Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 09-28-2012, 01:23 PM
 
465 posts, read 506,772 times
Reputation: 169

Advertisements

I'm an Independent and while I think a few idiots on the Left want to see it stay the same and a few idiots on the right want to kill it I think most people want it either to be fixed or charities to take over...all sides have to sacrifice their sacred cow ideas though and i've found that doesn't happen that's why last two elections and this one i will be voting third party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:24 PM
 
20,629 posts, read 19,292,640 times
Reputation: 8229
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
At some point liberals better explain how they are going to fund Medicare and Medicaid.
They can't explain it anymore than anyone can explain something to a rock. Such people will forever think that investments can be carried 30 years into the future when in fact it seems only some basic transfer payment will do.
However than only explains the republican dupe. The other side of it is the profiteers who want to see a constant stream of da guberment funds flowing into Wall Street who will invest it in hookers and houses in Connecticut. See because they will *aways* buy. How is that different than Nazi style socialism? Got me. I have no idea. In fact, I can't tell the difference at all.

Only children were ever reliable enough to invest in. There is no funding that matters. You either have a working population or you don't. See if old people are stupid, they just might over in debt their children who will drop out of medical school and they will not be able to set their brittle bones. However the republicans and their dupes like to think a security that has fees and interest attached to it is what runs an economy.



The solution is simple. Set the retiree to worker ratio and pay out on that basis. Set it at say 4 or 5 to 1. Thus the age when there are 4 to 5 workers to a retired person, then that age floats to reflect that reality. Simple as all honest systems are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:27 PM
 
83 posts, read 79,386 times
Reputation: 156
BigJon3475:

"You're still doing that and every ten years or so up to this point liberals have had to face the consequences of making those accusations and ultimately have to raise taxes or cut benefits to keep SS solvent. Eventually it will consume 100% of taxable income no matter how you look at it."

Everything in politics comes down to trust and organization.

1) If you're conservative, you could say that liberals unfairly claim that conservatives want to dismantle social security even though they don't want to.

2) If you're liberal, you could say that the only reason that conservatives haven't yet managed to dismantle social security and medicare is because every couple of years liberals raise their voices and shine their spotlights on conservatives and punish them for doing what they obviously want to be doing, which is going back to 1880's style capitalism.

There's really no way to tell which of these is correct, because it all is a matter of who you trust. Both of these are plausible reads of the facts on the ground, I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:29 PM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,919,820 times
Reputation: 7365
SS will die of old age...... It is and was a Govt sponsored ponzi scam based on population growth, that has also died off.

What else matters is that the Govt squandered the funds instead of doing what it said which was invest the funds wisely. Give it up to either party to rape and steal what is not theirs.

Some how a lot of people thought the Govt was investing the funds to grow and so cover even future generations, but that has become just another Govt scam and lie.

The new talk that SS is a entitlement is plain WRONG. people have paid into it, for all their lives and expected other people to pay into it as well. This is not going to happen soon because there will not be enough people to pay into it and it will fail.

It's just another scam by the Democrat Elite like FDR who could not trust the people with any form of real wealth.

Unless you were alive before 1957 you have never even seen any real money... Swallow that....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:29 PM
 
5,787 posts, read 4,706,478 times
Reputation: 853
Do you think Liberal will ever realize that Social Security and Medicare are headed for bankruptcy and will cease to exist if nothing is done?

There's really NO STUDY that actually says that's not true, but Liberals continue to hide their heads in the sand and act like they are both a bottomless pit of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:32 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,631 posts, read 15,583,585 times
Reputation: 10871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg82 View Post
Social Security just gave politicians more money to spend. Instead of just putting that money away (as it was paid out by the people) they spent it and put an IOU in it's place. Now that the budget hasn't been adhered too and has grown to such ends that it can't be adhered too, SS will one day be eliminated by the very people who wanted it. Those of us that tucked money away (knowing that it would eventually fail and despite that we have been paying SS) will be ok, but reviled by the foolish who trusted the politicians and the system.
That's an unfair statement, implying that something new or different has taken place. When Social Security was started in 1935, the law requires the Social Security Administration to invest all the money they collect (above what is needed to pay current benefits) in US government bonds. It's always been that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:35 PM
 
Location: The Brat Stop
8,347 posts, read 7,224,659 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoatTheKing View Post
I was watching a video of Ronald Reagan a few days ago, from 1964, and he said something along the lines of "Now, we're not going to get rid of Social Security, but it would be best if we turned it into a purely voluntary program where smart people could direct their money. And all this talk of government in health care is the road to socialism! And also, Democrats are going to bankrupt our children because of the deficit!" The health care changes he was warning against were ultimately, of course, Medicare. Notably, he didn't repeal either of those programs as president 20 years later.

But it got me thinking. Conservatives started kvetching about social security about 10 seconds after Franklin Roosevelt put the program in place. Their arguments were essentially the same arguments Reagan made in 1964, which have gone on to be the same arguments that Bush was trotting out when he was going to privatize Social Security back in 2005. And, once again, the public smacked him down hard over it.

I have to say, the fact that they've been making the exact same arguments about these programs for almost 80 years made my ears perks up, almost like they mainly want to get rid of these programs, instead of patching them and making them work, because they oppose them purely on ideological grounds.

And now we're back to the topic again, with Paul Ryan and the voucher stuff for Medicare, and the large boost in Obama's polling numbers with the elderly in Ohio and Florida as a result.

Will this awkward dance between voters and conservatives ever end with conservatives giving up? I'm sure some of you are convinced that it will end with hyperinflation and government collapse and etc etc etc, which is what conservatives have been saying for 80 years, and that's fine, but hypothetically, supposing that doesn't happen - will there ever come a point where conservatives throw in the towel and accept that, basically, the broad electorate simply violently disagrees with them and always will?
The sad fact of the matter is that we have a new-breed of republicans, the kind who don't want to compromise. Couple that with the tea party, and you've got obstruction.
The party of "R" want's to privatize SS and Medicare, nothing wrong with that, but let's get the insurance lobbyists the heck away from DC first.

If Obama is re-elected, and the house remains in control of the "R" and tea party, plan for another 4 years of nothingness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:38 PM
 
876 posts, read 707,571 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
I'm critical of Ryans plan only because I think of it in terms outside of medicare and how health insurance companies usually behave with high risk patients. Another words if someone who is 50 becomes very ill, loses job and coverage with pre-existing condition the rates would be astronomical when attempting to acquire independent coverage. Toss a voucher at them problem solved except 6-7 thousand dollar voucher would be chicken feed to most carriers. However, you might be correct in that if they are regulated strongly within medicare a voucher plan sounds feasible. However my gut says that carriers could opt out leaving a couple of insurance companies in the game altimately leaving the elderly with less choice yet again in that many doctors will not participate.
Unless someone that is 50, is on disablity, they can't have Medicare. So, the example you give does not apply to them. $6-7 thousand is chicken feed?. You can buy a Medicare Supplement for $50-165 a month from my company! Some companies are cheaper. Dr.s that carry Medicare HAVE to take our plans! They have no choice. It is the law. They have to take all supplement plans from all companies. There is no such thing as opting out. Why would they want to? They will be guaranteed to get paid! The MD's would have to completely opt out of Medicare altogether to not take a supplement. Romney/Ryans plan is an added benefit that is very similar to what they have for Congressmen. Isn't that what everyone has been fussing about? That Congress gets better healthcare? Well, now our seniors can have it. obama wants to take away from our senior's Medicare benefits by $716 billion dollars starting in Jan! This is not fair to those who are on a fixed income!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:40 PM
 
8,598 posts, read 9,095,508 times
Reputation: 5934
Quote:
Originally Posted by liamscott View Post
I'm an Independent and while I think a few idiots on the Left want to see it stay the same and a few idiots on the right want to kill it I think most people want it either to be fixed or charities to take over...all sides have to sacrifice their sacred cow ideas though and i've found that doesn't happen that's why last two elections and this one i will be voting third party.
Let charities take over? Now, try thinking just a tad deeper. Here you have a nation that has the most sophisticated military the world has ever seen. Not a problem it seems however when many talk about the delivery of healthcare the whole nation will implode unto itself because of costs. Such BS. But for some reason charity could take care of this dire situation. You must be 20 years old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2012, 01:49 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,631 posts, read 15,583,585 times
Reputation: 10871
Quote:
Originally Posted by seahawkgirl View Post
Unless someone that is 50, is on disablity, they can't have Medicare. So, the example you give does not apply to them. $6-7 thousand is chicken feed?. You can buy a Medicare Supplement for $50-165 a month from my company! Some companies are cheaper. Dr.s that carry Medicare HAVE to take our plans! They have no choice. It is the law. They have to take all supplement plans from all companies. There is no such thing as opting out. Why would they want to? They will be guaranteed to get paid! The MD's would have to completely opt out of Medicare altogether to not take a supplement. Romney/Ryans plan is an added benefit that is very similar to what they have for Congressmen. Isn't that what everyone has been fussing about? That Congress gets better healthcare? Well, now our seniors can have it. obama wants to take away from our senior's Medicare benefits by $716 billion dollars starting in Jan! This is not fair to those who are on a fixed income!
Please list some companies where a person can buy a Medicare supplement for $50-$165.

For any insurance industry person, you obviously don't understand the Affordable Care Act if you the Medicare benefits are being cut. That's completely untrue.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:25 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top