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.
Either way, we all know that our current plan isn't sustainable.
Not with 20% unemployed and another 40% underemployed.
Get the first group of people working and contributing -at all-
Then get the second group contributing MORE...
add a few MINOR tweaks here and there and all of a sudden
you take the pressure off the voices wanting to raise Cap Gain Rates.
No I don't think the working (poor) should have to pay for the mistakes and fraud from wall street banksters. Webster Tarpley seems to have a decent plan.
Those 55 and over are at the tail end of their lives. They surely have much less to contribute going forward than the younger cohort.
From a logical and rational point of view, those 55 and older should have all of their benefits cut in this case. If the Feds throw money at anyone, throwing it at the older crowd yields a much lower potential ROI. We're throwing good money after bad.
If we're going to go this route ( one group gaining something at the expense of others) then lets get the best bang for our buck.
No thank you. Shore up Medicare. I'm just shy of 50 and have paid in for years. A $6000 voucher will get nothing.
Probability states that your medicare expenses will dwarf whatever you've paid into the fund throughout your working lifetime. Medical expenses have far outpaced wage inflation for decades now.
Let's say that when you reach medicare age, you've paid in $500k (inflation adjusted).
The next penny onward is your responsibility. Deal?
My mother taught me since I was very young "You want your toys? You have to work for them."
As I grew the definition of "toys" grew along with me, it went from a $.50 matchbox car to a $600 TV and so on.
I really have no problem with our taxes taking care of those who are unable to support themselves due to birth defect, accident, or illness, but for all others, after a short period to "recover" your abilities, that's it, there should be NO long term support from the government.
Two years of Unemployment Insurance? I think that is a bit much.
UNLESS you are enrolled in some training program/secondary education.
With many qualifiers, two years of "Welfare" should be plenty of time.
States do not allow you to go to training or school while you are unemployed. They will cut you off instantly if they found out or disqualify you if they found out. Their reasoning is you wouldn't be available for work. Regardless of what you say, that's the rule.
If they can't retire till 70, what's the difference? Presumably they should have employer sponsored health coverage, or Medicaid, which ppl with disabilities can qualify for.
Cutting things like food stamps won't solve anything. It's a pittance compared to what we shell out in SS/Medicare/Medicaid/Defense.
people 65 and above paid into SS/Medicare. I know the law (I posted this fact on another thread) says that people aren't "entitled" to SS/Medicare--that the govt reserved the right in the original 1934 law to abolish all benefits anytime it wants and the Supreme Court upheld this right) but at least the seniors paid something for their benefits; some paid in more than they'll ever get back because the govt is doing everything in can to make sure most of them die before their time. But those siding with the young over the old have to realize that most of those "young, if they're receiving benefits of some kind from govt, never paid a dime to get them. In other words, they're "fat, lazy @sses" who don't want to work and want to suck on the govt's teat and milk it for every last drop they can squeeze. Fine thing when the seniors are thrown under the bus because they're "old" and because we need to look out for a bunch of worthless, good-for-nothings "youngsters" who have no desire to contribute anything of worth to society and the economy.
I know that sounds harsh but we're in desperate times. 100% tax on the wealthiest doesn't even make a dent, but fully one third of all Americans are on some sort of government subsidy. Food stamps for 50 million people alone adds up to real $$$'s. Shouldn't benefits for the elderly (SS/Medicare) be preserved because they are too old to go out and work, while the younger should bear the larger share of the pain because they have more years ahead of them? Younger families will cope. They'll double-triple up; grow gardens; sew their clothes; manage to find ways to meet their needs without sucking on the govt's teat for generations. Seems like the only step we have left, unless we want to elect Ryan and see the elderly out on the street dying on a piece of cardboard. Of course cutbacks in wasteful military outlays should also be a part of the equation.
Many younger families that collect food stamps do work full time. Many are single moms raising children.
I know that sounds harsh but we're in desperate times. 100% tax on the wealthiest doesn't even make a dent, but fully one third of all Americans are on some sort of government subsidy. Food stamps for 50 million people alone adds up to real $$$'s. Shouldn't benefits for the elderly (SS/Medicare) be preserved because they are too old to go out and work, while the younger should bear the larger share of the pain because they have more years ahead of them? Younger families will cope. They'll double-triple up; grow gardens; sew their clothes; manage to find ways to meet their needs without sucking on the govt's teat for generations. Seems like the only step we have left, unless we want to elect Ryan and see the elderly out on the street dying on a piece of cardboard. Of course cutbacks in wasteful military outlays should also be a part of the equation.
If the statement, "we're in desperate times", isn't true then the rest is irrelevent.
Nearly every generation believes it's living in "desperate times" but that seems highly unlikely especially considering that, after a couple of decades, those same people look back at "the good old days".
Desperate times? Not even close. Not even half way close. Times were desperate when the Bubonic plague was killing about 50 percent of the European population, or when you lived in a city like Tokyo or Dresden and Bomber Command decided that you should not, or when your village was sacked and salt plowed into your fields and most of the population killed or taken into slavery. Or even when Akron Ohio saw 85 percent unemployment during the Great Depression. But today? Phooey! Nothing but melodrama for the evening news. By historical standards, today's circumstances are well above average for the human condition.
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.
