But @MichaelRStrain says "middle-class entitlement programs", not means-tested programs. I think three important points must be made:
1) The majority of Social Security spending are paid to the top ~1/3 of retirees. And lifetime benefits for the rich are rising fast
2)
-
-
-
2) Medicare cost growth can be significantly reduced through policies that have little to no effect on average health outcomes or average out of pocket spending for most Medicare beneficiaries 3) Revenue must be part of the solution to fund Social Security and Medicare - but
-
likely can't and won't be the entirety of the solution.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
With takes like the one your colleague has served up, it's not surprising that people think economists are terrible and should be ignored.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You missed an important word in this tweet. Growth. Cutting taxes on the rich and then cutting spending on the poor is very bad growth policy. Which means it's bad for rich people, not just poor people.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
good policy: cutting taxes on rich people and then one election later restoring taxes on rich people to 'pay for' increasing spending on poor people
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That’s true to a point—regarding the poor—but he specifically is talking about middle class entitlements. Why not transform SS and Medicare into a safety net for poor seniors rather than seniors in general?
-
Because most seniors would be poor without it.
-
I’d be interested to see the numbers on that. But that doesn’t matter; means-testing them would at least save some money that for some reason we’re paying out to middle- and upper-class people now.
-
Since the percentage of beneficiaries above $100,000 is so. small, I have to wonder if the cost to do the means testing would outweigh the amount paid out. More sensible to extend Medicare to everyone.
-
That last sentence is a total non sequitur; Medicare is already completely unsustainable. Furthermore, Medicare benefits already depend to some extent on a person’s financial means.
-
As far as SS, it appears from what you sent that we could meaningfully reduce spending by means-testing. But of course fundamental SS reform isn’t as pressing.
-
In any case, the more we can do to ensure there are no middle-class entitlements, the better.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not if you’re rich Noah
-
It actually is bad policy for the majority of rich people too. Rich people having more money in their nest egg doesn't boost the general economy, but the drop in spending by poor people will drop the velocity of money/reduce consumptions/reduce consumers.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/how-rising-inequality-hurts-everyone-even-the-rich/?utm_term=.2bf12b1788b6 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
First mistake here is assuming you have to “deal” with the deficits. This is the Charlie Brown, Lucy plus football problem that Democrats set themselves up for by claiming like Pelosi to desperately be worried about deficits. Tragic, damaging hilarity ensues
@StephanieKeltonThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I mean without exaggeration that is pretty much the entire playbook for the modern GOP.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, from a directional perspective this is the surefire way to lead a country down the path of being a failed state.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not if you think that poverty is a personal failing and that the poor should be ruthlessly punished.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.