Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Y our statement presumes it is necessary for the government to spend all that it spends.
Which, is utterly false.
We would have MORE federal government than is needed, if it spent less than 25% of its current spending.
How much "government" is needed? Look at the conditions of the times we live in before you answer that. We have dramatic traditional unemployment (before we include discouraged workers who are not looking for work.) We have high underemployment (going by U-6 and not those that are in a job below their skill level.) What about the types of jobs we are creating, would anyone say that a part-time job or two actually create meaningful and sustainable long-term economic growth? Also are there enough jobs being created to get the unemployed, employed?
So should we dramatically slash welfare when we have this?
What about social security (when we have many boomers coming in the next 20 years who will tap into the system?)
That is the problem. We can't cut the safety nets out right now. To do so is foolish and is basically government sponsored genocidal euthanasia.
How much "government" is needed? Look at the conditions of the times we live in before you answer that. We have dramatic traditional unemployment (before we include discouraged workers who are not looking for work.)
This is all caused by government interference in the economy and excessive taxation and regulation.
Quote:
We have high underemployment (going by U-6 and not those that are in a job below their skill level.) What about the types of jobs we are creating, would anyone say that a part-time job or two actually create meaningful and sustainable long-term economic growth? Also are there enough jobs being created to get the unemployed, employed?
The cause of which is government meddling.
Quote:
So should we dramatically slash welfare when we have this?
We can't pay for it. Plain and simple.
Quote:
What about social security (when we have many boomers coming in the next 20 years who will tap into the system?)
In case you hadn't noticed, it is already in failure mode.
Quote:
That is the problem. We can't cut the safety nets out right now. To do so is foolish and is basically government sponsored genocidal euthanasia.
Do you have any idea what either "genocide" or "euthanasia" is?
What about social security (when we have many boomers coming in the next 20 years who will tap into the system?)
....
Haven't those boomers already paid into the system and they are just getting their money back? Or are you describing a typical ponzi scheme where the people coming into the scheme later are paying for the people who have been in there the longest?
Let me opt out. Pay me back what I put in plus marginal interest (not nearly what I would have made had I the opportunity of investing it myself) over 5 years or as tax credits.
How much "government" is needed? Look at the conditions of the times we live in before you answer that. We have dramatic traditional unemployment (before we include discouraged workers who are not looking for work.)
This is all caused by government interference in the economy and excessive taxation and regulation.
REALLY? That is the only cause of this? What about a housing bubble and two previous jobless recoveries from previous recessions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Quote:
We have high underemployment (going by U-6 and not those that are in a job below their skill level.) What about the types of jobs we are creating, would anyone say that a part-time job or two actually create meaningful and sustainable long-term economic growth? Also are there enough jobs being created to get the unemployed, employed?
The cause of which is government meddling.
I don't think that is the exclusive cause. Businesses cut down pay whether it was changing pay-grades to keep people on or cutting hours to slash benefit packages BEFORE the mandate of Obamacare were known. If you don't believe that, I'll gladly sell you beach front property in Kansas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Quote:
So should we dramatically slash welfare when we have this?
We can't pay for it. Plain and simple.
So we just get rid of necessities when we simply can't afford them? I understand cutting foreign aide and other programs we should limit but not essentials such as social welfare when we have issues with people working and contributing to the economy. I point back to another comment I made previously in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I think you can say there are also irresponsible people that want to slash funding to everything. It is like deciding you don't need to pay the water bill because it got to cost too much, so you cut it and then wonder why everyone says you smell like the dump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Quote:
What about social security (when we have many boomers coming in the next 20 years who will tap into the system?)
In case you hadn't noticed, it is already in failure mode.
Yeah because it was a program that was set up to help small numbers, not about half of the national population. That is without including the government using social security to fund lend-lease during World War II and other programs (without putting that money back in.) I'll give you government mismanagement on this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Quote:
That is the problem. We can't cut the safety nets out right now. To do so is foolish and is basically government sponsored genocidal euthanasia.
Do you have any idea what either "genocide" or "euthanasia" is?
Genocide: mass massacre/murder of a particular group.
Euthanasia: assisted suicide.
Cutting safety nets would basically turn into generational genocide by euthanasia as well as genocide of the poor and working poor by euthanasia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
Haven't those boomers already paid into the system and they are just getting their money back? Or are you describing a typical ponzi scheme where the people coming into the scheme later are paying for the people who have been in there the longest?
Let me opt out. Pay me back what I put in plus marginal interest (not nearly what I would have made had I the opportunity of investing it myself) over 5 years or as tax credits.
What I am saying is that boomers will level social security due to their numbers. The boomers are (quite possibly) the largest generation to tap into social security. All numbers point to 2030 (by the time Gen X are looking at tapping into social security) that social security will be bankrupt with current spending and current payments.
Haven't those boomers already paid into the system and they are just getting their money back? Or are you describing a typical ponzi scheme where the people coming into the scheme later are paying for the people who have been in there the longest?
Let me opt out. Pay me back what I put in plus marginal interest (not nearly what I would have made had I the opportunity of investing it myself) over 5 years or as tax credits.
I agree, give me the money I paid in and let me out. People who don't put in and people withdraw from it, so what's new? They have their fingers in everyones till. Tired of hearing people complain about people who contributed who are now withdrawing. It's their money so get off it.
One thing most all of us have in common is a general and growing frustration with gridlock and ineffectiveness in our government.
Why do you think this seems to be polarizing us further as opposed to pushing us more towards the center?
I'm not naive...I have my own thoughts, but would like to hear yours.
As rational citizens, we see certain disaster if current policies are left unchanged- it is simply a matter of time.
Watching this unfold is like sitting in the back of a car with doors locked from the outside, driving down a dark country road at 100mph, with no headlights, and a drunk at the steering wheel.
One is helpless to restore sanity and avert the obvious -the drunk will kill us both, yet is too drunk to understand reason.
The above is the state of American politics. We have a REAL, looming, fiscal problem which will "crash" the US. However, the "drunk at the steering wheel", given that he has not crashed yet, is confident and happy to continue on his current path, as nothing has happened so far. A refusal of liberals to face the fiscal problems the nation is facing will result in calamity, and potentially a dissolution of the US. Yet they cannot see the danger, as nothing catastrophic has happened................yet.
REALLY? That is the only cause of this? What about a housing bubble and two previous jobless recoveries from previous recessions.
The housing bubble was a direct result of federal government actions.
Quote:
I don't think that is the exclusive cause. Businesses cut down pay whether it was changing pay-grades to keep people on or cutting hours to slash benefit packages BEFORE the mandate of Obamacare were known. If you don't believe that, I'll gladly sell you beach front property in Kansas.
You can't help the situation by making it more expensive to employ people.
Quote:
So we just get rid of necessities when we simply can't afford them? I understand cutting foreign aide and other programs we should limit but not essentials such as social welfare when we have issues with people working and contributing to the economy. I point back to another comment I made previously in this thread.
What necessities would those be? It is not the federal government's job to hand out hundreds of billions of borrowed money a year.
Quote:
Yeah because it was a program that was set up to help small numbers, not about half of the national population. That is without including the government using social security to fund lend-lease during World War II and other programs (without putting that money back in.) I'll give you government mismanagement on this one.
Mismanagement? The idea was fatally flawed at conception. It is NOT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO WORK.
Quote:
Genocide: mass massacre/murder of a particular group.
Euthanasia: assisted suicide.
So, then you realize and admit your statement was gibberish.
Quote:
Cutting safety nets would basically turn into generational genocide by euthanasia as well as genocide of the poor and working poor by euthanasia.
That's just plain stupidity. Seriously, stop insulting people's intelligence.
Quote:
What I am saying is that boomers will level social security due to their numbers. The boomers are (quite possibly) the largest generation to tap into social security. All numbers point to 2030 (by the time Gen X are looking at tapping into social security) that social security will be bankrupt with current spending and current payments.
Of course. The concept itself is impossible to make work.
There's no time like now to get started fixing what is already terminally broken. The sooner we stop adding people to the failed system, the sooner it can be ended.
I agree, give me the money I paid in and let me out. People who don't put in and people withdraw from it, so what's new? They have their fingers in everyones till. Tired of hearing people complain about people who contributed who are now withdrawing. It's their money so get off it.
Although there was absolutely zero demand for Social Security when it was implemented, I can understand why it was put into place. Now that we have PROGRESSED (see what I did there?) to the point that there are retirement plan options online and at the other end of a phone call, why still use an antiquated system. Phase it out and let the individual plan for his/her own retirement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
