CNBC: Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit

[Ray From Cleveland]

You bring them into your house and you do the best you can.
You need to pull your head out of the "the state cares for people if nobody else will" mentality and you shoulder the burden.

Okay, so you bring them into your home and then what? Leave for work in the morning when they need to be fed, changed and looked after?

If I don't bring home a paycheck, they turn my utilities off and foreclose on my home. That doesn't solve anything.

Like NightFox, Koshergirl believes that the way SHE handles things must work for everyone. If you don't stay home and take care of Ma and Pa like the Waltons, you are a worthless piece of mooching shit.
The hubris is unbelievable.
Pay her no mind.

She is certifiable. LOL Medicaid's biggest costs are in the final two years or so of people's lives.

"It's only an *issue* now because we've created the issue, by creating this huge population of people who are unfit, and refusing to lodge them in nuthouses and prisons, where they BELONG... before they can breed."

BUT, McConnell should have told Trump that taxes were a priority before Obamacare. And then cut the corp rate in one bill that paid for the cuts by repealing tax gimmicks for biz, and even if it still raised deficits, you could argue that it also gave biz reasons to expand by letting them depreciate capital investment faster.

And then come back with a second bill that actually left more money with consumers, and set out a parameter to raise social security and mediocre revenue from the people who primarily benefited from higher corporate profits. And raise the retirement age - again - gradually.

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact not everybody can work later in life to collect.

The people that suggest raising the retirement age are those who are standing in front of a television camera or behind a radio microphone.

But ask yourself, would you really want to see a 67 year old man struggling to dump your garbage cans? Would you like to see a 66 year old roofer climb up three stories on a ladder with a stack of roof shingles on his shoulder? Or perhaps a bricklayer laborer pushing a wheelbarrow full of cement 500 feet to a job site?

There are just some jobs that people do where they can barely make it to 62 or 65 now. Or even my job for instance. Would you want to be the car in front of my 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer when I'm 70 years old and traffic comes to a sudden stop?

A one size fits all solution only looks good on paper, but it's not reality.

How is ANY of that relevant????

It's the same old same old.."If you cut the money flow old people will be killed/die/suffer!" Bullshit. If you cut the money flow, their worthless children will step up to the plate.

Assuming they have children?

Your responses are that of many years ago when the common household was dad going to work, mom staying home with the kids or taking care of the house, and living in a nice suburban home with a dog named Sparky. While those kind of households still exist, they are rare and getting rarer every year.

Nobody conducts their life around the possibility of taking care of their parents if need be. A person who desires to be single and childless doesn't get married against their desire, have children they don't want, all to prepare for the possibility of taking care of their parents.

If you live in that wonderful nuclear family situation, God love ya. But not everybody does. More and more people are staying single or are divorced. People are having less and less kids if any at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You bring them into your house and you do the best you can.
You need to pull your head out of the "the state cares for people if nobody else will" mentality and you shoulder the burden.

Okay, so you bring them into your home and then what? Leave for work in the morning when they need to be fed, changed and looked after?

If I don't bring home a paycheck, they turn my utilities off and foreclose on my home. That doesn't solve anything.

Like NightFox, Koshergirl believes that the way SHE handles things must work for everyone. If you don't stay home and take care of Ma and Pa like the Waltons, you are a worthless piece of mooching shit.
The hubris is unbelievable.
Pay her no mind.

She is certifiable. LOL Medicaid's biggest costs are in the final two years or so of people's lives.

"It's only an *issue* now because we've created the issue, by creating this huge population of people who are unfit, and refusing to lodge them in nuthouses and prisons, where they BELONG... before they can breed."

BUT, McConnell should have told Trump that taxes were a priority before Obamacare. And then cut the corp rate in one bill that paid for the cuts by repealing tax gimmicks for biz, and even if it still raised deficits, you could argue that it also gave biz reasons to expand by letting them depreciate capital investment faster.

And then come back with a second bill that actually left more money with consumers, and set out a parameter to raise social security and mediocre revenue from the people who primarily benefited from higher corporate profits. And raise the retirement age - again - gradually.

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact not everybody can work later in life to collect.

The people that suggest raising the retirement age are those who are standing in front of a television camera or behind a radio microphone.

But ask yourself, would you really want to see a 67 year old man struggling to dump your garbage cans? Would you like to see a 66 year old roofer climb up three stories on a ladder with a stack of roof shingles on his shoulder? Or perhaps a bricklayer laborer pushing a wheelbarrow full of cement 500 feet to a job site?

There are just some jobs that people do where they can barely make it to 62 or 65 now. Or even my job for instance. Would you want to be the car in front of my 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer when I'm 70 years old and traffic comes to a sudden stop?

A one size fits all solution only looks good on paper, but it's not reality.

You are asking that a program designed to keep the aged from indigency be a disability program.

It wasn't any different in 1980 before the age was raised before. Some guy works on an autoline for 20 years literally slinging car doors is done by 50. Jobs don't account for that anymore.

All I am saying is that if we want to keep these programs (and a majority does) then they have to be properly funded. If you are disabled from working, of course you can go on disability. But since SS is a retirement package that many depended on to be there when they retire, you can't force people to work beyond their means as a solution to the problem. It may be a solution for some, but not for many others.

Two of my cousins both did remodeling and worked for themselves. Now that they are up in the years, they struggle to make it to retirement because their bodies are just plain shot. Carrying plywood, sawing, hammering, climbing up and down ladders, prying nails out of boards is fine in your 20's, not so fine in your 50's or 60's.

So there has to be an equitable solution to what we do with our elderly when the time comes.

 

[koshergrl]

How do you people think the elderly were cared for BEFORE social security?

See, this is the problem with an entitlement. People stop thinking and get dependent, and they start to view the government as their savior. Get over it.

They lived in state and local poor houses.

Infinitely preferable to Obama's nation of homeless, sick, mentally ill whack jobs that are currently clogging our streets.

And for the most part, people were cared for by their families. You have no understanding of this because your family is part of the entitlement boom...a huge class of narcissistic craphats who don't think they should have no ever personally dirty their hands or break into their own piggy banks to care for family members who can't care for themselves.

 

[koshergrl]

Okay, so you bring them into your home and then what? Leave for work in the morning when they need to be fed, changed and looked after?

If I don't bring home a paycheck, they turn my utilities off and foreclose on my home. That doesn't solve anything.

Like NightFox, Koshergirl believes that the way SHE handles things must work for everyone. If you don't stay home and take care of Ma and Pa like the Waltons, you are a worthless piece of mooching shit.
The hubris is unbelievable.
Pay her no mind.

She is certifiable. LOL Medicaid's biggest costs are in the final two years or so of people's lives.

"It's only an *issue* now because we've created the issue, by creating this huge population of people who are unfit, and refusing to lodge them in nuthouses and prisons, where they BELONG... before they can breed."

BUT, McConnell should have told Trump that taxes were a priority before Obamacare. And then cut the corp rate in one bill that paid for the cuts by repealing tax gimmicks for biz, and even if it still raised deficits, you could argue that it also gave biz reasons to expand by letting them depreciate capital investment faster.

And then come back with a second bill that actually left more money with consumers, and set out a parameter to raise social security and mediocre revenue from the people who primarily benefited from higher corporate profits. And raise the retirement age - again - gradually.

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact not everybody can work later in life to collect.

The people that suggest raising the retirement age are those who are standing in front of a television camera or behind a radio microphone.

But ask yourself, would you really want to see a 67 year old man struggling to dump your garbage cans? Would you like to see a 66 year old roofer climb up three stories on a ladder with a stack of roof shingles on his shoulder? Or perhaps a bricklayer laborer pushing a wheelbarrow full of cement 500 feet to a job site?

There are just some jobs that people do where they can barely make it to 62 or 65 now. Or even my job for instance. Would you want to be the car in front of my 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer when I'm 70 years old and traffic comes to a sudden stop?

A one size fits all solution only looks good on paper, but it's not reality.

How is ANY of that relevant????

It's the same old same old.."If you cut the money flow old people will be killed/die/suffer!" Bullshit. If you cut the money flow, their worthless children will step up to the plate.

Assuming they have children?

Your responses are that of many years ago when the common household was dad going to work, mom staying home with the kids or taking care of the house, and living in a nice suburban home with a dog named Sparky. While those kind of households still exist, they are rare and getting rarer every year.

Nobody conducts their life around the possibility of taking care of their parents if need be. A person who desires to be single and childless doesn't get married against their desire, have children they don't want, all to prepare for the possibility of taking care of their parents.

If you live in that wonderful nuclear family situation, God love ya. But not everybody does. More and more people are staying single or are divorced. People are having less and less kids if any at all.

They sure as shit do. Unless they are narcissistic, lazy, and stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like NightFox, Koshergirl believes that the way SHE handles things must work for everyone. If you don't stay home and take care of Ma and Pa like the Waltons, you are a worthless piece of mooching shit.
The hubris is unbelievable.
Pay her no mind.

She is certifiable. LOL Medicaid's biggest costs are in the final two years or so of people's lives.

"It's only an *issue* now because we've created the issue, by creating this huge population of people who are unfit, and refusing to lodge them in nuthouses and prisons, where they BELONG... before they can breed."

BUT, McConnell should have told Trump that taxes were a priority before Obamacare. And then cut the corp rate in one bill that paid for the cuts by repealing tax gimmicks for biz, and even if it still raised deficits, you could argue that it also gave biz reasons to expand by letting them depreciate capital investment faster.

And then come back with a second bill that actually left more money with consumers, and set out a parameter to raise social security and mediocre revenue from the people who primarily benefited from higher corporate profits. And raise the retirement age - again - gradually.

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact not everybody can work later in life to collect.

The people that suggest raising the retirement age are those who are standing in front of a television camera or behind a radio microphone.

But ask yourself, would you really want to see a 67 year old man struggling to dump your garbage cans? Would you like to see a 66 year old roofer climb up three stories on a ladder with a stack of roof shingles on his shoulder? Or perhaps a bricklayer laborer pushing a wheelbarrow full of cement 500 feet to a job site?

There are just some jobs that people do where they can barely make it to 62 or 65 now. Or even my job for instance. Would you want to be the car in front of my 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer when I'm 70 years old and traffic comes to a sudden stop?

A one size fits all solution only looks good on paper, but it's not reality.

How is ANY of that relevant????

It's the same old same old.."If you cut the money flow old people will be killed/die/suffer!" Bullshit. If you cut the money flow, their worthless children will step up to the plate.

Assuming they have children?

Your responses are that of many years ago when the common household was dad going to work, mom staying home with the kids or taking care of the house, and living in a nice suburban home with a dog named Sparky. While those kind of households still exist, they are rare and getting rarer every year.

Nobody conducts their life around the possibility of taking care of their parents if need be. A person who desires to be single and childless doesn't get married against their desire, have children they don't want, all to prepare for the possibility of taking care of their parents.

If you live in that wonderful nuclear family situation, God love ya. But not everybody does. More and more people are staying single or are divorced. People are having less and less kids if any at all.

They sure as shit do. Unless they are narcissistic, lazy, and stupid.

You're narcissistic, lazy, and stupid for just wanting to live the single life?

 

[koshergrl]

She is certifiable. LOL Medicaid's biggest costs are in the final two years or so of people's lives.

"It's only an *issue* now because we've created the issue, by creating this huge population of people who are unfit, and refusing to lodge them in nuthouses and prisons, where they BELONG... before they can breed."

BUT, McConnell should have told Trump that taxes were a priority before Obamacare. And then cut the corp rate in one bill that paid for the cuts by repealing tax gimmicks for biz, and even if it still raised deficits, you could argue that it also gave biz reasons to expand by letting them depreciate capital investment faster.

And then come back with a second bill that actually left more money with consumers, and set out a parameter to raise social security and mediocre revenue from the people who primarily benefited from higher corporate profits. And raise the retirement age - again - gradually.

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact not everybody can work later in life to collect.

The people that suggest raising the retirement age are those who are standing in front of a television camera or behind a radio microphone.

But ask yourself, would you really want to see a 67 year old man struggling to dump your garbage cans? Would you like to see a 66 year old roofer climb up three stories on a ladder with a stack of roof shingles on his shoulder? Or perhaps a bricklayer laborer pushing a wheelbarrow full of cement 500 feet to a job site?

There are just some jobs that people do where they can barely make it to 62 or 65 now. Or even my job for instance. Would you want to be the car in front of my 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer when I'm 70 years old and traffic comes to a sudden stop?

A one size fits all solution only looks good on paper, but it's not reality.

How is ANY of that relevant????

It's the same old same old.."If you cut the money flow old people will be killed/die/suffer!" Bullshit. If you cut the money flow, their worthless children will step up to the plate.

Assuming they have children?

Your responses are that of many years ago when the common household was dad going to work, mom staying home with the kids or taking care of the house, and living in a nice suburban home with a dog named Sparky. While those kind of households still exist, they are rare and getting rarer every year.

Nobody conducts their life around the possibility of taking care of their parents if need be. A person who desires to be single and childless doesn't get married against their desire, have children they don't want, all to prepare for the possibility of taking care of their parents.

If you live in that wonderful nuclear family situation, God love ya. But not everybody does. More and more people are staying single or are divorced. People are having less and less kids if any at all.

They sure as shit do. Unless they are narcissistic, lazy, and stupid.

You're narcissistic, lazy, and stupid for just wanting to live the single life?

You are if you don't plan for your twilight years and just expect someone else to pick up the tab.

In which case, you get what you pay for.

 

[Disir]

How do you people think the elderly were cared for BEFORE social security?

See, this is the problem with an entitlement. People stop thinking and get dependent, and they start to view the government as their savior. Get over it.

They lived in state and local poor houses.

Infinitely preferable to Obama's nation of homeless, sick, mentally ill whack jobs that are currently clogging our streets.

And for the most part, people were cared for by their families. You have no understanding of this because your family is part of the entitlement boom...a huge class of narcissistic craphats who don't think they should have no ever personally dirty their hands or break into their own piggy banks to care for family members who can't care for themselves.

Please note, the mentally ill on the streets has been an issue since the responsibility was shifted to the States.

I do have an understanding of it. I am also aware that people moved frequently for work or lost family along the way. I am also aware that a whole crap load of people did what they were told to do which is put their money into retirement funds and lost everything with the last recession. Now the same asshats want to play the exact same game with other people's money. This time in the form of Social Security. Funny how that works, no?

You have zero knowledge of my family. Don't be a douche.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That all sounds fine and dandy except for the fact not everybody can work later in life to collect.

The people that suggest raising the retirement age are those who are standing in front of a television camera or behind a radio microphone.

But ask yourself, would you really want to see a 67 year old man struggling to dump your garbage cans? Would you like to see a 66 year old roofer climb up three stories on a ladder with a stack of roof shingles on his shoulder? Or perhaps a bricklayer laborer pushing a wheelbarrow full of cement 500 feet to a job site?

There are just some jobs that people do where they can barely make it to 62 or 65 now. Or even my job for instance. Would you want to be the car in front of my 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer when I'm 70 years old and traffic comes to a sudden stop?

A one size fits all solution only looks good on paper, but it's not reality.

How is ANY of that relevant????

It's the same old same old.."If you cut the money flow old people will be killed/die/suffer!" Bullshit. If you cut the money flow, their worthless children will step up to the plate.

Assuming they have children?

Your responses are that of many years ago when the common household was dad going to work, mom staying home with the kids or taking care of the house, and living in a nice suburban home with a dog named Sparky. While those kind of households still exist, they are rare and getting rarer every year.

Nobody conducts their life around the possibility of taking care of their parents if need be. A person who desires to be single and childless doesn't get married against their desire, have children they don't want, all to prepare for the possibility of taking care of their parents.

If you live in that wonderful nuclear family situation, God love ya. But not everybody does. More and more people are staying single or are divorced. People are having less and less kids if any at all.

They sure as shit do. Unless they are narcissistic, lazy, and stupid.

You're narcissistic, lazy, and stupid for just wanting to live the single life?

You are if you don't plan for your twilight years and just expect someone else to pick up the tab.

In which case, you get what you pay for.

Well a lot of people didn't years ago. The Democrats lied to us by promoting nothing is wrong with SS. It will be here forever. There is plenty of money to go around! Now even they are worried talking about raising the retirement age or lifting the limit ceiling. Whoops!!!!!

So if you're in your 40's or 50's and just realized the Democrats were FOS, what do you do now?

At least when I was younger, my grandfather was the only breadwinner. He and my grandmother got along just fine living on SS because you could actually do that years ago. But SS didn't keep up with the cost of living, and now it's nothing more than a help than it is a retirement program.

Like everybody here, I followed politics for many years, so I understood that SS would likely be in trouble down the road when I retire. So I have an IRA that I've been contributing to over the last 20 years, I'm going to try and keep my rental properties so that once the mortgages are paid, that's extra income for my retirement, and hopefully with SS, that will be enough where I don't have to worry about being taken care of unless I get deathly sick and lose everything.

I don't have a problem with helping people who worked all of their lives. I have a problem supporting people who didn't do shit their entire lives and were always getting supported by taxpayers. I have several serious medical conditions, but I wake up every morning to go to work, look out the window at my younger much healthier HUD neighbors, and realize I'm going to work to support them. That's what really pisses me off. If anything, I should be home and they should be supporting me.

 

[koshergrl]

How is ANY of that relevant????

It's the same old same old.."If you cut the money flow old people will be killed/die/suffer!" Bullshit. If you cut the money flow, their worthless children will step up to the plate.

Assuming they have children?

Your responses are that of many years ago when the common household was dad going to work, mom staying home with the kids or taking care of the house, and living in a nice suburban home with a dog named Sparky. While those kind of households still exist, they are rare and getting rarer every year.

Nobody conducts their life around the possibility of taking care of their parents if need be. A person who desires to be single and childless doesn't get married against their desire, have children they don't want, all to prepare for the possibility of taking care of their parents.

If you live in that wonderful nuclear family situation, God love ya. But not everybody does. More and more people are staying single or are divorced. People are having less and less kids if any at all.

They sure as shit do. Unless they are narcissistic, lazy, and stupid.

You're narcissistic, lazy, and stupid for just wanting to live the single life?

You are if you don't plan for your twilight years and just expect someone else to pick up the tab.

In which case, you get what you pay for.

Well a lot of people didn't years ago. The Democrats lied to us by promoting nothing is wrong with SS. It will be here forever. There is plenty of money to go around! Now even they are worried talking about raising the retirement age or lifting the limit ceiling. Whoops!!!!!

So if you're in your 40's or 50's and just realized the Democrats were FOS, what do you do now?

At least when I was younger, my grandfather was the only breadwinner. He and my grandmother got along just fine living on SS because you could actually do that years ago. But SS didn't keep up with the cost of living, and now it's nothing more than a help than it is a retirement program.

Like everybody here, I followed politics for many years, so I understood that SS would likely be in trouble down the road when I retire. So I have an IRA that I've been contributing to over the last 20 years, I'm going to try and keep my rental properties so that once the mortgages are paid, that's extra income for my retirement, and hopefully with SS, that will be enough where I don't have to worry about being taken care of unless I get deathly sick and lose everything.

I don't have a problem with helping people who worked all of their lives. I have a problem supporting people who didn't do shit their entire lives and were always getting supported by taxpayers. I have several serious medical conditions, but I wake up every morning to go to work, look out the window at my younger much healthier HUD neighbors, and realize I'm going to work to support them. That's what really pisses me off. If anything, I should be home and they should be supporting me.

The whole concept of government entitlements is anathema to liberty, individual freedom, and the American way.

 

[koshergrl]

How do you people think the elderly were cared for BEFORE social security?

See, this is the problem with an entitlement. People stop thinking and get dependent, and they start to view the government as their savior. Get over it.

They lived in state and local poor houses.

Infinitely preferable to Obama's nation of homeless, sick, mentally ill whack jobs that are currently clogging our streets.

And for the most part, people were cared for by their families. You have no understanding of this because your family is part of the entitlement boom...a huge class of narcissistic craphats who don't think they should have no ever personally dirty their hands or break into their own piggy banks to care for family members who can't care for themselves.

Please note, the mentally ill on the streets has been an issue since the responsibility was shifted to the States.

I do have an understanding of it. I am also aware that people moved frequently for work or lost family along the way. I am also aware that a whole crap load of people did what they were told to do which is put their money into retirement funds and lost everything with the last recession. Now the same asshats want to play the exact same game with other people's money. This time in the form of Social Security. Funny how that works, no?

You have zero knowledge of my family. Don't be a douche.

I know that the people who defend social security cannot imagine a world without it. They cannot imagine a world without it because their families have been dependent upon it for GENERATIONS.

It's time to stop that. Churches, families and communities will fill the gap, and everybody will be better served.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Assuming they have children?

Your responses are that of many years ago when the common household was dad going to work, mom staying home with the kids or taking care of the house, and living in a nice suburban home with a dog named Sparky. While those kind of households still exist, they are rare and getting rarer every year.

Nobody conducts their life around the possibility of taking care of their parents if need be. A person who desires to be single and childless doesn't get married against their desire, have children they don't want, all to prepare for the possibility of taking care of their parents.

If you live in that wonderful nuclear family situation, God love ya. But not everybody does. More and more people are staying single or are divorced. People are having less and less kids if any at all.

They sure as shit do. Unless they are narcissistic, lazy, and stupid.

You're narcissistic, lazy, and stupid for just wanting to live the single life?

You are if you don't plan for your twilight years and just expect someone else to pick up the tab.

In which case, you get what you pay for.

Well a lot of people didn't years ago. The Democrats lied to us by promoting nothing is wrong with SS. It will be here forever. There is plenty of money to go around! Now even they are worried talking about raising the retirement age or lifting the limit ceiling. Whoops!!!!!

So if you're in your 40's or 50's and just realized the Democrats were FOS, what do you do now?

At least when I was younger, my grandfather was the only breadwinner. He and my grandmother got along just fine living on SS because you could actually do that years ago. But SS didn't keep up with the cost of living, and now it's nothing more than a help than it is a retirement program.

Like everybody here, I followed politics for many years, so I understood that SS would likely be in trouble down the road when I retire. So I have an IRA that I've been contributing to over the last 20 years, I'm going to try and keep my rental properties so that once the mortgages are paid, that's extra income for my retirement, and hopefully with SS, that will be enough where I don't have to worry about being taken care of unless I get deathly sick and lose everything.

I don't have a problem with helping people who worked all of their lives. I have a problem supporting people who didn't do shit their entire lives and were always getting supported by taxpayers. I have several serious medical conditions, but I wake up every morning to go to work, look out the window at my younger much healthier HUD neighbors, and realize I'm going to work to support them. That's what really pisses me off. If anything, I should be home and they should be supporting me.

The whole concept of government entitlements is anathema to liberty, individual freedom, and the American way.

Agreed, but this goes back to my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You have a raccoon digging through your garbage can, so you go to your fridge and fetch that nice meaty ham bone you were going to throw out anyway. The animal eats in delight, but now wait about 20 seconds, and try to take your ham bone back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are well aware of my raccoon theory although they may refer to it as something else, but once you give people these social programs, they are impossible to take away; at least without getting your hand bit off.

So it's not a question whether we should have them or not; they're here and they're not going away. The bigger question is what do we do about them.

 

[koshergrl]

They sure as shit do. Unless they are narcissistic, lazy, and stupid.

You're narcissistic, lazy, and stupid for just wanting to live the single life?

You are if you don't plan for your twilight years and just expect someone else to pick up the tab.

In which case, you get what you pay for.

Well a lot of people didn't years ago. The Democrats lied to us by promoting nothing is wrong with SS. It will be here forever. There is plenty of money to go around! Now even they are worried talking about raising the retirement age or lifting the limit ceiling. Whoops!!!!!

So if you're in your 40's or 50's and just realized the Democrats were FOS, what do you do now?

At least when I was younger, my grandfather was the only breadwinner. He and my grandmother got along just fine living on SS because you could actually do that years ago. But SS didn't keep up with the cost of living, and now it's nothing more than a help than it is a retirement program.

Like everybody here, I followed politics for many years, so I understood that SS would likely be in trouble down the road when I retire. So I have an IRA that I've been contributing to over the last 20 years, I'm going to try and keep my rental properties so that once the mortgages are paid, that's extra income for my retirement, and hopefully with SS, that will be enough where I don't have to worry about being taken care of unless I get deathly sick and lose everything.

I don't have a problem with helping people who worked all of their lives. I have a problem supporting people who didn't do shit their entire lives and were always getting supported by taxpayers. I have several serious medical conditions, but I wake up every morning to go to work, look out the window at my younger much healthier HUD neighbors, and realize I'm going to work to support them. That's what really pisses me off. If anything, I should be home and they should be supporting me.

The whole concept of government entitlements is anathema to liberty, individual freedom, and the American way.

Agreed, but this goes back to my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You have a raccoon digging through your garbage can, so you go to your fridge and fetch that nice meaty ham bone you were going to throw out anyway. The animal eats in delight, but now wait about 20 seconds, and try to take your ham bone back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are well aware of my raccoon theory although they may refer to it as something else, but once you give people these social programs, they are impossible to take away; at least without getting your hand bit off.

So it's not a question whether we should have them or not; they're here and they're not going away. The bigger question is what do we do about them.

The jump from "we have them" and "they aren't going away" gets me every time.

Just because we have them does not mean they aren't going away.

We can eliminate them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're narcissistic, lazy, and stupid for just wanting to live the single life?

You are if you don't plan for your twilight years and just expect someone else to pick up the tab.

In which case, you get what you pay for.

Well a lot of people didn't years ago. The Democrats lied to us by promoting nothing is wrong with SS. It will be here forever. There is plenty of money to go around! Now even they are worried talking about raising the retirement age or lifting the limit ceiling. Whoops!!!!!

So if you're in your 40's or 50's and just realized the Democrats were FOS, what do you do now?

At least when I was younger, my grandfather was the only breadwinner. He and my grandmother got along just fine living on SS because you could actually do that years ago. But SS didn't keep up with the cost of living, and now it's nothing more than a help than it is a retirement program.

Like everybody here, I followed politics for many years, so I understood that SS would likely be in trouble down the road when I retire. So I have an IRA that I've been contributing to over the last 20 years, I'm going to try and keep my rental properties so that once the mortgages are paid, that's extra income for my retirement, and hopefully with SS, that will be enough where I don't have to worry about being taken care of unless I get deathly sick and lose everything.

I don't have a problem with helping people who worked all of their lives. I have a problem supporting people who didn't do shit their entire lives and were always getting supported by taxpayers. I have several serious medical conditions, but I wake up every morning to go to work, look out the window at my younger much healthier HUD neighbors, and realize I'm going to work to support them. That's what really pisses me off. If anything, I should be home and they should be supporting me.

The whole concept of government entitlements is anathema to liberty, individual freedom, and the American way.

Agreed, but this goes back to my Ray from Cleveland's raccoon theory.

You have a raccoon digging through your garbage can, so you go to your fridge and fetch that nice meaty ham bone you were going to throw out anyway. The animal eats in delight, but now wait about 20 seconds, and try to take your ham bone back and see what happens.

Politicians (particularly on the left) are well aware of my raccoon theory although they may refer to it as something else, but once you give people these social programs, they are impossible to take away; at least without getting your hand bit off.

So it's not a question whether we should have them or not; they're here and they're not going away. The bigger question is what do we do about them.

The jump from "we have them" and "they aren't going away" gets me every time.

Just because we have them does not mean they aren't going away.

We can eliminate them.

Perhaps, but only if it's done very slowly and phasing out for decades. You can't just tell people in their 40's, 50's or 60's that the program they (and their employers) paid so much into, they're not getting anything back from them.

I think the first step would be following George Bush's plan of allowing some of your money to be invested in the private market. Then slowly increase the allowable amount as time goes on. Maybe then eventually government would be totally out of it besides the mandate that you must have a retirement account.

 

[Disir]

How do you people think the elderly were cared for BEFORE social security?

See, this is the problem with an entitlement. People stop thinking and get dependent, and they start to view the government as their savior. Get over it.

They lived in state and local poor houses.

Infinitely preferable to Obama's nation of homeless, sick, mentally ill whack jobs that are currently clogging our streets.

And for the most part, people were cared for by their families. You have no understanding of this because your family is part of the entitlement boom...a huge class of narcissistic craphats who don't think they should have no ever personally dirty their hands or break into their own piggy banks to care for family members who can't care for themselves.

Please note, the mentally ill on the streets has been an issue since the responsibility was shifted to the States.

I do have an understanding of it. I am also aware that people moved frequently for work or lost family along the way. I am also aware that a whole crap load of people did what they were told to do which is put their money into retirement funds and lost everything with the last recession. Now the same asshats want to play the exact same game with other people's money. This time in the form of Social Security. Funny how that works, no?

You have zero knowledge of my family. Don't be a douche.

I know that the people who defend social security cannot imagine a world without it. They cannot imagine a world without it because their families have been dependent upon it for GENERATIONS.

It's time to stop that. Churches, families and communities will fill the gap, and everybody will be better served.

It could not possibly be because people are very aware of what it would be without it simply having researched it or dealt with the community.

You will run into the same problem that you have now. That is that the people that were once able to make donations have also been impacted and can no longer make those types of donations. Further, that our tax dollars go to those charity organizations. The "community" receives it's funding from our tax dollars.

 

[Disir]

Cut the funding from the "churches" first. That way you can fully evaluate what resources are available in any given community.

Here you go: The Partnership Center

They are even doing whatever they can to make sure they kill all those pesky reporting issues. So, you can get around being held accountable for use of our tax dollars.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ryan is a scumbag as are most on the right.

 

[danielpalos]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Well Dems have been screaming about the deficit. They should be all for cutting all entitlements.

lol. We are entitled to entitlements from general welfare spending not general warfare spending.

WE are not.

Yes, dear, we are. It is in our Constitution.

Should we quibble with the right wing, over their implementation not interpretation, of their republican doctrine?

No, the provide clause does not mean to people. Reading comprehension is key here. The government is to "promote' the general welfare and in article 1 section 8, the provide means to provide a means for the United States in general, not people specifically.

The issue of people is handled at the State level. So, no it is not in our Constitution that the government is to provide welfare to people.

Who cares about the republican doctrine or even the Democrat doctrine. Both are in it for votes and power, not people. Hell, like you, they don't even understand the proper implementation of our governments.

Where did you get that silly notion?

 

[NightFox]

Like NightFox, Koshergirl believes that the way SHE handles things must work for everyone.

Once again your aversion to personal responsibility and affinity for recklessness rears its ugly head.

If you don't stay home and take care of Ma and Pa like the Waltons, you are a worthless piece of mooching shit.
The hubris is unbelievable.

... and now you're resorting to outright lying, I never said or implied anything like that, how very disappointing, based on the content of your posts I was aware that you were ignorant on a vast array of subjects but I had given you some credit for being honest and having a decent character, oh well, not the first time I've misjudged someone on the Internet, probably won't be the last.

Welcome to /dev/null

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." -- Albert Einstein

 

[OldLady]

Like NightFox, Koshergirl believes that the way SHE handles things must work for everyone.

Once again your aversion to personal responsibility and affinity for recklessness rears its ugly head.

If you don't stay home and take care of Ma and Pa like the Waltons, you are a worthless piece of mooching shit.
The hubris is unbelievable.

... and now you're resorting to outright lying, I never said or implied anything like that, how very disappointing, based on the content of your posts I was aware that you were ignorant on a vast array of subjects but I had given you some credit for being honest and having a decent character, oh well, not the first time I've misjudged someone on the Internet, probably won't be the last.

Welcome to /dev/null

"Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters." -- Albert Einstein

I'm guessing that means "ignore," but on the off chance you see this,
I never said or implied anything like that,
No, you didn't. I was talking about Koshergirl. The thing I said made the two of you similar was the belief that the way you are able to handle the retirement/Medicare issue is the ONE way that ALL should embrace. It doesn't matter if there are actual reasons why it doesn't work for all.