You seem new around here so Iām willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are arguing in good faith.
letās forget for a moment the idea that one duty of a free society is to care for its most vulnerable, and government is the instrument through which a society acts, because you may not disagree with one or both premises.
If you completely eliminated all federal Medicaid and Snap spending you would save about 640B per year. Sounds like a lot right? Itās 10% of the budget. Not peanuts but really not much in the grand scheme.
Now realize simply allowing the Trump tax cuts to expire would have added at least 400B to revenues. Take it back to pre W levels it would be more like 600B
So right there you almost have a wash. Even assuming you think we have no duty to help those people who have made terrible life choices such as being born into single parent households, itās not costing much in terms of additional debt to throw them a few crumbs
But now look at what cutting SNAP and Medicaid entirely does to the broader economy
Due to multipliers, that loss of 680B translates into a conservative estimate of a loss of 2-3% to GDP in the first year
Doesnāt seem like much until you think of how it actually plays out. Job losses and business closures will be mostly in the healthcare sector, and they will disproportionately affect people who live outside dense metropolitan areas. And of course it will also affect food producers. Now the powers that be arenāt cutting 100%. Yet. But they are cutting enough, along with ending ACA subsidies, that there will be a large ripple effect
But I guess if youāre a āme and mineā type, and you have 100% employer funded health insurance, and if you donāt derive your livelihood from the above industries or the industries that support them (retail, finance, housing, service industry, etc) and if you live in or near a big city (assuming you can stand being in one of those likely commie infested areas), you probably wonāt feel much pain. Probably.