Do you support cuts to your medicare and social security to help balance the budget?

2»

Replies

  • knitepoetknitepoet Senior Member Posts: 18,844 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Yep, if 4 things happen:

    1-ALL government officials have to go on the same plan I get, that includes Senators, Representatives, the President, ALL OF THEM, retroactive, forever. You were the cause of the problem, you can be part of the solution!
    2-All foreign aide and welfare has to stop, dead cold on it's tracks, TODAY. If they can't pay me after I've dumped a fortune into the system they can pay NO ONE!!!
    3-I get to keep my SS tax contribution AND the 6% my employer pays out for me too, Tax Free to put into my 401K, starting today and for the rest of my working days.
    4-My 401K and all earnings from my investments in it are mine, TAX FREE FOREVER, and they pass on to my children tax free and on to theirs and so on...

    If all 4 conditions are met they can keep whatever they already got...

    Anything less than that and we have NOTHING to talk about.
    :win:

    :that:
    Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates, Rule #37: There is no “overkill”. There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload”.


  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    Of course they do.....they're not going to let this monster die now.
    I just started collecting. My first job was in 1963, and I haven't paid in to it all these years to get screwed out of it now.

    That is all...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    ken55 wrote: »
    SS and Medicare are payroll taxes, not federal income taxes.

    Your OP was vague. It sounded like you were saying that they needed to pay into SS and Medicare.

    Just as an aside I'm not overly opposed to making the "lower 47%" pay some income tax, but I do find it funny that more than likely a good number of people who are actually in that lower 47% and don't realize it are many of the most vocal about pushing to raise their own taxes (and probably simultaneously complaining that their taxes are too high). News flash if you're married with 2 kids and make less than $50k you're one of the free loaders.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    SS should be in a "Lock-Box" and they can keep their greedy fingers out of it and it will work as designed.

    Technically it is. Functionally it is exactly the same as if the government had a large SS brokerage account that bought nothing but Treasury Bonds. The problem is when the government starts cashing in these bonds they have to come up with the cash from somewhere else (sell bonds to someone else/raise taxes). SS currently has $2.6T sitting in this trust fund.

    http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    The funny thing is, if anybody else set up the Ponzi scheme that we currently know as Social Security They would be frog-marched in front of the cameras for all to see. When Uncle does it, it's looked at as not only good, but something that has to be!

    Actually it's not a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes do not have a mechanism by which the people at the top of the pyramid are systematically kicked out. SS and Medicare have the advantage that people in the system die. If life expectancies never increased (or their increase was correctly anticipated) and the workforce was growing at a constant rate or was even the same size it could be solvent forever. The problem is the system was designed based upon poor assumptions of how many people would be working and how long individuals would collect their benefits. The problem comes down to the fact that old people are living too long and they didn't have enough kids. A better analogy would be an insurance plan where the managers grossly underestimated the risk and are now unable to pay out all their claims.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    There is NO repeat NO plan from anyone legit to cut current SS or Medicare benefits. All reductions are planned for people who are younger than 30.

    If changes in their eventual coverage are made, well, if you're 25 years old, tell me of ANY item that you can expect to be unchanged by the time you're 65. Who can see 40 years into the future, let along five?

    Btw, the "rumblings" are all coming from the Democrat party, and they are all false. The Democrat rumor mill is, as usual, sending out false trial balloons to the willing and servile press to lay the groundwork for suspicion against any potential reasonable changes.

    So the premise of the question itself is specious, being without merit.

    Unless, alpha, you can provide an actual link to an actual plan in progress that limits current SS or Medicare programs.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    There is NO repeat NO plan from anyone legit to cut current SS or Medicare benefits. All reductions are planned for people who are younger than 30.

    If changes in their eventual coverage are made, well, if you're 25 years old, tell me of ANY item that you can expect to be unchanged by the time you're 65. Who can see 40 years into the future, let along five?

    Btw, the "rumblings" are all coming from the Democrat party, and they are all false. The Democrat rumor mill is, as usual, sending out false trial balloons to the willing and servile press to lay the groundwork for suspicion against any potential reasonable changes.

    So the premise of the question itself is specious, being without merit.

    Unless, alpha, you can provide an actual link to an actual plan in progress that limits current SS or Medicare programs.

    The Ryan plan would have privatized medicare and just about every Republican officeholder and both major Republican candidates supported it.

    AARP is out basically trying to sell the idea that cuts in SS wouldn't be that bad:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/social-security-cuts-aarp_n_1344934.html

    Obama still seems to be in favor of the "grand bargain" based upon the Simpson-Bowles commission recommendations which included increases in the retirement age and cuts in benefits.
    After a golf game in June, Mr. Obama and Mr. Boehner began secret talks.

    In a few weeks, they seemed within a handshake of a potentially historic deal. Mr. Obama offered more than ever before, including changes in the Social Security cost-of-living formula and slowly raising Medicare’s eligibility age to 67, an idea that went beyond Bowles-Simpson. Mr. Boehner would support $800 billion in 10-year revenues.

    But in a drama that transfixed the world amid threats of an American default, the talks collapsed, revived and finally died.

    Mr. Obama, in early August, accepted a smaller deficit-reduction package with only spending cuts to secure Republican votes to raise the debt limit. A “super-committee” charged with finding more savings failed last fall, setting in motion $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts beginning in January 2013 unless the two sides identify alternative savings.

    Since then, in speeches around the country, Mr. Obama has emphasized job-creation spending and tax cuts more than deficit reduction. Gone from his still-pending legislation are some of the concessions he offered Mr. Boehner — presumably in reserve for the elusive grand bargain.

    At their recent lunch, Mr. Obama assured Mr. Bowles he would not give up. Mr. Bowles said the president talked of seeing “a real opportunity” for compromise after the election, when Republicans will be eager to avoid the expiration of Bush tax cuts and automatic cuts in military spending — suggesting another chance for a deal inspired by Bowles-Simpson.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/us/politics/obamas-unacknowledged-debt-to-bowles-simpson-plan.html?pagewanted=all
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, really?

    There is no $2.6T sitting in a trust fund. There is $2.6T worth of Government IOU's or as they call them, "special Issue" securities" baked by a government that is Trillions in debt already...

    "By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds."

    Go tell your broker you want to buy one of these special issue securities and see where that gets you. Whith the Feds you ALWAYS have to read the small print...

    Wambli, I take it your 401k doesn't contain any bond funds that hold US treasuries? There is absolutely no functional difference between the "government IOU's" in the SS trust fund and the "government IOU's" that just about every investor in the world views as the safest investment vehicle on the planet (just watch what happens to Treasury yields when the markets start to get scared). The only difference in these is that they're not openly traded and thus cannot be manipulated by wild swings in money flows.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • ADRidgeADRidge Member Posts: 173 Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    I just want out. Keep everything that has been taken from me at the point of a gun, and let me choose my own path and plans. Just stop taking more.

    This, 100%! Just let me opt out.
    In space no one can hear you scream... but if you put a helicopter up there, some jerk would complain about the noise!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    After giving this years of thought, I have come up with the perfect analogy for liberals and progressives. It is the lowly and humble check valve. Both liberals and progressives want to take from someone else to make it easier on themselves provided that they have no skin in the game other than raking in what was not theirs to begin with. They let what is not theirs flow in, but stop any outflow; just like a check valve.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,660 Senior Member
    No I don't but I see no other way out of this mess. They have to cut spending and raise taxes. I see no other solution.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    HELL NO!, I'd rather bet on Apple stock than the US Government. At least their debt is manageable and I'm almost sure they are not cooking the books...

    Good for you if your 401k allows you to invest in individual stocks. The 2 I've participated each only gave me an option of a dozen or two relatively generic diversified mutual funds as options to invest. Pretty much all of the bond funds have at least a small percentage invested in treasury bonds.

    On the topic of the trust fund, short of distributing it to individuals to invest and manage on their own and eliminating medicare and SS (yes I'd be for this too, but we know it'll never happen), how would you suggest the government better manage the trust fund? While answering keep in mind that $2.6T is approximately equal to 20% of the market value of all stocks traded on the NYSE. That's a scary amount of market power to put in the hands of anyone, let alone the govt. Not something I'd feel comfortable with.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,455 Senior Member
    Actually it's not a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes do not have a mechanism by which the people at the top of the pyramid are systematically kicked out. SS and Medicare have the advantage that people in the system die. If life expectancies never increased (or their increase was correctly anticipated) and the workforce was growing at a constant rate or was even the same size it could be solvent forever. The problem is the system was designed based upon poor assumptions of how many people would be working and how long individuals would collect their benefits. The problem comes down to the fact that old people are living too long and they didn't have enough kids. A better analogy would be an insurance plan where the managers grossly underestimated the risk and are now unable to pay out all their claims.

    So, what you're saying is that people who 'got in' early are taking too much out, and not enough newbies are getting in to fund those who have gone before? Son of a gun, you're right! I should have called this a pyramid scheme, not a ponzi scheme. My bad.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,741 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    So, what you're saying is that people who 'got in' early are taking too much out, and not enough newbies are getting in to fund those who have gone before? Son of a gun, you're right! I should have called this a pyramid scheme, not a ponzi scheme. My bad.

    More like a trapazoid that will require some tweaks to turn it into a sustainable rectangle. Not as fundamentally flawed as a pyramid.

    Then again the ponzi scheme meme is pretty well entrenched so carry on...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,967 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    After giving this years of thought, I have come up with the perfect analogy for liberals and progressives. It is the lowly and humble check valve. Both liberals and progressives want to take from someone else to make it easier on themselves provided that they have no skin in the game other than raking in what was not theirs to begin with. They let what is not theirs flow in, but stop any outflow; just like a check valve.
    Not just that, they want to take from many people that cannot fight back, there are many old people getting SS that
    for whatever reason do not have any other income. So the plan would be to reduce payments and make them choose between eating and medicine, that is is they get to see a doctor in the first place.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    Absolutely. Only for future generations though. No sense in penalizing people who paid into and are depending on this for their retirement.
    Social Security is the biggest part of our budget. Eleminate that, and start paying off our debt.
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,455 Senior Member
    More like a trapazoid that will require some tweaks to turn it into a sustainable rectangle. Not as fundamentally flawed as a pyramid.

    Then again the ponzi scheme meme is pretty well entrenched so carry on...

    Trapezoid schmapezoid. Not as fundamentally flawed? To what degree are we willing to accept flaws to our fundamentals? I suppose keeping with the status quo wouldn't be as fundamentally flawed as taking all monies collected for SS and mediscare to Vegas and putting it all on "00" , so maybe we shouldn't complain? As for sustainable, there is a problem. We have more people than wage-earners, and not all wage-earners pay in to the system. Yes, I understand everybody pays into SS and mediscare, but at least some take out more than goes in, and not just from those two programs. No matter how you want to massage the 'fundamentals', no matter how you want to adjust the requirements, no matter how much we soak the rich, that house of cards is eventually going to collapse. There just ain't enough glue to keep it standing.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • rbsivleyrbsivley Senior Member Posts: 1,055 Senior Member
    I don't support cuts for anyone who has worked and supported this country vs someone who is multiple generation welfare receiptant and never gave anything back. I'm in corressponced with the honorable Jeff Sessions now because of perposed changes in the retired military medical coverage.
    Randy

    Rank does not concur privileges. It imposes responsibility. Author unknown
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.