Posted on 02/09/2023 10:34:29 PM PST by RandFan
The White House on Thursday hit back at Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) after the senator insisted he was not aware of any Republican in Congress who has tried to tie Social Security reforms to raising the debt ceiling, the latest swipe the administration has taken at the GOP on the issue.
“By protesting too much, Congressional Republicans keep proving the President’s point about their long history of threatening Medicare and Social Security,” deputy White House press secretary Andrew Bates said in a statement to The Hill.
“Half of Sen. Lee’s statement is an admission that he did indeed call for eliminating Social Security outright. But in terms of his claim that he’s aware of ‘no Republican — in either House of Congress — who has suggested any modification to Social Security as a condition for raising the debt ceiling,’ we can help.”
Bates pointed to several reports from the past few months about Republicans eyeing changes to Social Security and Medicare.
He noted an October Fox News piece headlined “Republicans eye using debt limit hike to overhaul entitlement programs if entrusted with majority” that quoted multiple House members.
He pointed to a November Bloomberg report that said Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, indicated the party wanted to leverage the debt limit increase to secure cuts in federal spending and changes to entitlement programs.
Bates cited a Jan. 6 Reuters report that “several leading GOP House members are threatening to block an increase to force cuts to Medicare and Social Security spending.”
And the White House aide highlighted a Jan. 24 report from The Washington Post headlined “House GOP eyes Social Security, Medicare amid spending battle.”
The White House has gone back and forth with Lee in the time since President Biden’s State of the Union address on Tuesday, when the president drew jeers from the Utah senator and others when he argued some Republicans wanted to hold the debt ceiling hostage in order to sunset Social Security and Medicare.
Biden on Wednesday directly quoted a 2010 video in which Lee said: “I’m here right now to tell you one thing you’ve probably never heard from a politician. It’ll be my objective to phase out Social Security.”
Lee defended his stance in a lengthy statement issued Tuesday night, saying his comments at the time were meant to reflect how Congress should not have “sweeping power over people’s livelihoods,” but that existing commitments should be honored.
“In repeatedly quoting my 2010 remarks today, President Biden conveniently left out that critical details—that even when I voiced that position, I insisted that we honor the reliance interests of those who have paid into the system,” Lee said in a statement, adding that he has not proposed abolishing Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid during his time as a senator.
Biden has embraced the back-and-forth with Republicans over Social Security and Medicare for months, viewing it as a winning issue for the White House and Democrats.
As The JoeTatoe’s white house shills ignore the fact that the Tater-In-Chief threatened Social Security first.
White House press secretary Andrew Bates pointed to several reports:
...an October Fox News piece...
...a November Bloomberg report...
...a Jan. 6 Reuters report...
...a Jan. 24 report from The Washington Post...
Bates saw it on the internet, so it must be true.
More and more I don’t want to talk to or live with Democrats.
Any Democrat, maybe we should start a discussion on how to separate from each other. In a non-violent fashion. Leaving the violent method open as a resort.
Democrats lost the last war, we weren’t smart enough to eliminate them then, we won’t make that mistake twice.
Not enough workers, and too many elders blocked from working. That suggests a remedy that wouldn't require any changes to SS/Medicare: let the gray-hairs work.
The problem is, there is very little to no incentive for anyone to take on the retired who want to work. The usual response by Congress is to fiddle with the tax code.
Proposal: for every working employee who has attained full retirement age, the employer does not have to pay their half of FICA for that employee.
Proposal: for every working employee who has attained full retirement age, the employer does not have to pay their half of FICA for that employee.It isn't the employer's to keep. It's paid on behalf of the employee.
If you're going to go down that road the same rules have to apply to half of the self-employment tax for the self-employed.
Hill articles can’t even be trusted. They lie like the WP.
I notice that Brett conveniently leaves out the actuarial problems with Social Insecurity and MediScare.
Yep.
I saw that too. Aren’t our politicians supposed to talk to each other and not just point to reports from biased media?
Had I been able to invest my “contribution” to SS, during my working life, I’d be much better off than what they’ve done with my money.
And yet the Dims want us to believe that the Republicans are trying to destroy SS and Medicare.
I urge everyone to read an American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) article entitled “A Way Out”. It provides for a way to transition away from Social Security without hurting current recipients and setting up younger people (cut-off at ~40 years of age) to fund their retirement AWAY from the interference of government.
SS and Medicare/Medicaid need to be reformed - to STOP THROWING IT AWAY ON ILLEGALS
Just ask anyone how SS makes money. I mainly get blank stares. Ponzi Schemes don’t generate interest or income.
Another reason why I don’t trust bush league chamber of commerce worshiping republiCAN’Ts....
Hell, there is a large contigent on this very site that think we should take the programs THAT I PAID INTO FOR OVER 40 YEARS, and just cut them off, but leave welfare, food stamps, etc. intact.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
And don’t get me started about them shooting down every proposal that helps veterans.
Why not stop benefits for all who have not paid into Social Security? Too many people getting money who paid nothing in.
It isn't the employer's to keep. It's paid on behalf of the employee.
Then how would you give an incentive for an employer to keep on the older employee? As far as the effect on funding, half a loaf is better than none, in my book. And it's not like we are forcing full-retirement-age folks to work, we need to offer a counter to the age discrimination that affects the seniors who have a strong work ethic.
"Giving away" too much? How about a percentage reduction in employers FICA contribution from 100 per cent?
I know from personal experience, being "put out to pasture" is not all it's cracked up to be for some people. As I said in several job reviews, "I'd rather die with my boots on."
Yes. I REALLY liked my job. And that job was yanked away.
Threatening Medicare and Social Security and throwing grandmother off the cliff take your pets ............
Democrat propaganda is always the same old story it’s not us that cause a crisis.
Look at where we are now chaos central
Then how would you give an incentive for an employer to keep on the older employee?If you think 7.65% is the answer and you love your job so much, offer to work for less.
I of course have no idea what field your job was in but the benefits of self-employment are amazing.
Maybe your former boss/company could use an independent contractor. It's a huge advantage for your boss. He no longer has the burden of payroll etc and he still gets the same quality work you always gave him. Try it.
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.