Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Iduno]

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1270342256172707846

"Exposed to."

[dragdeler]

-

[TamerVirus]

A Democrat introduced a bill that bans the use of nuclear and other strategic weaponry on hurricanes because they are the party of no fun allowed

[Iduno]

https://twitter.com/Ugarles/status/1270581084103770112

Democrats also trying to get scale back medicare and social security further than they have been.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think I might be alright with cutting social security at this point. If the boomers want to steal it from themselves, go forth, not like it makes a difference to me.

[wierd]

Except that isnt what the linked PDF says...

https://scottpeters.house.gov/sites/scottpeters.house.gov/files/6.1.20%20Leadership%20Budget%20Reforms.pdf


It basically says that those programs face insolvency, and that this problem needs to be addressed before they run out of money.  They assert that expenditures for the US exceed GDP.

We, a bipartisan group of representatives,remain committed to fighting the pandemic and the economic downturn to help the American people through this hardship. The unemployment rate is nearly 15%, and GDP could fall as much as 30%. We must confront the economic fallout from this crisis head on. As the crisis recedes and our nation recovers,we cannot ignore the pressing issue of the national debt, which could do irreparable damage to our country.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the debt held by the public is likely to exceed 100 percent of GDP in just a few months, and it will hit record levels in a few years. In addition, trust funds for some of our most critical programs will face exhaustion far sooner than we expected as a result of the current crisis. Trust fund insolvency threatens serious hardship for those who depend on the programs.

About the only thing in there that MIGHT, maybe, kinda sideways look like "cuts", is this passage-- which really just says "Hey, if you keep throwing money at the COVID situation, you really need to look into how you are going to keep funding the government, yo."

We,therefore,respectfully request that further pandemic-response legislation include provisions for future budget reforms to ensure we confront these issues when the economy is strong enough. These reforms should have broad, bipartisan support. They should not stand in the way of our making the necessary decisions to deal with the crisis at hand. They should ensure that,in addition to addressing health and economic needs, we lay the foundation for a sustainable fiscal future by building on reforms with established bipartisan support.

It specifically mentions 2 proposed bills...

First, we must have common ground on the facts and keep this issue in our deliberations. The Fiscal State of the Nation resolution would increase the transparency of our fiscal situation by requiring GAO to present an annual report to Congress and the country detailing the fiscal health of the nation.

Second, we must create mechanisms to help Congress demonstrate greater accountability in navigating the decisions to restore our fiscal health and sustainability.Trust funds for Social Security, Disability Insurance, Medicare Hospital Insurance, and Highway programs face insolvency, now possibly all within a decade. Enacting a consensus process like the Time to Rescue United States Trusts (TRUST) Act would create special bipartisan, bicameral rescue committees to give these programs the priority and urgency they deserve. Other commission structures, such as those from the Sustainable Budget Act or the Budget Control Act’s joint select committee, provide models for a comprehensive fiscal agreement.

The texts of which can be found below--

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2733/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22time+to+rescue+the+united+states+trusts%22%5D%7D&r=2&s=2

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5211/text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/365/text

-----------

Reading the TRUST bill language, as far as I can tell, it just wants to establish a special committee from members of the house and senate, consisting of 12 persons, (3 selected each by the House Majority leader, the House Minority Leader, The Senate Majority Leader, and the Senate Minority leader, so it should not be possible to stuff it full of Rs that hate social programs) for the express purpose of investigating potential insolvencies of these kinds of programs, as determined by the treasurer (who is tasked with alerting the legislature of any program greater than 20bn$ in scope which faces potential insolvency).  This group will then collaborate to draft a rescue plan bill, which per the rules introduced with this bill, would not be permitted to be amended or postponed on being brought to the floor.

As far as I can tell, this group of senators is not out to gut social security.  Far the contrary-- they want to try and save it from insolvency, which is the exact opposite.  How somebody could get "Kill Social Security!" out of this document, and its attaches, I cannot easily fathom.

[Frumple]

Uh, traditionally in the US "save from insolvency" rhetoric has meant "gut the fuck out of it so it doesn't go bankrupt by dint of doing sod all and subsequently having fewer expenses". That's probably where that comes from.

[wierd]

The way it is proposed would make that very difficult;  Unless one of the factions specifically decides to select a dumb-ass in the committee, at worst there would be a deadlock in the committee.

Raising taxes is also a valid means of combating insolvency. Austerity is not the only solution. (though it is the one that Rs like the most.)

[Iduno]

Austerity is not the only solution. (though it is the one that Rs like the most.)

Republicans generally prefer privitization. Austerity is the Democrat method. Easy mistake to make, they're continually becoming more alike.

[Ziusudra]

Or they say they want government to be run like a business yet the first thing they do is reduce revenue. It's almost like they'll say what ever to get elected then do what ever best serves their masters.

[Kagus]

Uh

Y'know, it's honestly not that surprising.

[Naturegirl1999]

Uh

Y'know, it's honestly not that surprising.

What? Wow. That's...I don't know what to say.

[Imic]

Uh

Y'know, it's honestly not that surprising.

What? Wow. That's...I don't know what to say.

I am genuinely speechless. I have no thoughts or responses to that, and I will not dignify it with any further thought.

[wierd]

It's a ham-fisted attempt to capture the thunder of the movement, for political gain.

It's downright disgusting, but that is what it is. 

In the case of trump, I agree- his policing HAS been unfair-- but not in the manner Hannity supposes.  I mean, Trump has not been subjected to legal consequences for his malfeasance, and has abused executive privilege to do so more times than I care to try remembering.   Since you or I would not be able to use such an out, the policing that trump has experienced is indeed unfair-- QED;  He operates from a supremely privileged ivory tower.

[Uthimienure]

I think I might be alright with cutting social security at this point. If the boomers want to steal it from themselves, go forth, not like it makes a difference to me.

Social security is not a tax-money handout. It is not "welfare". Each working person pays part of their paycheck into social security every week. Taking this money they paid in away from them in their old age is a crime. Period. The fact that each working person has no option to "opt out" of paying into the fund is also a crime imo, but that's another issue altogether.