Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

[simple1]

So much for protecting the less fortunate...

 

House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.

 

'Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

[Isaan sailor]

Welfare is a good place to start.  There are multiple generations on public welfare—with absent fathers and higher welfare payments for each additional child.  President Clinton instituted a work for welfare program.  We should revisit the program.

[impulse]

12 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Welfare is a good place to start.  There are multiple generations on public welfare—with absent fathers and higher welfare payments for each additional child.  President Clinton instituted a work for welfare program.  We should revisit the program.

 

I enjoy listening to Thomas Sowell about how the welfare state as it's currently structured absolutely devastates families, mostly Black families.  Though, I don't know if "enjoy" is an accurate word for being so disheartened by how bad it's been screwed up. 

 

Basically, my takeaway from his books and lectures is that the plight of Black families was improving rapidly in the USA from WW2, until the '60s and then the Great Society took pity on them and turned them into wards of the Gub'ment.

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

So much for protecting the less fortunate...

 

House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.

 

'Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

The problem for GOP politicians is that their voters are also recipients of welfare. In particular in rural counties characterised by economic decline, which play a disproportionate role.in the U.S. electoral system and largely voted MAGA.

https://eig.org/great-transfermation/

 

Or will they find a way to indirectly target cuts selectively on Dem voters?

[SunnyinBangrak]

Living on welfare shouldn't be a career choice. As usual, and Im sure it hurts some to accept, but Trump is right. Again.

[candide]

1 hour ago, candide said:

The problem for GOP politicians is that their voters are also recipients of welfare. In particular in rural counties characterised by economic decline, which play a disproportionate role.in the U.S. electoral system and largely voted MAGA.

https://eig.org/great-transfermation/

 

Or will they find a way to indirectly target cuts selectively on Dem voters?

In particular, slashing the food stamp program will certainly be very popular among people who voted for Trump because they could not afford to put enough food on the table! 😆

 

Related information

https://www.socialexplorer.com/blog/post/political-explorer-counties-with-largest-increases-in-food-stamps-since-2010-went-for-trump-in-2020-13483

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/food-stamps-work-requirements-republican-bill-states-most-impacted/

[impulse]

52 minutes ago, candide said:

In particular, slashing the food stamp program will certainly be very popular among people who voted for Trump because they could not afford to put enough food on the table! 😆

 

Related information

https://www.socialexplorer.com/blog/post/political-explorer-counties-with-largest-increases-in-food-stamps-since-2010-went-for-trump-in-2020-13483

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/food-stamps-work-requirements-republican-bill-states-most-impacted/

 

 

My God.  Those heartless monsters...  Requiring people to actually get out of bed and work as a condition of getting free money...  My money.

 

 

I'm sure it won't be popular with some demographics, but they already vote Blue and always will, as long as they get promised free stuff.

 

[herfiehandbag]

They may save a lot of money, but they will also have to invest in a very large fleet of buses - to cope with the numbers of those who voted for them that they intend to throw under the buses!

[Lacessit]

No surprise welfare cuts should be in the mix.

 

It's surprising how many welfare recipients had to put their hand on the stove, before finding out it was hot.

 

Work for the dole simply creates a new bureaucracy to administer it.

[candide]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

 

My God.  Those monsters...  Requiring people to actually get out of bed and work as a condition of getting free money...  My money.

 

 

I'm sure it won't be popular with some demographics, but they already vote Blue and always will, as long as they get promised free stuff.

 

I have posted information showing that, contrary to MAGA beliefs,  Republican voters are also beneficiaries of welfare. It's true that there are more Dem recipients than Republican recipients, but Republican recipients are concentrated in rural counties which are critical for the GOP.

 

My point is that GOP politicians who have been elected in such counties may not be eager to shoot themselves in the foot, despite the dominant political discourse. 

[TedG]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

So much for protecting the less fortunate...

 

House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.

 

'Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

That's five trillion over 10 years, which is 500 billion annually.  The current deficit is running close to two trillion.  Something needs to be cut.  

[simple1]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Living on welfare shouldn't be a career choice. As usual, and Im sure it hurts some to accept, but Trump is right. Again.

 

The projected $5 trillion is a hell of a lot of cuts to the various welfare / food assistance /medical system and so on. One hopes it's an error as the US welfare cost alone is one trillion dollars a year. One assumes they're talking to over a four timeline. Cannot imagine being on welfare being a "career choice".

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, TedG said:

That's five trillion over 10 years, which is 500 billion annually.  The current deficit is running close to two trillion.  Something needs to be cut.  

 

OK what about ceasing tax cuts for the well off (say those earing over $200k a year), rather than reducing welfare / Medicare.

[frank83628]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

So much for protecting the less fortunate...

 

House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.

 

'Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

And what concern is that of you as an Australian citizen? 

[Highball]

Plenty to cut. My best friend in HS is/was gaming CA disability. Everyone not worth af is on disability in CA. I'd not spoken to him in 30 years. He was still living in the 70s.

 

Of course, so many places themselves in disability by their own lifestyle.

 

I probably missed less than five days of work in the 30 years of employment.

 

Tons of medical doctors commit fraud.

 

Keep social security pensions solvent cut the crap 👍

[TedG]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

OK what about ceasing tax cuts for the well off (say those earing over $200k a year), rather than reducing welfare / Medicare.

How much does that yield?   The fact is, the Democrats built a government that we can't afford. 

[GammaGlobulin]

48 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

No surprise welfare cuts should be in the mix.

 

It's surprising how many welfare recipients had to put their hand on the stove, before finding out it was hot.

 

Work for the dole simply creates a new bureaucracy to administer it.

 

There is now no real need for anyone to work who doesn't want to.

 

Might as well just give everyone a guaranteed income, something Bucky suggested decades ago.

 

I am still in love with Buckminster Fuller and his Buckyballs, anyway.

 

 

[MalcolmB]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

No surprise welfare cuts should be in the mix.

 

It's surprising how many welfare recipients had to put their hand on the stove, before finding out it was hot.

 

Work for the dole simply creates a new bureaucracy to administer it.

Don’t you live off welfare?

[CallumWK]

I'm sure the Aussie OP already regrets he started this thread, because it's backfiring big time, since those cuts are actually a good thing in reducing the deficit, something Trump promised in his campaign.

The democrats were giving money away to get votes, which is unsustainable in the long term. A country doesn't run on freeloaders.

[Lacessit]

42 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

I'm sure the Aussie OP already regrets he started this thread, because it's backfiring big time, since those cuts are actually a good thing in reducing the deficit, something Trump promised in his campaign.

The democrats were giving money away to get votes, which is unsustainable in the long term. A country doesn't run on freeloaders.

Trump's promises during the campaign added about $5.8 trillion to the deficit. Harris's promises added $1.2 trillion.

 

The welfare cuts are reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor to give tax cuts to the rich. They do nothing to address the deficit.

 

Why do you think all the billionaires finally all lined up behind Trump?

51 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

Don’t you live off welfare?

Welfare and investments. I'm entitled to it, having worked and paid taxes for 45 years.

 

I'm Australian. Any government there who cuts welfare is going to get tossed out at the next election.

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, TedG said:

How much does that yield?   The fact is, the Democrats built a government that we can't afford. 

No, that's not a fact, that's an opinion.

[Patong2021]

6 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

Welfare is a good place to start.  There are multiple generations on public welfare—with absent fathers and higher welfare payments for each additional child.  President Clinton instituted a work for welfare program.  We should revisit the program.

 

OK. Are you prepared for the crime, increased child poverty, exploitation and disease that will result?

Why not treat all social assistance beneficiaries equally? Reduce Social Security payments, for everyone, including the elderly and the infirm.  Change the income thresholds and copayments for Medicaid/Medicare participation. No more  food stamps. No more  early childhood and pre natal programs. If women miscarry because of illness or malnutrition, charge them with aiding an abortion, which is now illegal in many states.   Change the Veterans  access to medical care. Only military personnel who sustained injuries in active service should qualify.

Eliminate subsidies for small use airports and increase the airport user fees to  fully cover the costs of TSA, ATC and. other operations.  

 

I expect  a few people on this forum would object.

 

 

[TedG]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

No, that's not a fact, that's an opinion.

It’s a fact.  Spending is about 22 percent of the GPD.  When was the last time the government collected over 20 percent of the GDP in revenue?

[jimmybcool]

Hmmmm.  Politico.  Quoted (spun) in MSN.   Come on guys.  How about reporting NEWS instead of guesses?

 

 

[candide]

2 hours ago, TedG said:

It’s a fact.  Spending is about 22 percent of the GPD.  When was the last time the government collected over 20 percent of the GDP in revenue?

What do you include include in "spending"?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, simple1 said:

So much for protecting the less fortunate...

 

House Republicans are circulating a “menu” of options that Speaker Mike Johnson’s conference could chose from—reportedly a massive $5 trillion worth of federal government programs to put on the chopping block to pay for the President-elect’s promised priorities, including tax cuts and border security.

 

'Slashing welfare': GOP eyes chopping $5 trillion to pay for Trump priorities — like tax cuts

If only Trump had been convicted and put in prison before the election.

If only Biden wasn't living in cookoo land.

If only Harris had been a sensible candidate

 

 

But he wasn't, he is, she isn't and Trump is the winner. 

 

Enjoy your next 4 years with Trump as POTUS- it's sure to be hugely entertaining.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, frank83628 said:

And what concern is that of you as an Australian citizen? 

And of what concern is it to you that he posts something on WORLD NEWS subforum.

No one put you in charge.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

OK what about ceasing tax cuts for the well off (say those earing over $200k a year), rather than reducing welfare / Medicare.

Without getting into tax cuts for anyone, too many bludgers exploit welfare because governments are too gutless to do anything about it. Other than genuine health problems, and old age pensions, no one that is fit should be getting welfare.

[jimmybcool]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

OK what about ceasing tax cuts for the well off (say those earing over $200k a year), rather than reducing welfare / Medicare.

 

What exactly IS a "fair share"?  I hear the term bandied about but no one ever mentions the top 5% of earners pay the majority of income taxes. 

 

Most of the government’s federal income tax revenue comes from the nation’s top income earners. In 2021, the top 5% of earners — people with incomes $252,840 and above — collectively paid over $1.4 trillion in income taxes, or about 66% of the national total. If you include the top 10% — everyone who made at least $169,800 — that figure rises to $1.7 trillion, or 76% of the total

 

https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/

 

I agree with a tax structure that increases in percentage as one incomes rises but how much is enough?  I mean the bottom 50% pay a total of 3% of collected income tax.  At what point is it unfair to expect the higher income earners to shoulder all the cost?  Do the bottom 50% not also benefit from living in the country? 

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

What exactly IS a "fair share"? 

Enough to live on and have a decent place to live in and afford health care.

Drinking alcohol, smoking, using illegal drugs, internet, travel, entertainment and recreation etc not included.