Friday, March 6, 2020

Trump Wants to Cut Entitlements?

Trump: “We’ll be cutting” entitlement programs. White House: He didn’t really mean that. (VOX)

Trump / Fox Townhall Transcript
"Do you care about the national debt?" (Bret)
"I do, very much. And I will always talk about it, because, to me, it's very important.…" (Trump)
"But if you -- if you don't cut something in entitlements, you will never really deal with the debt." (Martha)
"Oh, we will be cutting, but we're also going to have growth like you have never had before... " (Trump)

Now I am a fan of cutting entitlements, since the people receiving them did not fund them adequately. And as the national debt forecast graph shows, something really MUST Change...

Unfortunately I have ZERO faith in the GOP party and their voter's ability to behave fiscally responsibly after the last 3 years of tax cuts and spending increases. As I have said before.

I hope our children and grand children can forgive our selfish irresponsible actions.

Just imagine if the citizens after WWII had been as irresponsible as us instead of working to pay down the debt.  We should all be very ashamed. :-(


14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Republicans play around a lot with the term "cut". Whenever they use it, what they say is not to be taken at face value.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Now I am a fan of cutting entitlements, since the people receiving them did not fund them adequately.

Whether or not they were funded adequately, people are entitled to them. That's why they are called entitlements. In any event, we just gave ourselves the largest tax cut in history. Surely we wouldn't have done that if we couldn't afford to fulfill our obligations.

--Hiram

John said...

Hiram,
We are only "entitled" to them because a law says so.

Change the law and the "entitlement" may be changed or disappear.

That is unless you believe some higher power than the US Government "entitles" you to those US Tax Dollars.

My argument is simple... Each generation should be fiscally responsible and not pass their obligations on to future generations.

John said...

Unfortunately it seems that people born after 1940 are a bunch of "Takers" who disagree with my concept of fiscal responsibility. :-(

The Left wants to keep spending more and the Right wants to keep cutting taxes.

As I said, we should be ashamed at our selfishness. :-(

John said...

If interested, some fact checking from the townhall

Anonymous said...


We are only "entitled" to them because a law says so.

Which means we are entitled to them, because that's what the law says.

Change the law and the "entitlement" may be changed or disappear.

Not much chance of that happening. So that gets us back to the starting point, that we are entitled.

Each generation should be fiscally responsible and not pass their obligations on to future generations.

That means paying for entitlements as required by law. The fact is, we can certainly afford them because we are cutting taxes.

The way being human works, is that at various stages we are takers and at other stages we are givers. This is not unfair because most of us are both just at different times.

--Hiram

John said...

Now I know it pointless to argue the topic with you, but here goes.

So it really makes sense to you that is responsible for several generations of Americans to:

- pass / maintain laws to promise themselves money at some future date

- while passing laws that kept their taxes lower than needed to fund that future disbursement?

- and that now that their selfish life choices have come home to roost they should foist that burden on future generations?

Personally I think that is the opposite of responsible...

But then again I plan, save, invest, etc so that I will not be a burden to my children and grand children.

In fact like the people back in the 1950's, I would prefer to leave the situation better for my kids than it was for me.

Laurie said...

Trump will not cut entitlements.

John said...

He will likely try to go after medicaid and social security disability.

His voters are likely okay with that.

Anonymous said...

He will likely try to go after medicaid and social security disability.

There is no constituency for cutting these things.

--Hiram

John said...

Of course there is... A whole bunch of tax payers who do not use them...

Sean said...

"A whole bunch of tax payers who do not use them..."

Ever look at a list of the states with the highest percentage of the population on SSDI?

John said...

Sean,
Hiram said there was no constituency and I explained that there is a big constituency.

Whether they are hypocrites or not is a different question.

John said...

This may explain variation in usage rates.

"Most beneficiaries are older and had physically demanding jobs

Most beneficiaries of Disability Insurance—7 in 10—are in their 50s and 60s, and the average age is 53. The fact that most beneficiaries are older is unsurprising given that the likelihood of disability increases sharply with age: A worker is twice as likely to experience disability at age 50 as at 40, and twice as likely at 60 as at 50. Before turning to Social Security, most disabled-worker beneficiaries worked at “unskilled” or “semi-skilled” physically demanding jobs. About half—53 percent—of disabled workers who receive Disability Insurance have a high school diploma or less. About one-third completed some college, and the remaining 18 percent completed four years of college or have further higher education."