Who Will Say No To Seniors?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NATO AIR, Dec 16, 2004.

  1. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    apparently not the democrats, not pres. bush, not the republicans... hmm, barrack obama and lindsey graham are about the only two guys i know who've said no...

     
  2. ciplexian
    Offline

    ciplexian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    The prescription drug benefit debate was so one-sided partly because it's a genuine change-- drug costs are rising so quickly (now that interest rates are going back up it'll be interesting to see if this slows. insurance companies' revenues rise when rates increase, so they may be able to afford to charge less for medications), but the more basic reforms are what are sorely lacking... even without the new benefits, the current system poses an unsustainable strain on the budget. Naturally, the benefit age should have been tied to average life expectancy, but due to political reasons that's not going to happen.

    And what ever happened to the extended family? There was an interesting book out recently chronicling the negative impact of social security on birthrates... people who need no one to take care of them during old age have less incentive to have children. Birthrates have already fallen below replacement level in most other developed nations.

    Bush has a 2 year mandate to reform the system, the people have given him solid majorities... will he do it?
     
  3. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    I agree with most of the post. Senior citizens groups in general and the AARP in particular have become one of our worst enemies in the battle of fiscal responsibility. I'm a member of the AARP and I continue to maintain that membership simply to needle the organization and their voracious appetite for entitlement programs plus I can write my elected representatives and urge them to defeat measures sponsored by the AARP and I believe that my sentiments have more weight if expressed as a member of AARP. The other reason I maintain membership is that it keeps me from having to pay full price at hotels - okay, I'm cheap - what's your point?

    But let's talk about that social security thingie, because that tends to get my dander up. The extract from the article you posted that burns my butt is "No, you cannot have all the retirement benefits you've been promised".

    Now the feds have been stealing a portion of my income for social security since I took my first job at age 13. They have also been demanding that my employers "contribute" on my behalf. Given employer contributions, deductions from my salary and interest, the total amount that should be available for me to draw upon should be between 250 and 300 thousand dollars.

    Then our sleazy politicians couldn't stand all that money just sitting around in the social security trust fund. So, under the auspices of the Johnson administration, they decided to make that money available for their favorite activity - spending it. They promptly frittered the fund away on "gimme" programs paid to people who refuse to work, to subsidize illegitimate children, to subsidize laziness and stupidity, to subsidize social engineering programs, to give themselves huge pay raises and outrageous retirement plans and to fund various idiotic pork projects. So now all that money has evaporated like a drop of water in Death Valley in the summer.

    Now these political scum, who will draw a retirement of $15,000 PER MONTH after just ONE full term in the Senate, are telling me that I can't have the money that they have stolen from me all these years. See, I've made the mistake of living below my means all these years. I've saved and gotten lucky on a couple of investments and when I retire, I should be fairly comfortable. Along come the politicians and tell me that because I have been concerned about the future, because I have accumulated some assets, now my eligibility to collect the money that was STOLEN from me by the government will be "means tested".

    So once again, the damn government subsidizes incompetence. Had I squandered my income as fast as it came in I could be collecting money by the wheelbarrow load. If I had nothing with which to support myself, the government would come running, eager to heap largesse on me. But because I don't NEED social security to survive, they reason that I am not entitled to collect that for which I paid. BULLSHIT!!!! When we start means-testing those sons-of-bitches in the Senate before we pay them 15 thou a month, THEN we can talk about means-testing me and not one damn second before.

    We need to get control of those entitlement programs which are merely handouts. We need to somehow convince rapacious, senile oldsters that it is not the function of government to take care of their every need until they die. But when it comes to social security - I want to be paid back an amount equal to what I paid in, plus what my employers have paid on my behalf, plus a reasonable interest rate for the thirty-some-odd years the government has been holding my money.

    It wasn't my fault that social security is facing bankruptcy. Congress stole the money. Now let the bastards sweat to fix it and still live up to the committments made to the people who have had their income siphoned off by the government under apparently false pretenses.
     
  4. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    i can agree with that.. this is going to be the interesting focus of all this, how are they going to keep their promises?
     
  5. ciplexian
    Offline

    ciplexian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    Keep the promises that were made now and don't make any more. Unfortunately it's not going to happen.
     
  6. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    Why do I have the feeling that this could be the issue that destroys the GOP's congressional dominance?

    I don't think they, or the Democrats (if they were in power) could pull this off without pissing off the country at the beginning of the reform
     
  7. ciplexian
    Offline

    ciplexian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6
    I don't think the Congressional GOP would pass a reform if it would destroy their Congressional dominance. They've already showed they put politics over principle when they passed the drug entitlement. They'll likely pass some extremely watered down reform, and I hope for the country's sake it works, but most likely this will be an issue that we'll be dealing with in crisis mode around 2020.
     
  8. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    agreed, on this they are just as pandering as the democrats
     

Share This Page