Stop all benefits for one year.

[Sunshine]

You could use your $7500 to buy aspirin.

Troll repellant for a troll who started a troll thread.

Why do we subject ourselves to idiots like this one~! Adios. And a neg for you first thing in the morning.

 

[deltex1]

If anyone tried to stop SS payments to our seniors or veterans we would have a real catastrophe on our hands. It would not be pretty.

Don't think of it as stopping them. They'd still get their payout, in the form of a lump sum.

You have no clue, do you.

 

[SwimExpert]

If anyone tried to stop SS payments to our seniors or veterans we would have a real catastrophe on our hands. It would not be pretty.

Don't think of it as stopping them. They'd still get their payout, in the form of a lump sum.

Sure. We may as well also apply this to our jobs. Instead of getting our weekly paychecks at work, we would only receive a lump sum payment. Great idea.

Some jobs do it. Some pay as infrequently as once a month. Some jobs are entirely dependent on commissions that are paid at the time of work being complete. Some people have jobs that pay them $1 at the end of the year, with an assortment of bonuses. But most jobs usually operate on a biweekly pay schedule, as that tends to be the most mutually agreeable for both employer and employee.

 

[SwimExpert]

You haven't a clue......I know veterans who are already talking about a veterans march on Washington, and that's only about a one percent raise that congress took away from us...
Think if you took half of a seniors paycheck away from them? Are you going to pay their rent and car payments? How about their utility bills. It won't work......

Let the march. That's their right. Anyway, aren't those individuals responsible for their own bills and finances? It's up to them to pay their car payments and rent. If they can't afford it, then they can get a cheaper car, a cheaper place to live, go live with their children, use public transportation, or whatever else they want to do. It's not the government's job to provide for them.

 

[SwimExpert]

You could use your $7500 to buy aspirin.

Troll repellant for a troll who started a troll thread.

Why do we subject ourselves to idiots like this one~! Adios. And a neg for you first thing in the morning.

Ms. Sunshine, from what I can tell you fancy yourself a conservative, don't you? Well, are you going to get serious about reducing spending or not? Do you want welfare reform or not?

Or do you only want reductions that affect other people and not yourself? Ah, that's it. You only want spending cuts that won't affect you. You fancy yourself a victim if the government cuts YOUR spending. It's all the other people who are entitlement junkies.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You haven't a clue......I know veterans who are already talking about a veterans march on Washington, and that's only about a one percent raise that congress took away from us...
Think if you took half of a seniors paycheck away from them? Are you going to pay their rent and car payments? How about their utility bills. It won't work......

Let the march. That's their right. Anyway, aren't those individuals responsible for their own bills and finances? It's up to them to pay their car payments and rent. If they can't afford it, then they can get a cheaper car, a cheaper place to live, go live with their children, use public transportation, or whatever else they want to do. It's not the government's job to provide for them.

You truly are an idiot? Either that or you're about 11 years old.

Lets take a for instance. You have a retired Soldier, He get his retirement from the Military. Cost of living goes up 2.5% in a given year and his pay goes up 1.5%...

On top of that he is disabled after working for 20 years after retiring from the military so he gets Social Security Disability. His bills are based upon these payments which he has earned, And you want to take a quarter of that away and tell him to sell his house and car and get a cheaper one for his family.....

Go take a long walk off a short pier..........

 

[deltex1]

You could use your $7500 to buy aspirin.

Troll repellant for a troll who started a troll thread.

Why do we subject ourselves to idiots like this one~! Adios. And a neg for you first thing in the morning.

Ms. Sunshine, from what I can tell you fancy yourself a conservative, don't you? Well, are you going to get serious about reducing spending or not? Do you want welfare reform or not?

Or do you only want reductions that affect other people and not yourself? Ah, that's it. You only want spending cuts that won't affect you. You fancy yourself a victim if the government cuts YOUR spending. It's all the other people who are entitlement junkies.

We know you can swim....but how old are you and what do you do for a living...and what education do you have?

 

[Jughead]

Don't think of it as stopping them. They'd still get their payout, in the form of a lump sum.

Sure. We may as well also apply this to our jobs. Instead of getting our weekly paychecks at work, we would only receive a lump sum payment. Great idea.

Some jobs do it. Some pay as infrequently as once a month. Some jobs are entirely dependent on commissions that are paid at the time of work being complete. Some people have jobs that pay them $1 at the end of the year, with an assortment of bonuses. But most jobs usually operate on a biweekly pay schedule, as that tends to be the most mutually agreeable for both employer and employee.

You can't simply do away with one's income and replace it with a lump sum. The idea is completely ridiculous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You haven't a clue......I know veterans who are already talking about a veterans march on Washington, and that's only about a one percent raise that congress took away from us...
Think if you took half of a seniors paycheck away from them? Are you going to pay their rent and car payments? How about their utility bills. It won't work......

Let the march. That's their right. Anyway, aren't those individuals responsible for their own bills and finances? It's up to them to pay their car payments and rent. If they can't afford it, then they can get a cheaper car, a cheaper place to live, go live with their children, use public transportation, or whatever else they want to do. It's not the government's job to provide for them.

Social Security is ALREADY paid into. The Government has to pay out and it is NOT what causes the deficit or deficit spending. Currently they still collect enough to make the payments. Further ALL money used from Social Security funds are BORROWED by the Government and paid back with bonds. Medicare is an on going payment schedule too, people pay taxes on it under the promise they will be reimbursed at the agreed on time.

Social Security belongs to the people collecting it it is NOT a hand out.

 

[SwimExpert]

You have a retired Soldier, He get his retirement from the Military. Cost of living goes up 2.5% in a given year and his pay goes up 1.5%...

Just because he was in the military does not mean he should not work when he gets out. He should take his $7500 for the year, and go get a new job.

On top of that he is disabled

You must not have been paying attention. I said those who are disabled should be exempt from my idea.

 

[SwimExpert]

You can't simply do away with one's income and replace it with a lump sum. The idea is completely ridiculous.

Why?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have a retired Soldier, He get his retirement from the Military. Cost of living goes up 2.5% in a given year and his pay goes up 1.5%...

Just because he was in the military does not mean he should not work when he gets out. He should take his $7500 for the year, and go get a new job.

On top of that he is disabled

You must not have been paying attention. I said those who are disabled should be exempt from my idea.

What part of Social Security payments are not causing deficit spending don't you grasp?

 

[velvtacheeze]

Nice plan.

So all you have are complaints? No alternatives on how we can reduce spending while also helping those in need?

A stupid idea like his deserves just complaints. Stop all benefits for a year? Laughable.

But since you asked, I do have an idea on how we can reduce spending while also helping those in need.

Gut the bloated defense budget, let the world know that we'll leave them alone from now on, with no more GOP-approved Globopolicing, and we'll spend all that wasted money instead on welfare benefits, education, healthcare, infrastructure and scientific research . Namely, a robust social democracy, Euro-style, right here in the good ol' USA.

 

[SwimExpert]

You have a retired Soldier, He get his retirement from the Military. Cost of living goes up 2.5% in a given year and his pay goes up 1.5%...

Just because he was in the military does not mean he should not work when he gets out. He should take his $7500 for the year, and go get a new job.

On top of that he is disabled

You must not have been paying attention. I said those who are disabled should be exempt from my idea.

What part of Social Security payments are not causing deficit spending don't you grasp?

It's spending. We have a spending problem. We're going to have to make hard decisions if we're going to reduce our spending problem. I'm offering a way to reduce spending AND reduce taxes.

 

[deltex1]

You have a retired Soldier, He get his retirement from the Military. Cost of living goes up 2.5% in a given year and his pay goes up 1.5%...

Just because he was in the military does not mean he should not work when he gets out. He should take his $7500 for the year, and go get a new job.

On top of that he is disabled

You must not have been paying attention. I said those who are disabled should be exempt from my idea.

What part of Social Security payments are not causing deficit spending don't you grasp?

Blow taps Gunny...swimmer has drowned.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just because he was in the military does not mean he should not work when he gets out. He should take his $7500 for the year, and go get a new job.



You must not have been paying attention. I said those who are disabled should be exempt from my idea.

What part of Social Security payments are not causing deficit spending don't you grasp?

It's spending. We have a spending problem. We're going to have to make hard decisions if we're going to reduce our spending problem. I'm offering a way to reduce spending AND reduce taxes.

You realize if the Government stops paying Social Security they also have to stop collecting Social Security taxes? What part of, that tax currently covers the program don't you understand?

You want to stop payments stop payments to education, welfare HUD and Housing, none of those are even Constitutional.

 

[Clementine]

The federal government is spending roughly $1.5 trillion a year on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid alone. That doesn't even include foodstamps and other welfare programs, pensions, etc. How much is this doing for our economy, as we sink deeper into debt? I propose we cease all spending on such things for one year. The only exception being for those are disabled. During that same time, payroll taxes be reduced by 50% for everyone.

With the money saved, every tax payer and person who receives benefits gets a check for $7500. Use it as you see fit. Use it for food, use it for health care, use it for rent, use it to start your own business. This approach will offer substantial aid for people in need, will be a lesser total expenditure, and will actually yield a lesser deficit. Meanwhile, individuals will be able to have more disposable income with which to stimulate the economy.

Why shouldn't we do this?

The money for SS is not federal government money. It is money that was paid by the workforce of America to fund their pensions. And SS is not driving the deficit. It may come as some surprise to you, but the federal government OWES money to SS.

That's right. Social security is not part of the general fund. All that money people and their employers paid in is supposed to be kept in a special account and government wasn't supposed to tax it, take from it or give to people who didn't pay in. It was originally supposed to be optional for people to participate, but of course the government made it mandatory and then they increased the amount people had to pay in.

Government was allowed to borrow from the surplus if they paid it back with interest.

Now it's a mess because government couldn't keep their grubby paws off it and it was given to people who didn't qualify under the original rules. Many qualified people died before they collected and the account should be pretty healthy. It's not. Government owed over a trillion dollars as of a few years ago and I bet that's higher now.

Obama was a total shit when he scared the elderly during the debt ceiling debate by telling them they might not get their checks. That was low, really low.

Suspending things that people actually earned over many years is wrong. It was wrong in the first place to promise people that they will receive other people's money, but that was a done deal once it passed. Same with public unions. Politicians play fast and loose with money that hasn't even been earned yet.

Welfare is also a huge expense. We could start with illegal aliens. If we would have stopped welfare for them and not allowed people here illegally to have citizenship granted to their children born here, they wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be spending billions each year to take care of them. The cost of deportation is a fraction of what we spend on their education, living and health care.

If we are going to cut something, it should be welfare. We should do this by putting back the work requirement. Of course, getting rid of Obamacare would go far in helping people find work.

This system overload is by design. We will crumble because we are on an unsustainable path. The left will accuse anyone of wanting cuts of being mean, but if we stay this course, we will all fail and all end up at the bottom with nothing. What do you do when the lifeboat isn't big enough to hold everyone? Let everyone sink or stop letting people on? Damn tough choice, but one that has to be made. Having people take care of themselves is the answer so that others don't have to sacrifice to the point of ruin. We passed that road a long time ago and turning back won't be easy and it will mean even more hardships. If we don't turn back, we are all doomed. You really do run out of other people's money at some point and we should take action before we reach that point. The left would rather do what they think is the humane thing and keep robbing one half to give to the other half. We know how that will end because we've seen it in other countries time and time again. Time for a new approach that doesn't involve socialism.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nice plan.

So all you have are complaints? No alternatives on how we can reduce spending while also helping those in need?

A stupid idea like his deserves just complaints. Stop all benefits for a year? Laughable.

But since you asked, I do have an idea on how we can reduce spending while also helping those in need.

Gut the bloated defense budget, let the world know that we'll leave them alone from now on, with no more GOP-approved Globopolicing, and we'll spend all that wasted money instead on welfare benefits, education, healthcare, infrastructure and scientific research . Namely, a robust social democracy, Euro-style, right here in the good ol' USA.

If you like Europe, you're free to move there.

In the meantime, I never said anything about education, infrastructure, or scientific research. Why are you bringing those up? That's a straw man. Also, defense spending is not the large and mighty portion of our spending that you liberals like to make it out to be. If we eliminate 100% of defense spending, we still are left with a deficit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The federal government is spending roughly $1.5 trillion a year on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid alone. That doesn't even include foodstamps and other welfare programs, pensions, etc. How much is this doing for our economy, as we sink deeper into debt? I propose we cease all spending on such things for one year. The only exception being for those are disabled. During that same time, payroll taxes be reduced by 50% for everyone.

With the money saved, every tax payer and person who receives benefits gets a check for $7500. Use it as you see fit. Use it for food, use it for health care, use it for rent, use it to start your own business. This approach will offer substantial aid for people in need, will be a lesser total expenditure, and will actually yield a lesser deficit. Meanwhile, individuals will be able to have more disposable income with which to stimulate the economy.

Why shouldn't we do this?

You really think it will take them that long to die?

Or, put it another way -

The spending problem we have is not "how much". Its "on what".

Oh yeah, its "ideas" like this one that have earned the Repubs the title of The Party Of Stupid.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You have a retired Soldier, He get his retirement from the Military. Cost of living goes up 2.5% in a given year and his pay goes up 1.5%...

Just because he was in the military does not mean he should not work when he gets out. He should take his $7500 for the year, and go get a new job.

On top of that he is disabled

You must not have been paying attention. I said those who are disabled should be exempt from my idea.

OK so he's 62 and now drawing on his social security instead of working. Which he did for 24 years after retiring from the military, And you think you can buy him off for $7500

Or what about unemployment? Just go out and get a job? Really? have you tried getting any kind of decent job in the last 5 years? Why do you think they kept extending benefits?

You want to fix things, do something to create real jobs and build the economy and the GDP, this will generate more taxes and cut down on those needing welfare, and food stamps without screwing over the people who have earned their money.....