Trump's Policies Part 5

[AWRTR]

True, but then again none of those people were (cough) a "successful businessman who cut the fat and met a payroll."

I mean, Mr. Six Bankruptcies wasn't, either, but the implication was that he had some sort of magical gift for money that nobody else had. Never mind that he's in more debt than Lehman Brothers on the Friday before the crash.

I fear that even if a president truly wanted to cut spending and deal with the problems Congress has no stomach for it. Cobbling together enough votes to truly cut seems impossible with the current political landscape. Dems don’t want to cut anything and Reps won’t touch the real drivers: defense, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. I predict at the end of this the answer they will come up with is to inflate the currency not cut anything.

 

[Tidewater]

Not sure how much of a withdrawal we are talking about but ...
US to start European troop withdrawal discussions later this year, US NATO ambassador says
There are currently around 100,000 soldiers in Europe now.

 

[Bamaro]

I fear that even if a president truly wanted to cut spending and deal with the problems Congress has no stomach for it. Cobbling together enough votes to truly cut seems impossible with the current political landscape. Dems don’t want to cut anything and Reps won’t touch the real drivers: defense, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. I predict at the end of this the answer they will come up with is to inflate the currency not cut anything.

Can someone explain whether SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are actually part of the 36T debt or not and if so, how much? The answer always seems to depend on who you ask. 🤷‍♂️

 

[2003TIDE]

So serious question, how can anyone watch his TACO meltdown or any recent speaches and not realize this guy is in serious mental decline?

 

[Tidewater]

Can someone explain whether SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are actually part of the 36T debt or not and if so, how much? The answer always seems to depend on who you ask. 🤷‍♂️

Social Security and Medicare are user-funded, up to a point. If you pay in X, but you have a long post-retirement life with expensive healthcare, and you take out 2X, then you are contributing to the insolvency of those systems. If you have a long remunerative career and keel over dead the day before you retire, the trust fund pockets your money and uses the surplus to pay others.

AI puts it this way:
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the national debt are interconnected issues facing the United States.
1. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as Drivers of the National Debt:

• Mandatory Spending: These programs constitute a significant portion of mandatory federal spending, which is projected to grow substantially in the coming years, largely due to the aging population and rising healthcare costs.
• Unfunded Obligations: Projections show that payouts for Medicare and Social Security will significantly exceed tax revenues in the long term, creating substantial unfunded obligations.
• Growing Deficits: The increasing cost of these programs contributes to budget deficits, which in turn add to the national debt.
• Impact of an Aging Population: As the population ages, the number of beneficiaries for these programs increases, putting further strain on their finances.

2. The Role of Trust Funds and Solvency:

• Trust Funds: Both Social Security and Medicare have trust funds that are projected to be depleted in the coming years.
• Projected Insolvency: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that Social Security's trust fund could be depleted by 2033, and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (Part A) trust fund by 2036.
• Benefit Cuts or Tax Increases: If the trust funds become insolvent, automatic benefit cuts or tax increases may be triggered to ensure the programs' solvency.

3. Potential Solutions and Reform Proposals:

• Reforms: Policymakers are considering reforms to these programs to address the growing financial challenges.
• Cost Containment: Proposals to control healthcare costs, such as limiting prescription drug price increases and promoting preventative care, could help reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending.
• Benefit Adjustments: Adjustments to Social Security benefits, such as raising the retirement age or modifying the cost-of-living adjustments, could also be considered.
• Revenue Increases: Increasing taxes or other revenue sources could help fund these programs, but this option is often politically challenging.

4. The Urgency of Addressing the Problem:

• Unsustainable Path: The current trajectory of the national debt is considered unsustainable, and these programs are major contributors to this problem.
• Fiscal Crisis: Failure to address these issues could lead to a fiscal crisis in the future, impacting the economy and the lives of millions of Americans.

In conclusion, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are essential programs that face significant financial challenges due to rising costs and an aging population. Addressing these challenges is critical to ensuring the long-term sustainability of these programs and the overall fiscal health of the nation

My comment:
Because we, the people, have elected the absolute scum of the earth to manage our federal government, we are in deep, deep trouble in the not-too-distant future. When the automatic benefit cuts swing into action people will caterwaul, "But I need this!" The Dismal Science will say, "Well, then you should not have elected the scum of the earth for decades. This is what you get."

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Can someone explain whether SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are actually part of the 36T debt or not and if so, how much? The answer always seems to depend on who you ask. 🤷‍♂️

Of course they are.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

So serious question, how can anyone watch his TACO meltdown or any recent speaches and not realize this guy is in serious mental decline?

Trump wasn't melting down in speeches a decade ago?

That's news to me.

The one piece of evidence I'll give right now that's he's gotten weirder, more mentally nuts or whatever is that 30 minute sway dance he did last October.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I fear that even if a president truly wanted to cut spending and deal with the problems Congress has no stomach for it. Cobbling together enough votes to truly cut seems impossible with the current political landscape. Dems don’t want to cut anything and Reps won’t touch the real drivers: defense, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. I predict at the end of this the answer they will come up with is to inflate the currency not cut anything.

I don't disagree with any of this really. David Stockman, Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, mused over 40 years ago that the pork barrel projects that grease the electoral wheels are loved by BOTH parties, including conservatives saying we need to cut them. He found when he was trying to make Reagan's budget work that 90% of the federal budget COULD NOT be touched at all - either as a matter of mandated law or because politically it would destroy anyone who did it.

The politicians never faced the Social Security crisis of the early 80s, one even Reagan had warned was coming....until 3 days after the Democrats captured 26 seats in the House in the 1982 mid-terms and then all of a sudden, they agreed with his basic assessment if not his solution. The result was the bipartisan commission that raised the retirement age and reworked the early retirement penalties.

They didn't face the S&L crisis until they had no choice, and while Republicans got the brunt of the blame for it (the fact President Bush's son ran one that went haywire didn't help), the reason they didn't was because S&L's gave a LOT of money to the politicians in both parties, which made them unwilling to do anything until they had to do so.

You can repeat this entire charade with the subprime mortgage crisis, yet another bipartisan scandal that - of all people - Bill Clinton was warning about. But no politician wanted to be the one to say "no, those folks don't deserve houses."


Hmmm.....I think I'm noticing a pattern.......


And for the record? I blame the voters. And you can pick almost any politician to prove the point.

People knew about Watergate and Nixon was already viewed as a used car salesman?
He won, 49-1.

People said they didn't like Reagan's budget deficits? He won a thumping landslide.

They said they didn't like the Reagan-Bush deficits - Bush won 40 states.

They didn't like Obama bailing out Wall St (in his defense, he had no choice) - he got reelected.

They don't like "establishment politicians" - you can hardly get more establishment than Hillary Clinton (over Bernie) or Joe Biden (over everyone).

They say they don't like these politicians that stay past their time - yet we've had the two oldest Presidents in American history over the past five years, the Dem Senate leader is 74, the recently retired GOP Senate leader is 82, the leader of the far left in this country is 83 (although his up and coming bootlicker is 35), and basically, we keep reelecting people we can't stand because we fear that that person in the other party "isn't right on my pet issue."

Let's move ahead to November 2026. Even if the Democrats capture the House (if they don't, the party needs to go away forever - this one is an uncontested layup), how exactly does that punish Trump? He isn't working through Congress NOW. Trump will never face the electorate again (take that how you wish everyone).

 

[2003TIDE]

Trump wasn't melting down in speeches a decade ago?

He's never been the best speaker, but if you go watch older interview with him he is at least coherent

 

[2003TIDE]

2. The Role of Trust Funds and Solvency:

• Trust Funds: Both Social Security and Medicare have trust funds that are projected to be depleted in the coming years.
• Projected Insolvency: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that Social Security's trust fund could be depleted by 2033, and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (Part A) trust fund by 2036.
• Benefit Cuts or Tax Increases: If the trust funds become insolvent, automatic benefit cuts or tax increases may be triggered to ensure the programs' solvency.

Depleted is the wrong word. SS goes to 75% funded which is far from empty which is what depleted implies.

 

[Tidewater]

Depleted is the wrong word. SS goes to 75% funded which is far from empty which is what depleted implies.

Fair point.
But the trust fund is like the water level in your bathtub. Water going in raises the water level. Water going down the drain lowers the water level. If the amount gong down the drain exceeds the water going in, the water level will gradually drop until the tub is empty.
In the same way, when the amount in the trust fund is down to zero, then SS will have to automatically cut benefits to paying out what people are then paying in. That is going to be painful for old folks on a fixed income.
Better to increase the retirement age now and slow inflation adjustments to push that date further into the future. Whichever party does the right thing, the other party is going to scream bloody murder and demagogue the issue. We as a country will get what we deserve but some individuals are going to be financially crushed by that.

 

[mdb-tpet]

Fair point.
But the trust fund is like the water level in your bathtub. Water going in raises the water level. Water going down the drain lowers the water level. If the amount gong down the drain exceeds the water going in, the water level will gradually drop until the tub is empty.
In the same way, when the amount in the trust fund is down to zero, then SS will have to automatically cut benefits to paying out what people are then paying in. That is going to be painful for old folks on a fixed income.
Better to increase the retirement age now and slow inflation adjustments to push that date further into the future. Whichever party does the right thing, the other party is going to scream bloody murder and demagogue the issue. We as a country will get what we deserve but some individuals are going to be financially crushed by that.

I've got the easy fix. Just reduce SS payments to 50% for everyone I don't know until I retire, then move it back to 100% with inflation adjustments. The SS bathtub will be full and I'll be happy as a clam!

 

[2003TIDE]

Better to increase the retirement age now and slow inflation adjustments to push that date further into the future. Whichever party does the right thing, the other party is going to scream bloody murder and demagogue the issue. We as a country will get what we deserve but some individuals are going to be financially crushed by that.

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but surely paying the millions of workers that this administration are trying to deport above the table so they are paying SS tax is part of that answer.

At this point I'm early 40's and I'd be happy with 75% payout at 65. I'm saving enough I'm not really counting on that money, but it would be nice to get something out after paying in that long. I hate the whole raising the retirement age thing. The avg life expectancy has leveled off recently.

 

[Tidewater]

I've got the easy fix. Just reduce SS payments to 50% for everyone I don't know until I retire, then move it back to 100% with inflation adjustments. The SS bathtub will be full and I'll be happy as a clam!

I believe what will happen when the trust fund is depleted is that one or both parties will cry for non-mandatory funding to make up the shortfall and that will be the extent to which SS contributes to the national debt.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

My comment:
Because we, the people, have elected the absolute scum of the earth to manage our federal government, we are in deep, deep trouble in the not-too-distant future. When the automatic benefit cuts swing into action people will caterwaul, "But I need this!" The Dismal Science will say, "Well, then you should not have elected the scum of the earth for decades. This is what you get."

Let's be honest: envy is the most controlling of human emotions.

"Why should my benefit get cut while a billionaire pays less in taxes" is, in fact, a legitimate gripe. Except the reality is that even if that billionaire is not getting a tax cut, literally nobody is going to stand for "but my benefit has to get cut for the greater good." Even if you doubled the tax on the billionaire, the person isn't going to tolerate a benefit cut of one nickel. (It's like all those "I'd

In the end, nobody REALLY gives a damn about the greater good because we have to live day to day.

If people did not learn that from the pandemic, they'll never get it.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but surely paying the millions of workers that this administration are trying to deport above the table so they are paying SS tax is part of that answer.

Not sure about illegals. I'd bet on some cases, they are using fake SSNs and therefore paying SS and income tax without the possibility of getting that money back, then they are a net plus for the SS system.
Others are getting paid under the table (see young Hispanic men hanging out at Home Depot in the morning). If they do not draw SS later in life if they stay, then I guess they are a wash (except to the extent that by hiring illegals and paying them under the table, contractors do not hire Americans, who would be paying into SS).
As for legal immigrants, they function much like native-born Americans (paying in and eventually taking money out), except to the extent that they bring their extended family with then, to the extent they draw on SS, they are a net minus.

At this point I'm early 40's and I'd be happy with 75% payout at 65. I'm saving enough I'm not really counting on that money, but it would be nice to get something out after paying in that long. I hate the whole raising the retirement age thing. The avg life expectancy has leveled off recently.

The average American, over his lifetime pays $272,000 into the system. The average American takes out $294,000 over a lifetime. Of course, some Americans pay in over their working life, and then drop dead the day before they retire, but on average I'd say the system over the last few decades got too generous to beneficiaries or not demanding enough with workers.
The Socvialk Security Trust fund is a zero-sum game. If you increase payments, you have to increase revenues from somewhere. The math is unforgiving.

 

[Tidewater]

I did not know this.
If an immigrant comes to the US at age 65, he may be eligible for Social Seciurity if he comes from a country with which the US has a "totalization agreement" and has worked 10 years in his previous country. The US has agreements with:
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Not sure about illegals. I'd bet on some cases, they are using fake SSNs and therefore paying SS and income tax without the possibility of getting that money back, then they are a net plus for the SS system.
Others are getting paid under the table (see young Hispanic men hanging out at Home Depot in the morning). If they do not draw SS later in life if they stay, then I guess they are a wash (except to the extent that by hiring illegals and paying them under the table, contractors do not hire Americans, who would be paying into SS).
As for legal immigrants, they function much like native-born Americans (paying in and eventually taking money out), except to the extent that they bring their extended family with then, to the extent they draw on SS, they are a net minus.

The average American, over his lifetime pays $272,000 into the system. The average American takes out $294,000 over a lifetime. Of course, some Americans pay in over their working life, and then drop dead the day before they retire, but on average I'd say the system over the last few decades got too generous to beneficiaries or not demanding enough with workers.
The Socvialk Security Trust fund is a zero-sum game. If you increase payments, you have to increase revenues from somewhere. The math is unforgiving.

I touched on some of why this is about two weeks (and several pages in this thread) ago:

Trump's Policies Part 5

Well, my groceries cost twice as much today as they did 25 years ago, probably more, so maybe it does take more to run the government. Of course, I am not saying that there is no unnecessary spending. I work in state government,t and when we pay $30 for a 6 foot cat5 patch cable instead of being...

www.tidefans.com

 

[jthomas666]

Isn't Vance supposed to be the smart one?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Isn't Vance supposed to be the smart one?

It's a low bar in that group.