U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,222 posts, read 481,593 times
Reputation: 2593

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mirage98de View Post
I have encountered several “disabled” people in my life mooching off SSDI.

From the best I could tell, they were all capable of working, I knew for a fact that one of them was working a side job making cash under the table and a level 7 TDS Democrat.

I worked for a company that employed a lot of disabled adults. Some people have disabilities you cannot see. I had employees with a variety of psychological disabilities that would never be able to hold down a full-time traditional job; would not be able to afford the medical care/prescriptions they needed to function on their own; did not have the capacity to live 100% on their own. But you couldn't tell by just seeing them in passing or having a short amount of small talk. They were just normal looking people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
9,236 posts, read 4,551,490 times
Reputation: 1455
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ojections.html

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ojections.html

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

Democrats want to cover nearly 90 million from birth to 23 years old with one expensive "education" scheme after another. There will be 78 million people on retirement programs with SS, Medicare, state or local pensions.

In 2030, with the aging of the population and the millennials children being covered with free childcare, free K-12 and then free college there will be up to 168 million on one expensive scheme or another, the issue is that there will be around 355 million people.

78 million Americans in 2030 will Medicare aged, OASDI, government pensions

76.7 million children a vast majority in public schools and some Democrats want free child care for birth to 5 years old.

13.7 million in public colleges which Bernie Sanders want to make free
How declining birth rates affect our economies

"Around the developed world, people are living longer, and birth rates are falling. What does this mean for our society, our economy, and our families?"

Lower birth rates bring economic benefits but raise short-term inequality

"Over the past 20 years, the average number of children fell by about 50% more in the richest households than it did in the poorest, they found. The middle class and the poor begin to catch up as women in those groups gain access to education and family planning, according to the study. Then, as the number of dependent children in those households goes down, the economic benefits of the “demographic dividend” are spread more evenly across the population."

Economists fear low birth rates in developed world will choke growth

"We have no plans for how to run a society without growth."

Declining fertility in America
  • Birth rates in America are declining, which will likely have far-reaching negative economic consequences.
  • American fertility could fall as low as many countries in southern and eastern Europe or East Asia and get as low as 1.5 or 1.4 children per woman.
  • Policymakers must confront the reality that all our long-term obligations will have to be financed with substantially fewer people (or, perhaps, substantially more immigrants) than most actuarial projections assume.
_________________

How can it not collapse? Just understand if it does, why.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:15 PM
 
3,735 posts, read 1,619,737 times
Reputation: 2562
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ojections.html

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ojections.html

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

Democrats want to cover nearly 90 million from birth to 23 years old with one expensive "education" scheme after another. There will be 78 million people on retirement programs with SS, Medicare, state or local pensions.

In 2030, with the aging of the population and the millennials children being covered with free childcare, free K-12 and then free college there will be up to 168 million on one expensive scheme or another, the issue is that there will be around 355 million people.

78 million Americans in 2030 will Medicare aged, OASDI, government pensions

76.7 million children a vast majority in public schools and some Democrats want free child care for birth to 5 years old.

13.7 million in public colleges which Bernie Sanders want to make free
By 2030 3 people - Bezos, Larry Page and Sergey Brin will be trillionaires by net worth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:05 PM
 
7,733 posts, read 4,428,107 times
Reputation: 10065
Quote:
Originally Posted by miquel_westano View Post
What a joke that is. If you took everything the wealthy in America had, all 100%, you couldn't fund America for a year. We don't need to tax anyone more. We need to spend less. That starts by ending this insane idea we should give everyone free stuff. There is no constitutional right to getting free education, healthcare, food or anything else. While helping the needy may be virtuous, it doesn't alleviate poverty.

In addition we need to find a way to incentivize people to have smaller families if they can not afford to care for large families without government assistance. The world including the USA is over populated. I don't believe in communist style rules like one child per family. But I believe our system should give tax incentives for having small families, not large ones.

We need to stop the flow of money from producers to non producers, and this should start with our government. The biggest drain on our economy is the government. Every penny they spend was taken from taxpayers. The system is so bloated with waste and corruption, I would bet it spends at minimum twice what it would have to if it were run properly. And they want control of more, like health care and energy.

I am so tired of this, tax the rich mantra. It is not only not going to happen, but even if it did, it wouldn't work. The rich would simply flee the country. They can afford to leave anytime they want. And even if you seized all their money, it wouldn't do anything to save our economy. That money would be gone in less than a year, and the jobs the wealthy create would be gone with it. Then the only ones left would be the middle class and poor. Then the middle class become poor and the poor become the starving.
What developed country would they flee to that would tax them any better? Prior to Reagan’s ‘81 tax cut the top rate was 70%. After those cuts went into place our deficit and debt skyrocketed. To likely unrecoverable levels at this point. Also a progressive tax system doesn’t just tax the rich. Everyone is taxed at the same level for each bracket. Spending ourselves into oblivion on credit is not a conservative virtue. Sick of so called fiscal conservatives who want to cut revenue without making the necessary but politically unpopular spending cuts to go with them. If you’re not willing to seriously cut the military or social security or other entitlements because your elderly base won’t support it and will vote you out, don’t cut the taxation. And the base you are scared of are not actually fiscal conservatives.

1981 wasn’t that long ago. The 1950s era that MAGA folks idolize? Had much higher top rate taxation of 91%.

All this free stuff is lunacy, but at least they propose ways to pay for it. That’s actually more fiscally conservative than what the Republicans have been doing.

Last edited by notnamed; Yesterday at 01:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:09 PM
 
1,954 posts, read 646,730 times
Reputation: 1511
When the rich learn how to replace the military and police with robots, it's all over. Already the military is struggling to find recruits because of drug problems and obesity. The poor might finally be done in, simply because they were too fat to get up and fight.

People can caterwaul about right and wrong all day long, but it won't change anything about their situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:58 PM
 
5,577 posts, read 3,125,980 times
Reputation: 3349
Quote:
Originally Posted by mirage98de View Post
I would love to know what percentage of SSDI recipients have a history of obesity or drug abuse. It has to be incredibly high. These slobs shouldn’t be stealing from the productive individuals who are funding the system.
So punish all for actions of a few...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:01 PM
 
30,384 posts, read 16,738,894 times
Reputation: 14091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X View Post
So punish all for actions of a few...
curious comment from someone who is advocating robbery to pay for the needs of others
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:04 PM
 
13,153 posts, read 4,789,775 times
Reputation: 5390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
curious comment from someone who is advocating robbery to pay for the needs of others
Except a few honest libertarians, almost every right winger usually tries to avoid answering whether the people who are born disabled should get more or less than a few hundred dollars a month to survive on.

At least you're honest that you want to eliminate all public support for the people who were born disabled and cant work.

Usually even libertarians will support some form of "robbery" because they advocate for a federal government that can protect the private property rights for the rich which means a legal system with judges bought and paid for by the super rich.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Texas
27,218 posts, read 11,440,859 times
Reputation: 6271
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovecrowds View Post
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ojections.html

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...ojections.html

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

Democrats want to cover nearly 90 million from birth to 23 years old with one expensive "education" scheme after another. There will be 78 million people on retirement programs with SS, Medicare, state or local pensions.

In 2030, with the aging of the population and the millennials children being covered with free childcare, free K-12 and then free college there will be up to 168 million on one expensive scheme or another, the issue is that there will be around 355 million people.

78 million Americans in 2030 will Medicare aged, OASDI, government pensions

76.7 million children a vast majority in public schools and some Democrats want free child care for birth to 5 years old.

13.7 million in public colleges which Bernie Sanders want to make free
But think of all those baristas at Starbucks who will now have degrees. A worthless participation degree but a degree nonetheless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Texas
27,218 posts, read 11,440,859 times
Reputation: 6271
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCALMike View Post
Except a few honest libertarians, almost every right winger usually tries to avoid answering whether the people who are born disabled should get more or less than a few hundred dollars a month to survive on.

At least you're honest that you want to eliminate all public support for the people who were born disabled and cant work.

Usually even libertarians will support some form of "robbery" because they advocate for a federal government that can protect the private property rights for the rich which means a legal system with judges bought and paid for by the super rich.
You don't think charity or the fact that technological advances have made it easier for the disabled to take care of themselves, would be sufficient? Plus government sucks at what they do so how much are they really helping?

I would think, percentage wise, there would be less disabled than 50 years ago. Just a guess though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top