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.
Then go look up the data instead of just making another "broad stroked" statement, two vague remarks don't make a fact. It's only a Google search away. I have. And of course taking benefits away from the rich will help, but no matter how you define the rich there aren't enough of them to fix our near future entitlement shortfalls (Soc Sec-Medicare-Medicaid). You still have to deal with making younger generations pay more (and probably get less) and/or slowing future payouts.
1. I'm glad you're here to keep us all straight about making broad stroked statements.
2. I agree there aren't enough of the rich to fix near term entitlement shortfalls in SS and medicare. All I'm trying to make is two points: a) Applying mass reductions only hurts those at the bottom; b) SS and medicare need to be restructured into social insurance type programs for those who really need them VS the current entitlement for all programs.
Guess I'm not following you. But what other generations could there be, other than then the current one and the futureones?
From the perspective of seniors - the current beneficiaries of Soc Sec, the "current generation" would be their children for the most part, and the "future" generation would be their grand kids for the most part (who may not even be working and contributing to FICA yet). Better?
It's neither, but you're welcome to try to derail the thread as much as you'd like posting that it is.
Sorry if you object to being accountable for your posts. For you to accuse someone of being "offensively callous" when you make statements that are equally if not more offensive and misguided is laughable. Your statement characterizing corporations and profits was simply nonsense. Sorry if I don't subscribe to your tired and sometimes unfounded list of victims and others...
1. I'm glad you're here to keep us all straight about making broad stroked statements.
2. I agree there aren't enough of the rich to fix near term entitlement shortfalls in SS and medicare. All I'm trying to make is two points: a) Applying mass reductions only hurts those at the bottom; b) SS and medicare need to be restructured into social insurance type programs for those who really need them VS the current entitlement for all programs.
1. Your reply was just as broad as the member you quoted, that's all.
2. Legitimate proposals, whether anyone else agrees or not.
I agree there aren't enough of the rich to fix near term entitlement shortfalls in SS and medicare. All I'm trying to make is two points: a) Applying mass reductions only hurts those at the bottom; b) SS and medicare need to be restructured into social insurance type programs for those who really need them VS the current entitlement for all programs.
A. Agreed. Everyone is going to have to give ground in some way.
B. Valid proposal, provided you can find an acceptable grandfather date. It would be patently unfair to turn this into an insurance program for current payers unless you plan on returning their investment and their employers investment in some fashion.
But this starts down the road to privatization which is not necessarily a bad thing, just a very difficult thing.
Sorry if you object to being accountable for your posts.
I am accountable for my posts. I'm not accountable for your incessant, petty, self-involved fabrications about my posts. I'm not accountable for your denials of attacks on me, personally, in the past. You're practically cyber-stalking me, despite your denials - I'm not accountable for that - you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
For you to accuse someone of being "offensively callous" when you make statements that are equally if not more offensive and misguided is laughable.
The statement I labeled "offensively callous" was. My statements were not. You just don't like what I post, but it isn't enough for you to disagree, you insist on fabricating nonsense to try to make your comments seem more important than they are. Get over yourself.
The statement I labeled "offensively callous" was. My statements were not.
Because you say so? We agree to disagree, though your statement re: corporations was patently false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
You just don't like what I post, but it isn't enough for you to disagree, you insist on fabricating nonsense to try to make your comments seem more important than they are.
I disagree with your POV in some cases, as you do with others. No more, no less. Have even one example of "fabricating nonsense?"
I don't know I agree with "You just can't save any money worth the additional administrative burden by depriving a few rich people of their Social Security and Medicare benefits. There aren't that many rich people!" That is too broad stroked.
From what I read, there are more and more wealthy every year.
While means testing as it is applied now may not be a significant savings, my idea would be to not just reduce SS and medicare benefits, but to phase both entitlements out completely above certain income limits.
How do you define "wealthy"?
FWIW - most liberals think that if you reduce or eliminate SS/Medicare for rich and upper middle class people - then they are not "insurance schemes" - or "safety nets" - but "welfare". "Welfare" isn't especially popular when it comes to the majority of voters. The appeal of these programs derives in large part from the fact that they're universal. Robyn
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.
I have. And of course taking benefits away from the rich will help, but no matter how you define the rich there aren't enough of them to fix our near future entitlement shortfalls (Soc Sec-Medicare-Medicaid). You still have to deal with making younger generations pay more (and probably get less) and/or slowing future payouts.
