I don’t beleive so. many states, and cities are required to run a balanced budget. I think the fed government would be able to as well.
Not if the social security program was altered to make it a TRUE safety net. Have lifetime limits on some other programs, require that people start looking for work to keep other bennefits so they can work their way off them.
All sorts of things can be done. Most dem’s and liberals would throw a fit however since they want to increase and give more freebies.
I’m all for means testing social security, but of course most Republicans would throw a fit since they want their government goodies no matter how rich they already are.
Here’s one thing, and all it will cost you is $700 a year: reverse the disastrous Trump tax cuts, reverse the $1.51 trillion added to the debt, and reverse the pressure Republicans are putting on people who need and deserve the social security that the US government promised them.
So your idea is to have eldery people after they retire and get SS to go get a job…thats genius
I’m not your typcial Republican. Means test social security. Set a monthly income amount then have a 1 for 1 match on social security payments (every dollar over that, you lose a dollar of ss benefits each month). Remove the penalty for not signing up for medicaid when eligible. If someone can find resonable private health insurance, let them keep it without being penalized.
If your in federally subsidized housing – you need to be certified (by two doctors) as disabled or you need to be working. If your able to work, set a time limit for eligability for federal subsidies.
Keep the tax cuts, start cutting the budget now. That’s very simple too.
Where did I say that after they retire they need to get a job to get social security. You misread. SS a TRUE safety net (means tested, if you have 5 million in assets then no ss). Have lifetime limits on some other programs, and other bennefts require that they work if abled bodied.
Cutting the budget will hurt people. Reversing the text cuts will not.
You can do cuts like that at most one time…maybe two.
I disagree. You can have your opinion, I can have mine. keep the tax cuts, make them permanent (will be fun if D’s still hold the house when some of the tax cuts are set to expire and they won’t renew them – will they be called out for raising taxes??).
Start making cuts to the budget.
Yup, THEN you start getting into analyzing how many employee’s are needed to do certain jobs. If an office has 10 people and the work can be done with 9, then one person has to be let go. If you have two office building that ar 50% occupied, then move them into one building and put the second up for sale.
Then there are other ways that wouldn’t be popular. Means test Social Security – revert it back to being a true safety net for those who need it. Remove the penalty for not signing up for medicaid when eligible. Some of the other program out there – require the receipents work.
Ther are all kinds of ways to cut the budget.
You can disagree, but the data is against you.
Austerity leads to slowed economic growth.
You disagree that cutting the budget will hurt people, or you don’t care?
Another fun thing would be explaining to the American people that the Trump tax cuts are fiscally unsustainable without deep cuts to the services they rely on now and will rely on even more in retirement. Maybe that’s worth $700 a year to you, but I doubt cutting grandma’s social security is going to be a winning election argument.
End the unsustainable tax cuts now and spend money on the infrastructure and social services Americans need.
I disagree that it will hurt the majority of people. Everything that is done negatively effects a small percentage of people.
Where have I called for cutting grandma’s SS? The only way I would call for a cut of Grandma’s SS is if she has a lot of assest that she can draw on to support herself. She wouldn’t need a true safety net.
Keep the tax cuts, start cutting the budget, and throw any idea’s of new programs (single pay system, free education and the like) in the garbage.
Not if the social security program was altered to make it a TRUE safety net. Have lifetime limits on some other programs, require that people start looking for work to keep other bennefits so they can work their way off them.
Right there…thats what you said…you dont want people to see it that way then state what you mean.
would someone like Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, Bloomberg, Bezo’s et all need to collect social security? When they retire would they have assets (stock, property, bank accounts) to live off or would they need to keep working? Do THEY need the safety net?
Some programs already have that, shouldn’t be a problem with adding a few more.
That to me sound like the best idea. less money going out of the government for program and more money coming in from the payrol tax.
By a trillion dollars? Good luck. Also, good luck cutting the budget that much without precipitating a recession.
What if they lose all their money?
Its there for a reason. Can always have a box to check off ehere they can forfeit the cash…they pay into it for a reason.
What works for one doesnt for another…
So then you admit you did say it…thank you…everytime…
I didnt say it…
Then doubles down…
Everytime
I’m getting close to retirement, and have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into Social Security. So no social security for me if I happen to have a house with a high valuation because I live in California? (No, it’s not $5 million.)
it’s also odd that someone who believes so strongly in an absolute flat tax across all incomes would want to specifically target the rich in this case.
I don’t propose cutting a trillion dollars all in one year. But over a set number of years, say 4 to 6 years.
And again, along with cuts, would be reform.
Someone like Trump? Then let them sign up for social security then. As long as they have assets under a set amount, they wouldn’t be eligible at any time.
Find the one’s it would work for along with the one’s it currently works for. Easy enough.
Not sure what your saying I’m admitting to that I didn’t before please elaborate.
On what? Requiring work for some program? That people might be able to work their way off welfare? I’ve said that all along.
Don’t forget that a trillion is nearly a quarter of the budget.
Should be fun.
