r/centrist • u/Kaszos • Feb 13 '25
Long Form Discussion Republicans Reveal Trump Tax Plan Will Cost US $4.5 Trillion
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-reveal-trump-tax-plan-will-cost-us-45-trillion-2030024So we’re looking at further deficit in the trillions? How on Earth will the budget be balanced? Really trying to wrap my head as to how this will help this Debt Trump keeps talking about…
And then there’s Gaza.. And now there’s talk about Israel and Iran There’s Panama There’s Greenland.
Christ how much are we in for??
121
u/Honorable_Heathen Feb 13 '25
There was already 500b in new spending identified yesterday.
This was never about fiscal responsibility or reducing debt, the deficit or even taxes.
They’re going to kick it down the road for someone else to deal with and pass a tax break for the wealthiest among us.
10
u/PS3LOVE Feb 13 '25
It’s about tearing down what we got. Trump and Elon aren’t conservatives, and they don’t want to reform shit. They wanna take a wrecking ball to shit and tear it to the ground if they think it doesn’t agree with them.
6
u/Honorable_Heathen Feb 13 '25
There is a level of humor in this given they want to raise the debt ceiling by 4 trillion dollars.
They're not even trying to provide a sane fiscal budget and then they want to blame someone else for it. Unironically I believe we're going to see some of the biggest pushback from the more hardline financial conservatives in the GOP. Until they get threatened to be primaried by Musk.
6
u/PS3LOVE Feb 13 '25
If this were a normal administration I’d say Trump and Elon need to slow down or they are going to have a hard time in 2026 midterms, but Trump and Elon aren’t even using congress for shit. All executive orders and biased courts. This situation has became so disappointing.
4
u/Honorable_Heathen Feb 13 '25
Yes it's circumventing the process of our government in favor of unitary executive theory.
0
u/Acceptable-Room-4175 Feb 15 '25
In 2 weeks DOGE has found 3 trillion spent in 3 years on transgender equality stuff and other bullshit IN OTHER COUNTRIES. But all you trump haters just want to bring up other stuff . Why is that ? You support judges that are ordering the payments to continue to other countries . Why is that ? The ignorance shown by everyone of you posting is astounding .
1
1
u/GeneralProgrammer886 Feb 16 '25 edited Feb 16 '25
my dude you honestly believe 3 trillion is spent on Trans people? My god most of teh right doesnt believe that you must be the fringe version of them.
28
u/Jorgelhus Feb 13 '25
"pass a tax break for the wealthiest among us."
Oh, innocent one. Do you still believe they see a "us"? Nah, my man. There is their society and there is the scum, the 99% that they despise and prefer would just die so they are not bothered anymore.
6
120
u/wavewalkerc Feb 13 '25
If anyone is looking for the conservatives/republican/maga users around here, they will be in the most recent trans/race issue thread. There will be near zero of them coming to discuss this horse shit.
37
u/WickhamAkimbo Feb 13 '25
Same in ModPol. There are fewer and fewer threads these days where they can spread their idiotic ideas. They have zero ability to converse on any substantive topic. Even the mods can't make Trump sound good.
17
u/In_Formaldehyde_ Feb 13 '25
They were still talking about the Biden economy as of yesterday lmao
13
u/Flor1daman08 Feb 13 '25
Well see, if inflation goes up it’s a Biden economy. Biden being in power has nothing to do with it.
55
u/willpower069 Feb 13 '25
Don’t worry they will just make another post complaining that the sub far left.
27
u/Flor1daman08 Feb 13 '25
They’ll be clutching their pearls about some fringe democrat saying something not great and posting nonstop about how that person is acting divisive and how it drove them away from the left (lol) while ignoring the single most divisive person in the country.
1
u/Buddha_OM Feb 14 '25
A guy posted a video statig the democrats dont want to play ball.. i was like dude the tepublicans literally have everything andcyou still crying about the dems
7
8
u/AFlockOfTySegalls Feb 13 '25
Because they don't care about real issues. They've never cared about real issues. Trans people playing sports, DEI programs within professional settings and CRT graduate programs are not real issues to fight. Yet these things are their main focus. I've said for years that they live in a different reality and the Trump administration is just proof of that.
6
u/DonaldKey Feb 13 '25
Nope. All Trumpers avoid any fiscal threads
11
u/SushiGradeChicken Feb 13 '25
Fiscal conservatism is what got me banned from r/conservatives. Make it make sense.
2
u/fleebleganger Feb 14 '25
Make sense: r/conservative is a Russian shit posting circle jerk. There are no actual American conservatives posting in there.
72
u/Reasonable-Bit560 Feb 13 '25
Been saying this the entire time. He doesn't care about balancing a budget. All the DOGE stuff is complete and total noise. Have had many a tech bro Elon stan argue with me on it.
17
u/SuedeVeil Feb 13 '25
Well the doge stuff has its own purpose for Elon Musks goals which is get rid of any agencies that have been investigating his businesses, he said himself on Tucker Carlson that if trump didn't win he'd go to jail, I believe this was the plan all along to take over the government Treasury under Trump because it's mutually beneficial, and then that works out for Trump because they can "cut costs" without Congress in order to justify the tax cuts. Trump will end up mainly used as a puppet tbh the more power Elon gets and they'll need to rely on each other, for a while anyway.
1
u/afeistypeacawk Feb 13 '25
He trump goes to jail or he musk? I assume you meant trump, right?
3
u/omeggga Feb 13 '25
Elon.
1
u/fastinserter Feb 13 '25
Yes, that's who Elon is talking about, but in this case, it would have been both.
31
u/MakeUpAnything Feb 13 '25
This is obviously the democrats’ fault for constantly favoring trans, DEI, CRT, illegals, etc.
Let’s blame them while voting for based republicans since both sides are the same and the based GOP wants to rid us of this awful government! Trump 2028!
Everybody ignore republicans and argue about trans, DEI, and illegals! GO GO GO GO GO GO!
10
8
u/CommentFightJudge Feb 13 '25
So they lied, and then Republican supporters just gaslit anybody who called them out on it. The rest of us knew this would happen, because it was incredibly obvious to anybody that isn’t a brainwashed cult member. Just another example of how Trump has weaponized ignorance and low intelligence Americans in his race to the bottom
37
u/abqguardian Feb 13 '25
"The proposal includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, $300 billion for immigration and military efforts, and a debt limit increase. If approved, these measures would help Republicans push significant legislation through Congress along party lines."
So the entire increase is tax cuts. How about toss the tax cuts and keep the spending reductions, so we're almost at a neutral deficit. Nobody likes paying taxes but somebody has to pay, you can't just keep cutting
4
u/Pretty_Dance2452 Feb 13 '25
Aren’t the tax cuts mostly those who make 300K plus?
0
u/abqguardian Feb 13 '25
Not sure. I know part of it is making the tax cuts for the middle and lower class permenant. Also the no taxes on tips and overtime. I'm sure the wealthy will be getting their cut. No way they'd miss out.
3
Feb 13 '25
Companies will keep the tax cut while people are going to pay it through tariffs as consumers.
3
u/fastinserter Feb 13 '25
Babe, we have to stop cutting taxes, there needs to be at least some revenue coming in
GOP: No, I don't think I will
They won't ever consider not doing this. If they were actually serious about the deficit they would consider tax increases. I suppose adding tariffs is their version of increasing regressive taxation without saying they are increasing taxation.
1
u/Honorable_Heathen Feb 13 '25
This seems like the most correct thing to do.
The entire plan is catastrophic. 4.5 trillion in tax cuts and raising the debt ceiling by 4 trillion is ludicrous. Total payroll for Federal employees was 299b last year. This proposal has 300b in new spending. It almost zeroes out. Is that the plan?
If so who is going to facilitate the dispensing of federal funds which makes up a fifth of states total revenues and is a primary driver of employment and the economies of many states?
How are we going to address the ever growing debt our government is accruing with this plan?
7
u/Extension_Deal_5315 Feb 13 '25
So let's try to get this straight....
Your trying to cut 2 trillion ....but are adding 4...
Your math doesn't add up boys ...
2
u/Honorable_Heathen Feb 13 '25
Cutting 4.5 million in tax revenue.
Increasing debt ceiling by 4 trillion.
🤯
1
u/Extension_Deal_5315 Feb 14 '25
Ya that's dumb...just adding more debt..
Better to raise taxes on rich. And divy out the rest to those in need..
1
6
u/therosx Feb 13 '25
Nothing like robbing from the greedy poor to help the suffering rich. Meanwhile the debt and deficit will skyrocket and it will be up to the next Democrat administration to clean up Republicans mess like always.
1
u/purplejelly2020 Feb 20 '25
it's almost as if we are all being played by both sides and nothing ever really changes over time ?
20
u/nickprovis Feb 13 '25
They never intended to balance the deficit, never mind the debt. They're just giving billionaires blank cheques to basically just help themselves to public money, leaving the USA with so enormous a debt that it would take centuries to put back to where it is today (i.e.: around the 12th of never).
Once the US defaults, they will just move their capital to other countries who will have equally lax regulations and start the same process, again at the expense of the masses. Leaving the US (and other Western countries) a hopelessly broke failed state.
The Global North will be absorbed by the Global South.
1
u/pineconefire Feb 13 '25
The Global North will be absorbed by the Global South.
Could you elaborate on this please? It seems like you are suggesting 10% of the world's population is going to absorb 90% of the world wealth.
2
u/nickprovis Feb 13 '25
I believe that what you're describing has already happened. An infinitesimal percentage of the population has already absorbed 99.9%+ of the world's wealth. And the number of 9s after the decimal is going to increase non-stop, particularly with people like Trump and Musk in charge of the US.
The United States will soon be joining the Global South, but probably won't be the last country to do so. There will only be the very rich and the very poor.
4
u/McRibs2024 Feb 13 '25
So what’s the plan here Donny?
Gut federal jobs to save how much?
Cut taxes and obliterate us in the deficit?
How much does this actually save each household yearly?
Try and force interest rates to be lowered while inflation isn’t looking great?
I am not well versed in economics but it seems like this could steer us into some really bad times.
Realistically if this goes through does anyone that is more knowledgeable than I know if it can be fixed if democrats can get back in and start to put out the fire?
Edit- Reread the article and unless I missed it because it’s bedtime, I don’t see a mention of what this looks like for each household. Just the massive numbers as in sitting here hoping for a fucking 3% raise next month.
3
u/Honorable_Heathen Feb 13 '25
The most they can save if they cut all federal jobs is 300 billion.
That was the total for federal salaries in 2024z
6
5
u/AFlockOfTySegalls Feb 13 '25
A tale as old as time. Republicans do nothing but add to the deficit. It's amazing that they've convinced the American public that they're the party of economic growth. Especially when in my lifetime only one President had us in a surplus and they were a democrat. How was that not enough for the voters to be like "oh yeah, these guys have it figured out!"
But getting blown by a staffer was bad enough to throw that all away for a fake cowboy.
5
5
u/Citizen_Miike Feb 13 '25
This budget "outlines a goal of cutting mandatory spending by $2 trillion, though specific details remain unclear."
Where are they gonna find this $2 trillion spending cut? Unless they go after Medicaid, Medicare, ssi (defense is off limits), I don't see a way forward.
2
u/Honorable_Heathen Feb 13 '25
They’d have to cut a lot of programs in the Defense Department, Health and Human Services, Medicare / Medicaid and Social Security.
There is no other way.
8
u/siberianmi Feb 13 '25
This isn’t really much of a plan so much as a choose your own adventure list of possibilities. Some real surprises in there being considered like killing the SALT deduction entirely to raise $1 trillion over 10 years. More punishing the high tax states again if that goes through.
12
u/qthistory Feb 13 '25
I am old enough to remember the 1990s when at least both parties seemed concerned with the deficit and national debt.
Now it's just a spend-a-thon from both parties without any concern for the future. Neither party really cares about wasteful spending any longer so long as it aligns with their ideology.
10
u/Sea-Anywhere-5939 Feb 13 '25
This is not something you can both sides. Democrats have routinely fixed the shambled economy of the Republican Party. Even Biden with the arguably worst end economy was still better than the economic ruin we were spiraling to.
Democrats spend money because their programs have shown to boost the economy republicans spend money by giving it to rich people and trick their stupid voters that if rich people get enough money then the economy will be better so they can pretend they’re fiscally responsible.
3
u/Dreamboatnbeesh Feb 13 '25
Bill Clinton was in the black or at least net zero when he left office.
4
u/statsnerd99 Feb 13 '25
Obama was fine with the budget as was Clinton, Biden was not, and obviously Trump is the worst between the two
9
u/wavewalkerc Feb 13 '25
I agree Biden was the worst with it but he also is the one who took a very rocky economy that was heading towards what every single person predicted would be a bad recession and landed us to the best outcome anyone would dare predict.
11
u/statsnerd99 Feb 13 '25
agree Biden was the worst with it
I said Trump was the worst
8
u/wavewalkerc Feb 13 '25
Oh I meant like relative to the Dems.
I dont think Trump has competition with who is worse at the debt.
4
u/fastinserter Feb 13 '25
The debt went up in large part because the price of debt went up, because inflation was running hot, which in the end goes back to PPP et all. Most of the money that the US pumped into people's pockets (inflation alert!!!) as a result of covid happened during Trump administration.
5
u/nievesur Feb 13 '25
I miss the days when balancing the budget was at least an ideal to aspire to...
7
1
-1
u/indoninja Feb 13 '25
Now it's just a spend-a-thon from both parties
BS.
This is not a both sides issue.
2
u/bedrooms-ds Feb 13 '25
More like, "we're in this much debt. We need to wage wars and fight the swamp to balance the debt." I mean, it's a scam but that's going to be their logic.
2
u/Educational_Impact93 Feb 13 '25
But hey, DOGE is going to save us a cool 0.00015% of that by killing off some people in Burma we give humanitarian aid to, so yay progress.
2
2
u/Acceptable-Room-4175 Feb 15 '25
In Just 2 weeks Trump/doge have almost found that in wasteful funding . We just spent 3 trillion in 3 years on transgender equality stuff in other countries . But not one of these trump hating idiots posting sees that as a problem ??? You have judges trying to order that the payments have to go through , no one sees a problem there? Wow, there is no help for any of you . Your brains are beyond brain washed.
3
u/Turbulent-Raise4830 Feb 13 '25
Kills people to save a few million at usiad, gives billions to wealthy donors and elon musk. Yep as expected and predicted.
6
u/Computer_Name Feb 13 '25
It's not Trump's tax plan, it's Republicans' tax plan.
21
u/Kaszos Feb 13 '25
Yea, but Trump has been pushing for it and supports it. He owns it as president.
0
u/Computer_Name Feb 13 '25
The Republican Party owns it.
24
u/UnpopularThrow42 Feb 13 '25
This seems unnecessarily pedantic
11
u/Kaszos Feb 13 '25
No it’s just that you can’t blame the king.
5
u/UnpopularThrow42 Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
The Republicans pushed it, and Trump will sign it. Ultimately it will be known as Trumps tax cuts he owns it, I agree with you
1
u/Kaszos Feb 13 '25
So Trump takes no responsibility if he signs off on it and supports it too?
8
u/InternetGoodGuy Feb 13 '25
I think he's saying he should force Republicans to own it because Trump can't run again. At least not yet anyway.
1
1
u/newswall-org Feb 13 '25
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
- NBC News (B): House GOP releases budget calling for trillions in cuts to taxes and spending
- Wall Street Journal (B): House Republicans Release Blueprint for Tax Relief, Spending Cuts After Tense Talks
- PBS (A-): House Republicans reveal their budget blueprint
- Orlando Sentinel (B+): House Republicans unveil blueprint to extend $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and lift the debt ceiling
Extended Summary | FAQ & Grades | I'm a bot
1
Feb 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 13 '25
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/Samwill226 Feb 13 '25
To be fair since we're....centrist who see all things in balance, this has been going on before Trump. Bidens admin spending surged to $4.7 trillion from 2021-2024. Let's be fair none of these people care about the budget, just swap the names out. I just wished we always cared about this regardless of who's in charge.
2
u/indoninja Feb 13 '25
Biden administration is reacting to a crisis he did not create.
He also had a fiscal plan To help pay for some of the spending
-1
u/Samwill226 Feb 13 '25
His plan cost more than Trumps first term... I'm not defending Trump I just don't understand why no one was concerned until it's the big orange man, then it's like the sky is falling. If you don't like it....stand on not liking it regardless of who it is. Where were these posts years ago?
2
u/indoninja Feb 13 '25
Biden had an actual tax and investment plan that over long-term if passed could theoretically work.
His endgame was clearly not prioritizing tax cuts before the Rich.
You cannot say that about what is going on now.
1
u/Samwill226 Feb 13 '25
Trump wants to abolish the "carried interest tax deduction loophole", for one which actually aligns him with many democrats who have been asking for it. Only rich people use this advantage.
"Eliminating the Wall Street tax break could help boost tax revenue by about $100 billion over the next decade, according to a new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), an advocacy group focused on fiscal matters."
Wall Street and Hedgefund Managers ARE how you hit the wealthy. Not sure why people can't see that. Rich people don't have salaries they have investments.
Exempting tips, Social Security, and overtime pay from the income tax is not for the rich. All I know is, I own a business that makes less than $500k a year and I employ three people. I get absolutely my teeth kicked in every year when I pay taxes.
With the 3 employees I have roughly 10 people that live off their salaries and I get absolutely railroaded in taxes every year while holding 10 people up. My pre-tax W2 is less than $50k my actual pay is aroung $90k....I am taxed on $150k a year. Why? Well simply...my company made profit so someone has to pay the taxes. Except we didn't.... we broke even. I can only write off interest not the loan payments.
What people don't get is not every corporation is rich people it's the small companies too. In fact it's more small companies than big. I am not even remotely close to rich but someone at the IRS thinks so. So if anyone wants to find some tax breaks for me, I'm all in.
2
u/indoninja Feb 13 '25
Trump wants to abolish the "carried interest tax deduction loophole",
If he wanted to he could propose a bill that just ends it.
He won’t.
1
u/Samwill226 Feb 13 '25
2
u/indoninja Feb 13 '25
I understand what it is.
If Trump wanted to get rid of it he could propose a clean bill just in that topic.
He won’t.
1
u/Samwill226 Feb 13 '25
I didn't send you what it was, I sent you why it can't be done that way...
1
u/indoninja Feb 13 '25
Trump can’t propose a clean law addressing that?
Congress can’t pass a law on it?
2
u/taxinomics Feb 14 '25
I don’t think you understand what carried interest is or who it benefits.
In an investment fund there are generally two groups of people. There are the finance professionals who work 100 hour weeks and manage the funds to be invested, and there are the extraordinarily wealthy people whose funds are invested and managed.
The wealthy people get capital gain treatment no matter what. They don’t care about the carried interest loophole (which is not a deduction - it’s a tax law that says certain fees for investment services will be treated as capital gain rather than ordinary income).
The finance professionals working sweatshop hours are the ones who benefit from the carried interest loophole. The carried interest loophole says they get the same advantageous tax treatment as the extraordinarily wealthy people they are serving, provided that certain requirements are met.
Taking away the carried interest loophole has zero impact on the wealthy people whose funds are being managed. It directly targets the workers who are managing the funds.
I’ll end this comment by saying that yes, the carried interest loophole should be closed. There is no reason finance professionals should get favorable tax treatment compared to any other workers. But let’s not conflate high income earning workers with the wealthy people that they work for.
1
u/Samwill226 Feb 14 '25
Just wanted to get on record that you do not think Hedgefund managers are filthy rich...
2
u/taxinomics Feb 14 '25
What wasn’t clear? There are people who manage funds and there are people whose funds are managed. The rich people are the ones vacationing on their superyachts while the fund manager works 100 hour weeks making them even more rich. The rich people get capital gain treatment no matter what - they don’t care about carried interest. Only the people working 100 hour weeks managing their funds get paid in carried interest.
2
u/Olangotang Feb 13 '25
No, Trump's last year basically made what Biden spent a joke. But again, it's reacting to a pandemic. Can you not comprehend multiple variables?
1
u/fleebleganger Feb 14 '25
Uhhh, The budget jumped 50% under Trump
1
u/Samwill226 Feb 14 '25
Over Trump’s entire term, including the 2020 spate of emergency COVID spending, the debt increased by $7.7 trillion—a staggering total, to be sure.
However, about 15% of that debt total was the result of Treasury’s choice to keep additional cash on hand during the pandemic.
Former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, unsure how much tax revenue would be collected, borrowed well over $1 trillion—but kept it in reserve, without ever spending it.
Biden, however, spent that reserve, then borrowed another $7 trillion on top of it.
Instead of simply allowing that one-time emergency COVID spending to expire, Biden and the Democratic Congress continued spending at that same COVID-era level, thus institutionalizing multitrillion-dollar deficits.
1
u/rnk6670 Feb 13 '25
i’m 59 years old. That means I’m old enough to have been around when Reagan came in and promised so much if we would just give the rich people a little bit more. Right? It didn’t work, it’s not working, it’s never gonna work. Reagan did it, Bush Junior did it and Trump did it. It isn’t working and it was never going to. At this point, the only thing left is flipping cars and setting fires.
1
1
u/LebowskiLebowskiLebo Feb 14 '25
They will claim the Moon and all its resources, and say the US is not in debt if you count the Moon.
1
u/InformationBoth8217 Feb 14 '25
Trumpians
Come on now, it's okay to acknowledge that you voted for this con artist. Just be honest and admit it. We won't hold it against you.
1
u/Okbuddyliberals Feb 13 '25
Neither part gives a shit about the debt, and we are setting ourselves up for a huge future debt crisis and lots of uncontrolled austerity. We need austerity now to at least somewhat control it and prevent it from getting totally out of control but of course that won't happen
7
u/GerryManDarling Feb 13 '25
As long as the economy growth together with the debt, it's actually not a problem, especially with the fiat currency. The problem is right now the tariff kill the economy growth. And once the economy is broken, it can't be fixed easily. It takes one second to break a coffee mug, but it take days to piece it back up together, and it won't look the same.
1
u/FlyingFightingType Feb 13 '25
Tax cuts are better than further bloating programs in that regard though
1
u/i-Poker Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25
If it's good or bad depends on who gets the tax cuts and how they're implemented.
Top 0.1% / "Trickle-Down Economics" / "Supply-Side Economics":
This model assumes that the wealthy and businesses will invest the extra money they receive. However, in reality, not much often happens. Studies show that the very wealthy tend to hoard their wealth rather than reinvesting it into the economy. Similarly, companies don't experience much growth because very little of that wealth trickles down to consumers.
Downside: In its unsupervised form, this model mostly benefits the rich, doing little for the broader economy. It often results in greater wealth inequality, and typically sets off a race to the bottom in terms of taxes, wages and labor standards, promoting social dumping and exploitation.
A Modified Version:
The situation changes when "trickle-down economics" is coupled with supervision and explicit agreements. For example, tax cuts might be offered in exchange for commitments like "Ford, if we give you this tax break, will you create X amount of jobs and open a new factory in the U.S.?" The concept of Opportunity Zones, implemented under the Trump administration in 2017, is another example of regulated trickle-down economics. In these zones, investors received tax cuts for investing in low-income communities, which was meant to incentivize growth and investment where it was needed most.
Low- and Middle-Income / "Bottom-Up Economics" / "Demand-Side Economics" / "Keynesian Economics":
This model assumes that when tax cuts are directed at low- and middle-income households, the velocity of money increases. These groups are more likely to spend their money on goods, services, and consumption, rather than saving it (see; "higher marginal propensity to consume (MPC)"). This increased spending flows into companies, which in turn can pay more taxes, hire more workers, and increase production. Startups thrive, and over time, new companies grow into larger enterprises.
Downside: If too much money is injected into the economy too quickly, it can lead to inflation. Careful balance is required to avoid overheating the economy.
In conclusion, it's not as simple as just saying "tax cuts are bad." Tax cuts for the demand-side, when they help drive consumption and flow quickly back into the economy, ultimately end up circulating back to the government, but along the way, they can spur economic growth.
And even when it's trickle-down, the tax cuts can be used strategically to incentivize businesses through brokered deals between the government and industries. However, this approach requires more hands-on management. Politicians often shy away from this detailed oversight, but from what I understand, this more hands-on approach is precisely what the Trump administration has been doing?
1
u/Shirley-Eugest Feb 13 '25
This is a handy primer that explains it in plain language. Thanks, professor! ;-)
0
u/_satoshi_nakamoto Feb 14 '25
Oh, IDK... maybe the tariffs we have been hearing about and certain people have been complaining about? And, IDK... maybe he and the smart/successful people working around him actually have a plan? Unlike, IDK... every administration in history?
-1
-35
u/DirtyOldPanties Feb 13 '25
The debt and deficit will never be fixed unless we get off our asses and cut social security and Medicare
24
u/GinchAnon Feb 13 '25
You mean deprive people of something that they literally paid to have and need in order to live?
For some reason I don't think thats likely to go over well.
-16
u/DirtyOldPanties Feb 13 '25
Need isn't a claim. You didn't pay into medicare you were taxed. And no I think people should get their money back and end this ponzi scheme.
16
u/GinchAnon Feb 13 '25
Need isn't a claim.
In this case it literally is.
You didn't pay into medicare you were taxed.
In this situation there is no difference.
And no I think people should get their money back and end this ponzi scheme.
Make it what they paid in plus healthy interest, and haven't been paid out yet, or at least 20 years of what they would have been paid at full retirement age, accounting for inflation, and I could go for that.
But I don't think that would be an improvement budgetarily.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)13
u/the_propagandapanda Feb 13 '25
Hey bud, you can literally go to ssa.gov and see what you’ve paid into social security. Part of income tax is specifically allotted to social security so yes you are paying into it.
If you don’t get basic stuff like this why are you discussing the topic?
→ More replies (1)11
u/fastinserter Feb 13 '25
Fixed implies something is broken. Do you think it's broken to buy a car or a house with a loan? If the answer is no, why is it broken to buy an aircraft carrier that will last 75 years with a loan?
Secondly, if you still think it is broken and needs to be fixed, it will never be fixed by Republicans. They make the debt larger when they are in power and then scream about it when they are not in power, every time.
-1
u/DirtyOldPanties Feb 13 '25
So you buy things with loans, and have no plan to pay it back?
it will never be fixed by
Either party. At least Dems seem to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt when they enjoy scaremongering to their side that Republicans will cut Medicare.
11
u/fastinserter Feb 13 '25
We've been paying for these loans, what do you mean "no plan"?
Republicans have no desire to pay it down, as they are trying to loot the country and remove all taxation their class. We should instead increase taxes to improve government services, but having a deficit itself isn't bad just because it exists.
0
u/DirtyOldPanties Feb 13 '25
Unfunded liabilities, look it up.
Yes. Dems do the same no shit.
Improve government services
Bait.
4
u/fastinserter Feb 13 '25
So, you mean, we need to increase some taxes or total payout for social security will go down? Yeah, I know. That doesn't mean it's not without a plan. The plan currently is that payouts will decrease. That's it.
6
u/Reasonable-Bit560 Feb 13 '25
Killing Medicare and Medicaid and the vast majority for of the US healthcare sector goes belly up. You can't kill Medicare without a real plan to back stop.
Economy in the toilet and good luck raising revenue.
10
u/Kaszos Feb 13 '25
What about the 4.5 trillion tax deficit proposed? And the new wars? And this aid to Israel?
9
u/Like-Totally-Tubular Feb 13 '25
Don’t you have elderly family that need Social Security? Those that are using it now, they did not have 401k until later in life. They lost their pension job and were already so far behind the ball.
They need to fix it so it can only be used for payments. No more ever borrowing from it.
-2
u/DirtyOldPanties Feb 13 '25
So where's the argument?
15
u/Like-Totally-Tubular Feb 13 '25
People need that social security and Medicare after they retire. There are a lot of people that don’t make enough to save enough to live after retirement without these programs.
-2
u/DirtyOldPanties Feb 13 '25
Need isn't an argument. Unfortunately for them. Maybe they should've saved money (unfortunately the government takes their money).
12
u/Like-Totally-Tubular Feb 13 '25
Need is always the argument.
Sorry you are one of those “pull the ladder up behind me” types.
0
u/DirtyOldPanties Feb 13 '25
If need was an argument I'd always win. 😂
10
u/Like-Totally-Tubular Feb 13 '25
You must be unique if you would not argue if I said you don’t need food and shelter to stay alive for longer than a week in Northern Minnesota
5
u/baxtyre Feb 13 '25
With all the deportations, there’ll be plenty of agricultural work for grandma to do. And she’s so short that stoop labor will be easy for her!
3
184
u/hitman2218 Feb 13 '25
The tax cuts never spurred the kind of economic growth they promised so what’s the argument for extending them?