President Biden says that the Republicans want to cut or eliminate Medicare and Social Security. Is he right or wrong?

[msc545]

He is right

He is wrong

[nightdrot]

No, Mr. Biden is - putting it politely - stretching the truth. In fact, there are few things in political life that are as immortal as Social Security and Medicare. They are, by far, biggest programs in the social welfare state and the consensus - societal and thus political - for them is absolutely rock solid.

Hence, by the way, whenever anyone mentions even the most modest reforms to either Social Security or Medicare, the reaction is as if someone had set out to touch up the Mona Lisa with a paint gun. Suffice to say, leaving mathematics and demographics aside, both programs are untouchable. At least until the aforementioned mathematics and demographics produce a fiscal crisis.

At which point, the American public, it has been said, never panics... except in a crisis. At which point policy will be made on the fly and in a fit of hysteria. The results of that being unpredictable, save for the fact that come what may, the benefits will be preserved.

It was to avoid such a scenario that Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott proposed a bill that would require both SS and Medicare to be authorized every year. Just as the budget for the DoD is reauthorized every year. (Most programs must be reauthorized - that is a law passed governing them. After which a second bill - an appropriations bill - is passed the fund the authorized program. Alone, SS and Medicare are permanently and automatically authorized every year without the need for further Congressional action.)

Please note, not a single Senator cosponsored the bill. Nor was a companion bill introduced in the House of Representatives. No Member would touch it with a 20 foot poll. Benign as it was given that the odds that either program - has Senator Scott's bill become law - would always be reauthorized as Members of both parties in both Houses of Congress would rather endure slow torture unto death that touch them.

That all said, it was Senator Scott's bill that gave President Biden - and some Democrats - the pretext to say that the GOP wanted to cut and/or abolish SS and Medicare. Slim though that pretext was.

Of course, as noted, both programs are living on borrowed time. The population is aging and the workforce - and therefore the tax base - is shrinking relative to population. The net result is that SS has $23 trillion in unfunded liabilities and Medicare has $43 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The whole GDP of the USA stands at $24 trillion.

Suffice to say, that trajectory cannot continue. Sooner or later, the string will run out. Till then, Democrats will accuse Republicans of wanting to abolish SS and Medicare. Republicans will deny it and vote accordingly, and the clock will run out. Panic legislating to follow.

[msc545]

We have all learned to never rely on the goodwill of Republicans or on their alleged fragility

[nightdrot]

Well, that is hardly an objective analysis. After all, it was a Republican who freed the slaves. It was a Republican who won the Cold War. It was also a Republican who ended US participation in the Vietnam War - and war begun under the Democrats. This to cite but three examples.

However, in this particular case, if it is cathartic for you to replace historical analysis with unreasoning suspicion, so be it. You are emblematic of what plagues the culture. As Bagehot said, "A diffuse distrust and an in indiscriminate suspicion are characteristic of a semi-barbarous people."

[OddBeMe]

How many times have Repubs voted to cut entitlements versus Dems?

Every party votes for their desired budget when they control the House.

[nightdrot]

@OddBeMe SS and Medicare? None. Both programs are on auto-pilot. Amendments reducing their benefits would not be in order without an authorization bill - and none has been introduced in decades.

The last time any changes were made to either program was under Mr. Reagan way back in the 1980s. These reforms being agreed to with the Democrats who controlled the House of Representatives for the whole of Mr. Reagan's 8 years in office.

In any case, the reforms that were passed were necessary to ensure more accurate, consistent and uniform disability determination decisions under the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program. Specifically, among other changes: the 1984 reforms restored the minimum Social Security benefit; provided the trustees of the various trust funds with the authority to borrow from each other through December 1982; made changes in sick pay reporting; and increased the penalties for misuse of the Social Security number; the reporting of death notices, etc.

[OddBeMe]

I Google it and only news articles, even on conserv sites, have Repub budgets passing with deep cuts to SS and Medicare. Dems don’t.

I mean I hate being absolute as I’m sure some Dems like Manchin want cuts too. But these budgets were voted on. Doesn’t mean they’re law. Just means that was the GOP’s opening bid. Always with entitlement cuts.

about.bgov.com/.../
www.nytimes.com/.../medicare-trump.html
www.cbpp.org/.../entitlement-cap-would-require-deep-cuts-in-entitlement-programs-summary

[nightdrot]

@OddBeMe None of these was ever made into actual legislation. In any case, we can debate it, but a cap is not a cut.

Again - and I worked on the Hill for nearly 15 years - you have to have an authorization before you can offer an appropriation. Medicare and SS are "pay as you go." Other than the Reagan reforms, there have been no authorizations dealing with SS or Medicare since the early 70s - and at that time the programs were being expanded.

It is interesting that Trump said he "would be open" to entitlement cuts, but that ain't legislation. These were not budgets - which is something else.

You have three things. You have a budget resolution, then authorizations, then appropriations. Without going into the details of how these work and when they are voted on, etc,, none of these qualify as substantive proposals.

Beyond all that, I'm please to let you know that during his tenure as a Senator, Mr. Biden said he was open to "entitlement reform." www.foxnews.com/.../biden-introduced-bill-sunset-all-federal-programs-including-social-security

So there ya go.

[nightdrot]

@OddBeMe Something went wrong with my computer and it erased my initial answer. So this is my second and somewhat shorter attempt.

To start, take it from someone who worked on the Hill for over 15 years. Long story short, these are not legislative proposals. Discussion ain't legislation. More to the point, in order to cut SS and Medicare you would have to have an authorization, then an appropriation. (Also, depending on circumstances, a budget resolution coming before all this.)

In any case, Mr. Biden proffered something similar in his Senate days - and this WAS an authorization: www.foxnews.com/.../biden-introduced-bill-sunset-all-federal-programs-including-social-security

Sorry, pal for the short circuited answer and I am happy to continue chatting if you like - but my computer shut down my access to the web without notice and when I brought it back up, my answer was gone.

[OddBeMe]

As I said, budget proposals are voted on officially as the first ante but still is a “vote”. So the only party to officially vote to destroy the social security and Medicare are the GOP.

As for Bidens link, ok. 1975. New idea, newly elected. Biden also said "it requires every program to be looked at freshly at least once every four years."

That’s not destruction.

[nightdrot]

@OddBeMe Neither is Senator Scott's proposal a cut. It merely requires reauthorization. All Congress would have to do is reauthorize.

Again, produce for me a budget resolution or appropriation bill that cut SS or Medicare.

As to your first sentence above, I have no idea what they means. How is a non-vote a vote? It can't be official or otherwise if it is not voted on.

Again, show me the vote to cut SS or Medicare. Such votes are the public record, so show it to me.

Really, pal, you are better than this. I have shown you where Mr. Biden, a Democrat, introduced a bill that does virtually what Senator Scott's bill - who again, no other Member of either party in either House cosponsored - does. The difference being that Scott does not go as far.

Biden actually "sunsets" SS and Medicare. Scott merely requires that SS and Medicare be reauthorized as DoD, Energy and all other agencies must be.

If anything, Biden goes further than Scott did. Go figure.

By the way, I worked on the Hill for nearly 20 years. Do you understand how the process works? Budget resolution. Authorization/reauthorization. Appropriation.

[OddBeMe]

Sounds like the debt ceiling or the Fiscal Cliff.

“We’ll think of something in time.” Famous last words.

[nightdrot]

@OddBeMe Yup, such is governance in a democracy. Fear often does the work of reason.

[OddBeMe]

That’s probably the shortest answer you’ve ever written. Lol

[Anonymous]

No politician that wants to get re-elected would say that regardless of his party affiliation.

[Anonymous]

Both parties have been saying that of each other for 60 years and no one ever has or is ever going to cut or eliminate those programs.

[Anonymous]

There is a video going around where a republican says just that, he wants it gone.

[Opinion Owner]

One simple google search will lead you to dozens of articles and videos, if your right-wingers are not too lazy to look.

[OlderAndWiser]

In the past, if Democrats wanted to increase Social Security by 6% and Republicans wanted to increase Social Security by 5%, the Democrats would accuse Republicans of wanting to "cut" Social Security. This is one of the firmly ensconced weapons in their war of rhetoric: try to scare senior citizens into voting Democrat en bloc.

Anyone who believes a statement merely because the president says it is a damned fool.

[goaded]

Duh.

Senator Rick Scott introduced a plan that would sunset Social Security and Medicare every five years unless Congress votes them back into existence.https://t.co/spnUd4vyQg

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 8, 2023

The Republican Study Committee released a budget that calls for privatizing Social Security and raising the eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare.
https://t.co/uGA8aKazIl

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 8, 2023

Senator Mike Lee stated it is his objective to “phase out Social Security, to pull it up by the roots, and get rid of it.” https://t.co/tmqmCgz699

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 8, 2023

Senator Lindsey Graham suggested raising the age for Social Security and cutting benefits for seniors while making them pay more. https://t.co/z1n9uAjOlX

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 8, 2023

Senator Ron Johnson thinks five years is too long to wait. He wants to put the funding for Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block every single year.https://t.co/i06KXtHXlS

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 8, 2023

In the House – many members, including those who chair committees – have proposed cuts to Medicare and Social Security in exchange for preventing a default on our debts.
https://t.co/NeHYTbagLf

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 8, 2023

If Republicans in Congress don’t want to cut Social Security and Medicare, they should propose a budget that reflects it. Until then, all they’ve got is their record.

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 8, 2023

[QuietRunner]

Don't forget this fact:

theintercept.com/.../

[goaded]

@QuietRunner I'm not. Obama even offered up cuts in 2011 (fortunately Republicans were too extreme to accept the grand bargain which involved raising taxes on the rich), but the difference between cuts and elimination are night and day.

Scott is now claiming to be protecting both, but his proposed bill recinds the extra money to the IRS from last year, making it easier for rich people to evade taxes. Funny that.

[QuietRunner]

I agree something has to be done

this is fun to play with and tests your values

https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/

[goaded]

@QuietRunner Extended to 2059 in one click: Subject All Wages to Payroll Tax (and I'd love to see what that would have achieved if it had been implemented 10 years ago).

"Your plan would increase taxes by 18%." it says. It doesn't say who on, which would be high income people. A public option on health insurance and regulation of (or even simply enforced transparency of prices charged by) hospitals would reduce the amount of money people on SS would need.

By the way, a sudden 12% drop in benefits (in 36 years) is infinitely better than 100% drop in benefits in the next couple of years.

[QuietRunner]

@goaded
there are solutions

[goaded]

@QuietRunner Maybe, but before we go on, have Republican lawmakers proposed sunsetting legislation, including Medicare and Social Security on a regular basis, allowing for a minority in the Senate to hold essential legislation hostage at best or eliminate it at worst?

Follow up question: would that enpower Republicans or Democrats more?

[goaded]

@QuietRunner Appropriate name, it seems. :)

Nearly as good as the guy who "worked on the Hill for nearly 20 years". Lost that job and got hired for Republican internet PR, perhaps?

[WindAtMyBack]

What Republican has ever said this? Biden makes this claim, so maybe he can provide proof. This implies that he's talking about politicians in Congress. Which one, and what exactly did they say, and what was the full context?

If someone DID say it, what was the context? Do people realize that at the higher end Social Security actually pays pretty damn well? The implication of Biden is that somehow all the poor people barely getting by on SS will have it taken away. Social Security can hit 50K a year. And anyone who is getting that much SS probably has a nice nest egg for retirement and is doing very well for themselves.

[msc545]

SS pays 3K per month, maximum.

[WindAtMyBack]

You are probably thinking of the maximum base rate, not including age multipliers. It decreases if you start under age 65+. It increase if you start over 65+. If you start at 70, it can be over 4K per month.

I'm not sure what the current max is after the most recent increase, but last year it was around $4200. I think the increase for this year was around 8-9%. I assume that is across the board which would make this year's max around $4500 or so.

Like I said, anyone getting that much probably has a lot already put away. It means they were making inflation adjusted six figures for at least 30 years.

[msc545]

You may be right about this but most people don't wait to get it at 70

[WindAtMyBack]

That's true. Most people don't want to wait until 70. I started a 62 as soon as I qualified.

But the point is that **IF** someone said they wanted to cut SS, you have to know what they meant. Maybe the people who are totally maxed and don't need it are the target. They can be targeted because nobody feels sorry for people who made six figures their entire life and probably have many millions in savings. It doesn't matter that they paid into the system with the promise that they would get that investment back.

This should have been addressed 40 years ago. The politicians KNEW that SS could not self-fund forever unless something changed. And it did change, but not nearly enough. It was a huge political issue for a long time. But it seems like everyone gave up and quit taking about it.

There are not many options. The reason why politicians never did anything about it is because no matter what they did, the people would raise hell. Politically it's always been a lose-lose situation.

Cut benefits? Raise retirement age? Raise payroll deductions? Which option is politically viable? None of them.

I didn't list my own favorite, but I don't know if it's feasible. They could have invested the money in something with a better return on their investment. That's what all the state retirement systems do. The reason it might not be feasible is because it may be way too much money to invest without completely wrecking the financial markets.

My second choice is to raise the tax. But that needed to be done 40 years ago. How many sessions and generations of Congress have passed the problem on? They are still passing it on.

[WindAtMyBack]

They all know what will happen. It will no longer be self funded. The money will come out of the general budget, where it can be hidden away by smoke and mirrors. See no evil. Speak no evil. Hear no evil. Hide it away and pretend it doesn't exist.

But the people are just as responsible as Congress. Look at the reaction to Republicans supposedly wanting to cut SS. That's a reaction of the PEOPLE. Politicians don't want to touch that, just like they haven't wanted to touch it for the last 40 years. All they do is talk. That's all they've done for a very long time.

[goaded]

Do you know what "sunsetting" a law means? It means, unless it's voted for again it ceases to exist. e. g. the assult rifle/large capacity magazine ban. At least two Republican senators have called for that. Others have called for it to be stopped or the eligability age to be raised, at a time when life expectancy in the US is reducing.

They don't talk about raising the cap on payments into the fund.

[NewsReader]

Wrong

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/democrats-misleadingly-claim-republicans-plan-would-end-social-security-medicare/

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6320409022112

https://www.youtube.com/embed/7eYW83Pj-E0https://www.youtube.com/embed/0iusOZ9o1D8

[BCA6010]

While I'm sure there are some that would want one or both replaced by a more sustainable alternative, everyone right and left knows that a serious move against either program is political suicide, even though both are ticking time bombs that will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

The way Joe made that statement sounded more like the Republicans want to cut spending on a lot of programs across the board, but he referred to those two by name specifically because they resonate with a lot of voters. It's very plausible and perhaps even likely that the Republicans want to block any expansion or increase of spending in those programs, but 0% chance of outright trashing them.

[AviatorTom]

Republicans are not trying to cut or eliminate Medicare or Social Security, they are trying to find ways to continue to pay for these programs, considering the number of people over 65 continues to grow while the younger work force that pays for these programs continues to decrease. That solution my require a larger emphasis on personal retirement plans and later ages to get full benefits (like what France is doing with its retirement age).

Joe is trying to make political gains by incorrectly categorizing what the Republicans are trying to do, while not admitting that he and the Democrats don't have a plan to keep these programs solvent behind 2035.

[goaded]

You mean they only want to be able to hold it hostage in order to do nice things for the ultra-rich? Could be. But I doubt it.

[Chazmatazz269]

It’s an over-generalization, but it’s not terribly off base. Not all republicans are conservative and not all conservatives are fiscal conservatives. Fiscal conservatives have long wanted to end unfunded liabilities within the government. It’s not a terrible idea. A better idea would be to limit access and appropriately fund them.

[JamesDiaz11]

Entitlements need to be reformed, but I don't see Republicans making this move anytime soon since it's such a contentious issue. Reforming entitlements sounds way too much like taking them away (proof being you can't tell the difference, nor can the dementia patient president); however, Medicare/ medicaid must be reformed to enable a national healthcare system to take effect, and to increase the efficiency of our healthcare system as a whole.

Social security is a different story.

[Anonymous]

he's wrong about the republicans elected to congress but if you include those who voted for either party you will find a lot of support for the abolition of said programs.

At this point what we want to do with Medicare and Social Securty hardly matters anymore. Math, and demographics dictate they will and must be cut.

Its unfortunate too if we had privatized said programs this would never have happened

[msc545]

Yes, there would be a group of 10 sociopaths making money off it - like they do with Medicare Advantage.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 You are aware that making money is the point of investing right?

You will not finance your retirement nor even pay the never ending inflationary tax if you don't make money.

But of course you eluding to the idea that a few people are going to somehow trick everyone in to 'investing' said money into themselfs and proceed to lose it as our politicians did anyway in 'investing' it in the goverment.

Its true you can't make money without risk and good judgement a fact our politicians who have mostly never made money in their lives demonstrate on a regular basis.

[msc545]

You need to take a look at what has happened with Medicare Advantage.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545
I looked at a few articles trying to understand what you could be talking about Medicare Advantage searching scam and all I found was a few far left sites claiming it was an effort to privitize medicare.

As well as the usual baseless assertions that said private companies being used for billing and additional insurance services were somehow scamming the tax payer via up-charging and the enrollee via denying claims.

Both of which are utterly absurd because:
A) The doctor who actually gets paid alone has a motivation to up-charge not the insurance company (who is on the hook).
B) The fully goverment counterpart for Medicare is one of the most routinely scammed services in history precisely because they are too lazy to even question anything.
C) Said enrollee actually have many different providers to choose form making said choices and providing said billing services.

[goaded]

Didn't Rick Scott run a company that defrauded Medicare for billions? "Scott was... chief executive of Columbia/HCA [which] defrauded Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. The Department of Justice won 14 felony convictions against the company, which was fined $1.7 billion in what was at the time the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U. S. history."

Secondly, people can't afford to pay massive medical bills, so they need insurance to spread the cost. Since the insurance companies take a percentage of the amount paid out, it's in their interests to pay out more (double the amount, double the profits) and it's also in hospitals' interests to charge more (ditto).

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded @msc545 Lots of people scam Medicare, Medicaid, and countless other federal programs because the oversight is soo lackluster and incompetent. Only very few of them get caught.

I would not at all be surprised if those few disproportionately included federal politicians some motivation of investigating and prosecuting (Narrow minded and corrupt as it is) actually exist among in office politicians.
Nor would i be shocked that said politicians would otherwise get away with the most obvious of scams having set up the system to be scammed. This is not at all unlike what lawyers do to the law over time when elected make it ever more costly to the people for their own benefit out of office.

Its true we create insurance to manage otherwise hard to predict risk. Unfortunately because that risk is hard to predict its easy to take advantage of which is why the scheme of insurance must be limited, very competitive, and as close to 1 of the knowledgeable parties involved as possible.

Goverment regulation and participation makes that impossible for health insurance and even car insurance to a far lesser extent hence why the cost for the same has gone thou the roof as fast as it can. There is simply no controlling motivation for price control if we have no motivation to select for price or even take reasonable action to avoid expenses.

Insurance companies being distant and in no control of either the people who understand the risk (doctors) or the people who take the risks (individuals) are in no position to make any kind of good judgment to control price and worse still prohibited by the state from even trying.

Likewise the 2 controlling parties individuals and medical providers always being paid by said insurance are likewise of no motivation to either lower price or reduce risk.

[goaded]

"Lots of people scam..."
So, it's OK when you have a legislator who ran a company that scammed Medicare, was convicted and fined $1.7billion (with a "B"), deciding the fate of Medicare?

The solution to not catching people is to have more enforcers, exactly like the additional IRS staff in the legislation Scott the scammer is trying to get repealed, are intended to do.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Seeing as that is the sort of people who created and been managed Social Securty and Medicare since day one that par for the course. Even if we could elect someone who was competent and not a criminal to run theses 'insurance' schemes we would soon thereafter elect anther criminal who would squander the money and ruin them again.

That is the nature of goverment and politics due to the largely unaccountably nature of goverment is the art of lying not anything more than the results that can be delivered in an election cycle if that at all.
Programs like Social Securty and Medicare require a life time to see results and before then careful monitoring for performance. They are what you would expect politicians with no history of performance to screw up royalty.

[msc545]

Medicare and Social Security are not investments.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545
An investment from a financial point of view is anything you put money and resources in. Social Securty and Medicare as such by force of law among the biggest of American investments.

[msc545]

Investments are also voluntary. Social security is not voluntary.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 There is nothing nessarly voluntary about an investment.
Althou one presumes those investments made voluntarily are more prudent, appropriate, and desirable to the one so investing.

[msc545]

We have privatized health insurance in this country. How well has that worked out? (In case you don't know - we have the most hated, worst health insurance system in the entire world. It is a national disgrace).

[msc545]

Medicare Advantage plans routinely deny needed care in order to increase profits.

[goaded]

Strangely, the German is not that dissimilar to the US system, but it's regulated.

[msc545]

@goaded I am sure our friend Monoprose will be happy to tell us why regulation is a bad thing (I can imagine a scenario wherein the regulators are just another layer of corruption, for instance).

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Do we have private health insurance?
Most of what I am forced to pay for on every plan of "health insurance" available is dictated by the Goverment.
Even the goverment technically requires people to buy said product, both directly and via enormous amounts of tax deductions.
How is that private?

The health care industry in the USA is one of the most goverment run industries in existence. Goverment even protects many if not most of them from competition, and in many areas publishing their prices. To make it nearly impossible for people to even look for a better price.

The health care industry in America is very much a goverment run operation.

If you want to look at health care services that are the least goverment run you got to look at optional stuff like cosmetic surgery and even dentistry and veterinary care.

You would think a vet would be even more expensive than a doctor given they must treat a far more diverse array of animals and conditions, but they cost only a fraction of the price precisely because the Goverment very much less involved.

[msc545]

What kind of health insurance do you have, and who is the carrier?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded @msc545 Regulators elected or otherwise are indeed very much prone to corruption. Its hard to imagine anyone with soo much power not being 'swayed' to use it to favor one group over anther.
This is called "regulatory capture" and has been true since day one where some of that corruption even was openly expected among the public officials with such power.

The trouble is it's almost impossible to tell why anyone does anything and thus also impossible to tell they didn't do it for the wrong reasons.
As it happens it also quite difficult to tell even what the "right" thing to do was as well in the case of Goverment as that goverment by nature preclude the scientific process of having a control, or any alternative at all.

So we
A: Cannot know the true reason behind any 'regulation'.
B: Cannot know the true effects good or ill of any Goverment 'regulation'.

That means a regulator has broad leverage to simply claim whatever they want to do is both justified and correct, which is exactly what they do, and exactly why they can get away with soo much corruption.

[goaded]

Can't you tell the difference between a regulation that is intended to help the people and one that's going to only help the vendors? It's not that hard.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I am not soo arrogant as to beleive i can read other peoples minds, nor that I can know the result of all actions.

Indeed people make it quite self-evident that nobody can, You for example constantly ascribe intentions of people you don't know and predict results of actions. Both of which I know to be untrue, and have seen to not happen.

Clearly you can't tell what other people are thinking nor can you tell with any certainty the result of any action. Even thou I beleive I do a better job than you I know for a fact i can't either.

[goaded]

"... and have seen to not happen"
For example?

[exitseven]

He is lying or I should say the person that put it on the teleprompter is lying. He just gets up in front of the whole country and just lies or misrepresents the truth. The SOTU was an exercise in lying. I think he does this just to show that the fake news media will cover for him.

[Gummy_Cluster]

What the Republicans said was they wanted to stop dems from stealing out of the SS fund, and then claiming that the fund won't be solvent down the roads. So, yes, the Republicans want to cut SS from the thieves stealing it. But the teleprompter left that part out.

[Tekkasonic]

The biggest problem with ss/medicare is that the taxes fund it. lets see birthrate declining, inflation rising, yep... lets just push that debt onto the younger generation until the whole thing pops like a "bubble"

[HighValue]

He is lying. Think of it this way, most old people (senior citizens) are Republican voters. they would lose so many voters if they ever did that they wouldn't win any elections anymore.

[Anonymous]

They don't want it gone
Just in reality without installing hyperinflation via massive cash injections, chronic taxation (read asset seizures) or a massive population cull
It can't be afforded

The democrats like the ideas hence they will keep both programs excluding the elites who accept the first , hate the second and love the third

[FilmGuy93]

I've never once heard any republican say that. That would be career suicide.

[Anonymous]

Inflation has already cut it and more to come.

[Surely]

I hope that he is wrong. Like he is on most of the other things.

[OddBeMe]

That’s pretty much a basic fact by now.

[gorydetails]

He’s an idiot.