Federal Deficit Commission Draft Proposal a Good Start

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bearack

Guest
crazyeddie":evd5bhbf said:
rubicondsrv":evd5bhbf said:
how about they save their own money???

it is actually not hard to amass significant savings over several decades......frankly most "poor" people got that way by their own choice....
This attitude ignores both reality and human nature.

The fact is, most people just don't have the foresight, will, common sense, or cautious nature to start saving at an early age for their retirement. That's why we have Social Security, to make sure such people don't starve to death in their old age.

Bully for you that you are atypical and have saved enough to retire without Social Security. Most people can't.
And yet we continue to mentor such behavior by continue to sponsor the behavior by giving more and more benefits. You start taking benefits away, people will relearn how to save money. And then teach our children to learn the same responcible acts... Oh, wait, I already do. My 13 year old daughter has nearly $4,000 in her own savings from keeping all her birthday, christmas and other holiday gifts. She amazes me even to this day. She asked for more money than gifts this year. She loves seeing her own savings and hard work grow.

If taught, eddie. Not given...
 
B

believer_since_1956

Guest
rubicondsrv":21b03nsh said:
crazyeddie":21b03nsh said:
[
Perhaps we should just euthanize all those useless old people who are physically incapable of working any longer, rather than subjecting you to the trauma of having to having to pay more in taxes in exchange for living in a civilized world? :roll:
!
how about they save their own money???

it is actually not hard to amass significant savings over several decades......frankly most "poor" people got that way by their own choice....

you do not need a new car or tv ect........

contrary to popular belief you do not need to have car payments, or cable tv......
You are aware the elderly have paid into Social Security all their working lives with the promise by the government they will have that money returned to them? Also Social Security was drained by the Congress using it to fund various programs again with the promise they would repay the money into Social Security. Just a thought.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Yeah, that's the tough part. No criticism (yet) - we've been forced to buy into an obvious Ponzi scheme at the point of a gun. So who's culpable outside of the criminals waving around the guns?

At some point someone needs to raise some guns of their own and go after the extortionists. Any generation that hasn't is culpable, including my own.

I think that a line needs to get drawn. No more after _____________ <-- this point.

I think the only real debate I'm willing to entertain is the definition of that line.
 
P

phaze

Guest
bearack":3jljhr9n said:
rubicondsrv":3jljhr9n said:
phaze":3jljhr9n said:
Well... one simple reason is that retirement has been a good way to clear the workforce and make way for a new generation of workers. Probably some benefits for national productivity, as well.

Really though... I hope you guys get out there and push REAL HARD for the abolishment of Social Security and chastise the lazy 65+ crowd! That'd fantastic.

you do not have a right to a job......

using tax money to pay people to sit around for 20-30 years is insane
I had an argument with my sister recently about this. I find it repugnant that some feel that its societies obligation to support people whom are eldery retirement.

Before there was SS, people actually saved money to retire on. It's true, they did. People to this day still save money and chose not to depend on SS so they can actually enjoy their retirement and not living on a fixed income dictated by the state.
Some?

All... maybe? Please - name me a country whose system you DO approve of....
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
For most of human history, survival, depended on cooperation. People like Newton had the wit to say 'I stand on the shoulders of giants'. Everything you have or own is the product of tens of thousands of generations of humans and their efforts. For the first six or seven years of you're lives, someone went out of their way to feed you, house you and put cloths on you're back. Todays "Medal of Honor" winner said he'd easily give the medal back, if it brought his buddy back to life. Maybe thats what made Limbaugh opine that Obama didn't believe in 'what that medal stands for'. This from a guy who fled military service for a carbuncle on his ass. If Eddies around I wish he'd find Napoleons explanation of "Medals"

You know what would be fun: All the soldiers in all the worlds armies go on strike ( over unsafe working condition )

Or better yet, they would all rise up together one night and cut the heads off all those who send us to war. Especially the ones who tricked us into risking our lives for their gold. If you all had to live the lives of the average social security wage slave retiree on medicaid, I wouldn't be surprised if you committed suicide. Almost everything you are...you owe to those who wrote the texts and kept you alive...you arrogant little illegitimate children.....no wonder you're about to get you're tushies whipped. :twisted: :lol: :cool: I wish I could tell you simply what God is going to do to you, but I don't want to get banned for bad language.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
vladdrac":24mjafkr said:
I wish I could tell you simply what God is going to do to you, but I don't want to get banned for bad language.
Tell him I said to bring his wussie arse down here and I'll punt it back for him.
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
You will see it :lol: ( assuming you're the twenty something female android of you're avatar )
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Thirty-something.

do we have a terribly long wait? It's kinda embarrassing for your deity...
 
J

JeffreyNYA

Guest
adrenalynn":u8ij71yi said:
Yeah, that's the tough part. No criticism (yet) - we've been forced to buy into an obvious Ponzi scheme at the point of a gun. So who's culpable outside of the criminals waving around the guns?

At some point someone needs to raise some guns of their own and go after the extortionists. Any generation that hasn't is culpable, including my own.

I think that a line needs to get drawn. No more after _____________ <-- this point.

I think the only real debate I'm willing to entertain is the definition of that line.
I am all for setting a age and date that someone does not have to put into SS anymore. However, there has to be some give. You can;t just stop paying in and tell the people who had payed in for years that they get nothing. You will need to supplement the people coming off the program until the people receiving are all dead. That will probably require at least 50 years. You can't do that by just upping the age. You simply have have more money coming into the system. The only real way to do that is to have everyone pay their 6.2 percent up to their income level. if its a million a year so be it. You simply have no other choice.
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
You have no idea of what you're asking for. If the unexpected rapidity of change continues, you will regret you're witty repartee. I will at least have had the pleasure of going out between clean sheets with plenty of good drugs :lol: No I don't know when. If I knew I'd tell you right here, if only for the sake of the people I like. :lol:
 
M

MasterComposter

Guest
Wow, this thread turned into a much more stupid squabble than I ever could have hoped!

Seems like no matter the program, there really is no middle ground between "this program has got to be completely ELIMINATED" on one side and "this program is SACRED and can't be touched" on the other.

Our only hope for cutting the deficit is if the Congress and Administration can do a better job finding middle ground than we can...

S**t... we're f**ked...
 
B

baulten

Guest
MasterComposter":2aa38x6f said:
Wow, this thread turned into a much more stupid squabble than I ever could have hoped!

Seems like no matter the program, there really is no middle ground between "this program has got to be completely ELIMINATED" on one side and "this program is SACRED and can't be touched" on the other.

Our only hope for cutting the deficit is if the Congress and Administration can do a better job finding middle ground than we can...

S**t... we're f**ked...
Why would you want to compromise when you could instead blame the other side and absolve yourself of all responsibility? Isn't that what this is all about? "It's not MY fault, I said it wouldn't work!"
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
adrenalynn":ra5c76n6 said:
Yeah, that's the tough part. No criticism (yet) - we've been forced to buy into an obvious Ponzi scheme at the point of a gun. So who's culpable outside of the criminals waving around the guns?
If you've bought into the myth that Social Security is some kind of Ponzi scheme, then you only display your considerable ignorance. In Ponzi schemes, people are being misled. That's not the case with SS. Everyone understands how it works. Ponzi schemes are doomed to fail. Played out to its logical conclusion, a Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck, and the scheme collapses. This is not the case with Social Security. It faces hurdles, but they can be met with relatively easy fixes in order to meet it's obligations. And morally, Social Security is the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme. At the height of the Great Depression, our society resolved to create a safety net in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay a modest benefit to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle people such as you, who apparently hate the idea of your tax dollars supporting anyone but yourself, but it's not fraudulent.....unlike a Ponzi scheme.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Wow you're considerably ignorant.

If I say "hey, I've got a Ponzi scheme here, but you'll do fine 'cause you're early! Get in now!" - it's still a Ponzi. And it's still illegal.

>> Ponzi schemes are doomed to fail.

As is SS

>> And morally

Your morals are not applicable.

>> By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer

Resolving to destroy the greatest nation in the world and turn to socialism isn't going to make anything sustainable, as every nation on earth that has attempted it eventually learned - the hard way.

>> a Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted.

Ever heard of "baby boomer generation"? Aware that we've been zero to negative population growth for several generations?

See: "considerable ignorance" above. See also: fantasy land.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
adrenalynn":lzus3e2w said:
Wow you're considerably ignorant.

If I say "hey, I've got a Ponzi scheme here, but you'll do fine 'cause you're early! Get in now!" - it's still a Ponzi. And it's still illegal.

>> Ponzi schemes are doomed to fail.

As is SS

>> And morally

Your morals are not applicable.

>> By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer

Resolving to destroy the greatest nation in the world and turn to socialism isn't going to make anything sustainable, as every nation on earth that has attempted it eventually learned - the hard way.

>> a Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted.

Ever heard of "baby boomer generation"? Aware that we've been zero to negative population growth for several generations?

See: "considerable ignorance" above. See also: fantasy land.
Oh dear. You're starting to babble. :?

I've just demonstrated why SS is NOT a Ponzi scheme. Yet you insist that it is. It is you who inhabit the fantasy.

Further discussion with you on this topic would clearly be a waste of time.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Let me spell it out for you in tiny words that may help:

The baby boomers are very big number.
Current generation are very little number.

Very little number can't afford support very big number.

Very big number screwed.

Ponzi fall part cause there is no big nuff base support it and no grow put more in from top.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JeffreyNYA":1waknx3s said:
I am all for setting a age and date that someone does not have to put into SS anymore. However, there has to be some give. You can;t just stop paying in and tell the people who had payed in for years that they get nothing. You will need to supplement the people coming off the program until the people receiving are all dead. That will probably require at least 50 years. You can't do that by just upping the age. You simply have have more money coming into the system. The only real way to do that is to have everyone pay their 6.2 percent up to their income level. if its a million a year so be it. You simply have no other choice.
A simple fix to Social Security would be to eliminate the cap of wages subject for FICA taxes. That would make the program solvent indefinitely. But of course, that amounts to a tax on the wealthiest Americans, the people who rely on SS the least, and Republicans and conservatives are loath to allow that.

But it's not Social Security that's in big trouble, it's Medicare and Medicaid that is about to go bust. That's why I'm wondering why SS is even part of the discussion.....unless it's just one of the things conservatives want to get rid of.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
Absolutely, comrade! We should take what belongs to those who don't NEED to be taken care of and give it to those who aren't willing to provide for themselves!

Those damned fat-cats. We must "strip them of their natural character and subjugate them to the power of the united individuals." [Karl Marx] Only then will they understand their proper place!
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
adrenalynn":lb8jqpmi said:
Absolutely, comrade! We should take what belongs to those who don't NEED to be taken care of and give it to those who aren't willing to provide for themselves!

Those damned fat-cats. We must "strip them of their natural character and subjugate them to the power of the united individuals." [Karl Marx] Only then will they understand their proper place!
If you don't like this society, feel free to move to one more to your liking. One more individualistic, with low taxes and small government. You'd probably do well in Somalia, they have almost no government at all. Of course, you're life expectancy will probably be considerably lower there, but hey, at least you'll be able to keep most of your precious money that you hold so dear....until someone slits your throat and robs you of it.

Don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out! ;)
 
J

JeffreyNYA

Guest
crazyeddie":253mgf3m said:
JeffreyNYA":253mgf3m said:
I am all for setting a age and date that someone does not have to put into SS anymore. However, there has to be some give. You can;t just stop paying in and tell the people who had payed in for years that they get nothing. You will need to supplement the people coming off the program until the people receiving are all dead. That will probably require at least 50 years. You can't do that by just upping the age. You simply have have more money coming into the system. The only real way to do that is to have everyone pay their 6.2 percent up to their income level. if its a million a year so be it. You simply have no other choice.
A simple fix to Social Security would be to eliminate the cap of wages subject for FICA taxes. That would make the program solvent indefinitely. But of course, that amounts to a tax on the wealthiest Americans, the people who rely on SS the least, and Republicans and conservatives are loath to allow that.

But it's not Social Security that's in big trouble, it's Medicare and Medicaid that is about to go bust. That's why I'm wondering why SS is even part of the discussion.....unless it's just one of the things conservatives want to get rid of.

That's what I said. However I also stated that SS needs to be eliminated. We still need to keep with our obligations to pay the people who have the money coming to them. But a line needs to be drawn as where and when to stop taking that money from people. Do you say in the year 2013 that anyone 30 and under no longer pays into SS. I have no idea if that number is good or not. Way to much math for me to even think about doing honestly. But in order to do this we still have to fund the account to pay for all the people who will still get the funds. That money has to come from somewhere. So by raising the age a couple years and raising the cap a lot. I know that's a tax increase, but honestly how else is it going to get done?
 
J

JeffreyNYA

Guest
Medicare and medicaid will never work now with this new monster of a health care plan that just got passed. You think its in trouble now. Just wait. The simplest thing that could have ever been done I believe is to just extend medicare to the 35 million or whatever it is that was not insured and just pay as needed. If the people who have good paying jobs and can afford insurance, but elect not to pay, then to bad. Just make it so it truly helps the people who can not get the insurance they need at the time. There was no need to create some huge new law. It was a waste of time and a huge amount of resources and will be a heavy burden to care for the rest of us. It simply was unacceptable.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JeffreyNYA":faqn247u said:
That's what I said. However I also stated that SS needs to be eliminated. We still need to keep with our obligations to pay the people who have the money coming to them. But a line needs to be drawn as where and when to stop taking that money from people. Do you say in the year 2013 that anyone 30 and under no longer pays into SS. I have no idea if that number is good or not. Way to much math for me to even think about doing honestly. But in order to do this we still have to fund the account to pay for all the people who will still get the funds. That money has to come from somewhere. So by raising the age a couple years and raising the cap a lot. I know that's a tax increase, but honestly how else is it going to get done?
But eliminating SS is not a practical suggestion. It's by far the most popular government program in existence, and people are going to need it more than ever now that fewer retirees have pensions to fall back on. If anything, it will need to be expanded, or else we're going to have a hell of a lot of poor retired people in the decades to come.
 
C

crazyeddie

Guest
JeffreyNYA":18g0o500 said:
Medicare and medicaid will never work now with this new monster of a health care plan that just got passed. You think its in trouble now. Just wait. The simplest thing that could have ever been done I believe is to just extend medicare to the 35 million or whatever it is that was not insured and just pay as needed.
Agreed. But the Tea Baggers and the GOP and Fox News put an end to that option by scaring people with talk of a "government takeover" of health care.

Eventually, Medicare may have to be extended to all Americans and the private health insurance system we have now will have to be scrapped. Having insurance middlemen sucks money out of the system to pay for huge CEO salaries, shareholder dividends, and a bureaucratic infrastructure that exists only to process paperwork.....money that could be used instead to deliver health care to American citizens. Other countries have done this. There's no reason why we can't.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
If you don't like capitalism and freedom of expression, then you can leave. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY