Stop all benefits for one year.

[hunarcy]

Wow. All you've done is make a name calling post. And you think that's supposed to be an intelligent response?

That's his pattern. He was so obnoxious in another thread that I finally gave up on him and put him on my ignore list. I hope you have better luck with him.

 

[hunarcy]

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?

Before we do that, why don't we just cut off ALL foreign aid for a decade or so. And, when we resume it, the money only goes to the nations that befriended/helped us during the time where there was no aid. We aren't buying friends with it, and it's stupid to borrow money in order to give it away.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

What will happen to the 30 million seniors who become homeless? You going to take them in?

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Actually, SS are transfer payments as it is set up now. The payers have their money deducted so that the government can pay the payees. There is no pension. It's only a highly inefficient and low return redistribution of wealth scheme as it stands now.

There is no pension, but it is not a redistribution of wealth scheme.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Yea, but instead of getting 12 checks for $2500.00, they're now going to pay you one check for $7500.00. What a deal. But it's okay because Swimswithfish is going to offer charity to cover all the seniors so they don't lose their homes or get kicked out.

 

[Politico]

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.

You subject yourselves by continuing to encourage him.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ok...I will forgo 80k in "benefits" to get $7500....sounds like a deal

Why do you need $80k in government benefits? Get off the welfare teat.

Anybody that has spent 20 years in the military, or 50 years in industry, deserves every penny that they get. I don't know where people like you come off trying to stiff our seniors that built the economy that you enjoy, but that bullshit won't fly. You might find it better to get a job, and earn enough that $7500 doesn't look like big money to you.

 

[zeke]

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.

That's one of the most far fetched ideas I've heard yet. NO, it's not feasible or workable and no congressman would ever vote for it.......

Hey this sounds like standard repub wish list stuff. You sure no Rethugs would vote for this idea? I'm not.

 

[hangover]

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?

^^^^Moron. It's this kind of stupid shit that the cons would do, that would totally wreck everything in this country. If this happened, there would be 100 million people out on the street, or in prison just to get something to eat and a place out of the cold.

Paying $15k to keep a elderly person on Social Security, or paying $40k to keep that person in prison, which one is cheaper? Which one is dumber?

 

[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.

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.

I already posted on it. SS is not the government's money. SS is the workers' money. The government owes SS. So No, I don't think SS should be cut. I think the government should figure out a way to pay back our money they have raided and looted for the last 50 years. The percent I paid in was the percent that was supposed to be adequate for SS to pay me the concomitant benefit. SS does not drive the deficit.

And as for welfare, well, are you simply too stupid to understand that we give them the money so they won't come into our neighborhoods and raid our homes taking our valuables to sell for drugs? Seriously? You haven't figured that one out?

And you are nothing but a troll.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

All those 'euro style' benies are possible because WE provide their defense. If we had all that money we would be sitting pretty.

 

[FJO]

AS the old saying goes: "Necessity is the mother of all invention".

The same way, necessity is the mother of going to travel a few hundred miles to get a job. It is the mother of the idea to get a job, that may be somewhat under the dignity of your inflated ego. It is the mother of the strange idea that your degree in basket weaving does not qualify you to start your career as a Vice President. It is the mother of the idea that sometimes people who are less qualified than you ON PAPER are actually smarter than you and deserve better than you. It is the mother of the idea that you can't claim or keep what you have not honestly EARNED.

If this seems to target the yuppies who seem to think that the world is their oyster because of the degree they obtained from some college that is stuffed to the hilt with liberal professional brain-washers is better than the degree EARNED in the School of Hard Knocks, it is because I met both kinds.

As a normal and sober person - if I were an employer - I would prefer the self-taught, honest hard-working hillbilly to an "educated", degree-boasting punk who could not cope with life on his/her own merit at age 26 (you know, the age until their momma and daddy look after their sorry asses) than I did when I struck out on my own as an 18-year-old immigrant with no degrees and minimal knowledge of English.

If you are a crybaby and feel like crying for yourself or if you are a crybaby sympathizer, go ahead and call me a racist, misogynist, homophobe and - for a good measure - an anti-Muslim bigot, go ahead, I will wear your labels as a badge of honor.

There was one period in my life that I was on Unemployment Insurance, in 1962, when the weekly benefit was $27.00. I was on it for four weeks.

And then, what did I do? I got a job with a tobacco farmer to pick tobacco leaves, 12 hours a day, then pack them into a drying kiln, a workday that lasted from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.

Why did I do that? Maybe because I knew that there were no extensions and if I did not do something useful with my life I would starve.

And what did I do with the money I earned as a tobacco picker?

I used it to support myself as an adult student in order to enroll in high school as an adult student and earn my diploma and make something useful with my life.

Extension of unemployment benefits only encourages laziness, tardiness, disrespect for self-sufficiency, diminishing of self-respect, honor and work ethics.

It is sad when encouraging UI recipients to find a job is considered RACIST.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

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.....

That's why rw's say the bums who can't live on minimum wage should just go out and get a second job.

What's wrong with that? There have been times I worked 3 jobs. If I needed more money, I worked more. What makes them so much better than me that they should only work the 8 hour day?

 

[Sunshine]

No one can live on $7500 in a year.

Who said anything about living off of $7500 a year?

The OP did.

I think he has dementia.

 

[Sunshine]

No one can live on $7500 in a year.

Who said anything about living off of $7500 a year?

Indeed.

Old folks who don't have anything else, rely upon Social Security - we've all seen it time and again.

So, now, it's proposed to stop all benefits - including Social Security - for a year, in order to give every taxpayer a $7500 check?

That's great.

What are those large numbers of old folk - dependent upon Social Security - supposed to live on, for that year?

Zero?

Sounds like you're proposing that those folks live on zero ($0.00) for a year, right?

Not $7500.

But $0.

Is this a correct interpretation of what you're proposing?

Under the current system, whatever they took from SS for that year would still have to be repaid. The person who started this thread is an idiot. Par excellence.

Conservatives have not said that people should be left to starve. What we have said is that Welfare, SNAP, etc. need to be administered in such a way that the recipients can't take the money and barter it for street drugs. And I will own up to saying the able bodied should just work more. There is nothing holy about the 8 hour day. And most CEOs will tell you the never worked more than half a day. What's have a day? 12 hours.

 

[Old Rocks]

AS the old saying goes: "Necessity is the mother of all invention".

The same way, necessity is the mother of going to travel a few hundred miles to get a job. It is the mother of the idea to get a job, that may be somewhat under the dignity of your inflated ego. It is the mother of the strange idea that your degree in basket weaving does not qualify you to start your career as a Vice President. It is the mother of the idea that sometimes people who are less qualified than you ON PAPER are actually smarter than you and deserve better than you. It is the mother of the idea that you can't claim or keep what you have not honestly EARNED.

If this seems to target the yuppies who seem to think that the world is their oyster because of the degree they obtained from some college that is stuffed to the hilt with liberal professional brain-washers is better than the degree EARNED in the School of Hard Knocks, it is because I met both kinds.

As a normal and sober person - if I were an employer - I would prefer the self-taught, honest hard-working hillbilly to an "educated", degree-boasting punk who could not cope with life on his/her own merit at age 26 (you know, the age until their momma and daddy look after their sorry asses) than I did when I struck out on my own as an 18-year-old immigrant with no degrees and minimal knowledge of English.

If you are a crybaby and feel like crying for yourself or if you are a crybaby sympathizer, go ahead and call me a racist, misogynist, homophobe and - for a good measure - an anti-Muslim bigot, go ahead, I will wear your labels as a badge of honor.

Well, congratulations on working your way up. But you ain't the Lone Ranger, many, including myself, have worked our way up. Your stereotyping of people reveals that you haven't really had a lot of experiance with that many people or areas. Because there are many that cannot, except on a temporary basis, just move few hundred miles for a new job. Many have homes, and the jobs don't pay enough to rent and pay a mortgage at the same time. Many of the jobs that they would be moving for don't pay enough, period. Also there are people that are taking care of parents and reletives that have no other support other than them.

As many differant situations as there are differant individuals. And stereotyping them all as the same reveals an intellectual laziness.

 

[Sunshine]

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?

^^^^Moron. It's this kind of stupid shit that the cons would do, that would totally wreck everything in this country. If this happened, there would be 100 million people out on the street, or in prison just to get something to eat and a place out of the cold.

Paying $15k to keep a elderly person on Social Security, or paying $40k to keep that person in prison, which one is cheaper? Which one is dumber?

Do tell. You are free to look up and post any thread by a conservative that has said this.

 

[editec]

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?

Why shouldn't we do this?

Well for one because we'd be renigning on the debts we owe to SS recipients.

You DO understand that they ALREADY paid for the pittance they get, right?

YOu DO understand the concept of paying your debts, right?

Well, lad, what you just proposed was that the USA NOT pay what it OWES to those who paid their SS taxes all their lives.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Why shouldn't we do this?

Well for one because we'd be renigning on the debts we owe to SS recipients.

You DO understand that they ALREADY paid for the pittance they get, right?

YOu DO understand the concept of paying your debts, right?

Well, lad, what you just proposed was that the USA NOT pay what it OWES to those who paid their SS taxes all their lives.

The silly ass doesn't care in the least about the results as long as his supposed tax bill would be lowered. Personally, from the tone of his posts, I am betting that his tax bill is very low already. At least compared to that of a middle class earner.

 

[FJO]

AS the old saying goes: "Necessity is the mother of all invention".

The same way, necessity is the mother of going to travel a few hundred miles to get a job. It is the mother of the idea to get a job, that may be somewhat under the dignity of your inflated ego. It is the mother of the strange idea that your degree in basket weaving does not qualify you to start your career as a Vice President. It is the mother of the idea that sometimes people who are less qualified than you ON PAPER are actually smarter than you and deserve better than you. It is the mother of the idea that you can't claim or keep what you have not honestly EARNED.

If this seems to target the yuppies who seem to think that the world is their oyster because of the degree they obtained from some college that is stuffed to the hilt with liberal professional brain-washers is better than the degree EARNED in the School of Hard Knocks, it is because I met both kinds.

As a normal and sober person - if I were an employer - I would prefer the self-taught, honest hard-working hillbilly to an "educated", degree-boasting punk who could not cope with life on his/her own merit at age 26 (you know, the age until their momma and daddy look after their sorry asses) than I did when I struck out on my own as an 18-year-old immigrant with no degrees and minimal knowledge of English.

If you are a crybaby and feel like crying for yourself or if you are a crybaby sympathizer, go ahead and call me a racist, misogynist, homophobe and - for a good measure - an anti-Muslim bigot, go ahead, I will wear your labels as a badge of honor.

Well, congratulations on working your way up. But you ain't the Lone Ranger, many, including myself, have worked our way up. Your stereotyping of people reveals that you haven't really had a lot of experiance with that many people or areas. Because there are many that cannot, except on a temporary basis, just move few hundred miles for a new job. Many have homes, and the jobs don't pay enough to rent and pay a mortgage at the same time. Many of the jobs that they would be moving for don't pay enough, period. Also there are people that are taking care of parents and reletives that have no other support other than them.

As many differant situations as there are differant individuals. And stereotyping them all as the same reveals an intellectual laziness.

And yet, you stereo-typed me as a "Lone Ranger". At least you did not go as far as calling me a racist and a hater of the so-called "Native Americans", for which I am grateful to you.

Stereotyping people has a firm root in reality.

Here are a few examples so that you can understand:

Lithuanian people are NOT associated with organized crime, because they are not. Italians are because they are.

German people are not associated with Rap and Break Dancing because - by definition - the have no rhythm. Black People are.

People from Ghana are particularly good at ice hockey, because they are not. Canadians, Russians and Americans are, because they are.

So before you damn stereo-typing, stop being intellectually lazy and use your brains.