Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, November 05, 2018

Following last year's tax cut, Republicans have been plotting to cut social insurance in the name of debt reduction -- but wanted to wait until after the election to do so.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

MFA:

House Republicans went far deeper than Trump in their most recent budget proposal, which included $537 billion in cuts to Medicare and over $1 trillion to Medicaid. Seniors would be encouraged to use for-profit alternative Medicare plans instead of traditional Medicare, continuing the move toward privatization. The budget would also block-grant Medicaid through a "per capita cap," a limit on reimbursement per enrollee set to a growth rate well below current projections.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-05 10:34 AM | Reply

Gotta pay for 1.5 trillion in tax cuts somehow so why not take it out on the elderly and the poor. Repbulicans are scum. They just are.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-05 10:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

Many 'social' programs need to be done away with. It is not the job of the federal government to do 'social programs'. It ain't in the constitution.

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-05 10:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It ain't in the constitution"

Try reading it sometime. Look for the phrase "Promote the General Welfare"

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 11:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 13

Try reading it sometime. Look for the phrase "Promote the General Welfare"

Along with the phrase "insure domestic Tranquility."

Kinda hard to do if the masses are starving, homeless, and without access to needed medical care, isn't it?

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-11-05 11:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 6

"the masses are starving, homeless, and without access to needed medical care"

That comment is why this issue is so difficult to discuss. You have to wade through the mass hysteria and political demagoguery to have a meaningful discussion.

One party addresses SS or medicare and the other party cannot help themselves.....it's about politics....not solutions.

and BTW....what happened to Paul Ryan's proposals on social programs? He scared the ---- out of the left with that stuff and now that he has a republican president......what happened? what stops him from ramming that stuff through?

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-05 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

".what happened to Paul Ryan's proposals on social programs? "

Upon closer inspection, it was mostly about tax cuts for the wealthiest.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 11:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

One party addresses SS or medicare

#6 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-05 11:28 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive | Newsworthy 1

Is that what you think Republicans are doing?

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-05 12:18 PM | Reply

That comment is why this issue is so difficult to discuss.

That comment wasn't made in order to discuss the degree of government involvement/responsibility in the general welfare of its citizens nor in insuring domestic tranquility, it was written in response to the ignorance that asked where in the US Constitution it says that the government has ANY direct responsibility for the personal well-being of its citizens.

Disingenuous such as yours makes the issue impossible to discuss because so many try to obfuscate and deflect from its seriousness; however, my comment was not meant in that vein and it took your selective editing and ignoring of context to arrive at such a self-aggrandizing conclusion.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-11-05 12:27 PM | Reply

-Upon closer inspection, it was mostly about tax cuts for the wealthiest.

but there was more to it than that. It included an overhaul of SS, IIRC.

what happened to it?

I mean.....for the past 40 or so years, the GOP has squawked about reforming such things and they were accused of wanting to push grannies off cliffs, starve kids, etc. (see Tony's hysteria in #5)...has that actually ever happened?

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-05 12:30 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

has that actually ever happened?

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-05 12:30 PM | Reply

Weak constituencies get pushed off cliffs often. In Texas they like to restrict medical care from poor kids, the younger the better.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-05 12:32 PM | Reply

"there was more to it than that. It included an overhaul of SS"

But the Actual Math™ showed the equation to be slash entitlements so they could cut taxes for the wealthiest.

"has (killing grannies) actually ever happened?"

Of course it has. Macro alone teaches as much. For example, refusing to expand Medicare might affect XX,XXX people, of which X.x% find that loss of care to be the difference between surviving or not.

Just turning the Micro dial has Macro results.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"One party addresses SS or medicare"

Slashing and privatizing are NOT "addressing" the problem, not when you're concurrently borrowing an extra $2 Trillion just to give it away to the world's wealthiest.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 12:39 PM | Reply

-Slashing and privatizing are NOT "addressing" the problem,

I get your point...but what you're admitting is that you don't like the solutions.....NOT that it's not addressing the problem. It may be a way to blow up the problem.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-05 12:48 PM | Reply

"NOT that it's not addressing the problem."

If it's: we're going to slash benefits by n, and meanwhile we're going to slash taxes by >n, you're not addressing the problem.

Same way Bush's privatization plan would've exacerbated the equation instead of addressing it.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 01:55 PM | Reply

One party thinks the problem with SS and Medicare is how much we spend and believes the solution is to just refuse to spend without regards to the effects of not spending. Therefore 'reform' means just cut.

The Other party knows the real problem is that our people are going without proper healthcare and want to reform by properly funding it and getting inefficiencies like profit taking and overhead out of the system and emphasizing preventive care. A large chunk of the most expensive medical costs involve treating major conditions that could have been avoided altogether if preventive care was in reach.

#16 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-05 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Try reading it sometime. Look for the phrase "Promote the General Welfare"

#4 | Posted by Danforth

Conservatives always skip that page. Too complicated. Directly conflicts with their ideology of screwing the General Public..

#17 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-05 05:32 PM | Reply

Try reading it sometime. Look for the phrase "Promote the General Welfare"

#4 | Posted by Danforth

The rest of article I, Section 8 spells out, with specificity, what that actually means. It's not a catch-all clause and it's why so much of the New Deal was initially ruled as unconstitutional.

At this point it no longer matters though. That genie is out of the bottle and it is never going back in.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 05:36 PM | Reply

--Conservatives always skip that page.

Leftists love that page. They think it gives them pre-approval for any big spending program they dream up. James Madison warned us about that.

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-05 05:38 PM | Reply

Leftists love that page....

#19 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Sort of. They pretty much quit reading the page once they get to that part.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 05:39 PM | Reply

"In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."

James Madison

#21 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-05 05:40 PM | Reply

Leftists love that page. They think it gives them pre-approval for any big spending program they dream up. James Madison warned us about that.

#19 | Posted by nullifidian

The righties are far worse on spending than the lefties now. If you're anti big spending, why are you supporting the party that just blew up the budget to give tax cuts to the rich?

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-11-05 05:41 PM | Reply

The rest of article I, Section 8 spells out, with specificity, what that actually means. It's not a catch-all clause and it's why so much of the New Deal was initially ruled as unconstitutional.
At this point it no longer matters though. That genie is out of the bottle and it is never going back in.

#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

The New Deal was ruled unconstitutional because of a narrow reading of the commerce clause. Not the general welfare clause.

#23 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-11-05 05:47 PM | Reply

why are you supporting the party that just blew up the budget to give tax cuts to the rich?

Because we are rich.

Duh.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-05 05:48 PM | Reply

"In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."
James Madison

#21 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Are you really trying to argue Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-11-05 05:48 PM | Reply

RE#21

Madison also wanted to limit the powers of the presidency because it was too dangerous -- and the only argument made against it was that it was so late in the game and they were tired and they didn't want to create a brand-new body of government!

We can all see how that worked out, too.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-05 05:52 PM | Reply

Are you really trying to argue Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?

#25 | Posted by Sycophant

Of course, they would love to prove that.

But, dang if they don't keep losing that argument.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-05 05:53 PM | Reply

--Madison also wanted to limit the powers of the presidency

Madison also argued against pure democracy and in favor of federalism and de-centralized power, something the Statists hate.

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-05 06:00 PM | Reply

Are you really trying to argue Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?
#25 | Posted by Sycophant

Jeff has for YEARS. He know not what he speaketh about.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-05 06:01 PM | Reply

Are you really trying to argue Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional?

#25 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I know that question wasn't addressed to me, but, yes.

However, I've already said that genie left the bottle roughly 8 decades ago.

At this point, other than being a fun historical and constitutional discussion it has little meaning in our political arena today.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 06:03 PM | Reply

Jeff has for YEARS....

#29 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

So, you don't have Jefflixia 100% of the time. This is an encouraging sign.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 06:05 PM | Reply

7 of 9 Supreme Court justices disagree with you Jeff, but don't let that stop you.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-05 06:08 PM | Reply

No I have anti BS syndrome dear. Sadly you spew a lot of it.

#33 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-05 06:08 PM | Reply

No I have anti BS syndrome dear. Sadly you spew a lot of it.

#33 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I'm sure I do. That doesn't change the fact that you routinely get my positions completely wrong, sometimes polar opposite and in a way that is almost singularly unique on this site.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 06:11 PM | Reply

"why are you supporting the party that just blew up the budget to give tax cuts to the rich?

Because we are rich.
Duh.
#24 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER"

^
It's the Free Stuff that keeps them on the GOP Plantation.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-05 06:14 PM | Reply

7 of 9 Supreme Court justices disagree with you Jeff, but don't let that stop you.

#32 | POSTED BY JOE

Do you think they always get it right?

Did they get Heller right in your opinion? Citizens United? Kelo? How about Wickard v Philburn?

You are making an appeal to authority. When I read Article I, Section 8 and then follow that with the 10th Amendment, a pretty clear picture emerges.

Granted, I acknowledge a Supreme Court justice's opinion on this issue carries a wee bit more influence than my own.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 06:14 PM | Reply

When they get two majorities from voters, then they have every right to.

#37 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-11-05 06:22 PM | Reply

Good point, Jeff. I was lazy/busy without time to address the merits of the decision, hence my fallacious comment.

I find the majority opinion in Helvering v. Davis extraordinarily compelling. Poverty is a national problem, states weren't all fiscally equipped to run a retirement program when this was decided, and competition among the states to have the lowest taxes would hinder the goals of the program and create migration of the poor, causing the program to fail.

"When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the states. So the concept be not arbitrary, the locality must yield."

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-05 07:28 PM | Reply

Joe,

I would argue that jurisprudence up to the New Deal would show that Social Security was unconstitutional at that time. Once it was deemed constitutuonal it opened the door for Medicare, welfare, etc.

It may have been unconstitutional then but these programs are so deeply ingrained in our society that via Stare Decisis they are absolutely constitutional now.

Given all of that, any opposition I have to single payer would not be a constitutional argument.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 08:01 PM | Reply

"The rest of article I, Section 8 spells out, with specificity, what that actually means."

We've had this argument: it rests on your belief the Framers didn't understand the difference between a colon and a semi-colon. It's as stupid as believing the AF isn't constitutional because it isn't specifically named.

Ultimately, one main framer agreed with you, while one agreed with me. However, the final punctuation agrees with me...as does history.

Ask Scalia if it's about intent or text.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 08:46 PM | Reply

"They pretty much quit reading the page once they get to that part."

Much like the 2nd amendment fans love to skip the second and third words.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 09:00 PM | Reply

"When I read Article I, Section 8 and then follow that with the 10th Amendment, a pretty clear picture emerges. "

And that picture is based on a willful misinterpretation of the punctuation agreed to by the authors.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 09:01 PM | Reply

If it was intended to mean: everything, then what was the reason for the 10th Amendment?

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 09:17 PM | Reply

I would like to know if JeffJ's understanding of the Second Amendment is in any way informed by the Article 1 Section 8 enumerated powers over the militia.

Such as "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia."

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-05 09:19 PM | Reply

#39 What jurisprudence is that? The Helvering opinion relies on plenty of earlier case law to reach its conclusion that "general welfare" is intended to give Congress broad powers.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-05 09:20 PM | Reply

Another question: If "general welfare" was intended to be very-broad to the point of limitless, why did they even bother with the rest of the text in Section 8? Why didn't they just stop right there?

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 09:24 PM | Reply

I will say this, from a jurisprudence standpoint i think it makes sense to be deferential to congress (up to a point) as that is the branch of government that is closest to and most accountable to the people.

I do however think "Chevron" was an abomination.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 09:30 PM | Reply

"If "general welfare" was intended to be very-broad to the point of limitless, why did they even bother with the rest of the text in Section 8?"

How about, because those are the bare minimums needed to form a more perfect union in the Founders vision.

If they didn't intend Congress to have additional power, why doesn't Article 1 Section 8 say that Congress shall ONLY have the power to...

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-05 09:35 PM | Reply

So apart from a court ruling that isnt likely, what do conservatives actually think about cutting these programs in light of a recent $1.5 trillion giveaway that mostly went to rich people?

Republicans have had total control of government for two years and they haven't cut spending from Democrat level by a nickel. If we are going to spend what we spend, can't we at least demand it go to the betterment of regular people? What is so wrong with that?

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-05 09:44 PM | Reply

As Danni said repubs are scums

#50 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2018-11-05 10:04 PM | Reply

#48 Snoofy - pretty solid answer. I'll give it some consideration.

what do conservatives actually think about cutting these programs in light of a recent $1.5 trillion giveaway that mostly went to rich people?

#49 | POSTED BY JOE

I am all for changes to the tax code that spur economic growth. Having said that, during economic booms our government should not be running a deficit. Deficit spending should be reserved for recessions and major wars.

As it pertains to the triumvirate of SS/Medicare/Medicaid these programs are on a trajectory to bankrupt this country. I do not favor anything radical to address this. Whilst I think a Medicare voucher system is a good idea and is one that would help control costs a bit, it is not politically viable and would crash and burn like partial privatization of SS did for Bush. This is what I favor for SS/Medicaid/Medicare:

Block-grant funding to the states to administer Medicaid.

Raise taxes 1 point on both sides for FICA. Increase the cap by $10K. Raise the age of eligibility to 70 over a period of 15 years.

Nothing I just suggested is radical. The structure of these programs remain intact and they are simply tweaked. Plus it's a grand compromise - tax increases coupled with spending cuts.

As for our current deficits...

Purify the tax-code as much as possible and set tax rates so that our government is fully-funded. This cannot be actuarially-accomplished by simply soaking the rich. It's not possible. Thus, the people will have more skin in the game. If the people truly want Big Government then they should be forced to fully pay for it. Raise taxes across the board and give our federal government a major colonoscopy on ALL of its wasteful expenditures. A few million dollars to study lesbian obesity may seem like nothing given how much our government spends as a whole, but if our taxes are actually reflective of what our government spends in the aggregate, maybe people will give a crap about all of its excesses.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 10:30 PM | Reply

"Block-grant funding to the states to administer Medicaid."

You realize that eliminates economies of scale, right?

So the only way this saves money is when reduce benefits, right?

You should just say "reduce Medicaid services" since that's actually the only way block grants can reduce cost.

But maybe I'm wrong. If I missed something, please let me know!

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-05 10:45 PM | Reply

"I am all for changes to the tax code that spur economic growth."

Did you drink the kool-aid?

The most recent tax code incentivized taking money OUT of the business, and disincentivized putting money IN to the business. Do you believe that spurs economic growth as compared to before?

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 10:56 PM | Reply

Barack Obama @BarackObama

Tomorrow's elections might be the most important of our lifetimes. The health care of millions is on the ballot. Making sure working families get a fair shake is on the ballot. The character of our country is on the ballot.
10:46 AM - 5 Nov 2018

#55 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-05 11:00 PM | Reply

"Purify the tax-code as much as possible"

You voted for the folks who mucked it up even more, and didn't close the two biggest loopholes in the code, carried interesat (even though it was a campaign promise from Trump), and GRATs.

Why is it your wishes and your votes produce such wildly different results?

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-05 11:02 PM | Reply

Danforth,

Feel-good "solutions" that kick the can down the road for a couple of more years irritate me more than what the GOP has been doing.

What I mean by that is what the Democrats have been offering is a drive for ever-more spending with a push for tax increases that only cover a portion of the new spending. The GOP is even worse because they preach spending cuts and never deliver. Both parties nibble at the edges at best and never really address this substantively. Thus, I focus on other issues since this is one that is, to varying degrees, bipartisan in its gross malfeasance.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 11:12 PM | Reply

#58 Sheeple, is that you?!?

#59 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-11-05 11:15 PM | Reply

I think i can simplify this, Jeff.
Do you believe in SS and Medicare?

If you did, i think you'd acknowledge it's well-worth doing what is necessary to keep the programs vibrant regardless of whether rich people (and even non rich people) see a dent in their pocketbook.

But if you don't believe in the programs in the first place, then it really isn't about the numbers at all. The numbers become a convenient justification to start chipping away at something that, fundamentally, you don't care about at all.

So which will it be?

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-05 11:28 PM | Reply

#60 - Joe

At this point these programs are intertwined with our government and our society.

I am really not seeing much in the way of ambiguity in regards to #51, which is where you seem to be seeking clarity.

I view these programs in much the same way I view the private insurance industry - a necessary evil.

They are not Utopia - nowhere close, but they are, at this point, necessary.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-05 11:34 PM | Reply

I wasn't referencing any post of yours in particular, Jeff. Just trying to understand whether your numbers argument is one aimed at protecting programs you see as worthwhile and vital, or one that seeks to undercut something you wish never existed in the first place because you don't believe in it. Your response doesn't get me any closer to an answer.

#64 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-05 11:43 PM | Reply

It ain't in the constitution.

#3 | POSTED BY SNIPER

I wish anybody with a verifiable record of bleated this retarded snippet of simplicity was disavowed from voting.

"Every time an idiot says "but it ain't in the Constitution", a felon gets their voting rights back".

#68 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-06 09:08 AM | Reply

If "general welfare" was intended to be very-broad to the point of limitless, why did they even bother with the rest of the text in Section 8? Why didn't they just stop right there?

#46 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Because they were smart enough to know they couldn't describe everything and were intent on having inherent flexibility in the Constitution to make up for that?

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-06 09:16 AM | Reply

A few million dollars to study lesbian obesity may seem like nothing given how much our government spends as a whole, but if our taxes are actually reflective of what our government spends in the aggregate, maybe people will give a crap about all of its excesses.

Apparently you don't understand log scales...

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-06 09:19 AM | Reply

Joe,

At this point, I think these programs are worthwhile and need to be made solvent.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-06 11:21 AM | Reply

Joe,
At this point, I think these programs are worthwhile and need to be made solvent.

#71 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Then you are voting for the wrong party.

#72 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-11-06 12:13 PM | Reply

Republicans "monkey it up" privatized health care is a pipe bomb posted return to sender. A very Incel Christmas.

#73 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-11-06 10:18 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort