The pajama boy constantly disappoints, but remains loyal to his donors.
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 ...
The video of him, starts at his remarks:
https://www.politico.com/video/2017/11/29/full-video-of-playbook-interview-sen-marco-rubio-064454#t=21m45s
We all know that what he says is true: entitlements are driving the debt and can’t be sustained at this level.
It’s either small cuts now in future benefits or large cuts later.
Has nothing to do with the tax bill, paygo is insignificant.
It is, and the poster has an agenda.
I agree. Things like old age funds, unemployment insurance, disability insurance... These should all be private sector.
Too bad he had a change of heart and decided to remain in office after he bombed in the Presidential race. He needs to go.
Why is social security even considered a government expense?
If it’s because the government spent the money....vote them out. It still isn’t an expense. Get it off the graph and deal with it as a separate issue.
I’ve got news for everybody. Social Security and Medicare will have to be dealt with sometime. They are both unsustainable. Of course, they won’t call it a cut. It will either be you get your check, but due to inflation it won’t buy a loaf of bread or they will raise the full retirement age to 85. Or, it could be a combination of the two. SS is a Ponzi scheme, and like all such schemes, it is doomed to fail. Yes, I know we paid into it for years, but that money has been spent. The money we oldsters get now comes from taxes that our children and grandchildren are paying.
I would ask both of you what fraction is accounted for by government overhead. How much of our taxes go to government overhead? Can you give a percent figure?
The pajama boy constantly disappoints, but remains loyal to his donors.
If the US could somehow privatize SS, or even transition it to a defined contribution plan it would work wonders for our economy. Of course there would need to be a transition period when current workers and retirees stayed in the old program, but it could be done.
If the SS Trust Fund were invested in the private sector every American would have “skin in the game” as far as the economy was concerned.
Bush tried but could not get it past the RAT fear-mongering. If DJT can get that through, he will be the greatest President of all time. Mt. Rushmore would be too small—he would deserve an entire mountain of his own.
Right on! Be a good citizen and work yourself to death! Problem solved!
I would LOVE to see them rein in Social Security DISABILITY PAYMENTS. I think there is a lot of fraud there. And Medicare/Medicaid has a lot of issues too.
These would be good things, but I am doubtful they will happen in any significant way.
Because that's what it is and always has been. There's no account. There's no Trust Fund. You don't own a damn thing in SS/MC, because there's nothing there to own. There's just money taken from people who are working, and immediately given to people who are not working. It is and always had been pure and simple armed robbery by government agents.
vote them out.
Welcome to the party, pal.
It still isn’t an expense.
See above.
It is amazing that so many freepers actually continue to swallow the old media swill as if it were related to the truth. I don’t get it? Are these people trolls for the left? Or, are they just weak-minded?
One more time.
Y’all do realize the Fed created 4.2 Trillion dollars from thin air over a 6 year period? Wave of Bernanke’s hand and that money came into existence.
Y’all do realize the European Central Bank is RIGHT THIS MOMENT continuing to create money from nothingness as part of their own Quantitative Ease program? All Central Banks did this. It’s why the dollar didn’t collapse when Bernanke did it.
This is why obsessing over the budget is stupid. The elderly don’t have enough money from Social Security? So what? The Fed can provide it.
Now the obvious extrapolation is “Why have taxes at all? Why not just fund the government by creating money?”
Well, that 4.2 trillion DID fund the government. They bought Treasury bonds. That’s creating money and lending it to the government, and not demanding repayment.
But the more pure answer is . . . you continue to have taxes and you don’t just print up the money needed for Federal spending so that the finance industry continues to have jobs and societal pretense can remain in place.
(And notice not a word about gold. This isn’t about gold at all.)
Exactly. It’s disgusting and disheartening to think what my retirement fund(s) would look like if my SS/MC taxes all these years had gone there instead of to the government.
The end of WWII started the baby boom which is the cause of all this. What’s the projected date that we boomers are past and the 2nd smaller “boomer-kids” are also passed through. ....probably 2050, 60, 70 ? That’s a long while to manage this mess.
My sister in laws husband died when he was 37, about 8 years ago.
He was a super high income guy with literally no savings and marginal life insurance.
She made over $55/hr part time in the medical industry.
So she goes to the SS office after the dust settles to figure out the benefits for her and the kids, and when the kids benefits drop off over time.
The bureaucratic dunce advices her to stop working completely, otherwise some of her (not the kids) benefits will decrease.
I don’t remember the number, but let’s say it was around 3500/month. So that’s 42k/yr.
I STILL can’t convince my sister in law that she is better off making $110k per year working full time, while losing some benefits. All because of that dumbass at the SS office.
So what does she do now? She has her whole day to spend money, instead of making good money. And she cries that she is burning through the life insurance money.
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.