House Gop Plan Would Cut Medicare, Social Security To Balance Budget

Do you remember how Democrats are always saying that Republicans are going to cut Medicare and Social Security? Well, in past years these have been lies.

This time, I am not so sure it's a lie. House Republicans released a budget proposal that would balance in nine years, but do so by making large cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

Here's the part that infuriates me. In every story that I read about it, they refer to Medicare and Social Security as entitlement programs.

Although we have paid into these programs our entire working lives, they are referring to them as entitlement programs.

Medicaid is an entitlement program. Giving a free ride to illegal immigrants is an entitlement program. The healthcare program that our congress has given themselves and their families is an entitlement program.

To me, this seems to be a sure way for the Republicans to lose their majority.

As it is since I have been on Social Security, every raise that we have gotten has met by a simultaneous rise in my Medicare premium.

I could understand the argument that these are expensive programs and that those of us who collect on them are likely to collect more than we've paid in, but we have paid into these programs, against our will, throughout our working lives.

It also concerns me that we are supposed to believe that Medicare and Social Security costs are breaking our budget, yet many of these same Republicans (and every Democrat) are eager to bring illegal immigrants in here, at a huge expense that will never end. Too many of them, in both parties, seem to enjoy waging senseless wars, and every one of them is paid far, far more than he or she is worth.

-- Chicago Tribune

 

I don't know that these budget proposals will pass, and I suspect that they will not, but I can't imagine why the Republicans would sacrifice the midterms. I also don't know just which of them is involved in this, other than Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio.

 

As long as we are wasting billions upon billions of dollars that we don't have on things that we don't need and, in many cases, that the world would be better off without, there is no justification for it.

 

They are entitlement programs only for those who have not paid into them. Otherwise, they are no more an entitlement program than a mandatory insurance policy. After making insurance payments, you have every right to expect them to pay their part. That's not an entitlement program.

 

Okay, in that case, every federal employee is receiving entitlements. I get what you're saying but I doubt that the semantics are going to help Republicans maintain a majority by going after Social Security and Medicare.

By the way, what "legal recourse" would you have if they cut your Social Security? By that definition, how is Medicaid not an entitlement? Eligible people have sued and won for being denied Medicaid benefits. In fact, right now, the State of Maine is fighting a court ruling forcing it to expand its Medicaid coverage.

By the way, a congressional definition defining Medicare and Social Security as entitlements was the point of this thread. I am not saying they cannot define it as such. I am saying that this is not going to help them in the midterms, and I stand by that.

Basically, I am saying that Congress referring to Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement program that they are going to cut is a bad idea for the midterms, and you are countering me be showing that Congress is referring to Social Security and Medicare as an entitlement program.

They could define access to your bank account as an entitlement program if they wanted to, given that you are entitled to it because it's your money, but when they follow that by cutting your bank account by a large percentage, that wouldn't incline you to vote for them in November.

 

I posted the news article, which is what I was referring to. I could post others, but they don't give a lot of additional information. If you believe it's wrong, take it up with the Chicago Tribune. It certainly wouldn't be the first time they were wrong.

You're missing the point. You're not wrong, but you're not addressing the same thing that I was, but that's okay. I am talking about how this is likely to affect the chances of the Republicans in the midterms if they go into it pushing a budget that cuts Social Security and Medicare while funding welfare for illegal immigrants. Voters don't generally look at the congressional website and accept that something is okay because it says it right there.

My point remains the same. You are pointing to the fact that the legislature has referred to Medicare and Social Security as an entitlement as if that should make it okay with everyone, the point that I am making is that, if they do indeed go into the midterms with a budget that calls for cuts in these programs, it is not going to bode well for them. They lose votes when they raise the retirement age but if they push a budget that cuts Social Security or Medicare benefits for people who are collecting it, they are going to lose a lot more, and no one is going to care what the congressional website says, particularly not in a climate where the Republican base is already upset about illegal immigration.

People are not going to consider that it's okay that they are getting less from Social Security now, or paying for their Medicare, because, after all, it says right here on the congressional website that it's an entitlement. No, they are going to be angry that we are spending a huge amount of money on illegal immigrants, foreign wars and aid, and congressional paychecks and perks while trying to make up the difference by cutting Social Security and Medicare.

People might be willing to make sacrifices if they are persuaded that they are necessary and if it appears that sacrifices are made elsewhere, as well. But that's not the case here. I have heard of no discussion about cutting congressional benefits.

It might be fine with you but there are a lot of Republicans that it won't be fine with it. I only became aware of this because it is already under discussion on a Facebook Republican group, who otherwise support Republicans, although not necessarily Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan.

Both of Maine's Republican legislators will support whatever Paul Ryan tells them to, and that is true of other Republican legislators. Historically, the Party in power loses seats in the midterms anyhow, so this is not going to be a winner for them.

 

I posted a news article here and summarized it; I didn't write it. You have made some good points. Although I don't find the Chicago Tribune article to be over the top, there are political attacks against Rubio by Democrats that are highly exaggerated, but that should be no surprise. I didn't include them, though.

Rubio has frequently advocated for raising the retirement age and has often spoken in favor of Ryan's plans for cuts in Social Security and Medicare. None of this is new on his part. My concern is in making it an issue going into the midterms, and the suggestion in the news articles that these are being proposed in a Republican budget.

The time to get upset about something is not when it's too late to do anything about it, and you might have noticed that, although it's been ages since the Congress has actually passed a budget, Omnibus bills include a whole lot of stuff that is not revealed until it's too late, passed overnight, without anyone having read it. If it turns out that people are being upset about something that doesn't come about, we'll never know whether it was never intended to begin with or whether it wasn't advanced because people were upset about it.

In 2016, while running for president, Rubio backed off of cuts to the program, suggesting, instead, a series of raises in the retirement age, also part of Ryan's plan. While running for reelection, he also brings on the gentler approach.

Last fall, Rubio was in favor of making cuts to Social Security, so the attacks don't seem to be out of character for either Rubio or Ryan. Given that Rubio's positions are usually relaxed during election years, it's hard to pin him down on any one position.

One thing is clear, however. While he can be depended upon to vote against controlling our borders, and in favor of bringing more dependent people into the country, he views cuts in Social Security and Medicare as being central to his economic plans for the country, and this is going to be a problem.

You can't scare people into accepting cuts to their benefits or a lower standard of living when these cuts are coming from people who are surely not willing to lowe their own standard of living or that of their families, and who are willing to take on other huge expenses, such as illegal immigration, that are not viewed as being in the country's best interests.