Since Social Security and Medicare payroll tax of 7.65% hasn't changed for decades, why not increase it now to relieve the deficit in the SS budget rather than upping the retirement age?
Your premise is incorrect. (“Since Social Security and Medicare payroll tax of 7.65% hasn't changed for decades…”)The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 reduced the social security payroll tax rate. It went from 6.2% to 4.2% in 2010.The reduced tax rate was later extended to 2011.Congress allowed the law to lapse, and the rate returned to 6.2% in 2011.Your other premise is incorrect as well (“why not increase it now to relieve the deficit…”). Social security does not add to the deficit of the U.S. federal government. Social security has a $2.8 trillion fund with which to pay future benefits. Between its funds and its taxes collected, social security should have enough funds to pay benefits for fifteen years.https://www.forbes.com/sites/ter...
Do people like it when Trump says it's time to get all Americans off of welfare and to get them all jobs?
Because Trump is both lying and knows nothing of basic economics. In the latter years of the Bush administration and through much of the early Obama years, unemployment was high because there were far more people seeking work than jobs that were available, typically by an order of six people for every available job.Not to mention that the vast majority of new jobs created paid below a living wage. Working for minimum wage simply means that you get to starve a bit more slowly and the taxpayers get to subsidize employers, like the fact that Walmart employees receive upwards of SIX BILLION dollars a year in supplemental security income and food stamps which is nothing more than a MASSIVE gift to Walmart.None the less, Obama’s policies reduced the unemployment rate at the end of the Bush-GOP economic collapse from roughly 10% to under 5%. But Trump claims he should get high praise for simply being in office when Obama policies continued to reduce unemployment from 4.6% to 4.5% when Trump has done NOTHING AT ALL that could affect that economic performance.The usual right-wing LIES about unemployment derive from the usual sewer of racist filth that passes for conservative ideology — White people unemployed are victims of black people stealing their jobs, black people unemployed are parasites living off welfare paid for by white people, and so on.Conservatives need to take a freshman ecomonics course and LEARN why actual full employment is not possible and why economists who actually know stuff (unlike conservatives and Trump supporters) say that “full employment” is defined as an unemployment rate of around 3–5% depending on other economic factors. You CAN’T employ everyone in a capitalist economy, so unemployed people will ALWAYS exist.And then LEARN why a $15 minimum wage DOES NOT suppress job creation as has been empirically proven and that a living wage targeted to local economic realty actually helps businesses succeed and makes the economy stronger.And then ask yourself why conservatives are always willing to let OTHER PEOPLE DIE, starve to death, die of treatable illness, go homeless, etc. while still claiming to be “christian.” The core moral failure of conservatism is un-American and anti-Human.
How did 5 million people get lifted off food stamps according to Donald Trump’s 2019 SOTU speech?
As usual with this president, it pays to check the facts, especially the numbers, which can often change three or four times in a single speech. The simple fact is, the number of people on SNAP has been declining since 2013, it has very little to do with this administration, and that number is off by approximately 1.1 million recipients. It should also be noted that people move on and off of SNAP all the time, that very few people receive benefits for more than about 18 months, and that the majority of households receiving SNAP benefits include either children, disabled, or seniors.A few more facts about SNAPThe average monthly benefit is about $133. That comes to approximately $1.50 per meal.You cannot receive SNAP benefits if you are undocumented, if you earn more than a state defined percentage of the federal poverty guideline, or if you have assets above state defined limits.Federal spending on food stamps is approximately 2% of the budget.About 80% of able bodied adults who receive SNAP work both before and after participating in the program.The number of people participating in the program has dropped since 2013, both due to states implementing stronger work requirements, and the general improvement of the economy.The average length of time a household spends on SNAP is 18 months.SNAP administration has been shown to have a fraud rate of only 1%.FOOD STAMPSTRUMP, describing progress over the last two years: "Nearly 5 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps."THE FACTS: The number of people receiving food stamps actually hasn't declined that much.Government data show there were 44.2 million people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program in 2016, before Trump took office. In 2018, there were 40.3 million people participating in SNAP. That's a decline of 3.9 million, not the 5 million that Trump talked about.The number of people participating in the SNAP program peaked in 2013 and has been going down since that time.Trump's last budget proposed cutting SNAP by $213 billion over 10 years. The administration also has been pushing to give states more flexibility in implementing the program, including tightening work requirements for recipients.FACT CHECK: Trump's 2019 State of the Union addressThe Truth About Food Stamps - Just Harvesthttps://www.newsweek.com/people-...April 2015 U.S. Poverty Action
As someone born with the preexisting condition of cerebral palsy, am I right in thinking that Republicans only cared about getting rid of coverage for those with preexisting conditions?
I also have CP and just to be upfront I’m not a Republican I’m a libertarian.Republicans wanted to get rid of the mandate to cover preexisting conditions because of the drain on insurance. Consider this: someone gets diagnosed with a condition and then tries to purchase insurance. That’s not how the system works. Insurance is a two way gamble. You’re paying in in hopes that it covers you down the road when you need it. The company is providing it hoping you don’t need more than what you’ve paid in.Let’s take the human aspect out. No one would get in a car wreck and expect to be able to buy insurance in the self-same day. I think everyone would agree that’s ridiculous. Health insurance is no different.Prior to the ACA most insurance plans I was familiar with had two points that addressed the preexisting condition question. First, if you were born with something like CP that didn’t fall under the perameter of a preexisting condition. Second, if like in my mother’s case you had a preexisting condition (thyroid issues requiring a yearly test & medication) you had to wait a year before it was covered.The second scenario isn’t fun if you’ve had to change insurance providers, but insurance is still a business and that scenario offers a liability.The better answer would to be to separate insurance from employment and open up the market for association and competition. No more worrying about switching jobs and changing insurance. Government mandates haven’t fixed it and I doubt republicans blundering attempts will fix it either.