What’s your cite for this?
Let’s see your cite before I jump into disputing it. I’m willing to hear your explanation for “cost you [your] SS & Medicare” first.
I don’t mean to speak for someone else, but can’t it easily be argued that funding SS & Medicare is an opportunity cost to these tax cuts?
Anything at all could be argued. If that’s the argument you’d like to advance, have at it. First question: How much do the tax cuts cost and how does that compare with the amount of money we’re planning to spend on SS & Medicare over the same time period?
So Let’s call it even at 2 trillion, as I find the CBO to be a lot less contentious a source. That’s 2 trillion over 10 years. Using some fiddly math, lets average that to $200B/yr.
This gives us This chart which puts each payment requirement over the next 10 years ranging from approximately 600 billion to 1,200 billion. So next year, diverting the lost revenue would account for 30% of the medicare costs, falling to 16.5% at the end of the 10th year. Now, the math doesn’t work out quite so cleanly since the 2 trillion is averaged over all those years but we’re getting into some complicated equations if we don’t simplify.
It’s a pretty big chunk of Medicare’s costs, and with present projections, Medicare is insolvent by 2026. I can’t find good data on the exact influence of 16.5% - 30% funding per year and how that would extend Medicare’s time to insolvency, but that’s a considerable amount.
Simple answer first. By “cost you your SS & Medicare”, the I mean the GOP’s intention is that when you, HurricaneDitka, retire, your SS checks will be either cut (compared with today’s program) or eliminated, and same with your Medicare coverage. Less to none. Same for me and everybody else in America.
Why do I think so? I guess I thought everyone took that for granted. Ha! Some pluralist I turned out to be.
Ok. Let’s try to get on the same page. Here is a chart of the US federal budget. Daily Kos =? liberal? Well i don’t read them I just think it is a pretty good stab at this project, and I don’t identify myself as a liberal so please don’t call me that. 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid- these are the things the GOP yearns to cut, no? I’ll post a cite soon, but first, does anyone on this board recall GOP politicians ever discussing “entitlement reform”? Like, ad nauseum? Entitlements = Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid and CHIP and…). Reform = cut or eliminate. When the pie shrinks because of tax cuts for the wealthy, this is the part of the pie the GOP wants to shrink. Do you dispute that?
Not that they wouldn’t take an axe to education, health, environment, and other smaller sectors. Anything but the military is on the GOP’s block for cuts. Do you dispute that?
As an aside, if I were a GOP propagandist, I would massage the figures in the Daily Kos pie chart such that the Red (:eek:), Mandatory section of the chart is 66.6% of the Federal budget, and promote those wedges as the “Socialist” section of the budget. While we’re in an aside, can anyone on this board recall a right wing media production (FOX, Limbaugh) equating The Left with Liberals with Socialism with The Pure Distillation of America-Hating Evil? Did someone slip me some peyote and I hallucinated GWB attempting to privatize Social Security? Are these all, somehow, fake memories!?
I don’t think so. From this summer, see House GOP plan would cut Medicare, Medicaid to balance budget:
What do you think? “Entitlement Reform = cut or eliminate Medicare and Social Security” is my theory, and here is the GOP-controlled House (not some TV channel) talking about exactly that.
You’re wandering off into the weeds a bit here. Let’s try to stay focused. You claimed “… these tax cuts will cost you tour social security and Medicare…”. Now, it may well be that the GOP would like to cut SS & Medicare, but they did not, as a point of fact, do so in any substantial way in the TCJA of 2017, agreed? It is, therefore, inaccurate and incorrect to say that “these tax cuts” will cost me SS and Medicare, agreed?
ETA: And please, DailyKos? from 2013? Is it really that hard for you to find a more-current spending chart?
Not agreed. The tax cuts are meant to constrain the budget as an excuse to pursue entitlement reform.
I appreciate the attempt here. You did ignore SS entirely, which was a tad disappointing, and I’d prefer to see better primary sources, but overall a decent effort.
Here are the CBO’s “10-Year Budget Projections”. Of note for purposes of our discussion, the latest projections (Table 2-2: Mandatory Outlays Projected in CBO’s Baseline), from April of this year, are:
Year = Combined Total (SS + Medicare)
2017 = $1,641B ($939B + $702B)
2018 = $1,691B ($984B + $707B)
2019 = $1,819B ($1,043B + $776B)
2020 = $1,939B ($1,110B + $830B)
2021 = $2,073B ($1,180B + $893B)
2022 = $2,249B ($1,253B + $996B)
2023 = $2,362B ($1,330B + $1,032B)
2024 = $2,472B ($1,410B + $1,062B)
2025 = $2,676B ($1,495B + $1,181B)
2026 = $2,850B ($1,583B + $1,267B)
2027 = $3,034B ($1,676B + $1,358B)
2028 = $3,294B ($1,774B + $1,521B)
stack that up against ~$190B/year for the tax cuts and yeah, I guess I’m feeling pretty comfortable disputing that ‘these tax cuts will cost [me my] SS & Medicare’. “These tax cuts” amount to little more than a rounding error on SS & Medicare spending.
Both parties increase spending. The Democrats tell the truth about it and pay for the spending. The Republicans lie about it and spend money they don’t have.
This makes the Democrats the better party.
Is “entitlement reform” a priority they thought up in just the last year, after cutting taxes via the TCJA of 2017, or is it a goal that predates the tax cuts?
ETA: maybe it would be helpful if you addressed both these points separately:
-
Now, it may well be that the GOP would like to cut SS & Medicare, but they did not, as a point of fact, do so in any substantial way in the TCJA of 2017, agreed? (I think you’ll agree to this one. If not, I’d be most interested in hearing your rationale)
-
It is, therefore, inaccurate and incorrect to say that “these tax cuts” will cost me SS and Medicare, agreed? (This is the one I think your “not agreed” was directed towards, but please clarify if I’m misunderstanding you).
Well played. Where do you think the cuts will come from?
I’ve talked enough. What is your defense of the GOP tax plan?
American voters have been screwing themselves since 2010 by not sticking with a completely Democratically-controlled government. And 2020’s the earliest we’ll be able to change anything. Conservatives have successfully rigged American democracy so that any attempt at reform is undone by political gridlock.
As for the tax cuts, I think the OP isn’t far from the truth. I’m not sure I would go quite so far in suggesting that bonds might be used as leverage by plutocrats because I think Medicare and SS would be severely cut first before we get to bonds, and rising debt levels would probably cause some concern about our creditworthiness, which might also, in turn, weaken the dollar. But I could see the GOP pitching a plan to Americans under 55 that they can take their SS money and put it in a 401K and that we can just turn Medicare into Obamacare for All. And eliminate Medicaid and all entitlements for the poor altogether.
Your whole premise is based on the theory that Washington is going to have to cut spending, but they don’t have to. They’ve spend the vast majority of the last few decades proving that. I think your time would be better-spend worrting about how we’re going to fend off invasions of little green Martians. That seems like a more realistic scenario than budget “cuts” from the federal government. I don’t have any realistic expectation there will be any significant cuts at all. Washington appears to be utterly incapable of actually cutting spending.
Ummm … I think you already took care of that in your OP:
To be a bit more specific, I’m somewhat sympathetic to the concerns over the budget deficit, but don’t feel that an extra $190B on a $4.1T budget are worth more than a tidy sum of cold hard cash for me personally (and for most Americans).
So it would be even better to repeal taxation altogether, right?
Addressing this question and your previous ones about Social Security, it depends what type of spending we are talking about.
The main spending going up over the last couple decades and into the future is Social Security and Medicare. That isn’t because of some decision a Republican or Democratic Congress made recently, and nobody can say that it is Obama’s fault if they aren’t a dirty liar. It’s simply a generational thing, given that the Baby Boomers are retiring.
We we do nothing, the Social Security Trust Fund will be emptied by the mid-2030s and spending on Social Security benefits will have to be cut to what is supported by FICA collections. That means that Social Security checks will be cut by about 20% in those years and later if nothing is done. Again, if Washington does nothing, spending goes down, and retirees get crushed. I think Republicans generally favor this happening, because “fuck the Dems” as you so eloquently put it… though a handful of non-crazy Republicans recognize that screwing over some of their voters isn’t good for reelection prospects.
Then there’s the issue of Washington acting to cut spending. This happened in 2013 and basically nobody liked it except for a small number of Tea Party Republicans. The military budget was cut by 8% or so, and so were domestic programs. Since then, Washington has voted not to sustain that level of spending, usually by increasing discretionary spending by the neighborhood of $40 billion/year… until Trump took office, and that amount of additional spending basically doubled.
To the extent that Social Security and Medicare are the “first ones that stand to be cut” because of the tax cuts and growing deficits, it is not as cut and dried as what I just laid out above in terms of the Trust Fund running out of money. However, seeing as how Republican voters and politicians only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House, it is a stone-cold undeniable fact that Republican orthodoxy fully embraces the reduction of these programs in order to lower spending. This is Paul Ryan’s entire reason for being in Congress. It has been a part of every Republican platform for decades. To deny that the overwhelming majority of Republican elected officials seek to reduce Medicare and Social Security is like denying that water is wet.
Some Republicans, especially in the GWB era, sought to exacerbate the deficit crisis in order to generate political momentum to achieve this. This, too, is a fact.
At the end of the day, HD, you appear to like tax cuts and also think that spending will never be cut. Therefore, deficits and debt are just going to go up. It’s just as simple as that. And this, as you may agree, is what makes you a true fiscal conservative.
*IF * you can find a single economist that approves of the tax cuts? 
Are you making an admission here?
Just as a quick test can you demonstrate your knowledge with a 15-word summary of the fundamental tenet of Keynesian fiscal policy?
And if 190/4100 is a “small” ratio, why not $290B ? Wouldn’t two tidy sums be even better than one? Or did Trump and Ryan magically find the Goldilocks cut?
To get support for the temporary infusions of $1500 each into your pocket and those of some other middle-income Americans, the corporations and super-rich were bought off with permanent tax cuts totaling Trillions with a capital T. Good?
Oh. One last question. There are credible allegations that the new individual tax rules were very carefully structured to screw demographics that mostly vote blue. What do you think of this? I’m pretty sure I can guess your answer, but it might be fun to hear it from you.
And let the workers seize the means of production directly, yes. Alas…
Not at all, I just wanted to know if it was a waste of time before digging up a quote. Given that you evaded the question, I suspect it would be.
Do your own econ homework. I’m no more interested in your tests than you apparently are in answering my questions.
Nothing particularly magical about $190B/year, although, to repeat myself, not “always”. Washington has yet to enact a tax cuts that made me go “oh shit guys, it’s too much, don’t do that”, but I’m open to the possibility that such a tax cuts could exist, at least in theory.
Sure. I doubt that the “temporary” tax cuts will be allowed to expire. It was savvy politics.
What makes these allegations “credible”. You didn’t provide a source for me to evaluate. Your word does not suffice on this matter.
Did you guess correctly?