Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Trump says reforming Social Security and Medicare is 'the easiest of all things'

  1. #1

    Trump says reforming Social Security and Medicare is 'the easiest of all things'

    https://markets.businessinsider.com/...0-1-1028837128

    Repeal and Replace Obamacare was also going to be the "easiest thing". He seems to have abandoned that. He also has not been that serious about reducing government spending- though if you really are serious, you must look at the biggest items- Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid, and the Department of Defense. The rest only accounts for about $600 billion out of $4 trillion in spending.

    Trump says reforming Social Security and Medicare is 'the easiest of all things' as he appears open to cutting entitlement spending

    President Donald Trump left the door open to overhauling Social Security and Medicare in a CNBC interview on Wednesday, calling any attempt to rein in entitlement spending "the easiest of all things."

    Trump is at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and he's touted a message of economic resurgence at the elite gathering of wealthy investors, business titans, and academics.

    In the interview, the president said entitlement reform could happen at the "right" moment and appeared to credit the strength of the US economy for providing momentum to shrink spending on two of the nation's biggest government programs.

    "At the right time, we will take a look at that. You know, that's actually the easiest of all things, if you look," he told CNBC's Joe Kernen.
    Trump added: "We also have assets that we've never had. I mean, we've never had growth like this."

    Trump's CNBC interview, however, provided few details and little clarity on what shape entitlement reforms could take. While it's proved resilient, the US economy is far from the best it's ever been, despite Trump's claims on Wednesday.

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Trump recently showed disdain for attempts to rein in the swelling federal deficit, telling donors at a Florida fundraiser, in audio leaked to The Washington Post: "Who the hell cares about the budget? We're going to have a country."

    Any initiative to cut spending on Social Security and Medicare would be a break from his 2016 campaign pledge to protect funding for those programs. In his formal campaign announcement, Trump said: "Save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without cuts. Have to do it."

    Social Security and Medicare represent a substantial chunk of government spending, and they constituted 40% of the federal budget in 2018. The former program makes up nearly a quarter of all federal expenditures.

    Both are highly popular among voters. A Pew study in December 2018 found that most Americans believe no cuts should be made to Social Security. Another poll from Public Policy Polling released last March found that 72% of voters opposed reducing Medicare benefits.

    It's a key reason that lawmakers have largely kicked the can down the road on addressing the rising price tags of Social Security and Medicare, and calls for reform still encounter resistance from both Republicans and Democrats.

    The Congressional Budget Office has projected that both programs will cost $30 trillion over the next decade, an outlook that some experts say could worsen as a result of the 2017 tax law that means fewer tax dollars are collected from the richest Americans and corporations.
    More at link.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Trump's idea of easy governance is to get some smart people to work out a plan that he can then sell. He thinks it's easy because he doesn't give a $#@! about understanding the problems or potential consequences of any proposals that are developed.
    I compiled a "brief" history of events since October 2008 that are defining the global currency war and the role that gold is playing:

    Tin Foil Hats, Economic Reality and the Total Perspective Vortex

    Also, have you contacted your Congressional Rep and asked them co-sponsor Ron Paul's Rep. Paul Broun Jr.'s HR 1098 77: Free Competition in Currencies Act?

  4. #3
    Congress, not the President would have to decide on any changes to Social Security and Medicare and given their popularity- that could cost them votes so neither party is willing to touch them. Even Ron Paul and Rand Paul in their proposals to cut government spending stayed away from them.

    Both are highly popular among voters. A Pew study in December 2018 found that most Americans believe no cuts should be made to Social Security. Another poll from Public Policy Polling released last March found that 72% of voters opposed reducing Medicare benefits

  5. #4
    I mean, the solution is pretty easy...

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    I mean, the solution is pretty easy...
    It is.

  7. #6
    I receive SS. Since Trump has been in office I have received a $40 raise. I am okay with that. I still do some work that takes SS out of my pay. I have paid into SS for over 45 years. I had planned on not collecting it until later but my husband wanted me to start slowing down and go ahead and collect it. I am kinda glad that I did because after both he and my mother died in the same month I was kind of not sure which way to turn. I collected my first check the month after they died and it helped a lot.

  8. #7
    ABOLISH!!! or reform it by eliminating it but then creating UBI

  9. #8
    If anyone is cabable of doing it, it's him. Armed with his strong bsusiness and financial know how, he's known to have single handidly reformed Atlantic City Casino businesses and left a strong mark.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I'll help them out . They can return all my payments of ss and med lump sum cash with no interest for just the first quarter million I pd in and I will totally opt out of all .

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jon4liberty View Post
    ABOLISH!!! or reform it by eliminating it but then creating UBI
    NO UBI.

    The way to deal with it is to phase it out.
    Means test all current recipients and all new applications, then set a date in a few years after which all new enrollments will end, then get rid of the tax and the trust fund and pay for those left on it from the general budget until they all die.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    NO UBI.

    The way to deal with it is to phase it out.
    Means test all current recipients and all new applications, then set a date in a few years after which all new enrollments will end, then get rid of the tax and the trust fund and pay for those left on it from the general budget until they all die.
    Let's say we started that right now. Getting rid of the Social Security tax would reduce government revenues by $1.2 trillion a year ( a third of all government tax revenues)- adding that much to the debt. The deficit is already $1 trillion a year. You would either have to borrow an extra $1.2 trillion a year or replace it with $1.2 trillion in other taxes. If you let anybody continue who has currently earned any benefits, it could take 80 years before the last person dies (figuring a 20 year old who has already worked and qualified for something lives to a maximum of 100 years old).

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Let's say we started that right now. Getting rid of the Social Security tax would reduce government revenues by $1.2 trillion a year ( a third of all government tax revenues)- adding that much to the debt. You would either have to borrow an extra $1.2 trillion a year or replace it with $1.2 trillion in other taxes. If you let anybody continue who has currently earned any benefits, it could take 80 years before the last person dies (figuring a 20 year old who has already worked and qualified for something lives to a maximum of 100 years old).
    You aren't counting the savings from means testing the recipients.
    And I'd gladly increase general tariffs to compensate for any deficit increase.

    And no twenty year olds would get anything under my system, maybe some 40-50 year olds would.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You aren't counting the savings from means testing the recipients.
    And I'd gladly increase general tariffs to compensate for any deficit increase.

    And no twenty year olds would get anything under my system, maybe some 40-50 year olds would.
    That would require some massive tariffs. Even with all the ones he added during his ongoing trade wars (those revenues were up 75% from the previous year), tariffs only account for 1.9% of revenues. Social Security taxes account for 36%. With imports $2.6 trillion, we would need a 50% tariff on every single thing imported. (yes, I realize you love chaos and trade wars).
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 01-24-2020 at 07:56 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    That would require some massive tariffs. Even with all the ones he added during his ongoing trade wars, tariffs only account for 1.9% of revenues. Social Security taxes account for 36%. With imports $2.6 trillion, we would need a 50% tariff on every single thing imported. (yes, I realize you love chaos and trade wars).
    You keep acting like the cost would remain the same even though I said to means test it.

    The few who would keep getting anything would cost far less and people would have lots more money to pay for things whether they were domestic or imported without the tax.

    A tax is a tax and it hurts the economy no matter where it is applied but tariffs hurt the economy the least.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You keep acting like the cost would remain the same even though I said to means test it.

    The few who would keep getting anything would cost far less and people would have lots more money to pay for things whether they were domestic or imported without the tax.

    A tax is a tax and it hurts the economy no matter where it is applied but tariffs hurt the economy the least.
    How much you save depends on how you set up your means test but tariffs to replace the Social Security tax would still be massive and mean much higher prices and fewer jobs. But messing with Social Security is a land mine politicians like to avoid. Congress would have to make any changes.

    Trump was just floating a trial balloon to gauge responses and he is already backing off.



Similar Threads

  1. Trump wants to cut Medicare and Social Security
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-24-2019, 11:05 PM
  2. [Video] Reforming Social Security 101
    By AlexMerced in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-12-2012, 11:25 AM
  3. Social security and medicare independence
    By dejavu22 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-16-2011, 07:20 AM
  4. Why should I be paying for Medicare and Social Security....
    By StateofTrance in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-23-2008, 03:56 PM
  5. Issue: Social Security: What about Social Security and Medicare?
    By orenbus in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-21-2007, 03:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •