirement. If I had even had an inkling that SS would be more means tested than it already is, I would have saved more, but there is a great unfairness in changing the rules after I have retired and started collecting, and can no longer save.
One of the big points the means testing people miss is that SS is already means tested. Big time means testing.
When my grandfather drew SS, 60 years ago, his benefit was not taxed. Today 85% of my benefit is taxed at ~35% federal, and 10% state. If that is not a "means test", just what is it? The government claws back a huge chunk of my benefit.
And the government isn't satisfied with that. I just got my award letter for 2018. 21% of my benefit is deducted before I even see it for medicare. I have no choice in this, and I can't drop out of medicare if I want to. This is based on my reported AGI for 2016. Sure smells like another means test to me. And, in a few years they are going to teach me how to say "death panel" -- just another little present from our beneficent government.
So, they already take back over 60% of my SS benefit. Go ahead, tell me all about needing a new "means test" for SS. There isn't a whole lot of blood left in that turnip.
That very same award letter told my my benefit would increase by 2% in 2018 due to inflation, but when I compare the letter to the 2017 situation, the medicare deduction has been raise to the point where I get 4% less than 2017.
Why is he talking to Politico?
The slight of hand has already been done!
They already don’t count it as part of the budget.
Look social security is fundamentally a Ponzi scheme.
The working generation pays into to it the retired generation receives. When that working generation retires they are the receivers! It has always been that way! Workers place a YOU ( ‘You-Owe-Me!) with the next generation of workers. The system only works as long as there are significantly more people paying in then getting paid out. Like a Ponzi Scheme! Those first in do great, those toward the end not so great. Ida Mae Fuller (Look her up! She’s in all the 1930s-1940s news reels - celebrated as the first SSN recipient!) During her lifetime she paid in $24.75 but collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits. Over time there have been 100s of thousands of Ida Mae Fullers collecting way more then they pay in! Originally when the system was set up most people weren’t supposed to live long enough to collect there SSNs benefits. Now thanks to modern medicine etc., people live way past the original assumption on live time.
The FDR administration were warned by the financial community that the SSN system would eventually fail. They offered to work with the government to set up a fiduciarily sound retirement system. The FDR Whiz Kids sound no only no but Hell No! ‘We don’t want the help of you evil money men!’ (They’re all evil many FR’ers will tell you so!) involved!’ They were so we have a system that titters on the edge of collapse every 5 to 10 years or so. Bringing in gobs of foreigners who haven’t contributed a dime into the system but will eventually collect is a sure solution! (Does it really need the sarcasm lab?) Those wonderful foreign workers also reduce the working to retiree ratio which puts more strain on the system. I have had some explain their support for illegals by saying by the illegals working are paying into the SSN system thus keeping it afloat. Aren’t most of these illegal, being paid off the books therefore not contributing to the system? But you can be sure they will be in line to get SSN benefits when the time comes!
Remember Rats view SSN as one of their crowning achievements!
Little Marco talking stupid again.
Bookmark
Good conservatives do not create an echo chamber.
We can argue our views and points, learn and hopefully become better conservatives.
When the post and replies are anti Trump, we will not learn anything. Which is why the anti Trump posts/replies are here daily.
Sociable insecurity will be difficult to cut. About all that could be done I think is to allow people to deduct any Ira contributions from their ssa payment duty. Would reduce somewhat the future ssa pension payment burden while giving people more liberty and control over their money. Repeal zerocare and save a big sum
“How about cutting all the illegals on SS?
And then cutting all the fakers on SS disability?”
Thank you!
So good it needs to be posted TWICE!!!
The guy at the SS office is not the only dumbass in this story.
I’m old enough to remember when Newsweek was an almost legitimate news source.
“Congress will need to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security.”
“will NEED TO”. No they won’t. “need to” is just another way of saying “have to”.
“cut entitlement programs”. No, entitlement programs are not the only things to cut. Just a lame old scare tactic from the left. How about raising revenue from economic growth, like from a YUGE tax cut? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
“such as Social Security.” Just a lame old scare tactic from the left, but I repeat myself.
The left always insists that cuts “need to”/have to come from entitlements because that’s where the money is.
When automakers had to meet new CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards they came up with a brilliant idea of how to increase fuel mileage without compromising safety and performance.
By reducing the weight of vehicles. Not by turning all cars into Nash Metropolitans, (they tried that and people didn’t like it), but by reducing the weight of each and every part (piece) of the vehicle.
Also, by doing this, you can pull around a car with a lot smaller (weighs less) engine without sacrificing performance.
Yes, they did have to reengineer every single part, but guess what? Smaller/lighter parts cost less = more profit.
Soooooooooooooooo, by cutting worthless programs completely (funding the for NFL etc. the list is YUGE!) and “reducing the size” of EVERY “PART” of government spending, we can have a lighter, safer, more bang for the buck, fuel (money/taxes) efficient government the people will buy.
Won’t have to cut spending. They’ll just take it from your 401k/IRA.
“”SS is one of the most abused benefit program we have. Millions Of people got on the program when their unemployment bennies ran out under Obama””
How in the devil would anyone whose unemployment ran out be eligible for social security? That doesn’t even make sense. They were either eligible for it before or they weren’t.
Shouldn’t Rubio be in the Log Cabin republican wing if the party?
Barh House Marco.
Micro Rubio
Yes, get rid of half of the bloated bureaucracies and the typical American wouldn't notice the difference. That would save a lot. Hope Trump is looking at this. Few of these various Departments of . . . and other bureaucracies existed in 1946 or 1962 for that matter. Why do we need them now?
Every now and then I read about some government agency and wonder what they do. What does that Consumer Protection outfit really do? Do we really need it? Take each one and review the cost efficacy/rate of return/what do they do analysis. I bet most of them could be cut in half.
I really hope Trump, sometime in his Presidency, does a private sector analysis of each agency. Would he fire half of the people? Tighten their budgets?
And then there's all this phony Grant business. Getting a grant to study you name it esoterica.
Go Trump! Slash and Burn!
Yes there are worthless programs to cut and you named some.
But compared by size, growth rate and long term unsustainability entitlement programs are the danger, they are like 60-some percent of the budget and growing. The grow slower or seem to when compared toe the economy are GOP administrations then Rat ones but they still grow! (Rats make it worse by adding more entitlement programs like Obamacare & do crippling things to the economy!)
“There are some that actually need it, but a large percent that is just lazy entitlement free shit”
paraphrasing .... If you give it away free, they will come get it.
RULES! Make tough rules and ENFORCE them. Time to end the gravy train for leaches, sucking the blood out of hard working taxpayers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.