http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5019422-republican-social-security-medicaid-medicare-welfare-cuts-trump/

According to the GAO, there is approx $100 billion in waste, fraud and abuse. Who would be against cutting that? SS and the Meds are faltering. Everyone knows that. The Republican in the article is quoted as saying they have to bring Democrats to the table to solve these problems.  
.
Each administration passes the buck on these programs and they just get worse and worse. Trump should appoint a bi-partisan commission on how best to cut the waste and sure up the longevity of these much needed entitlements.

You with me on that?

"Cuts" means reducing benefits.  Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse is not a "tough choice" or a "hard decision."
You don't "have to have the stomach to actually" eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.  CUTTING BENEFITS is a "tough choice."  CUTTING BENEFITS is a "hard decision."  You "have to have the stomach to actually" CUT BENEFITS.

Like the funding to Ukraine?  😲

You "cut" money that would have otherwise gone to waste, fraud and abuse. That would be "cutting" the program. You can't be this naive to think that the "poor"  as you claim would have their benefits reduced. That is not going to happen. That would be political suicide for Rs and they know that.  
.
Yes, to make the programs sustainable, it will need to be strategically cut, but the Rs will not have nearly the votes, if any, to cut the benefits of people needing it the most as some of these people will be their family, friends and neighbors. Stop with this nonsense. It's not going to happen. You know that. You are just being hyper partisan about it.

Me and Willy are in agreement! Yowzaaaaaaaaaaaa! lol.

He wants to reward Putin for invading a sovereign country counter to the rule of law and in violation of agreements Russia itself signed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Pulling the rug out from under Ukraine would also give China the green light to invade Taiwan.
Not to mention that the money we've given Ukraine has been well spent. They have basically taken apart the Russian army, which will pose no threat to us or our allies for many years.
We and our allies are on the brink of victory and Loooooser wants to declare defeat.  
Some soldier.
What a fraud and traitor Looooser is.
He'd be in good company with this guy. We should start calling Loooooser "Benedict Arnold."

There are two sides to the funding coin: spending ($ out) and funding ($ in). There have been proposals over the years on how to do both.  
.
Cutting waste (in every department, every budget) is a good place to start as long as it is corrective and not penalizing or retributive. There have been many other proposals, e.g., cut benefits to a few (or maybe a few hundred) multimillionaires and billionaires who do not need SS / Meds : a drop in the bucket, but it could make a point: it's MUCH better to be a retired multimillionaire w/o SS than a poor retiree struggling on SS-only. (You could make it voluntary, too.) On the funding side, there have been many different proposals for that: raise the cutoff amount for SS withholding.  
.
I have previously mentioned that I have visited a multi-generation household where the Head of Household has to spend hours and HOURS each week trying to figure out the health insurances and medical appointments, etc., for everyone: private insurance, gov insurance, Medicare via private insurer, ... in network, out of network, covered, not covered ... .  It is bonkers.  
.
I have also posted about one of AOC's early (first term) statements on "single payer" health insurance for all, something Bernie has been campaigning for for years. Someone asked AOC, 'But how will we pay for it?' AOC replied, 'What do you mean? We just pay for it!' I explained that statement in old posts which are returning: "Discussion Board Error! The message you have requested is either invalid or is no longer active."
.
To recap: "The United States spends more on health care than any other country. Annual health expenditures stood at over 4.4 trillion U.S. dollars in 2022 ..." I explained AOC's statement as follows, across ALL health plans and all health services (this looks better as a pie chart of Venn diagram):
.
Inputs: Private insurance premiums (paid by employers and employees), co-pays, gov "inputs" (Medicare/Medicaid), out of pocket expenditures ... add them all up and you get, let's simplify, $5 trillion IN. (Those or similar inputs will remain the same: 'You just pay for it the way you have always paid for it.')  
.
Outputs: Med procedures, medicines, doctors - nurses salaries, office workers salaries, real estate, property and equipment maintenance ... everything DIRECTLY related to patient care. In addition, THE PRIVATE INSURERS take, let's estimate, 20% off the top: 15% to show as profits to their shareholders and 5% to pay top management big salaries and bonuses. That's $4T for patient health-care and $1T for management wealth-care.
.
(A private company, Steward Health Care, bought up several hospitals in MA. Steward management enriched themselves and their shareholders and bankrupted the hospitals which went into bankruptcy in 2024. It is a national trend:  
http://www.wbur.org/news/2024/05/07/steward-bankruptcy-hospitals-massachusetts
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/15-healthcare-bankruptcies-in-2024.html )
.
"How do you pay for "it"?" "It" being healthcare.  You use the same or similar funding streams: insurance premiums, co-pays, out of pocket, ... and state and fed funding programs. The same or up to the same $5 T comes in. Cut out the self-enriching private management (and increasingly mis-management) groups, keep the service providers and support staff (now to be paid by a single payer), and you can cut premiums and inputs back to $4 T or you can spend some of the $5 T on improving the health care system (new and improved facilities, etc.) or expanding it.
.
That's MY simplified explanation of "you just pay for it."
.
Premiums, co-pays, taxes, withholding ... go IN ---> [$5 Trillion In]
[$5 Trillion Out] ---> MDs, RNs, support staff, hospitals, meds, ... go OUT, with [$1 T left over].
.
The now-missing piece that is eliminated is the [$1 Trillion OUT] ---> millionaire managers' salaries and bonuses.
.
.
.
Peripherally related: The CEO of United Health Care, NYQ:UNH, a $600 B health insurance company, was murdered in NYC on Wednesday, 4-Dec-2024. It has been noted that UHC has the HIGHEST rate of DENIAL OF CLAIMS of any major insurance company. ... Going back to the household I mentioned, above. I know that they have gotten pre-approval for a procedure or treatment and a written assurance that it would be covered (other than the co-pay) for the pre-approved service provider.  AFTER the procedure, the medical service provider's claim for payment from the insurance company was denied; the medical service provider went after the patient for payment; and a months-long battle (patient - insurer - provider) ensued. The provider took the side of the patient, proving that it was a medically necessary procedure that was pre-approved by the insurer. I still don't think the case has been resolved.

The adjustment is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), 2.5% for next year. It is not reflective of the real inflation experienced by retired seniors. Food and Medicare premium increases alone eat away most if not all of it. The SSA needs a more representative index.

-- Modified on 12/5/2024 2:24:53 PM

Inflation due to government deficit spending is the great ripoff of the working American public. It's not just SS recipients. It is everyone who has seen prices skyrocket while wages lag years behind.  It's a great transfer of wealth from the working poor to the well connected.  And it was the Biden Democrat party that is most recently responsible (yes, establishment GOP also are in on the grift.)

adding a "means" test.  There are retired seniors who earn over $250,000+ a year in income from their investments, so they don't really depend on SS to live on.  Cutting out high-earners would leave room for an increase for those that are struggling to live on SS.  

Ukraine had one little nuclear accident and now you don't want them to have nukes.  How are they going to fight Putin's nukes without nukes of their own?

and here you are

putin did not invade Ukraine until after Trump left office.

Although I can see the logic of means testing, it is a reneging on the promise to return your money paid into the SS system.  So a fraud.
.
As a practical matter, the number of people on SS earning a substantial additional income is probably only a few percent.

but I also think the $175K limit of income on which SS is taxed has also got to go. Why shouldn't people who make more than that continue to pay into the system?

Hey snow turd!

Because it is sold to us as an investment, not a transfer pay.

Giving millionaires and billionaires SS money is ludicrous. The 175K limit will be toast soon as well. Wealthier people need to pay their fair share.

in my mid-20's the first year I maxed out on the SS contribution, and I thought they were making a mistake on my payroll checks the last few pay periods of the year.  (It was a much lower threshold then, less than $90,000 maxed you out, if I remember correctly.  Lol)    

I haven't seen any number crunching but I will GUESS that a higher cutoff or no cutoff will probably allow for an overall lower (percentage) SS withholding rate. Gives lower income earners a little more in their take home pay.

Joe Scarborough was ranting that DOGE is only going to cut SS and Medicare.   Ron Paul then pointed out that when Scarborough was a US Representative he voted against expanding Medicare.  

Rand Paul.

George W. Bush made fraudulent claims about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction that led to the wasteful expenditure of ~$3 trillion (not including Afghanistan and other areas). Many US allies initially questioned the WMD claims and drew upon the lack of proof of WMD and the monitoring of Iraq by the UN and other agencies:  
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix "In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "so far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons [of mass destruction], only a small number of empty chemical munitions." In 2004 Blix stated that "there were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction."  Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program ****contradicted the claims of the George W. Bush administration**** and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein. ****Ultimately, Blix was largely vindicated;**** the invasion failed to turn up any active WMD programs. ..."

As of January 20, 2025 we will be rid of biden and harris.

includes both an income and asset component.  Assets can be liquidated to provider a revenue stream, so a guy that owns an empty office building that is not currently producing a revenue stream has other ways to get income by borrowing or selling the building, so even though he has no income stream, he would pass the means test and not qualify for low-income benefits that might otherwise be available to someone with no visible income.