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

[Bush92]

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.

You are fortunate to have that kind of family, Koshergirl. I'm glad for you.

Old Lady, you are “practically perfect in every way.” However, Social Security should not cover kids being raised by grandparents (Democrats catering to black voters because babies daddy is a worthless shit ) unwed moms, or handicapped.

 

[TNHarley]

Oh please OL. Our ideas of helping people out are different.
Give a man a fish, he has a meal. Teach a man to fish, he is fed for life.
I believe in personal responsibility. That is the roof over every familys economic head.

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

I agree it would. But at what point will society point to "personal responsibility?"
THATS what society needs. Not punishing successful people with taking care of the irresponsible.
People themselves and the govt cause their problems. We are working on the govt holding people back. Now we need to start working on the People. Build ACTUAL wealth.

When the government realized that SS was in trouble, many moons ago, they made 401K's tax shelters. That was the smartest thing the government did in a long time. It worked.
And I really think the huge majority of people want to do well and be successful and if they knew how and had the tools, they would do their damndest. NO ONE wants to live on welfare subsistence. It is so far from easy street you can't even imagine. So there's nothing wrong with your wish. But as my grandmother always said, "If wishes were horses, even beggars could ride."

I have a customer that quit his full time job when his wife died. Because of all the shit he could get from the govt. I shit you not. He had like 5 kids. Made around (educated guess because of his title) 50-60K a year.
People have babies for more money. I also know someone like that. So, please, spare me the cliches.
If we focused on freedom from govt restraint and tried to tell society to make good choices and feed themselves, we would be the shiznit. Not normalizing irresponsibility.
Free schooling is a great idea to help with that. We are doing free school for all in my state being paid for by the lottery. I think that is absolutely amazing. No being forced to take care of peoples education or anything. Completely voluntary.

You can't change people, TN. Some will always find a way to take the easiest ride. And the fella who had five kids and suddenly no wife, with the pitiful state of child care in this country, and the expense of medical insurance, OF COURSE he took the dole. He ain't getting rich on it. You live a bunch better than him, unless he's being dishonest about it.
We can invest in our people in a number of different ways. I agree welfare programs need a long hard look, but we need to invest in our children and our people's health, and a way for our elderly to survive with a modicum of dignity if they aren't lucky enough to be from a family like Koshergirl's.
Every family, every inidividual, who can take care of themselves is helping this country. Encouraging that isn't wrong. Throwing out all the safety nets? That's wrong.

I live better than him because i made better choices. And i am far from well off. I didnt go to college.
He is PERFECTLY capable of working and taking care of his kids. They arent young. He is late 40s. Maybe early 50s by now. Aint talked to him in 4 or 5 years.
If they dont want to take care of themselves why in the holy hek should anyone else? Thats some crap!
I didnt say anything about throwing away safety nets. I am trying to get the point across that we should be focusing on the Peoples actions not giving them free shit.
People need incentive. Starving or being homeless is a damn good one.
I obviously dont want the incapable dying in the streets, though. I am sure a very VERY small percentage of the country thinks like that.
And welfare DAMN SURE shouldnt be coming from the fed gov. That is a states issue... But the COTUS doesnt mean shit anyways i dont guess. Hasnt in forever.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

You mean kinda like this....
Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

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.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

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.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

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?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

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.

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.

 

[NightFox]

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

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?

 

[OldLady]

12 years. Well, if Job Corps counts, 15. So you call that "assistance?"

So you got a government job with preferential treatment because you were a single mom?

No. I got a college degree.

Me too. First in family to do so. Started out in a trailer...son of factory worker...but, hey my “white privilege” is what got me where I am today. Forget about working two jobs in high school and college...forget about serving in the U.S.Army and in United States Marines (combat vet). Nope. I guess I should have been a lazy, crybaby, worthless asshole and expected the rest of society to lift me up with their hard earned tax dollars. BTW went all the way to gradute school degree in my field of study. Earned one of the few government assistance programs necessary...GI Bill.

We're talking about Social Security, not lazy, crybaby worthless assholes. They WORKED and EARNED their benefits. So how do we continue to make the program work? If it worked this long, there IS a way.
Focus.

Social Security can be solvent if it is only for retirees. It now covers a whole plethora of situations it was not intended for.

I think it always covered the disabled, didn't it? But I agree--as a social worker I met a shitload of moochers on SSI who had no problem going out and doing job work under the table, but supposedly had some devastating disability that kept them from working. It IS very much taken advantage of, and it has led to people who really are disabled having to fight a lengthy and expensive battle to get it. It's a shame those abuses aren't somehow gotten under control, but ending the program isn't the answer.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

You mean kinda like this....
Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

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.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

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.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

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?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

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.

 

[OldLady]

I simply have both feet on the ground.

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.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

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.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

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?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

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.

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.

 

[Bush92]

So you got a government job with preferential treatment because you were a single mom?

No. I got a college degree.

Me too. First in family to do so. Started out in a trailer...son of factory worker...but, hey my “white privilege” is what got me where I am today. Forget about working two jobs in high school and college...forget about serving in the U.S.Army and in United States Marines (combat vet). Nope. I guess I should have been a lazy, crybaby, worthless asshole and expected the rest of society to lift me up with their hard earned tax dollars. BTW went all the way to gradute school degree in my field of study. Earned one of the few government assistance programs necessary...GI Bill.

We're talking about Social Security, not lazy, crybaby worthless assholes. They WORKED and EARNED their benefits. So how do we continue to make the program work? If it worked this long, there IS a way.
Focus.

Social Security can be solvent if it is only for retirees. It now covers a whole plethora of situations it was not intended for.

I think it always covered the disabled, didn't it? But I agree--as a social worker I met a shitload of moochers on SSI who had no problem going out and doing job work under the table, but supposedly had some devastating disability that kept them from working. It IS very much taken advantage of, and it has led to people who really are disabled having to fight a lengthy and expensive battle to get it. It's a shame those abuses aren't somehow gotten under control, but ending the program isn't the answer.

The “race card” stops real reform efforts.

 

[OldLady]

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

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?

It used to work. So what would we need to do to make it work again?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

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.

 

[OldLady]

No. I got a college degree.

Me too. First in family to do so. Started out in a trailer...son of factory worker...but, hey my “white privilege” is what got me where I am today. Forget about working two jobs in high school and college...forget about serving in the U.S.Army and in United States Marines (combat vet). Nope. I guess I should have been a lazy, crybaby, worthless asshole and expected the rest of society to lift me up with their hard earned tax dollars. BTW went all the way to gradute school degree in my field of study. Earned one of the few government assistance programs necessary...GI Bill.

We're talking about Social Security, not lazy, crybaby worthless assholes. They WORKED and EARNED their benefits. So how do we continue to make the program work? If it worked this long, there IS a way.
Focus.

Social Security can be solvent if it is only for retirees. It now covers a whole plethora of situations it was not intended for.

I think it always covered the disabled, didn't it? But I agree--as a social worker I met a shitload of moochers on SSI who had no problem going out and doing job work under the table, but supposedly had some devastating disability that kept them from working. It IS very much taken advantage of, and it has led to people who really are disabled having to fight a lengthy and expensive battle to get it. It's a shame those abuses aren't somehow gotten under control, but ending the program isn't the answer.

The “race card” stops real reform efforts.

Never had an SSI recipient client who wasn't white. Shame on you for falling back on that old chestnut. I'm not entertaining this argument.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

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.

 

[OldLady]

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

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.

You beat me to it.

 

[TNHarley]

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

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.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

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.

 

[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.

You are fortunate to have that kind of family, Koshergirl. I'm glad for you.

Old Lady, you are “practically perfect in every way.” However, Social Security should not cover kids being raised by grandparents (Democrats catering to black voters because babies daddy is a worthless shit ) unwed moms, or handicapped.

So far as I know, SS only covers the handicapped out of that list. Helping out grandparents raising grandkids is kind of a big thing around here because of 30 years of the opiate epidemic (we were on the forefront, breaking ground there, for some reason). As far as I know, there may be some minimal assistance available through the state, but it's not SS.

 

[OldLady]

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.

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.

 

[koshergrl]

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

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.

People who live on social security may have earned it..but they allowed the state to take it from them. So once it's in the state's hands..guess what? It isn't their anymore.

This conflation of "government" and "the people" is about to drive me nuts. I don't know when statist crapheads are going to figure out..YOU ARE NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The federal government consists of people (not you) who work as goons for agencies that are unconstitutional in nature..and the only purpose of those goons is to get more of what you own to pad their own pockets.

When the GOVERNMENT owns something..that isn't the same as YOU owning it. They do not represent your interests, they represent their own. And they are not one and the same as YOU.

And once the GOVERNMENT owns something, you will have a very hard time ever getting it back.

Social security and all entitlements are unconstitutional and therefore illegal in nature, from their inception. They should never have taken place. And the sooner we get rid of them, the better. The minute those funds stop or at least slow to a trickle is the minute we all..including the losers who can't support themselves... see a huge improvement in our quality of living.

 

[OldLady]

I know you worked hard for what you have and as they say Downeast, "you done good." That's high praise.
Not everyone has your drive, smarts and determination. And sometimes plain old luck plays into it. That is the only point I am making. It isn't that I want to see everyone sitting on their ass getting assistance. However, I'll be goddamned if I want to live in a place like India where people are starving in cardboard boxes on the sidewalks.
That has never been who we are. NightFox's vision would leave many in that predicament.

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.

How does a "jobless" father get social security benefits? Doesn't he have to have earned them?

 

[Moonglow]

I simply have both feet on the ground.

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.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

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.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

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?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

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?