Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To pay for the significant tax cuts that benefit the highest income earners the most and that is adding 1.9 trillion to the deficit, the President and the GOP are proposing a budget plan to cut $1.5 trillion from Medicaid, $845 billion from Medicare and $25 billion from Social Security. https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/me...19%20FINAL.pdf
Now, as per the first link in this thread, on top of those groups, the plan is to raise Tricare fees and cut veteran benefits.
So the plan to pay for the tax cuts to the top income earners that is adding trillions to the deficit is to cut funding for Medicaid (poverty stricken), Medicare (elderly entitlement program), Social Security (elderly entitlement program), education (children and grandchildren of the elderly) and our veterans.
Ironically, the elderly and veterans are generally the Republicans / GOP's biggest supporters and that these proposed cuts, if enacted will hurt them the most.
If these proposals get through, they will detrimentally hurt the majority of our population. Proposing laws that benefit the few at expense of the many is detrimental to society as a whole.
Fortunately, unlike the tax cuts to the wealthy, these are just proposals and some will make the argument they are only that. Some will also make the argument that it is "Fake News" and "Propoganda", despite the sources of the links. They will choose to look away, ignore, not read and not even consider what is being proposed because it is contradictory to their Tribe and/or world view.
However, fortunately, many will choose too keep an open mind and thoroughly research matters for themselves.
Even if these proposals from the President (and others) that were quietly proposed do not see enactment, they do show the mindset of the current Administration, a sizable portion of the GOP and a sizable portion of the Republican party. It also lays in contrast to the GOP implying they have your (the majority of the population's best interest at heart). This brings to mind two quotes I like:
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" - The Wizard of Oz
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." - Maya Angelo
Whatever party is in office (current one included), all are capable of putting forth proposals that benefit the greater good / the majority of society. The question is, will whatever party is in office put forth proposals and laws the benefit the majority of society or just proposals and laws that benefit the minority at the expense of the majority?
Last edited by txbullsfan; 02-19-2020 at 04:49 PM..
Some interesting excerpts from the firsts article presented in the first link:
Ending the VA's individual unemployability payments to disabled veterans when they turn 67, the retirement age for receiving full Social Security benefits, which would save an estimated $48 billion.
Reducing disability benefits to veterans older than 67 who are receiving Social Security payments. This could save the government $11 billion.
Eliminating disability compensation for 1.3 million veterans with disability rates below 30 percent, saving $38 billion over an eight-year period.
"Finally, the CBO said the federal government could raise revenue by including VA disability payments as taxable income. According to the CBO, if all disability payments were to be taxed, federal revenues during the time frame would increase by $93 billion."
- End article excerpts
Please read each of the articles presented in the links in full for the full article and proposed options and their consequences.
It is in the CBO's mission statement to be non-partisan. They only make recommendations. Some take those recommendations and present them in a biased way for political gain. That is what we see here. None of this is as it appears.
More propaganda because it is being presented w/o full context.
I find it interesting that the CBO selected Tricare and VA benefits. Why not suggest cutting Military spending? UN Spending? Foreign aid? There are so many programs, but none more expensive than the military. Anyone who has served has seen the waste. I am not talking about pay or benefits. I am talking about quarterly's. What you don't spend you lose. Not just the balance, but they take that amount away for the next quarter, this puts the incentive on spending every dime every quarter. Yes this creates waste.
Less Ford class carriers and a more attack subs. We would save money on ships and need fewer sailors.
There are many many places where we could cut spending and sacrifice national security.
VA benefits. I have never used mine. People think that all vets get the same VA benefits and they are wrong. The GI Bill for when I served almost worthless. VA hospital? Yeah I wouldn't send a cat to the VA. That said there are men and women coming home from war that certainly need it more than I. WE could save money if we did away with VA hospitals. Instead issue every Vet a medical card. Good in any US Hospital. Sell off the VA hospitals. Open small VA offices to help vets replace lost or stolen documents and with other VA related needs.
Some interesting excerpts from the firsts article presented in the first link:
Ending the VA's individual unemployability payments to disabled veterans when they turn 67, the retirement age for receiving full Social Security benefits, which would save an estimated $48 billion.
Reducing disability benefits to veterans older than 67 who are receiving Social Security payments. This could save the government $11 billion.
Eliminating disability compensation for 1.3 million veterans with disability rates below 30 percent, saving $38 billion over an eight-year period.
"Finally, the CBO said the federal government could raise revenue by including VA disability payments as taxable income. According to the CBO, if all disability payments were to be taxed, federal revenues during the time frame would increase by $93 billion."
- End article excerpts
Please read each of the articles presented in the links in full for the full article and proposed options and their consequences.
These are not completely unreasonable suggestions.
a very thorough post, if not the same discussion that's been going on for a week. However, since you are a recipient, perhaps you can explain a few things:
1. these 3 changes to eligibility on benefits surrounding social security primarily, but also disability. Is it not saying "once you draw social security, you're not eligible for these other payments"? This seems akin to paying a 65 year old unemployment, but then when they're 67 and drawing SS, ending the unemployment compensation.
2. all may wish to delve into the underlying CBO document. It is 326 pages.
I wouldn't trust the CBO, anyone who claims to be a nonpartisan is a liar period... With that said, they do have interesting ideas but take it with a grain of salt ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
