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.
Man I hope you don't lose your job when your 65? Do you think companies like to hire 65 year olds?
Do any of you have kids? How are you able to look them in they eye?
* SS is a well managed program . It only has a 1% administrative costs.
* It has a small long term deficit that could be corrected with minor tax increases.
* The small deficit that it does have is almost a non-factor in the budget deficit. Cutting your benefits will barely make a difference in the deficit.
[The stupidity of the average American voter should be studied by poltical scientists the World over. It's epic in proportions.]
Last edited by padcrasher; 03-04-2011 at 03:19 PM..
Man I hope you don't lose your job when your 65? Do you think companies like to hire 65 year olds?
Do any of you have kids? How are you able to look them in they eye?
[The stupidity of the average American voter should be studied by poltical scientists the World over. It's epic in proportions.]
I look them in the eye by knowing that this will help save a system that's been destroyed over the years and is on the brink of disaster and by telling them to take care of themselves. What the government giveth,the government taketh away.
and look at all of the alternatives from the left.
If you are truly educated you would understand life expectancy has increased since ss was enacted. Go check an actuary table.
That means people have been collecting social security alot longer.
add; and besides your baseless ranting you would also be cognizant of the fact SS was supposed to be a safety net. Not a retirement plan.
Thank you
They already raised the age to 67. It was at 65.
And you know those actuary tables you mention? If you look at them closely you'll find life expectancy went up only for the upper income group which raised the total average.
Your typical poor, lower class American is NOT living longer. The ones who most depend on SS benefits.
Man I hope you don't lose your job when your 65? Do you think companies like to hire 65 year olds?
Do any of you have kids? How are you able to look them in they eye?
* SS is a well managed program . It only has a 1% administrative costs.
* It has a small long term deficit that could be corrected with minor tax increases.
* The small deficit that it does have is almost a non-factor in the budget deficit. Cutting your benefits will barely make a difference in the deficit.
[The stupidity of the average American voter should be studied by poltical scientists the World over. It's epic in proportions.]
I can't say I have all that much of a problem with this. Do that, raise (or better, eliminate) the cap on FICA taxes, and a couple other minor things, and SS is viable for a long time to come, and it will have a big impact on our budget deficit.
Now just raise income taxes back to the Clinton levels for anybody with income above $250,000 per year, close some loopholes, cut the defense budget and we'll be most of the way there to balancing the budget.
Pissing off the largest part of the electorate is not the wisest thing to do.
But keep in mind Obama is going to cooperate in this. He's spineless and unprincipled. That's why I keep arguing that liberals need to cut our losses and not vote for this guy. It may lead to short term losses, but when you have a backstabber like Obama in office they must learn some limits.
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.