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.
Uh no. Giving more money to the Federal Government to invariably **** away solves absolutely nothing. The Feds need to cut spending and they need to do it yesterday.
Let's start with a 50% budget cut and a 50% tax cut to go with it.
Our government cutting spending is one of the most impossible things in the universe, so why bother even considering it?
This only ends one way. The question isn't if it's when.
This is why I support a Constitutional Convention to add a 'Balanced Budget Amendment'. This is what we needed to do yesterday, too.
That's not going to work. No one runs a balanced budget, not even people who claim they do. If you borrowed to buy a house, you ran a deficit. If you borrowed to buy a car, you ran a deficit. A balanced budget Amendment would be a disaster, especially in times of natural disasters and pandemics.
Does it involve increasing FICA by a single penny? Yes? Then it's DOA in my book. I'm not paying a penny more to make up for SSA's mismanagement of the past generation's money.
Also, 21% of GDP is too goddamn high. That alone is a dealbreaker. Maybe come back with a plan that has government spend at no more than 10% of GDP.
Social security being sustainable if we dumped more money into it means it's fundamentally unsustainable. I'm personally prepared to pay exactly zero dollars, zero cents to bail out social security. If you hit me up for more money because SS might go insolvent, all you'll hear from me is a resounding "Fine, LET IT FAIL." And if you come crying to me about the jobs at SSA you'll get a big fat "I don't care" from me.
And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.
OK, so I will put you down as a vote for "let low wage earners starve to death in poverty when they can no longer work"
If we cut Fed spending by 70%, as that one poster suggested, how many jobs would that necessarily eliminate? How many of those eliminated jobs could reasonably be absorbed by the private sector?
Our government cutting spending is one of the most impossible things in the universe, so why bother even considering it?
This only ends one way. The question isn't if it's when.
This is the cold harsh reality of American politics. The only thing polititicans are good at is spending other people's money, while enriching themselves. Anything good that happens for the rest of us, is pure coincidence.
OK, so I will put you down as a vote for "let low wage earners starve to death in poverty when they can no longer work"
I'll put you down for "I want to force people to continue paying into a system that is or will become insolvent knowing that it is or will become insolvent before they're eligible to draw from it even though it's creating more poor people than it helps"
Since you care so much about poor people, why don't YOU cut them a check then out of your own pocket? Put your money where your mouth is.
Continuing to dump money into a failed ponzi scheme, one with ****ty returns at that, in perpetuity is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited by albert648; 02-18-2022 at 10:08 AM..
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.
