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

[TNHarley]

LOL, how do you figure that people owning real assets instead of depending on politicians underfunded promises would "leave many in that predicament"? Do you have any grasp of finance at all? or is it that you just blindly trust whatever politicians tell you without doing any fact checking?

The fact of the matter is that by arguing for the status quo you're the one that wants to leave people with no other option than "sitting on their ass getting assistance".

It's Social Security, not welfare.

It's welfare when you're taking money you didn't earn and when the SSA "Trust fund" is exhausted and shortfalls have to be completely funded out of current receipts, you're giving people money that they didn't earn or to put it bluntly you're stealing from your children.

On current track entitlements and debt service will consume the entire federal budget within 25 or so years, meaning all the other stuff (defense, social services, etc..,) will have to be paid for by increasing taxes (A LOT) on those still working or borrowing our entire discretionary budget, it's not self funding anymore that's what cash flow negative means.

It's akin to paying for your retirement by charging part of it on your child's credit cards and sticking them with the bills, that sound like a good plan to you? or does stuffing your child's retirement account with a bunch of assets you had left over when you kick the bucket and adding it to what they've put in there themselves sound better?

I'm sorry! That is the most absurd imitation of logic that I have seen in a while. Usually, to be that ignorant, one is a liberal. Calling SS "something you didn't earn" is a crock of shit, and you know it.

Some recipients of SS didnt earn a penny. Like Bush92 stated earlier, some of it gets used beyond its intent. Like a worthless, jobless father dying and his 2 year old gets 400 a month for the next 16 years out of SS..
Shit like that.

If the father was not eligible for SS, the child would not draw against his SS. I believe you have exaggerated the story just a bit.

You are correct. Thanks.
There are still other things though. Like SSDI

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

I was actually planning on dying early in life, but some plans never pan out...

I have a friend from Jersey, named Vito, who could take care of that problem for you, for a small fee of course.

Do they have a credit plan?

Yes, but the rates are very high! It involves kneecaps somehow.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's Social Security, not welfare.

It's welfare when you're taking money you didn't earn and when the SSA "Trust fund" is exhausted and shortfalls have to be completely funded out of current receipts, you're giving people money that they didn't earn or to put it bluntly you're stealing from your children.

On current track entitlements and debt service will consume the entire federal budget within 25 or so years, meaning all the other stuff (defense, social services, etc..,) will have to be paid for by increasing taxes (A LOT) on those still working or borrowing our entire discretionary budget, it's not self funding anymore that's what cash flow negative means.

It's akin to paying for your retirement by charging part of it on your child's credit cards and sticking them with the bills, that sound like a good plan to you? or does stuffing your child's retirement account with a bunch of assets you had left over when you kick the bucket and adding it to what they've put in there themselves sound better?

I'm sorry! That is the most absurd imitation of logic that I have seen in a while. Usually, to be that ignorant, one is a liberal. Calling SS "something you didn't earn" is a crock of shit, and you know it.

Some recipients of SS didnt earn a penny. Like Bush92 stated earlier, some of it gets used beyond its intent. Like a worthless, jobless father dying and his 2 year old gets 400 a month for the next 16 years out of SS..
Shit like that.

If the father was not eligible for SS, the child would not draw against his SS. I believe you have exaggerated the story just a bit.

You are correct. Thanks.
There are still other things though. Like SSDI

SSDI is not funded through the SS Trust Fund.

 

[TNHarley]

It's welfare when you're taking money you didn't earn and when the SSA "Trust fund" is exhausted and shortfalls have to be completely funded out of current receipts, you're giving people money that they didn't earn or to put it bluntly you're stealing from your children.

On current track entitlements and debt service will consume the entire federal budget within 25 or so years, meaning all the other stuff (defense, social services, etc..,) will have to be paid for by increasing taxes (A LOT) on those still working or borrowing our entire discretionary budget, it's not self funding anymore that's what cash flow negative means.

It's akin to paying for your retirement by charging part of it on your child's credit cards and sticking them with the bills, that sound like a good plan to you? or does stuffing your child's retirement account with a bunch of assets you had left over when you kick the bucket and adding it to what they've put in there themselves sound better?

I'm sorry! That is the most absurd imitation of logic that I have seen in a while. Usually, to be that ignorant, one is a liberal. Calling SS "something you didn't earn" is a crock of shit, and you know it.

Some recipients of SS didnt earn a penny. Like Bush92 stated earlier, some of it gets used beyond its intent. Like a worthless, jobless father dying and his 2 year old gets 400 a month for the next 16 years out of SS..
Shit like that.

If the father was not eligible for SS, the child would not draw against his SS. I believe you have exaggerated the story just a bit.

You are correct. Thanks.
There are still other things though. Like SSDI

SSDI is not funded through the SS Trust Fund.

I thought it was funded through the same payroll tax?

 

[Moonglow]

It's welfare when you're taking money you didn't earn and when the SSA "Trust fund" is exhausted and shortfalls have to be completely funded out of current receipts, you're giving people money that they didn't earn or to put it bluntly you're stealing from your children.

On current track entitlements and debt service will consume the entire federal budget within 25 or so years, meaning all the other stuff (defense, social services, etc..,) will have to be paid for by increasing taxes (A LOT) on those still working or borrowing our entire discretionary budget, it's not self funding anymore that's what cash flow negative means.

It's akin to paying for your retirement by charging part of it on your child's credit cards and sticking them with the bills, that sound like a good plan to you? or does stuffing your child's retirement account with a bunch of assets you had left over when you kick the bucket and adding it to what they've put in there themselves sound better?

I'm sorry! That is the most absurd imitation of logic that I have seen in a while. Usually, to be that ignorant, one is a liberal. Calling SS "something you didn't earn" is a crock of shit, and you know it.

Some recipients of SS didnt earn a penny. Like Bush92 stated earlier, some of it gets used beyond its intent. Like a worthless, jobless father dying and his 2 year old gets 400 a month for the next 16 years out of SS..
Shit like that.

If the father was not eligible for SS, the child would not draw against his SS. I believe you have exaggerated the story just a bit.

You are correct. Thanks.
There are still other things though. Like SSDI

SSDI is not funded through the SS Trust Fund.

Like hell it ain't...

 

[Papageorgio]

Reagan, Bush and Clinton "borrowed" from the SSI trust, that is why I find the claims that Clinton balanced anything. George H. W. Bush could have borrowed from the SSI and not raised taxes, but he did the right thing and it cost him a second term.

This is the problem, doing the right thing may not be popular and you lose political points from the electorate. So, in a way we are responsible for the mess we have created. Now, if we keep borrowing and if we keep taking money from SS fund then we will be in big trouble by 2030. That is when the deficits, the lack of funds in the SS account, the credit rating, the interest rates will all come down on this economy.

We are digging a huge hole and by allowing the government to increase the deficits, to cut taxes is the wrong thing to do but if you are a politician, you figure you'll be safe for at least 13 more years.

Oh my, that doesn't sound good at all.
We'd better hope the Republicans are right that these tax cuts will stimulate the economy to such a degree that we will be rolling in dough within a couple of years.
I was hoping for more to bring companies back to the US. Companies are taking huge advantage right now. They are hiring "contractors" not employees, so they don't have to pay benefits. They are hiring the cheapest global workers they can find. Of course they're doing well. And the Republicans seem to want to give them their head even more. There are times when capitalism has to be reined in from too many abuses of its workers. We seem to be working toward another of those times.

Contracting isn't all bad, most contractors work for a couple companies so they make good money and can afford the added benefits and have their freedom.

I am not as concerned about the tax cuts as I am them raising the deficit. Just not good business sense to me.

If you say so.

I know several contractors in my industry and they work steady, work for several companies and make good money doing so. Not sure if that is true in other industries but I know consulting companies are in demand, that is just what I see.

Benefits are worth a lot, especially with the medical insurance market being in such turmoil. The rates never seem to go down, do they? Pension funds the same.
I suppose they may be making good money, but I'd much rather have a full-time secure job with an employer who paid those benefits as part of my salary package. I'm timid that way.

I understand that, that is a good way to be. I prefer commissions, self-employed and consulting, I don’t like the idea of working for one person, however that is what I’m doing now, and I’m ready to go out on my own again.

Both ways are good, both have pluses and I understand that position.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

There you go with that idiocy of union-run schools. When are you going to learn that unions have little to no impact on what is taught, how it is taught, and when it is taught?

If I recall, you are a truck driver. Does the Teamsters union dictate the size of your truck? Do they set the maximum size engine or number of gears you can have? Do they require truck driver's to attend useless useless driver training classes in order to keep their CDLs?

Of course they don't!

In my 20 years of teaching, I can recall about 3 times where the union got involved in my schools and every single time it was because administrators were not following the contract in regards to working conditions, i.e. requiring teachers to attend additional trainings and meeting that were not in accordance with the contract. Never was there ever any union influence into the actual educational process. It is not their responsibility.

You educator wannabees trot out your ignorance on this topic at every opportunity. Many posters have tried to educate you and your ilk, but to no avail. You are like a special education child that refuses to learn, no matter what you do.

You are a great poster and I agree with you on many things, but on this topic you are simply "out to lunch".

Then you explain it. Explain to me how people with high school diplomas don't even have the basic writing abilities. Who is behind this plot and what's in it for them?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm sorry! That is the most absurd imitation of logic that I have seen in a while. Usually, to be that ignorant, one is a liberal. Calling SS "something you didn't earn" is a crock of shit, and you know it.

Some recipients of SS didnt earn a penny. Like Bush92 stated earlier, some of it gets used beyond its intent. Like a worthless, jobless father dying and his 2 year old gets 400 a month for the next 16 years out of SS..
Shit like that.

If the father was not eligible for SS, the child would not draw against his SS. I believe you have exaggerated the story just a bit.

You are correct. Thanks.
There are still other things though. Like SSDI

SSDI is not funded through the SS Trust Fund.

Like hell it ain't...

You are wrong. Read what I posted instead of what you think I posted.

SSDI is funded through payroll taxes and not the SS Trust Fund.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cut the entitlements. Let the entitlement whores care for their own families...the way humans are supposed to do, and the way decent people do.

You are a government worker, yes? So you probably pay into a retirement plan rather than SS?
Or maybe you are eligible for both when you retire?
It's easy to talk about cutting other people's funds off, isn't it?

Yes it sure as shit is. I work and I save, and I care for my family financially, physically, and in every other possible way. That includes children, grandchildren, and my elderly mother and brother. I will be just fine without social security. I will be just fine without my pension..because my children will care for me. That is the way a decent family operates, and it is the way my family has always operated.

None of my grandparents died in nursing homes, nor will my mother. We have never been concerned with social security. My grandparents and my father did not work in traditional jobs (self employed) and my grandparents were among the first generations that received social security..they had not paid into it and what they received per month was not what they lived on. They lived on their gardens and their vocations, and when they were older, their children provided them with homes.

Get rid of the entitlements. They aren't needed. Communities and families will care for their people happily..and people will take care of themselves easily when the government drag is removed. The only group that doubts this is the huge population of worthless entitlement networks that were created by these wonderful *entitlements*. Get rid of the entitlements, put the crazies and the criminals in prison, and let's get on with life.

My wife and I have my parents living with us, they are in their 90's, my wife quit her job so she could take care of them full time. When our friends or family are in need we are there for each other.

It used to be communities would take care of their own, some how we lost that and now expect government to do that for us. All three of our remaining children have told us that we don't need to worry about what the future holds as they will take care of us as long as they need to.

Family and friends and relationships that you build and nourish is a better solution than the government trying to decide what is best for everyone.

That's great if it's available to you. My parents are in their mid 80's and I don't know what we'd do with them for long-term care. I have to work to survive, my sister has to work to survive, so what would we do?

 

[OldLady]

Oh my, that doesn't sound good at all.
We'd better hope the Republicans are right that these tax cuts will stimulate the economy to such a degree that we will be rolling in dough within a couple of years.
I was hoping for more to bring companies back to the US. Companies are taking huge advantage right now. They are hiring "contractors" not employees, so they don't have to pay benefits. They are hiring the cheapest global workers they can find. Of course they're doing well. And the Republicans seem to want to give them their head even more. There are times when capitalism has to be reined in from too many abuses of its workers. We seem to be working toward another of those times.

Contracting isn't all bad, most contractors work for a couple companies so they make good money and can afford the added benefits and have their freedom.

I am not as concerned about the tax cuts as I am them raising the deficit. Just not good business sense to me.

If you say so.

I know several contractors in my industry and they work steady, work for several companies and make good money doing so. Not sure if that is true in other industries but I know consulting companies are in demand, that is just what I see.

Benefits are worth a lot, especially with the medical insurance market being in such turmoil. The rates never seem to go down, do they? Pension funds the same.
I suppose they may be making good money, but I'd much rather have a full-time secure job with an employer who paid those benefits as part of my salary package. I'm timid that way.

I understand that, that is a good way to be. I prefer commissions, self-employed and consulting, I don’t like the idea of working for one person, however that is what I’m doing now, and I’m ready to go out on my own again.

Both ways are good, both have pluses and I understand that position.

You're braver than me. There've been plenty of times I'd agree with you about not working for one person, though. LOL

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

There you go with that idiocy of union-run schools. When are you going to learn that unions have little to no impact on what is taught, how it is taught, and when it is taught?

If I recall, you are a truck driver. Does the Teamsters union dictate the size of your truck? Do they set the maximum size engine or number of gears you can have? Do they require truck driver's to attend useless useless driver training classes in order to keep their CDLs?

Of course they don't!

In my 20 years of teaching, I can recall about 3 times where the union got involved in my schools and every single time it was because administrators were not following the contract in regards to working conditions, i.e. requiring teachers to attend additional trainings and meeting that were not in accordance with the contract. Never was there ever any union influence into the actual educational process. It is not their responsibility.

You educator wannabees trot out your ignorance on this topic at every opportunity. Many posters have tried to educate you and your ilk, but to no avail. You are like a special education child that refuses to learn, no matter what you do.

You are a great poster and I agree with you on many things, but on this topic you are simply "out to lunch".

Then you explain it. Explain to me how people with high school diplomas don't even have the basic writing abilities. Who is behind this plot and what's in it for them?

You live in a shithole that is far behind the rest of the world in education.

A simple check of non-union states where teacher's unions are not allowed would show that they are not stellar performers either. Look up causation and correlation.

 

[OldLady]

Cut the entitlements. Let the entitlement whores care for their own families...the way humans are supposed to do, and the way decent people do.

You are a government worker, yes? So you probably pay into a retirement plan rather than SS?
Or maybe you are eligible for both when you retire?
It's easy to talk about cutting other people's funds off, isn't it?

Yes it sure as shit is. I work and I save, and I care for my family financially, physically, and in every other possible way. That includes children, grandchildren, and my elderly mother and brother. I will be just fine without social security. I will be just fine without my pension..because my children will care for me. That is the way a decent family operates, and it is the way my family has always operated.

None of my grandparents died in nursing homes, nor will my mother. We have never been concerned with social security. My grandparents and my father did not work in traditional jobs (self employed) and my grandparents were among the first generations that received social security..they had not paid into it and what they received per month was not what they lived on. They lived on their gardens and their vocations, and when they were older, their children provided them with homes.

Get rid of the entitlements. They aren't needed. Communities and families will care for their people happily..and people will take care of themselves easily when the government drag is removed. The only group that doubts this is the huge population of worthless entitlement networks that were created by these wonderful *entitlements*. Get rid of the entitlements, put the crazies and the criminals in prison, and let's get on with life.

My wife and I have my parents living with us, they are in their 90's, my wife quit her job so she could take care of them full time. When our friends or family are in need we are there for each other.

It used to be communities would take care of their own, some how we lost that and now expect government to do that for us. All three of our remaining children have told us that we don't need to worry about what the future holds as they will take care of us as long as they need to.

Family and friends and relationships that you build and nourish is a better solution than the government trying to decide what is best for everyone.

That's great if it's available to you. My parents are in their mid 80's and I don't know what we'd do with them for long-term care. I have to work to survive, my sister has to work to survive, so what would we do?

Ask NightFox. They should have been investing for their own retirement needs all those years. If they weren't smart enough to do that, that's their problem.

 

[TNHarley]

They should have been investing for their own retirement needs all those years. If they weren't smart enough to do that, that's their problem.

Look at my OL becoming enlightened and shit

 

[koshergrl]

Cut the entitlements. Let the entitlement whores care for their own families...the way humans are supposed to do, and the way decent people do.

You are a government worker, yes? So you probably pay into a retirement plan rather than SS?
Or maybe you are eligible for both when you retire?
It's easy to talk about cutting other people's funds off, isn't it?

Yes it sure as shit is. I work and I save, and I care for my family financially, physically, and in every other possible way. That includes children, grandchildren, and my elderly mother and brother. I will be just fine without social security. I will be just fine without my pension..because my children will care for me. That is the way a decent family operates, and it is the way my family has always operated.

None of my grandparents died in nursing homes, nor will my mother. We have never been concerned with social security. My grandparents and my father did not work in traditional jobs (self employed) and my grandparents were among the first generations that received social security..they had not paid into it and what they received per month was not what they lived on. They lived on their gardens and their vocations, and when they were older, their children provided them with homes.

Get rid of the entitlements. They aren't needed. Communities and families will care for their people happily..and people will take care of themselves easily when the government drag is removed. The only group that doubts this is the huge population of worthless entitlement networks that were created by these wonderful *entitlements*. Get rid of the entitlements, put the crazies and the criminals in prison, and let's get on with life.

My wife and I have my parents living with us, they are in their 90's, my wife quit her job so she could take care of them full time. When our friends or family are in need we are there for each other.

It used to be communities would take care of their own, some how we lost that and now expect government to do that for us. All three of our remaining children have told us that we don't need to worry about what the future holds as they will take care of us as long as they need to.

Family and friends and relationships that you build and nourish is a better solution than the government trying to decide what is best for everyone.

That's great if it's available to you. My parents are in their mid 80's and I don't know what we'd do with them for long-term care. I have to work to survive, my sister has to work to survive, so what would we do?

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Ryan is an ASSHOLE!

 

[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.

 

[OldLady]

They should have been investing for their own retirement needs all those years. If they weren't smart enough to do that, that's their problem.

Look at my OL becoming enlightened and shit

Don't get all excited. I'm being VERY sarcastic.

 

[koshergrl]

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

There you go with that idiocy of union-run schools. When are you going to learn that unions have little to no impact on what is taught, how it is taught, and when it is taught?

If I recall, you are a truck driver. Does the Teamsters union dictate the size of your truck? Do they set the maximum size engine or number of gears you can have? Do they require truck driver's to attend useless useless driver training classes in order to keep their CDLs?

Of course they don't!

In my 20 years of teaching, I can recall about 3 times where the union got involved in my schools and every single time it was because administrators were not following the contract in regards to working conditions, i.e. requiring teachers to attend additional trainings and meeting that were not in accordance with the contract. Never was there ever any union influence into the actual educational process. It is not their responsibility.

You educator wannabees trot out your ignorance on this topic at every opportunity. Many posters have tried to educate you and your ilk, but to no avail. You are like a special education child that refuses to learn, no matter what you do.

You are a great poster and I agree with you on many things, but on this topic you are simply "out to lunch".

Then you explain it. Explain to me how people with high school diplomas don't even have the basic writing abilities. Who is behind this plot and what's in it for them?

You live in a shithole that is far behind the rest of the world in education.

A simple check of non-union states where teacher's unions are not allowed would show that they are not stellar performers either. Look up causation and correlation.

"...Idaho’s charter schools outperform their district peers."

http://www.rociidaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Rural-Charter-Schools-Idaho-Policy-Brief.pdf

psst..most charter schools are non-union.

 

[TNHarley]

They should have been investing for their own retirement needs all those years. If they weren't smart enough to do that, that's their problem.

Look at my OL becoming enlightened and shit

Don't get all excited. I'm being VERY sarcastic.

I know :/
The only time you sound enlightened is when you are being sarcastic

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

It wasn't as much of a problem then because most people never made it to SS age. Today, once you do hit that age, you could live another 20 or 30 years. Unless you saved a hell of a lot of money, what would you do then?

Poll after poll shows Americans overwhelmingly want to keep SS and Medicare. The only way to do that is to properly fund it. That would mean at least doubling the Medicare contributions of working people and at least a 50% increase in SS contributions.

It's the only way.