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.
You should probably focus on all of the useless wars and military spending first.
It's odd how liberals try to make this argument constantly. "If you disagree with social spending, then ....uh .....military spending first." That's like a kindergarten-level argument, wherein you claim that if I am against social spending, then I must be against any spending of any sort. Like "der, if you're against food stamps, that means you are also against having police." And literally liberals think that's the best argument ever because they use it all the time.
It is not necessary to fix both medicare and social security. Just go to the discount coupon system Ryan proposes making medical care unaffordable for most seniors and social security will take care of itself.
The only social security "reform" that is needed is for rich people to pay social security tax on every dollar of their income, just like every other American has to do. It would also help, of course, if we would stop giving money away--i.e., "subsidies," i.e., "corporate welfare"--to mega-rich corporations like Exxon. And--surprise, surprise--Trump wants the CEO of Exxon, someone with no government or diplomatic experience whatsoever, to be Secretary of State.
So please, don't talk to me about how we can no longer "afford" social security. Or how the regular American citizen should instead just "plan better" or pour their retirement dollars into unstable privatized funds for Wall Street investors. Total crock of sh*t.
Last edited by OrganicSmallHome; 12-11-2016 at 06:39 PM..
The only social security "reform" that is needed is for rich people to pay social security tax on every dollar of their income, just like every other American has to do.
Or you could learn how to save your own money instead of looking around at everyone else in the country and greedily wondering why you can't have their money.
The only social security "reform" that is needed is for rich people to pay social security tax on every dollar of their income, just like every other American has to do. It would also help, of course, if we would stop giving money away--i.e., "subsidies," i.e., "corporate welfare"--to mega-rich corporations like Exxon.
So please, don't talk to me about how we can no longer "afford" social security. Or how the regular American citizen should instead just "plan better" or pour their retirement dollars into unstable privatized funds for Wall Street investors. Total crock of sh*t.
Govt steals record amounts of money from people every year, but yet everything it runs is perpetually on the brink of insolvency. The answer is of course to remove those responsibilities from it, not grant it the priviledge of stealing more from an economic group you're envious of.
And all subsidies are wrong, but not to be confused with tax breaks which allow people or corps to keep more of their own money.
Location: Born in L.A. - NYC is Second Home - Rustbelt is Home Base
1,607 posts, read 1,084,706 times
Reputation: 1372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park
I am very worried.
I do not buy the argument of "don't worry, they'll never touch Social Security!"
The Republicans are looking at stealth strategies to do away with not only Medicare, Medicaid, but Social Security. This I am certain of.
That is right. Almost every old person that dies a lingering, slow demise cost the gov 1 to 2 million. They can't afford it. They are discussing getting rid of it all as you outlined and giving everyone a universal allowance of $13,000. You can buy med care or do what you like with it.
That is right. Almost every old person that dies a lingering, slow demise cost the gov 1 to 2 million. They can't afford it. They are discussing getting rid of it all as you outlined and giving everyone a universal allowance of $13,000. You can buy med care or do what you like with it.
So you're basically upset that you can't spend $2 million of other people's money as you die a slow, lingering death?
That is right. Almost every old person that dies a lingering, slow demise cost the gov 1 to 2 million. They can't afford it. They are discussing getting rid of it all as you outlined and giving everyone a universal allowance of $13,000. You can buy med care or do what you like with it.
Is that true? A flat $1083. per month? Can a 70 year old with high blood pressure, diabetes and heart trouble buy a policy with that? I don't know, I'm asking. Do they even sell policies to 70 year olds? Are they looking at a flat rate for Social Security too? Give them X amount and say that's it?
Govt steals record amounts of money from people every year, but yet everything it runs is perpetually on the brink of insolvency. The answer is of course to remove those responsibilities from it, not grant it the priviledge of stealing more from an economic group you're envious of.
And all subsidies are wrong, but not to be confused with tax breaks which allow people or corps to keep more of their own money.
Those are not "tax breaks." The government is doing the stealing because the corporations now run it. For god sake, Trump is going to nominate the CEO of Exxon as Secretary of State. Wake up.
Is that true? A flat $1083. per month? Can a 70 year old with high blood pressure, diabetes and heart trouble buy a policy with that? I don't know, I'm asking. Do they even sell policies to 70 year olds? Are they looking at a flat rate for Social Security too? Give them X amount and say that's it?
LOL, "how dare someone not insure a 95 year old! How can this be??"
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.