Biden's America

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Ok great.  We seem to be in agreement here that Biden called out “some” Republicans who want to change SS and Medicare.  Yet you are just wanting to argue semantics.  
 

Both McConnell and McCarthy have said those programs are off the table.  

 

News Flash: McConnell and McCarthy have said a lot of things before going in the opposite direction. 

 

The GOP considered Roe v Wade "off the table" for most of the last 50 years. 

The idea that the activist GOP minority can't influence the largely non-existent Republican platform has been disproven a lot lately. You can also make a case that adjustments to entitlement programs may be necessary in the coming years. But you can't look at the landscape and say Social Security and Medicare are off-the-table, or that they haven't always been a thorn in conservative ideology. 

 

 

 

House Republicans have started to weigh a series of legislative proposals targeting Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, part of a broader campaign to slash federal spending that could force the new majority to grapple with some of the most difficult and delicate issues in American politics.

 

Only weeks after taking control of the chamber, GOP lawmakers under new Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) have rallied around firm pledges for austerity, insisting their efforts can improve the nation’s fiscal health. They have signaled they are willing to leverage the fight over the debt ceiling — and the threat of a fiscal doomsday — to seek major policy concessions from the Biden administration.

 

So far, the party has focused its attention on slimming down federal health care, education, science and labor programs, perhaps by billions of dollars. But some Republicans also have pitched a deeper examination of entitlements, which account for much of the government’s annual spending — and reflect some of the greatest looming fiscal challenges facing the United States.

 

In recent days, a group of GOP lawmakers has called for the creation of special panels that might recommend changes to Social Security and Medicare, which face genuine solvency issues that could result in benefit cuts within the next decade. Others in the party have resurfaced more detailed plans to cut costs, including by raising the Social Security retirement age to 70, targeting younger Americans who have yet to obtain federal benefits.

 

“We have no choice but to make hard decisions,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), the leader of the Republican Study Committee, a bloc of more than 160 conservative lawmakers that endorsed raising the retirement age and other changes last year. “Everybody has to look at everything.”

 

Any plan to rethink entitlements is likely to face steep opposition in the Democratic-led Senate and may never gain meaningful traction even among other Republicans in the House. Adding to the political challenge, former president Donald Trump waded into the debate Friday, warning his party publicly against cutting “a single penny from Medicare or Social Security.”

 

Democrats, meanwhile, have been unsparing in their criticisms, saying millions of Americans could see their benefits cut at the hands of the new House GOP majority. President Biden has stressed he will not negotiate such a deal with Republicans, as he prepares to discuss a raft of fiscal issues with McCarthy in the coming days.

 

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said she had no update on the timing of a meeting with McCarthy. But she repeated Biden’s belief that the debt ceiling should be addressed “without conditions.” The president himself later blasted the GOP for being “genuinely serious about cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare,” adding: “Look, I have no intention of letting the Republicans wreck our economy.”

 

“We need to be taking this very, very seriously, and the tragic thing is, everybody knows it,” said Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), a top lawmaker on the tax-focused House Ways and Means Committee, lamenting the state of Social Security and Medicare. But, Buchanan said, the early political sniping around the issue threatens to make any meaningful overhaul impossible. He stressed the two parties have to work together, or else Republicans could face a political drubbing if they forge ahead on their own.

“It’s a good way to get fired quickly,” he said.

 

For the moment, Republicans are only beginning to plot a new fiscal road map. To maximize their leverage, they have pursued spending cuts in exchange for their support to raise the debt ceiling, the legal cap that allows the U.S. to borrow money to pay its existing bills.

 

But balancing the federal till is no small feat — previous Republican majorities that passed measures to eliminate the deficit used gimmicks and other fiscal wizardry, and they only achieved a balanced budget on paper. This time, the task is especially immense, potentially requiring the GOP to identify more than $14 trillion in cuts through 2032, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for reducing the deficit.

 

So far, the cuts that Republicans have considered represent only a fraction of the government’s overall ledger, which also includes mandatory spending — the category that encompasses Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and a wide array of other federal payments that totaled more than $4.8 trillion in outlays over the 2021 fiscal year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Social Security and Medicare are funded through payroll taxes collected from employers and employees. The programs are popular, and for many Americans, they are a financial lifeline: In 2022, an average of 66 million seniors received a Social Security check each month, according to the federal government; more than 59 million people are enrolled in a Medicare plan, recent private estimates show.

 

But these entitlements face annual shortfalls, especially as the number of retired Americans grows faster than the two programs’ dedicated tax revenue. The complicated fiscal picture has led CBO to conclude that Social Security could exhaust its trust fund by 2033, at which point it would become insolvent, potentially resulting in a 23 percent cut to seniors’ monthly checks unless Congress intervenes. For Medicare, meanwhile, its key hospital-focused trust fund faces a similar problem in 2028, risking payments toward Americans’ health care, according to its trustees.

 

“That would represent a substantial reduction in payments to Social Security beneficiaries, many of whom have very modest income and would face real hardship if their benefits had to be cut back sharply at one fell swoop,” said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

 

The looming deadlines have emboldened some Republicans in Washington to take a look at the two programs, which are considered to be the third rail of American politics. GOP lawmakers have been counseled by a wide array of right-leaning groups, including the Heritage Foundation, that the new majority should consider significant changes to entitlements as part of their commitment to cutting spending and balancing the budget. But historically, the organization has argued against tax increases — and in a new statement on Tuesday, it did not endorse cuts to mandatory spending in the context of the debt limit.

 

 

“You don’t get out of our current situation without tackling entitlement programs,” said Rachel Greszler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noting the country is getting “closer and closer to the date of insolvency.”

 

In an early sign of their interest, House GOP leaders initially included “mandatory spending” as a legislative priority during a meeting with rank-and-file lawmakers earlier this month. But Republicans did not mention explicitly what they hoped to address with Social Security and Medicare. An aide to Rep. Jason T. Smith (R-Mo.), the new chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, only said this week that “tying those programs to the debt ceiling has not been a part of any conversation” he has had.

 

Other GOP leaders have ruled out direct cuts for seniors currently collecting benefits, leaving the door open for discussions about other legislative proposals.

 

“You’ve got to protect Medicare and Social Security. And the path the Democrats are going, they are going to go bankrupt,” McCarthy told reporters last week. “Let’s sit down and find a place that we can protect Medicare and Social Security for the future generations, let’s put our house in order on how we’re going to spend, and let’s make the investments we need to make America stronger.”

 

In a sweeping road map unveiled last year, the Republican Study Committee — the largest GOP group in the House — called for significant revisions to Social Security and Medicare. Their plan would raise Medicare eligibility to age 67, while allowing for more private-sector plans, while lifting Social Security to age 70 for younger workers and changing the way benefits are calculated. That proposal also raised the possibility that lawmakers could rethink payroll taxes, allowing the money to fund private-sector retirement options.

 

Republicans proposed privatizing key elements of the Social Security system under President George W. Bush after the 2004 election, only to encounter an onslaught of opposition that scuttled the White House campaign. Eighteen years later, Biden and his top aides lambasted GOP lawmakers in the 2022 race for trying to “deny seniors’ benefits they have already paid into.” The president saved some of his most forceful comments for proposals put forward by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who sought to require Congress to reauthorize Social Security and Medicare every five years.

Still, some Republican lawmakers have signaled renewed interest in those plans. Earlier this month, Scott promised to seek entitlement reforms in the context of the debt limit, promising at the time that a “day of reckoning is coming.” Hern, the leader of the RSC, said in a separate interview that lawmakers should at least be able to discuss bipartisan legislation to change the retirement age for a “child who has not paid a single dollar in payroll taxes.”

 

“No one needing Social Security right now, or expecting to get it in the near future, should be impacted,” added Rep. Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-Ga.), another member of the Republican Study Committee, who described the debt ceiling as a means of political “leverage.”

 

“We have a responsibility as guardians of the taxpayers’ money to make sure we stabilize Social Security and Medicare,” he said.

Other lawmakers have raised the prospect they could set up a special panel to explore entitlement spending on behalf of Democrats and Republicans who are wary of such a fight. Even a member of the president’s own party, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), has reaffirmed his recent interest in the idea: This weekend, he touted bipartisan legislation chiefly drafted by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) that would analyze entitlements and ease the process by which legislation involving those programs could come to the floor.

 

The idea could gain some traction in the House, where Buchanan pointed to the bill as he stressed the need to “work together and not make this so political.” Another top Republican, Rep. Jodey Arrington (Tex.), led a group of Democratic and GOP lawmakers two years ago in calling for “special, bipartisan, bicameral rescue committees” to study Social Security, Medicare and other federal trust funds, he wrote at the time.

 

“We’re within the budget window of both the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund going insolvent. If we don’t do something in that respect, then thats going to cause a benefit cut automatically, and nobody wants that," Arrington said in an interview.

 

As the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Arrington is set to oversee Republicans’ efforts to craft a blueprint that could eliminate the deficit over the next decade. He has previously endorsed changes to other federal benefit programs, including food stamps, seeking to impose new work requirements on poorer Americans.

 

But some lawmakers have expressed deep reservations about the creation of a new fiscal commission, fearing that would open the door for cuts — targeting seniors as well as those who are not yet eligible for Medicare and Social Security. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday on Twitter that such a panel is the “last thing we need,” pointing to the fact a prior attempt to impanel experts on entitlements recommended cuts to the program.

 

“We must instead expand Social Security,” Sanders said.

 

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” a day later, Manchin rejected his liberal colleague’s claims. “No cuts. No cuts to anybody that’s receiving their benefits, no adjustments to that. They earned it,” he said.

 

But Manchin appeared not to rule out other changes, as he broke with his own party in calling on Biden to negotiate with Republicans over the debt ceiling. “Could we put basically something on the floor that we will get to vote on it? Let the people decide and see if we’re willing to basically get our house in order,” the senator said.

 

At the White House, Biden and his top aides broadly have held firm in their position that Republicans should not politicize a key fiscal deadline. But spokeswoman Jean-Pierre did not respond last week when she was asked if the White House had its own plan for preventing Social Security and Medicare from becoming insolvent, as she blasted the GOP for “political gamesmanship.”

 

“We should not put on the chopping blocks the very programs that matter to the American people,” she said.

[Guy Chamberlin]

20 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I think the Fed is handling things much better than I would have anticipated given their previous track record.   I hope this soft landing continues throughout this year and next.  It would be a good accomplishment.  
 

Your question could also be asked in reverse, Economy was roaring pre-Covid under Trump admin and we didn’t see many Dem’s rooting for this.  

 

There is so much to find loathsome in Donald Trump that it's genuinely hard to give him the credit that feeds his pathology. I don't really recall Dems rooting against the economic recovery as much as rolling their eyes when Trump tried this same hyperbolic stunt: the great economic numbers from Trump's first two years in office were a continuation of the curve set during Obama's last 6.5 years in office (actually slowed down a tick or two under Trump). The economy wasn't thriving because of Trump-introduced policies; he just hadn't done anything to f#&% it up. Good for him. Biden no doubt benefitted by the hole he inherited, but the best available comparison is to other nations facing the same cratered economy and the U.S.'s ability to shore up and re-emerge more quickly. An unknowable percentage of this is the economy doing its global mechanisms independent of the President in office.

 

But it now looks like China is less the unstoppable behemoth destined to overtake us, and more like the U.S. remains the global model of stability.  That might require both parties to admit both Trump and Biden have held firm against China. I will if you will. 

[BigRedBuster]

55 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I think the Fed is handling things much better than I would have anticipated given their previous track record.   I hope this soft landing continues throughout this year and next.  It would be a good accomplishment.  
 

Your question could also be asked in reverse, Economy was roaring pre-Covid under Trump admin and we didn’t see many Dem’s rooting for this.  

I said this while Trump was President.  The economy was good.  It was good when he took office and he didn't cause an immediate downturn.  

 

However, the economy wasn't in crisis, like he claimed, when he took over.  He then pushed for tax cuts..etc. that aided in overheating the economy.  (from previous conversations, I know you disagree with that) I'm all for the lowest taxes as possible. That said, it wouldn't have been nearly as bad with inflation if the pandemic hadn't happened.  Nobody could foresee that coming and what the nation had to do to maintain the economy during that time.  Then we ended up with major inflation with all of that in the same soup pot.  

 

Yes, the feds have done a good job. I'm still a little concerned that they will raise rates more or keep them high past the point of needing them.  But, there are signs that we are going to see a soft landing....which is amazing.  If the economy suffers more, they can lower rates to help.  I can't see us lowering taxes even more to help on that end.  We have way to big of bills to pay.

 

Trump always said that he wanted the economy to grow at 5+ % per year.  The higher the better.  My opinion is, that's the wrong attitude.  That's because it creates bubbles that burst.  I would strongly prefer a very steady economy that grows 2-4% per year.  Coddle that.  Nudge it slightly one way or the other when needed.  We have far less chance of a huge down turn if we don't have huge upturns causing big swings both ways.

 

All that said, and trying to get the economy to grow at 5+% per year while we don't have the labor force to do it....causes a heck of a lot of bad problems.  I was talking to an economic developer this morning.  The discussion was how can the state create programs to create jobs when their aren't workers to fill them?  Maybe, there needs to be a program that would help companies automate so that the current jobs are kept while we experience a shrinking workforce.  Interesting idea.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The pervasive opinion in the business world that "if you're not growing, your dying" is actually bad for business. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

The pervasive opinion in the business world that "if you're not growing, your dying" is actually bad for business. 

If you're talking about individual businesses, sure, I could see your point, to an extent.  But, there are still faults with that even.

But, when looking at the economy as a whole, it needs to grow.  People need jobs.  Up until very recently, our workforce has been growing.  If the economy wasn't growing, there would be one hell of a lot of people without jobs once they get to working age.  A growing economy is how you create wealth.  Sure, we need to make sure everyone has an opportunity to gain that wealth and prosperity.  But, a shrinking economy would not be good.

[BigRedBuster]

This was a great line from the speech.  Republicans vote against it.  Then campaign that Biden is spending too much money.  Then they go back to their constituents and brag about the big infrastructure projects that they got passed in their districts.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

14 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If you're talking about individual businesses, sure, I could see your point, to an extent.  But, there are still faults with that even.

But, when looking at the economy as a whole, it needs to grow.  People need jobs.  Up until very recently, our workforce has been growing.  If the economy wasn't growing, there would be one hell of a lot of people without jobs once they get to working age.  A growing economy is how you create wealth.  Sure, we need to make sure everyone has an opportunity to gain that wealth and prosperity.  But, a shrinking economy would not be good.

 

When corporate executives are talking about business growth, it's not always synonymous with jobs growth. If they can profit from a robot workforce, they will. And of course that's what they're doing. 

 

The constant push for yearly and even quarterly growth typically lands on middle management, which often makes poor short term decisions in order to make the numbers for their bosses, and it's almost always unsustainable.  We're also awash in "visionaries" who think incredibly big in the name of growth, but they are often narcissists with wildly creative business plans who play to VCs infatuated with unicorns. They take a lot of money and people down with them.

 

Nobody promotes "thinking medium" or god forbid "small" even if that's where the most sustainable solutions reside. 

 

The demand for constant growth also takes companies out of their core competencies. If you are making good money, you can continue to make good money doing what you do well. If you are a slave to constant growth, you put that all at risk, and that's not good for the larger economy. 

 

It's really a law of physics. You literally can't keep growing, and bad things happen when you pop. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

When corporate executives are talking about business growth, it's not always synonymous with jobs growth. If they can profit from a robot workforce, they will. And of course that's what they're doing. 

 

The constant push for yearly and even quarterly growth typically lands on middle management, which often makes poor short term decisions in order to make the numbers for their bosses, and it's almost always unsustainable.  We're also awash in "visionaries" who think incredibly big in the name of growth, but they are often narcissists with wildly creative business plans who play to VCs infatuated with unicorns. They take a lot of money and people down with them.

 

Nobody promotes "thinking medium" or god forbid "small" even if that's where the most sustainable solutions reside. 

 

The demand for constant growth also takes companies out of their core competencies. If you are making good money, you can continue to make good money doing what you do well. If you are a slave to constant growth, you put that all at risk, and that's not good for the larger economy. 

 

It's really a law of physics. You literally can't keep growing, and bad things happen when you pop. 

 

OK, just to be clear, you're talking about things that are way different than what I originally posted about when discussing the economy as a whole.  I've said recently, I agree with you when it comes to publicly traded companies and how they only think short term instead of long term.  Completely agree with that.  I have personal experience with that.

 

That said, when I discuss business and the economy, I look at way more than just publicly traded companies.  They make up 1% of the total US companies and only 1/3 of total US non-farm employment.  There is an entire world out there that isn't publicly traded companies.  LINK

[Guy Chamberlin]

Well if the population is growing, the economy has to grow with it, and if wages are lagging, they need to grow to meet the standard of living.

 

I was mostly talking about the "if you're not growing, your dying" business mantra that sounds good in the moment, but less so when you really think about it. 

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I was mostly talking about the "if you're not growing, your dying" business mantra that sounds good in the moment, but less so when you really think about it.

But again, even in my own company, I would disagree with that.  Let me explain.  Back in the late 70s, we entered an industry that really took off.  We were the first one in the industry with several other companies following suit shortly after.  Throughout the 80s and 90s, our industry was growing by 20+% per year.  If we weren't growing that fast, we were falling behind our competitors.  If we were to greatly fall behind our competitors, we would not be a major player in the market today and we would be out of business like many companies are that got into the market, but didn't grow.  Fact is, you just get gobbled up.  Customers want to buy from a major player in the market and a company that is coming out with new and innovative products.  Companies that didn't do that back then, simply aren't around anymore.

 

Now, I get what you're saying if you are only looking at short term and not thinking long term.  I was always taught in business school that you need to manage as though your company will always exist.  You need to manage around short term problems and the business environment.  But, the people at the very top, need to keep in mind where they want the company 10-20 years from now.  We've been around since 1945, so I think our company has done a good job of that.  

 

I'll tell you one thing.  There is even worse than publicly traded companies.  That is, private equity groups.  They openly admit their goal is to buy a company, grow it 300% and flip it in 5 years.  That is not an exaggeration. And, it's why I will never get involved with one.

 

Back to the economy, 2-4% growth is pretty dang great.

[Archy1221]

38 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

  I've said recently, I agree with you when it comes to publicly traded companies and how they only think short term instead of long term

Sorry but I have to really push back on this.  All you have to do to dispute this is listen in on quarterly conference and see earnings reports where earnings were dragged down by cost build outs.  That’s not short term planning.  
 

my company runs on a 5 yr budget plan. That’s not “only” short term thinking. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

Sorry but I have to really push back on this.  All you have to do to dispute this is listen in on quarterly conference and see earnings reports where earnings were dragged down by cost build outs.  That’s not short term planning.  
 

my company runs on a 5 yr budget plan. That’s not “only” short term thinking. 

It's a much more complicated environment than can be accurately explained on a college sports message board.

 

Yes, you are correct.  Public companies do have longer term plans than the "short term".  I'm working with one right now that has a 5 year budget/projection plan.  That's great.  However, I would absolutely hate it.  projections are nothing but guesses.  Yes, I have to do them too.  But, you know what?  The guys that work at this other company have to update those 5 year projections every single month.  And, if they don't meet those projections in a month or quarter, there possibly are major decisions being made on those monthly or quarterly results.  That's asinine.  There are always unexpected influences in the short term that really aren't going to affect the long term goals of the company.

 

January was an extremely cold and snowy month for much of the US which has decreased sales in the construction industry.  You know what?  That really probably isn't going to have that big of an affect on our annual sales.  Those sales usually are then pushed into when the winter breaks.  Meanwhile, the public company guys are scrambling because their management is upset because their sales were down in January and maybe February is going to be the same way so first quarter sales are going to suck and they have to give a quarterly earnings call.

 

Those are the situations that I'm talking about.

[Archy1221]

Hmmmm….so now the left wing journo’s are saying Biden was being disingenuous.

 

 

[NM11046]

Receipts

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Well....there you have it....MAGAts should LOVE Biden.

 

Also...saw this and thought of Jr.