Are we willing to accept cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid if some revenues are raised?

[jtown1123]

From the White House:

Myth: This deal cuts Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Fact: There are no changes to these programs included in the initial phase of this agreement. In the second phase of the agreement, everything will be on the table – and the President has made clear that the committee must pursue a balanced approach where reforms to programs like Medicaid, Social Security or Medicare would only be acceptable if coupled with higher revenues from the most fortunate. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/03/myths-and-facts-about-debt-ceiling-compromise?utm_source=email125&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=deficit

Why is Social Security even being offered in these discussions? It has a surplus. Any cuts now is basically theft because it is self funded...or was always intended to be until Obama enacted the payroll tax "holiday."

Are we going to trade program cuts for revenue increases? It is unbelievable it has come to this point.

[matmar]

1. Hell NO.

[Vincardog]

35. HELL NO NEVER, We need to cut BO out of the 'compromises' er negotiations he does not work for us

[daa]

57. +1000

[bvar22]

68. Standing UP for HELL NO!

..and stunned that a "Democrat" would EVER put these On the Table.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed


"By their WORKS you will know them."

[Broderick]

2. I would like to know how much revenue could be raised

just by asking the top 5 percent of earners for 1% more.

[dtexdem]

3. No way! This is a reason to vote ANY pol out, including Dems.

For example, theft of the SS Trust Fund is NEVER 'acceptable.'

[rurallib]

4. NO!

Why do I read 'reform' to mean 'cut' - oh I remember now.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. I'm not okay with it at all

In fact, I don't want them to cut anything. I want them to spend billions driving up the debt MORE on soup-to-nuts infrastructure jobs. It's like we have a bunch of collective idiots in Washington that don't get . . . Private business/corporations are NOT going to create jobs no matter what. We the people must create jobs by rebuilding America one brick at a time. And to offset costs - the need to sunset the bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy ASAP.

[mmonk]

6. Why?

There is no reason to screw people over for corporate greed. Why trade when the tax cuts and unfunded war got us to this point? Let them take it all down alone.

[librechik]

7. Hell no and it has nothing to do with politics. The economy can't stand ANY cuts right now

That is the basic flaw of the whole deal. First allowing them to link action of any kind to the debt ceiling, and second to go along with their religious chamnt that spending is a sin. that comes out of the Calvinism of the Puritan Era and does not work for modern economies. Obama should have been shouting the Repubs down on that from day one, instead he said, well sure cuts are necessary.

WRONG

[October]

8. No. Taxing the rich and getting corporations to pay fair share is enough!

[valerief]

9. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and NO. nt

[eleny]

10. ffs, no

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Raised revenues to be spent on what? If not on social programs, what are they to be spent on?

The military? Banker Bailouts? Corporate welfare?

[jtown1123]

51. Great point. +1

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. NO! n/t

[Fire1]

13. Uh.....we won't have to sacrifice cuts for revenue. n/t

[jtown1123]

53. Says who?

[Fire1]

56. Read and learn. Much more plausible. n/t

http://www.editedforclarity.com/2011/08/01/debt-ceiling-deal-the-devil-is-in-the-details/

[jtown1123]

59. Your point is? They can come to an agreement to cut these programs in Super Committee

then there will be significant pressure on everyone to pass the package, with no Amendments, because they want to avoid the trigger.

[Fire1]

62. Both sides

will come to an agreement so as NOT to pull the trigger b/c if that's the case they BOTH lose.

[jtown1123]

69. Right. But I don't see how that agreement doesn't include entitlement cuts

chances are, the Democrats appointed to this group will be Fiscal Commission/Gang of Sixers who are willing to cut entitlements.

[Fire1]

83. Because there are TWO sacred cows. Ours is SS,

Medicare and medicaid. Their's is the military. Neither side wants cuts. So, where do you suppose that badly needed revenue will come from? Bush tax cuts will not be extended and tax increases from the rich (and a little more from the military). The end

[Brickbat]

14. This is like a bad dream. Those things have nothing to do with each other.

[Donnachaidh]

15. HELL NO. n/t

[DJ13]

16. NO

Especially Social Security, as our benefits are already paid for.

The money in the SS trust fund is OURS, not the governments to use in providing more tax cuts for the already wealthy.


Even Medicare can be fixed without cuts, as its basically a health insurance pool, and as with private insurance pools if the costs start increasing you can increase the size of the pool so that it covers those people less likely to use it.

Lower the eligibility age to say 50 (or eliminate it entirely for maximum cost savings) so that it covers a larger number of healthy people, and the cost problems are no longer there.

[Curmudgeoness]

17. I am absolutely not willing to accept cuts

in these "entitlements". (To the people who call these programs entitlements, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.)

This one thing could be my first "single issue" for voting purposes.

[man4allcats]

18. Re: "Are we willing to accept cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid if some revenues are raised?"

No!

[Lifelong Protester]

19. No, NO, and MORE NO

I have NO TRUST in any plan that says something to the effect of 'we'll make teeny-tiny cuts (read: gut) for some revenue increase (read: drop in the bucket from, you guessed it, the middle class and poor).

[Angry Dragon]

20. No would be the answer

[gateley]

21. No - increased revenue should, in theory, negate the "reasons"

for targeting Medicare and SS, no?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. not to those three programs. no. If they instate medicare for all then

there would be no use for Medicaid anyway.

[Recursion]

33. What about people who can't afford Medicare premiums?

Even if it wouldn't be called Medicaid there'd have to be some sort of program for them. Part A & B together is something like $900 per month, and that's with a $1000 deductible.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. what about a National Health Care Program for all under one roof

:shrug:

the terminology needs to be changed.

[Recursion]

54. No matter how we pay for it, medical care just costs too much

Whether we bankrupt ourselves as individuals or collectively as a nation, we can't afford the level of health care we expect at the prices we pay. That has actually very little to do with public vs. private insurance -- Medicare is cheaper than private insurance (mostly -- BCBS has actually proven to be better at containing some costs than Medicare), but not cheaper enough that we can afford it.

We need lower costs. There's lots of different ways to do that. Move away from fee-for-service (you just keep a doctor on retainer, basically). Explicit price controls. More transparency in pricing. But one way or another there's going to have to be some kind of rationing also (there already is, it's just not very sensibly done), and a lot of that is going to have to be end-of-life care. And that's going to be basically impossible for a democratic political process to deliver.

[joeglow3]

58. Yay. Someone else gets it.

Fact remains that a big part of the problem we are in is because of costly medical advances, end of life care and a demographic shift. Medicare and Medicaid work well, but force most providers to operate at a loss. These losses are made up of increased costs to private insurers. Essentially, the government continually cuts reimbursement rates, hoping the average person doesn't realize they just passed a regressive stealth tax. This has to be addressed, but never will because the second we try to have an honest discussion about it, idiots like Palin, looking to gain politically, will just yell "death panels" and shut down any conversation.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. And that's going to be basically impossible for a democratic political process to deliver.

hmmm. . . .

how would you handle malpractice?

[Recursion]

71. Switching to a professional review board rather than torts (nt)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

74. so then. you are suggesting that the problem can be solved through

the private sector rather than through public funds? is this correct?

[Recursion]

77. Well liability isn't nearly the problem it's made out to be, IMO

States that have enacted tort reform haven't seen costs go down. I was seeing the professional review board as a governmental or quasi-governmental agency, so I'm not sure where that fits into your private sector question.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

80. regarding your first reply to my original post - -

the way you phrased it sounds to me like you think the problems can resolved by privatizing health care. perhaps, I misunderstand.

[Recursion]

82. No I was saying public or private, it's going to bankrupt us either way (nt)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

84. in that, you and I are in violent agreement. n/t

[SugarShack]

23. NOOOOOO....there is a lot more money than you know. these DONT" need to be cut,

They should be enhanced. Remove soc sec cap. go after waste in disability....my neighbor right now...is on disability after losing his job...and right now...he's painting his house!!!

And...take off the million a year in salary people. They don't need 1K a month.

Same with medicare. Social cuts should only be on cutting the very wealthy out!

[stopbush]

24. I'm against cuts, but I'm for changes.

Like getting rid of the income cap on FICA taxes. Why should everyone who makes under $106,800 pay FICA taxes on 100% of their income while everyone making over $106,800 pays FICA on less than 100% of their income? Is it fair that a person making $1MM a year pays FICA taxes on only the first 10% of their income?

Let's do that one first and see how many years or even decades are added to SS's solvency before any cuts are discussed.

As far as cuts to Medicare/Medicaid, I see no reason to make cuts when a few changes would help, like allowing the government to negotiate drug prices with big pharma and offering citizens the option of Medicare For All. These are strategies that are known to lower costs, and the only reason they don't happen is because Congress is owned by big pharma.

And I'm not against means testing if it comes to that in, oh, 2070.

[Newest Reality]

25. Start with ten

years of inducing fear with constant reminders of the dangers of the word "terrorism". Dismantle what you can by using this ruse.

Then, proceed to economic insecurity. Assure that more and more people are dis-empowered and financially unstable.

Next, work to "starve the beast" by adding to the already rampant fears and instability. That will assure that no measures will be taken to increase and add new services and programs to help scores of people impacted by the gross inequity being foisted upon them.

Meanwhile, cut, draw and quarter whatever you can to assure a corporatist takeover via privatization. From there, your population will be largely desperate and disheveled, and most certainly poorer and without any real power or control.

Buy-up everything and continue to increase exploitation of the huge, artificially created Underclass while enjoying little or no barriers to doing so. Maintain a facade of democracy while acting entirely from a Fascist paradigm. War over. Oligarchs win. Serfs meet your Lords. Inmates, meet your guards at the private prisons ... er employment/housing initiative centers ... gulags?

That's not unbelievable because that is the overall template in progress. If nothing is done by the people and corporate media and pocketed politicians are acknowledge sources of reality and truth, there is no stopping it.

[kickysnana]

26. Hell no.

[ThomWV]

27. No!

[woo me with science]

28. K&R No benefit cuts. No rationalization of benefit cuts. nt

[carolinayellowdog]

29. A million senior march on Washington seems to be in order n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

30. I guess my first question is why are we starting with those three programs

Defense offers far more fertile ground for cuts. We're still set up to go toe-to-toe with the Ruskies. That's not today's warfare.

A whole host of subsidies should be on the table as well.

Medicaid espenditures should fall when HCR kicks in. That's supposed to be the idea, anyway. People can actually see a doctor for preventative care, and costs drop. So I'm fine with the idea of cutting Medicaid, but ONLY if those services are still provided by health insurance policies purchased under HCR.

Medicare and Social Security: I've said before that these programs need to have age increases to offset increases in life expectancy that exceed their designed payouts. So I'd like the acceptance age somehow indexed to average US life expectancy. If you call that a cut, so be it.

I would not accept any other cuts to these programs, or additional votes on a balanced budget amendment, or any other budget modifications without a repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts.

[jtown1123]

55. +1 Ask the President.

[robinlynne]

31. NO.

[chill_wind]

32. Reid floated something a couple days ago and Cantor instantly blew it

to pieces. fwiw:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid touted the joint committee on Monday afternoon and told reporters, "Everyone knows that a joint committee was my proposal. I'm glad that Senator McConnell has put his arms around this. I hope that we can get something done. I was just told as I was walking out of this, 'I hope this doesn't affect the vote over there today.' I was told that Representative Cantor said that he...someone just told me that Cantor said that revenue could very well be part of what we do with the joint committee."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's office sent out a statement refuting Mr. Reid's claim saying, "Nothing could be further from the truth. As Leader Cantor has said since the beginning of this debate, House Republicans will not agree to tax increases. Period. Senator Reid's claim is absolutely FALSE."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/aug/2/picket-lawmakers-remain-leery-super-congress/

[sabrina 1]

34. No!

And to even suggest it reveals how stupid they think we are.

SS is solvent. The Fed Govt is not.

What needs to be cut are the gifts to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts and bailouts when they screw up and the Pentagon budget. These are the expenditures that caused the deficit/debt.

The SS Fund has a surplus, now owed to it by the Fed. Govt.

To tell a creditor that THEY have to repay themselves what you borrowed from them because you don't want to cash in your assets is simply ludicrous.

[closeupready]

45. Brilliant, Sabrina! "SS is solvent. The Fed Govt is not." EXACTLY.

nt

[suffragette]

78. + 1,000

[Lorien]

36. The whole idea that WE need to sacrifice when THEY caused the problem and are

the only ones benefiting from the system is immoral and offensive.

[LondonReign2]

37. If by cuts you mean

further means testing and cap benefits for the wealthy that don't need these programs, then yes.

Why the fuck and we making SS payments to millionaires? Its suppossed to be a safety net, not a savings program.

[Big Blue Marble]

41. Means testing to SS will be the sucker punch that will destroy it.

Do you really want to turn it from an entitlement to an welfare benefit? You need to spend more
time studying the full intent of this program.

It is far better to ask the rich to pay more into the program.

[LondonReign2]

46. I agree that the first choice is to raise taxes to support the program

The OP, however, asked if anyone would support cuts.

A cap, as I mentioned, is another alternative to means testing which doesn't switch it to a welfare program, i.e., cap the amount paid back out to the wealthy to equal what they paid in (whether you want to add a nominal interest rate to the return is optional), rather than multiples of their contributions.

[Big Blue Marble]

64. As I understand it, the kind of cap you mean

is one that would limit the payout to higher income people. Do you know that at this time
benefits are already skewed toward lower income people and that higher income folks are required
to pay income tax on 85% of their benefits. That includes any one making over $25k as a single or
$32K as a couple. Income levels that hardly qualify you as wealthy. So currently wealthy people are
returning nearly one-third of their SS benefit to US treasury to be spent for war or corporate subsidies

Wealthy people also back more than double in Medicare premiums as of right now.

The consequence of caping or limiting their benefits even further seems logical but the unintended
consequences would be that the less value the wealthy recipients receive the more likely these
programs will be undermined. It is a dangerous way to "reform" them, even though it would seem
to make populist sense.

[RebelOne]

38. No, no and no!!!

[Iggo]

40. No.

[jannyk]

42. No.

[closeupready]

43. No. Absolutely not. Under any circumstances.

GDP is up. If taxes need to be raised on the wealthy, do so. Period. End of discussion.

[FiveGoodMen]

44. What's just past HELL NO?

[closeupready]

47. Further, I've called ALL my congresscritters and told them "Under no circumstances should you vote

for any cuts to social security or medicare. No matter WHAT." I think if we all did that, it would be overwhelming.

[Big Blue Marble]

48. All we need to remember is the Bush tax cuts.

Clinton bravely raised tax rates for the wealthy and the country and the economy thrived.

Bush after regaining power, quickly slashed those rates.

So even if we got cuts now in exchange for starting the destruction of these vital programs,
as soon as Republicans are back in power they will give back any tax increases to their friends,
but there will be no going back on the big 3, just more cuts ahead.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

[SammyWinstonJack]

49. NO!!!

:grr:

[jtown1123]

50. I agree with the sentiment here. Very disappointed that's what Obama is willing to trade away n/t

[Chisox08]

52. Hell No

Obama and the Democratic leadership in Washington needs to stand up for the poor and middle class Americans. They forget we are their bosses not just the Koch brothers and the Wall Street criminals that most congresscritters bow to.

[Dappleganger]

60. No, and anyone who says yes is not a real democrat.

[readmoreoften]

76. +1

[trayfoot]

61. Not just NO, but HELL NO!

[Ganja Ninja]

63. No. n/t

[ohheckyeah]

65. NO

[Warren Stupidity]

67. No damn way.

My Party Fights for Better Benefits. That is the Political Party I support. I oppose all political parties that advocate for reducing benefits.

[KamaAina]

70. Nyet! Nein! Non! 'A'ole!

Capisce?

[aquart]

72. No. And how dare they even mention it.

[Bluebear]

81. +

[B Calm]

73. No SS is running a surplus and has nothing to do with the debt!

[readmoreoften]

75. FUCK NO.

[OwnedByFerrets]

79. FUCK NO and again, FUCK NO

[Lugnut]

85. No!

No way. No how.