Paul Ryan Believes President Trump will Support Medicare And SS Cuts To Balance Budget

[ultramanhyata]

You're trying to justify obviously indefensible abuses of gov't power by saying some other group of people abused gov't power.

In Farmer Brownstain's defense, I guarantee you he doesn't consider tax cuts for millionaires and corporations or cuts to entitlement spending as "abuses of gov't power". Those are examples of giving the power back to the people!

 

[Jack V Savage]

In Farmer Brownstain's defense, I guarantee you he doesn't consider tax cuts for millionaires and corporations or cuts to entitlement spending as "abuses of gov't power". Those are examples of giving the power back to the people!

But we're talking about the gov't specifically targeting dissenters to hit with higher taxes. How would a libertarian justify that?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

good, it should be optional anyway

if you elect to not pay into FICA, then you can't reap any benefits when eligible....

too easy

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

What are the odds of some states to increase their own revenue streams to offset cuts? state centralized healthcare and SS?

 

[panamaican]

What are the odds of some states to increase their own revenue streams to offset cuts? state centralized healthcare and SS?

Much smaller now that state residents can't deduct their state and local taxes on their federal filings.

 

[kpt018]

I don't see how it gets 60 votes in the Senate. Hell I don't see how it gets 50 votes in the Senate if they try to use next years Reconciliation on it. My best guess is that they'd try to do it in the lame duck after GOP is shellacked. But even then, Senate will be a very heavy lift.

But just keep talking about it Granny Starver.

I'm certain the part about getting 60 votes is impossible is true, but my gut says getting 50 will be a heavy lift is true too.

Social security is really popular with a fairly large segment of the GOP voter base. People who are getting social security or close to getting it want to keep it and that's why Republican plans to gut it are always future dated.

Paul Ryan is an ideologue who either has no fucking clue how much damage will be done or is willing to accept it out of some twisted world view he holds. I tend to think it's the latter, making the idea more heinous.

We can get mad at Trump for a bill he has not supported but let's also remember something like this would be signed by a president Romney or president Cruz too.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Much smaller now that state residents can't deduct their state and local taxes on their federal filings.

Boo hoo -- up your state income tax to 18 percent starting at 120k, sales tax to 13, charge 4.90 for a gallon of gas, 14 dollars for a pack of smokes, 37 dollars for a case of cheap beer and pay for your social nets at the local level like your neighbors in the north.

For a country of 50 different states, a myriad of different views and deep hatred of each other's politics - you sure try to bound everyone to a top down approach to federalism.

 

[panamaican]

Boo hoo -- up your state income tax to 18 percent starting at 120k, sales tax to 13, charge 4.90 for a gallon of gas, 14 dollars for a pack of smokes, 37 dollars for a case of cheap beer and pay for your social nets at the local level like your neighbors in the north.

Your federal rates are lower than ours and your federal system takes into account your provincial and state tax system. Which is what state and local deductions used to accomplish for the U.S.

So stop your belly aching, your system is basically cheaper than ours and will remain properly integrated while ours is becoming less so.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

We can get mad at Trump for a bill he has not supported but let's also remember something like this would be signed by a president Romney or president Cruz too.

We'll have to see what the legislation actually says before we say that.

Here is Romney's position on those items.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Mitt_Romney_Social_Security.htm

Q: In your book, you wanted the press to ask how to fix Social Security and Medicare. Would you raise the retirement age for Social Security, raise the eligibility age for Medicare, or reduce benefits for seniors with higher incomes?

ROMNEY: For the people who are already retired or 55 years of age and older, nothing changes. With Social Security--if you will, the 2.0 version for the next generations coming up-- I'd lower the rate of inflation growth in the benefits received by higher-income recipients and keep the rate as it is now for lower income recipients. And I'd also add a year or two to the retirement age under Social Security. With regards to Medicare, again, for higher-income recipients, lower benefit, a premium support program which allows people to buy either current standard Medicare or a private plan.

Cruz was a little more vague imo.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Ted_Cruz_Social_Security.htm

Q: You've argued for raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for future retirees, but reducing any sort of benefits for the elderly has always been notoriously hard to do politically. When Speaker Paul Ryan proposed replacing traditional Medicare with federally funded private plans a few years ago, a liberal group responded with a commercial that featured a granny being pushed off a cliff.

CRUZ: Well, my Mom is here, so I don't think we should be pushing any grannies off cliffs. And, you mis-stated what I've said on entitlement reform. What I've said is for seniors we should make no changes whatsoever, for younger workers we should gradually raise the retirement age, we should have benefits grow more slowly, and we should allow them to keep a portion of their taxes in a personal account that they control, and can pass on to their kids.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Your federal rates are lower than ours and your federal system takes into account your provincial and state tax system. Which is what state and local deductions used to accomplish for the U.S.

Huh? We don't do SALT here, we do equalization payments and it makes up significantly less of overal revenue than then US

So stop your belly aching, your system is basically cheaper than ours and will remain properly integrated while ours is becoming less so.

And our systems is cheaper and properly integrated because he have a system of federalism that gives provinces better control and forces us to increase local / state revenue streams via taxation. 100 percent of education and the vast, vast majority of health cost is covered on the local level (in turn for more control of them) which allows for moderately lower federal income tax while still maintaining social services.

States can simply just raise taxes to offset loss from SALT -- if the rich want to vacate to a red state, tough break.

 

[kpt018]

We'll have to see what the legislation actually says before we say that.

Here is Romney's position on those items.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Mitt_Romney_Social_Security.htm

Q: In your book, you wanted the press to ask how to fix Social Security and Medicare. Would you raise the retirement age for Social Security, raise the eligibility age for Medicare, or reduce benefits for seniors with higher incomes?

ROMNEY: For the people who are already retired or 55 years of age and older, nothing changes. With Social Security--if you will, the 2.0 version for the next generations coming up-- I'd lower the rate of inflation growth in the benefits received by higher-income recipients and keep the rate as it is now for lower income recipients. And I'd also add a year or two to the retirement age under Social Security. With regards to Medicare, again, for higher-income recipients, lower benefit, a premium support program which allows people to buy either current standard Medicare or a private plan.

Cruz was a little more vague imo.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Ted_Cruz_Social_Security.htm

Q: You've argued for raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for future retirees, but reducing any sort of benefits for the elderly has always been notoriously hard to do politically. When Speaker Paul Ryan proposed replacing traditional Medicare with federally funded private plans a few years ago, a liberal group responded with a commercial that featured a granny being pushed off a cliff.

CRUZ: Well, my Mom is here, so I don't think we should be pushing any grannies off cliffs. And, you mis-stated what I've said on entitlement reform. What I've said is for seniors we should make no changes whatsoever, for younger workers we should gradually raise the retirement age, we should have benefits grow more slowly, and we should allow them to keep a portion of their taxes in a personal account that they control, and can pass on to their kids.

Fair enough, we are speculating on what that bill could look like. The essence of my point is the guys I mentioned are certainly on board with cuts, just to varying levels. And Ryan would be happy to kill it all together (privatize it), I think. Also, I am saying there are other presidential candidates that would sign this.

We should also leave open the possibility that Trump is against large cuts.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

Fair enough, we are speculating on what that bill could look like. The essence of my point is the guys I mentioned are certainly on board with cuts, just to varying levels. And Ryan would be happy to kill it all together (privatize it), I think. Also, I am saying there are other presidential candidates that would sign this.

We should also leave open the possibility that Trump is against large cuts.

Yeah but there is a lot of highly charged language about gutting SS and Medicare.

I do believe Ryan would "Gut" it.

It seems that Romney is on board with means testing the benefits and I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea. So I'll just save this conversation for when we see actual legislation proposed.

I mean I was onboard with the Idea of Tax Reform until I saw the shit they were proposing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We'll have to see what the legislation actually says before we say that.

Here is Romney's position on those items.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Mitt_Romney_Social_Security.htm

Q: In your book, you wanted the press to ask how to fix Social Security and Medicare. Would you raise the retirement age for Social Security, raise the eligibility age for Medicare, or reduce benefits for seniors with higher incomes?

ROMNEY: For the people who are already retired or 55 years of age and older, nothing changes. With Social Security--if you will, the 2.0 version for the next generations coming up-- I'd lower the rate of inflation growth in the benefits received by higher-income recipients and keep the rate as it is now for lower income recipients. And I'd also add a year or two to the retirement age under Social Security. With regards to Medicare, again, for higher-income recipients, lower benefit, a premium support program which allows people to buy either current standard Medicare or a private plan.

Cruz was a little more vague imo.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Ted_Cruz_Social_Security.htm

Q: You've argued for raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for future retirees, but reducing any sort of benefits for the elderly has always been notoriously hard to do politically. When Speaker Paul Ryan proposed replacing traditional Medicare with federally funded private plans a few years ago, a liberal group responded with a commercial that featured a granny being pushed off a cliff.

CRUZ: Well, my Mom is here, so I don't think we should be pushing any grannies off cliffs. And, you mis-stated what I've said on entitlement reform. What I've said is for seniors we should make no changes whatsoever, for younger workers we should gradually raise the retirement age, we should have benefits grow more slowly, and we should allow them to keep a portion of their taxes in a personal account that they control, and can pass on to their kids.

Sounds like they both clearly support cuts to SS, and are kind of avoiding saying that.

 

[kpt018]

Yeah but there is a lot of highly charged language about gutting SS and Medicare.

I do believe Ryan would "Gut" it.

It seems that Romney is on board with means testing the benefits and I don't necessarily think that's a bad idea. So I'll just save this conversation for when we see actual legislation proposed.

I mean I was onboard with the Idea of Tax Reform until I saw the shit they were proposing.

He was also on board with raising the age limit, which is a terrible idea and essentially cutting benefits (you don't hold off on dying to get the full benefits!).

 

[panamaican]

Huh? We don't do SALT here, we do equalization payments and it makes up significantly less of overal revenue than then US



And our systems is cheaper and properly integrated because he have a system of federalism that gives provinces better control and forces us to increase local / state revenue streams via taxation. 100 percent of education and the vast, vast majority of health cost is covered on the local level (in turn for more control of them) which allows for moderately lower federal income tax while still maintaining social services.

States can simply just raise taxes to offset loss from SALT -- if the rich want to vacate to a red state, tough break.

You don't do SALT. But you do equalization and your state and provincial systems give you the same deductions as your federal system, at least that's what I think I read. So you're not paying provincial taxes and then federal taxes on the money you paid to your province. The fed taxes you with the knowledge that the provinces still have to fund their programs.

100% of those programs are covered on the local level for you because your federal government isn't also collecting separate taxes for them (in an extremely simplified discussion).

Here's an example with made up numbers:

Canadian makes $100k. His provincial taxes are 15%. His federal system is aware that his after state tax income is $85k and the federal tax rate is set with the knowledge that the provincial system is already taking a cut for local programs. So the Canadian isn't paying his federal taxes without some consideration for his provincial taxes.

The old U.S. system says guy makes $100k. his state tax rate is 15%. The federal system lets him take a deduction for what he paid to his state because the state stuff is paying for local programs. So his federal tax rates is on $85k. This way the American isn't paying his federal taxes without some consideration for his state taxes.

The new U.S. system says a guy makes $100k, his state tax rate is 15%. The federal system doesn't care what his state taxes are or what they're paying for. So he pays state and federal taxes on the full $100k.

The proposed American changes screws the entire system. The cut funding for programs. Fine. The states can try and fund it themselves. But they eliminate any credit for the states that do that by eliminating the SALT deduction so any state yjsy tries to fund programs locally will end up hurting their residents more. Meanwhile the fed actually collects more money from state residents while giving them less for it.

Skip the red state/blue state bullshit for a moment and work through the actual fiscal component. If the fed is no longer willing to fund programs that's fine but when they make it more difficult for states to do so as well, they're just fucking everyone and helping no one. People can move to red states but that increase in population will mean an increase in that state's need for revenue to cover governing more people - not just safety net programs but education, infrastructure, etc.

So, the red state will eventually have to raise taxes to cover the new population and there will be no SALT deduction for those residents to offset the burden they are putting on their state.

It's shortsighted and screws state governments, not just the blue ones but any state that needs tax revenue...which is all of them.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

You don't do SALT. But you do equalization and your state and provincial systems give you the same deductions as your federal system, at least that's what I think I read. So you're not paying provincial taxes and then federal taxes on the money you paid to your province. The fed taxes you with the knowledge that the provinces still have to fund their programs.

100% of those programs are covered on the local level for you because your federal government isn't also collecting separate taxes for them (in an extremely simplified discussion).

Here's an example with made up numbers:

Canadian makes $100k. His provincial taxes are 15%. His federal system is aware that his after state tax income is $85k and the federal tax rate is set with the knowledge that the provincial system is already taking a cut for local programs. So the Canadian isn't paying his federal taxes without some consideration for his provincial taxes.

The old U.S. system says guy makes $100k. his state tax rate is 15%. The federal system lets him take a deduction for what he paid to his state because the state stuff is paying for local programs. So his federal tax rates is on $85k. This way the American isn't paying his federal taxes without some consideration for his state taxes.

The new U.S. system says a guy makes $100k, his state tax rate is 15%. The federal system doesn't care what his state taxes are or what they're paying for. So he pays state and federal taxes on the full $100k.

Where the heck did you read that??? The system works as deduction from your gross income on both sides. So federal implements it's tax brackets on the 100k as does the provincial. It doesn't calculate one then charges tax on the remainder. Both federal and provincial are deducting income tax on the 100'k from your example

Quebec system known as abatement that is similar to what your outlining but that's because their provincial rates are sky high - their top rate still works out to about 17 percent in provincial income tax from gross income and standard brackets for federal

The proposed American changes screws the entire system. The cut funding for programs. Fine. The states can try and fund it themselves. But they eliminate any credit for the states that do that by eliminating the SALT deduction so any state yjsy tries to fund programs locally will end up hurting their residents more. Meanwhile the fed actually collects more money from state residents while giving them less for it.

Skip the red state/blue state bullshit for a moment and work through the actual fiscal component. If the fed is no longer willing to fund programs that's fine but when they make it more difficult for states to do so as well, they're just fucking everyone and helping no one. People can move to red states but that increase in population will mean an increase in that state's need for revenue to cover governing more people - not just safety net programs but education, infrastructure, etc.

So, the red state will eventually have to raise taxes to cover the new population and there will be no SALT deduction for those residents to offset the burden they are putting on their state.

It's shortsighted and screws state governments, not just the blue ones but any state that needs tax revenue...which is all of them.

Yes, federal collects more (from high income earners that actually itemize) by cutting out deductions but it does not handcuff the state from raising taxes on their level to offset. The fear comes from wealth flight in roughly 6 high tax and income states because they just don't want to pay the additional state levies - that's the basis of it, state collects less federal income, but pays out less itemized deductibles, the top 10-15 percent now recieves less back in deductibles (offsetted by whatever gains they get in income reduction) still doesn't prevent states from being able to raise revenue to pay for social programs -- like Canada. Alberta pays a ton into federal taxes, receives no equalization payments, and funds all of its social programs

Unless I'm missing something like states actually get a federal check back from salt deductions?

 

[spin]

Just don't move to Texas.

That will not be an issue

 

[Gandhi]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...t-republican-welfare-cuts-20171206-story.html

Paul Ryan talks about getting support from President Trump. Paul Ryan also talked about cutting money for wild fires rescue shot at California. Seriously he is nuts.

Yup, past all the working class economic nationalism it seems like they can still all get the party together to screw the less well off. SAD!!!!!!

 

[Gandhi]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...t-republican-welfare-cuts-20171206-story.html

Paul Ryan talks about getting support from President Trump. Paul Ryan also talked about cutting money for wild fires rescue shot at California. Seriously he is nuts.

Yup, past all the working class economic nationalism it seems like they can still all get the party together to screw the less well off. SAD!!!!!!

 

[Trotsky]

Trillion dollar tax cuts, and talking about cutting Medicare and SS.

Couldn't make that shit up.

I hope Melania gets AIDS at a Saudi, picnic table cloth, toga party, gangbang.

Wtf did Melania do??

Either way, I legit hope Paul Ryan gets crushed to death after getting stuck under the 95 lbs bench press bar that he uses because "he's going for tone, not bulk."

Evil little bitch he is.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It's the same thing people like yourself did during the Obama years. "Bush did it first, so it's okay!" Can't have it both ways.

Neither can you guys, which is kind of the point pertinent to hypocrisy.