CNBC: Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit

[OldLady]

That's kind of the point--if you don't realize that not all young families have $10,000 a year to put toward retirement and medical insurance after retirement,

Of course that doesn't rule out some form of tax payer funded supplements (in order to reach a minimum annual contribution amount) into those accounts for the poor .
​

​

No free rides for those that aren't poor (at or below the poverty line), if you're not willing to make sacrifices in the present for your own future financial security then you don't deserve to have any.

​

you are part of the problem.

Yeah; if you call advocating for the responsible management of finances, having the capacity for reason, thinking outside the unworkable status quo box and taking responsibility for ones own material well being "the problem".

What's you idea of being part of the solution? keep on ignoring reality until the bottom drops out?

Not understanding how more and more people actually live is part of the problem right now. I do appreciate the explanation, though.

"How more people live" is irrelevant, the numbers are what they are and failing to recognize that fact will only lead to "more people" living in an economic state that's materially WORSE than what they're living in today.

The signs are all around you (declining real wages, increasing structural unemployment, accelerating accumulation of personal and public debt and unfunded liabilities, etc..,etc..,), closing your eyes to them, stamping your feet and trying to pretend the status quo is hunky dory because you want to show how "compassionate" you are won't change the reality that our current system is a pathway to widespread economic misery and social unrest.

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population?

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone

You mean kinda like this....

give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground. You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme. "Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already. Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

 

[OldLady]

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

Clinton got the debt under control? Please explain that.

Dunno. I've heard he balanced the budget.

 

[TNHarley]

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

Clinton got the debt under control? Please explain that.

Dunno. I've heard he balanced the budget.

That he did. That doesnt mean he got the budget under control though lol.

 

[OldLady]

Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.

I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.

Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

 

[OldLady]

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

Clinton got the debt under control? Please explain that.

Dunno. I've heard he balanced the budget.

That he did. That doesnt mean he got the budget under control though lol.

So all he did was not spend more than he collected? Don't lie to me now, TN.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

 

[TNHarley]

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

Clinton got the debt under control? Please explain that.

Dunno. I've heard he balanced the budget.

That he did. That doesnt mean he got the budget under control though lol.

So all he did was not spend more than he collected? Don't lie to me now, TN.

Bill Clinton increased the federal debt around 30%. Like 1.5T, give or take a few billion.

 

[Disir]

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

What was satisfying about it?

 

[jasonnfree]

Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

Social Security has kept a lot of old folks from living in dire poverty for the last almost eighty years. A Ponzi scheme it's not.

Ponzi Scheme

only a left would take ownership of such failure.

There's a lot of 'only the left does this' and 'only the right does this' stuff on these forums, which makes your statement false I believe.

 

[Flash]

This will not happen before the midterms as it will be met with fierce opposition and backlash by the electorate. There will be a political price for these cuts and a heavy one.

None of the filthy ass welfare queens that live off the entitlements were ever going to vote for Trump in the first place.

However, the people that have to pay for the stupid entitlements did vote for Trump and they will be glad to get the tax cuts and less spending on welfare.

No backlash. Trump will get more support for trimming back on the welfare state, which is the right thing to do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

What was satisfying about it?

The results of it. More families staying together. Folks claiming they felt liberated for the fist time in their lives. Getting people off the dole is always a positive thing. You get out of the house, get a job, and actually make something of your life instead of generational welfare where you just sit home waiting for your check.

 

[TNHarley]

OldLady i might be wrong but i think the last POTUS to not raise the debt was Coolidge. He subtracted around 5 B

 

[danielpalos]

That's right. Screw the poor and middle class after all, that IS the American Way.

As usual, LyinRayn is lying. Not to mention they're called "entitlements" because the recipients are entitled to them.

This bastard got where he is because of SocSec but its his long time dream to steal this money from those who earned SS and Medicare. The gop doesn't actually give a fuck about the deficit but what they do are about is taking advantage of this opportunity to screw over the elderly. Others on their hit list - the handicapped, veterans, children and their all time favorites to attack, women.

Interestingly, his hero Ayn Rand collected SS under a fake name, was in favor of abortion and was a nazi.

Done with your childish little rant??

How do YOU propose to cut the national debt?

We have a SPENDING problem ... you can only fix it by cutting spending. What's on YOUR hit list?

As I said, cut the War Department.

Imagine if the asshole criminals of the imperial capital were to place a moratorium on "defense" spending (really war making) for say 10 years. Then, use all those multiple trillions to help make America great.

There wouldn't BE an America to make great .... how would you propose to counter the threats we face every day?

BTW --- the Defense budget is -what? - $600 billion. What kind of impact will THAT have on the national debt?

Hint: None. It doesn't even cover the deficit.

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror must be listed under Defense spending not Welfare spending.

 

[NightFox]

That's kind of the point--if you don't realize that not all young families have $10,000 a year to put toward retirement and medical insurance after retirement,

Of course that doesn't rule out some form of tax payer funded supplements (in order to reach a minimum annual contribution amount) into those accounts for the poor .
​

​

No free rides for those that aren't poor (at or below the poverty line), if you're not willing to make sacrifices in the present for your own future financial security then you don't deserve to have any.

​

you are part of the problem.

Yeah; if you call advocating for the responsible management of finances, having the capacity for reason, thinking outside the unworkable status quo box and taking responsibility for ones own material well being "the problem".

What's you idea of being part of the solution? keep on ignoring reality until the bottom drops out?

Not understanding how more and more people actually live is part of the problem right now. I do appreciate the explanation, though.

"How more people live" is irrelevant, the numbers are what they are and failing to recognize that fact will only lead to "more people" living in an economic state that's materially WORSE than what they're living in today.

The signs are all around you (declining real wages, increasing structural unemployment, accelerating accumulation of personal and public debt and unfunded liabilities, etc..,etc..,), closing your eyes to them, stamping your feet and trying to pretend the status quo is hunky dory because you want to show how "compassionate" you are won't change the reality that our current system is a pathway to widespread economic misery and social unrest.

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population?

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone

You mean kinda like this....

give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

 

[danielpalos]

Oh'lookie here...The poor and workers get fucked again while the rich get fatter!

I want to trim the fucking military about 200 billion dollars! And raise taxes on the 1%.

As compared to what, the middle-class getting fucked and government getting fatter?

With healthcare reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage?

 

[danielpalos]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Well Dems have been screaming about the deficit. They should be all for cutting all entitlements.

lol. We are entitled to entitlements from general welfare spending not general warfare spending.

 

[OldLady]

It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

 

[OldLady]

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

Clinton got the debt under control? Please explain that.

Dunno. I've heard he balanced the budget.

That he did. That doesnt mean he got the budget under control though lol.

So all he did was not spend more than he collected? Don't lie to me now, TN.

Bill Clinton increased the federal debt around 30%. Like 1.5T, give or take a few billion.

What does the fact check below mean?
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

 

[Disir]

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

What was satisfying about it?

The results of it. More families staying together. Folks claiming they felt liberated for the fist time in their lives. Getting people off the dole is always a positive thing. You get out of the house, get a job, and actually make something of your life instead of generational welfare where you just sit home waiting for your check.

So, what they did was have people train for something like data entry at the same time they were offshoring data entry. They would make right above the cutoff mark.
PRWORA became a fiasco in retrospect.

 

[TNHarley]

Clinton got the debt under control? Please explain that.

Dunno. I've heard he balanced the budget.

That he did. That doesnt mean he got the budget under control though lol.

So all he did was not spend more than he collected? Don't lie to me now, TN.

Bill Clinton increased the federal debt around 30%. Like 1.5T, give or take a few billion.

What does the fact check below mean?
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

What i said earlier
What's the difference between the U.S. deficit and the national debt?