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.
Me, I hate it when Medicare and Social Security are called "entitlement" programs by the Rich Guys, Romney and Ryan, et al.. People have paid into these programs their entire working lives..they are Earned Benefits, not welfare...and these funds were supposed to be untouched and kept in a piggy bank and invested for growth...now they want their grubby little hands on the money... for what? More war? More contracts for cronies. Let's hope we the citizens don't fall for this snake oil pitch...
Me, I hate it when Medicare and Social Security are called "entitlement" programs by the Rich Guys, Romney and Ryan, et al.. People have paid into these programs their entire working lives..they are Earned Benefits, not welfare...and these funds were supposed to be untouched and kept in a piggy bank and invested for growth...now they want their grubby little hands on the money... for what? More war? More contracts for cronies. Let's hope we the citizens don't fall for this snake oil pitch...
Me, I hate it when Medicare and Social Security are called "entitlement" programs by the Rich Guys, Romney and Ryan, et al.. People have paid into these programs their entire working lives..they are Earned Benefits, not welfare...and these funds were supposed to be untouched and kept in a piggy bank and invested for growth...now they want their grubby little hands on the money... for what? More war? More contracts for cronies. Let's hope we the citizens don't fall for this snake oil pitch...
How would they get the money when it's not there? It's already been spent by both sides of the aisle to the tune of 4.7 TRILLION dollars. But, don't worry the government plans to pay us back someday..... with our own money.
That's the worst idea i ever heard. Do you know how many seniors are already dying because they have no health insurance? Do you know how many more would die between 65 and 70 because they couldn't afford a premium of $2000/mo. ?
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.
Me, I hate it when Medicare and Social Security are called "entitlement" programs by the Rich Guys, Romney and Ryan, et al.. People have paid into these programs their entire working lives..they are Earned Benefits, not welfare...and these funds were supposed to be untouched and kept in a piggy bank and invested for growth...now they want their grubby little hands on the money... for what? More war? More contracts for cronies. Let's hope we the citizens don't fall for this snake oil pitch...
Most people will withdraw far more from SS and Medicare than they've paid in. Aka, entitlement programs. They need reformed, big time.
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.
You have it backwards...you cut funds to the elderly because they have no purpose to society as a whole once they stop working.
You have it backwards...you cut funds to the elderly because they have no purpose to society as a whole once they stop working.
Your sex drive isn't going to do squat for you. However working backwards your Daddy's was essential. So you ought to pay attention to incentives that apply to another generation.
You don't just tax the elderly because everyone who will be elderly will be watching. I really don't have any idea why people make this so complicated. Welfare doesn't work because its an incentive to not work. Rent seeking also doesn't do any work either ; it ends with insane hemophiliacs in charge. The one rule of economics is to create incentives to create value. Taxing old people who were doing real work is just going to make the rest of us wonder why we are saving. What we did and are doing wrong is jacking up asset prices and handing wealth over to them for doing nothing.
Am I the only one on this board that wants to create incentives to work?
* To collect money on credit manipulated asset appreciation, check republican. Output = 0
* If you want to sleep in and collect welfare checks, punch the chad for the democrats. Output = 0
Which box can I check when both parties agree to rape and pillage people who work?
...Scientists estimate that the entire Milky Way Galaxy is 100 billion light years across.
First things first: The Milky Way Galaxy is estimated @ 100 thousand light years across.
All/most domestic programs need to be cut/adjusted. The point that gets lost concerning SS benefits is that young people benefit as well--via parental security/independence. Lots of elderly people are consumers & self-sufficient (living on their own) because of SSI--this is personally & economically beneficial.
In other words, SSI has gotten out of hand because it's indirectly benefiting multiple people/generations--it needs an update to reflect longevity & somehow filter out the multiple peoples' indirect benefit.
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.
You realize that the 65+ crowd is the wealthiest generation, lurid newstories about Grandma barely subsisting on dog food notwithstanding.
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.
