"Total Boomer Luxury Communism"

[HikerGuy83]

As appealing as that “split” is, I’m going to have to go with the scheduled 24% benefit cut in a few years.

Won't happen. They'll just pull from the treasury and run up the debt that much faster.

We put spineless politicians in place and then want to give them charge of our health care system.

What a complete joke.

 

[Mr Natural]

Eliminate the earnings cap and Social Security will be just fine.

 

[Stryder50]

If Boomers are willing to trade their Medicare coverage for HSAs, could be a solution.

Ah ... NO!
HSAs need to be started earlier in life, like in one's 20's ideally.

If one could come up with a phased, pro-rated implement, maybe it would work ....

 

[Lisa558]

So higher taxes and benefit cuts for subsequent generations, and for a retired Boomer couple pulling in $150K . . . no consequences whatsoever?

As appealing as that “split” is, I’m going to have to go with the scheduled 24% benefit cut in a few years.

A retired couple pulling in $150,000 did so by investing responsibly, and that isn’t necessarily “rich” living in some of the expensive Democrat cities anyway. In San Francisco and New York, it’s barely middle class.

 

[Lisa558]

If Boomers are willing to trade their Medicare coverage for HSAs, could be a solution.

After paying into Medicare for 40 years? Why should we?

If SNAP recipients would be willing to give up their soda and candy that taxpayers are covering, we could divert that money to help keep Medicare solvent.

Why punish the elderly who no longer have earning capacity, and keep handing money over to welfare recipients who waste it on diabetes-causing purchases? Have you seen how obese some welfare leeches are?!

 

[Greenbeard]

A retired couple pulling in $150,000 did so by investing responsibly, and that isn’t necessarily “rich” living in some of the expensive Democrat cities anyway. In San Francisco and New York, it’s barely middle class.

Okay, and by "split the pain" you mean exempt them from it entirely and put it all on someone else?

Why punish the elderly who no longer have earning capacity, and keep handing money over to welfare recipients who waste it on diabetes-causing purchases? Have you seen how obese some welfare leeches are?!

Who's "punishing" anyone? This is the law, it's been in place for decades.

Anyway, maybe you haven't been following the news this year but everybody is getting a cut. ACA and SNAP next year, Medicaid the following year, and then the Boomers in five years or so. Everybody's got to tighten their belts.

 

[Greenbeard]

After paying into Medicare for 40 years? Why should we?

Putting aside that the plurality of Medicare spending is funded out of general revenue, not payroll tax contributions, lots of Boomers are getting freebies they didn't pay for.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought Trump was going to replace Obamacare in 2017?

You believed Trump?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How old are you?

For me, personally, I would have been much better off without Social Security and just investing my contributions. I’ve run calculations, and my income from those savings would be almost TWICE what I get from SS now.

I'm 43. I would prefer to we eliminate SS altogether and let people be responsible for their own retirement.

 

[Lisa558]

I'm 43. I would prefer to we eliminate SS altogether and let people be responsible for their own retirement.

I’d be for that as well, but two issues:

1) You can’t pull that on current retirees or those near retirement.

2) You’d still be left with a large group of irrrsponsible people - even those who earn $100,000+ - who will spend like there’s no tomorrow, and they’ll end up at age 65 with $10,000 saved for their golden years (if that), and they will cry that they have no money, can’t afford rent, can’t buy groceries, no way to pay next month’s heating bill, etc., etc., and bleeding heart liberals will end up bailing them out, and using the money from the responsible people.

 

[Greenbeard]

2) You’d still be left with a large group of irrrsponsible people - even those who earn $100,000+ - who will spend like there’s no tomorrow, and they’ll end up at age 65 with $10,000 saved for their golden years (if that), and they will cry that they have no money, can’t afford rent, can’t buy groceries, no way to pay next month’s heating bill, etc., etc., and bleeding heart liberals will end up bailing them out, and using the money from the responsible people.

When those bleeding heart liberals try to avert the long-coming 24% cut to checks in a few years, it'll be our responsibility to shut them down. Taxed-enough-already, deficit is too high, etc., etc.

 

[Lisa558]

When those bleeding heart liberals try to avert the long-coming 24% cut to checks in a few years, it'll be our responsibility to shut them down. Taxed-enough-already, deficit is too high, etc., etc.

You’re so eager to spread your leftism all over that you missed the point that I am talking about current retirees who already contributed to SS for 40 years.

 

[Greenbeard]

You’re so eager to spread your leftism all over that you missed the point that I am talking about current retirees who already contributed to SS for 40 years.

And you bleeding heart liberals need to accept that they're going to get what money is available to give them, which means if they haven't bothered to start preparing over the past several decades they better start now.

 

[jknowgood]

If Boomers are willing to trade their Medicare coverage for HSAs, could be a solution.

Not one Republican voted for Obama care.

 

[Lisa558]

And you bleeding heart liberals need to accept that they're going to get what money is available to give them, which means if they haven't bothered to start preparing over the past several decades they better start now.

You’re not comprehending the problem: you bleeding heart liberals want to keep giving all sorts of free money to young irresponsible adults who have kid after kid, with SNAP, and rent subsidies, and TANF, etc., etc., while you are threatening to take money away from elderly who have contributed to SS for 40 years.

Are you so deluded by leftism you can’t understand the difference between irresponsible 25 year olds with four kids who never had a job or paid taxes (or a husband), and elderly who have contributed to society and SS for their entire working lives?

More upside down values from today’s libtards.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Its all Boomer Communism till Mondami throws your gay relative or friend off the roof.

 

[Greenbeard]

You’re not comprehending the problem: you bleeding heart liberals want to keep giving all sorts of free money to young irresponsible adults who have kid after kid, with SNAP, and rent subsidies, and TANF, etc., etc., while you are threatening to take money away from elderly who have contributed to SS for 40 years.

Are you so deluded by leftism you can’t understand the difference between irresponsible 25 year olds with four kids who never had a job or paid taxes (or a husband), and elderly who have contributed to society and SS for their entire working lives?

More upside down values from today’s libtards.

SNAP is being cut by 20%+ so don't worry, lots of people will be sharing in the pain.

TANF costs in a year what Social Security costs in a week, so if you want to lop off a quarter of that spending too and give it to Social Security that gets you back about 1-2 days of the 88 days in Social Security spending that are going to be cut.

 

[Lisa558]

SNAP is being cut by 20%+ so don't worry, lots of people will be sharing in the pain.

TANF costs in a year what Social Security costs in a week, so if you want to lop off a quarter of that spending too and give it to Social Security that gets you back about 1-2 days of the 88 days in Social Security spending that are going to be cut.

The welfare recipients who are sitting at home can get a job and earn money for food. These people have never paid federal income taxes, Medicare taxes, or SS taxes.

The elderly you want to starve have already contributed for decades and have no way of earning money,

You are a typical Marxist - ready to let the elderly die because they no longer are useful, while incentivizing single women to have baby after baby because other people will support them.

If you hate the baby boomers that much, get off your IPhone, turn off your TV, and turn down cutting edge medical devices.

 

[Oddball]

SNAP is being cut by 20%+ so don't worry, lots of people will be sharing in the pain.

TANF costs in a year what Social Security costs in a week, so if you want to lop off a quarter of that spending too and give it to Social Security that gets you back about 1-2 days of the 88 days in Social Security spending that are going to be cut.

But we'll save $2,500 on our medical insurance!

FU

 

[Greenbeard]

The elderly you want to starve have already contributed for decades and have no way of earning money,

Retirees (Boomers + Silent generation) are sitting on about $106 trillion in wealth (nearly 2/3 of all wealth in the United States). If they worked and lived responsibly, they'll be fine.

If they didn't, they can rely on additional supports like SNAP and Medicaid. Oh wait, we're slashing those too.

You are a typical Marxist - ready to let the elderly die because they no longer are useful, while incentivizing single women to have baby after baby because other people will support them.

Discomfort with extracting ever-more wealth from struggling working families to further feather the nest of the richest generation in world history is . . . Marxism?