I've seen this bubbling under the surface for a while, but haven't paid too much attention because, well, it's hard to spy on a group working in near total secrecy (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/secrecy_at_the_deficit_commiss.php) when coupled with a media culture that doesn't give a shit:
http://feeds.salon.com/~r/salon/greenwald/~3/4qqJ_56Fg44/simpson
QuoteThe President's Deficit Commission is designed to be as anti-democratic and un-transparent as possible. Its work is done in total secrecy. It is filled with behind-the-scenes political and corporate operatives who steadfastly refuse to talk to the public about what they're doing. Its recommendations will be released in December, right after the election, to ensure that its proposals are shielded from public anger. And the House has passed a non-binding resolution calling for an up-or-down/no-amendments vote on the Commission's recommendations, long considered the key tactic to ensuring its enactment. The whole point of the Commission is that the steps which Washington wants to take -- particularly cuts in popular social programs, such as Social Security -- can occur only if they are removed as far as possible from democratic accountability. As the economist James Galbraith put it when testifying before the Commission in July:
QuoteYour proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. . . . First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. . . .
Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in Social Security and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public . . .
Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare, raises the most serious questions.
That's why Commission co-chair Alan Simpson -- with his blunt contempt for Social Security and and other benefit programs (such as aid to disabled veterans) and his acknowledged eagerness to slash them -- has done the country a serious favor. His recent outbursts have unmasked this Commission and shed light on its true character. Unlike his fellow Commission members, who imperiously dismiss public inquiries into what they're doing as though they're annoying and inappropriate, Simpson -- to his genuine credit -- has been aggressively engaging critics, making it impossible to ignore what the Commission is really up to.
In June, he walked out of a Commission meeting and proceeded to engage in an amazingly informative, 8-minute colloquy streaming in real time on the front page of FDL, making unambiguously clear that the Commission is working to cut Social Security benefits. And over the last several weeks, he has used increasingly flamboyant rhetoric to attack both defenders of Social Security and the program itself, as well as even attacking wounded veterans for failing to sacrifice enough by giving up some of their benefits. Whatever one thinks of Simpson's remarks, I prefer his public, engaged candor to the extreme, arrogant secrecy of his fellow Members.
Throughout last year, a few lone, progressive voices were sounding the alarm that the core goal of the President's Commission was to enable cuts in Social Security, but the Commission was operating in such stealth, and the idea was so inconceivable that Obama would lead cuts in Social Security, that few believed it. The Democrats' plan was clearly to try to win the midterm election by telling people that the GOP wanted to attack Social Security and the Democrats would protect it, only to turn around once the election was over and then enact the Commission's Social Security reductions. Simpson's comments have changed all that. Now, even the hardest-core Democratic loyalists are objecting to the Party's plan; here is lifelong Party operative Bob Shrum, of all people, blowing the whistle on what the Democrats are trying to do with this Commission:
QuoteSo why not campaign all-out, in [Tip] O'Neill's plainspoken way, against a GOP that is disloyal to the most successful -- and most popular -- social program in American history?
Because Democrats have been disarmed by the president's deficit reduction commission, which plainly intends to propose Social Security cuts.
Rather than allow such cuts to be greased through the lame duck session of a decimated Democratic Congress, or passed under cover of "bipartisanship" in a decidedly more Republican one next year, shouldn't the case be stated and debated before the election? (Right now, Social Security is treated as the issue that dare not speak its name.) There is also the question of Democratic identity: What does the party stand for if not Social Security? And then there is the question of Democratic stupidity: Qualified and muted comments by Democrats in effect suggesting that Democrats won't endanger Social Security as much as the other guys will can only further pave the road to defeat.
The president's deficit reduction commission was a response to a series of popular myths -- that the federal deficit is a root cause of our economic distress and that Social Security is a root cause of the deficit. . . . So the deficit commission has targeted Social Security, which has nothing to do with the deficit.
Simpson's comments have triggered a parade of similar evidence. Key Democratic House member Chris Van Hollen pointedly refused to vow that Democrats would vote against Social Security cuts when pressed by MSNBC's Cenk Uygur, and several progressive pundits -- including TPM's Brian Beutler and Ezra Klein -- this week documented what has been clear for some time: that the Commission is stacked with ideologically conservative and corporatist appointments from both parties likely to recommend cuts in Social Security.
But perhaps the most significant result of Simpson's candor is that Obama loyalists and Beltway media voices are now forced to publicly defend Social Security cuts, because Simpson's comments have prematurely dragged out into the open what has been an open secret in Washington but was supposed to be a secret plot for everyone else until the election was over. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait recently decreed, in response to the Simpson controversy, that "liberals should be open to Social Security cuts as part of a balanced package of deficit reduction." And in The Washington Post today, both the Editorial Page and Dana Milbank defend Simpson and call for cuts in Social Security (Milbank even defends cuts in aid to wounded veterans). That Social Security must be cut is not only a bipartisan consensus among the GOP and "centrist" Democratic wing, but at least as much, among the Beltway media establishment.
This last point is the critical one for me, and most illustrative of why I find the effort to cut Social Security so appalling. For the moment, leave to the side abstract debates over the propriety of social programs, or even debates over specific proposals such as raising the retirement age or means-testing. Instead, let's look at what is happening more broadly:
One of the most significant developments in the U.S. is the rapidly and severely increasing rich-poor gap. A middle class standard of living is being suffocated and even slowly eliminated, as budget cuts cause an elimination of services that are hallmarks of first-world living. Because the wealthiest Americans continue to consolidate both their monopoly on wealth and, more important, their control of Congress and the government generally, we respond to all of this by enacting even more policies which exacerbate that gap and favor even more the wealthiest factions while taking more from the poorest and most powerless. And now, the very people responsible for the vulernable financial state of the U.S. want to address that problem by targeting one of the very few guarantors in American life of a humane standard of living: Social Security.
Advocates of cutting Social Security -- like Jonathan Chait and the Post's Fred Hiatt -- are the same people who cheered on the attack on Iraq and other policies of endless American War, which have drained America's budget and turned it into a debtor nation. Millions of other human beings -- but not, of course, them -- suffered and sacrificed for those policies. And now that it's time to address the economic carnage caused by all of this, to what do they turn for savings? The handful of social programs which provide at least some small guarantee of a minimally decent standard of living in old age.
Even those who are ideologically opposed to "social programs" as confiscatory or "socialist" should find this glaring disparity in treatment highly objectionable. The government policies which most benefit the wealthiest -- the owners of the Government -- continue unabated: endless war, private Surveillance State explosions, Wall Street bailouts, too-big-to-fail banks, perhaps even extending Bush tax cuts, while the programs on which the most vulnernable depend are targeted to pay for all that. There have been some gestures during the Obama presidency to work against this trend -- most notably the increase of health care subsidies for millions of poor people -- but targeting Social Security in order to pay for wars, to feed the private Surveillance State, and to extend Bush tax cuts or the suspension of the estate tax is pernicious no matter one's economic ideology. This isn't about free market capitalism; it's crony capitalism -- oligarchy -- where government policies are constructed to transfer wealth to the same small faction at the top.
In the Post today, Milbank justifies the targeting of Social Security recipients and wounded veterans on the ground that nothing should be "sacrosanct" when considering how to solve America's deficit problem. Leaving aside the fact that Social Security is not really a deficit issue, the true causes of America's debt and deficits are absolutely sacrosanct and will never be attacked by this Commission. Does anyone believe it's even remotely possible that meaningful cuts in America's war and military spending, surveillance and intelligence networks, or even corporate-plundering of America's health care system will be enacted as a result of this Commission process? Of course not. Those genuine debt-causing policies are "sacrosanct" because the people who profit from them own and control Washington (and share common socio-economic interests with the millionaire Commission members targeting social programs and the billionaires who are behind this). It's the people who don't control Washington -- ordinary Americans who need Social Security -- who are being targeted in order to feed even further the fattest, most piggish factions actually in control. That's what makes this process so ugly and odious.
Christ. The money in social security is not general tax funds, it is paid in specifically by every worker for the purpose of retirement.
IF, and I mean BIG IF, this passes it just might wake Americans up. Although I doubt it except for the elderly and disabled. And they have no voice anyway.
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
So what is your answer? I mean, some of that money is mine, paid in for a specific reason on a non-voluntary basis. Over a period of decades.
Clearly you are meant to forget about the hundreds of billions the US government forwards to its backers in the military-security-industrial complex and agitate first and foremost for Social Security to be abandoned, because clearly this will allow taxes to be lowered the fastest and thus achieve Libertopia.
Quote from: Cain on September 05, 2010, 05:23:22 PM
Clearly you are meant to forget about the hundreds of billions the US government forwards to its backers in the military-security-industrial complex and agitate first and foremost for Social Security to be abandoned, because clearly this will allow taxes to be lowered the fastest and thus achieve Libertopia.
Yeah. More likely now that I am disabled I will load my guns and sharpen my pitchfork. They have been targeting SS for decades.
The next logical step will be to kill everyone who is unable to work or is retiring. I mean, since we are such dregs on society and all.
There is a truly hilarious angle to this whole rush to reduce the deficit and pay off debts....but I'm saving that for a rant. Just be assured, this is a strike by the oligarchs in government against everyone else, regardless of how they wish to dress it up. There is a much easier option, but if they did things that way, artificial scarcity and fear could not be used to rob you of what you've earnt and paid for.
Quote from: Cain on September 05, 2010, 05:28:42 PM
There is a truly hilarious angle to this whole rush to reduce the deficit and pay off debts....but I'm saving that for a rant. Just be assured, this is a strike by the oligarchs in government against everyone else, regardless of how they wish to dress it up. There is a much easier option, but if they did things that way, artificial scarcity and fear could not be used to rob you of what you've earnt and paid for.
I look forward to the rant. My solution is to reduce defense spending and stop empire building and get out of senseless wars.
I never understood why some Americans get all, "we can't pay for this!" I mean I think I heard in like 20 years social security benefits (which are on surplus right now) will drop by 20 %. I'm pretty sure they could pay for that.
I mean they're the richest country in the world, why don't they start acting like it.
Countries half the size have something similar.
Ah what am I saying? Rome was one of the richest empires on the world at one time and many of their subjects starved to death.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 05, 2010, 05:35:14 PM
I never understood why some Americans get all, "we can't pay for this!" I mean I think I heard in like 20 years social security benefits (which are on surplus right now) will drop by 20 %. I'm pretty sure they could pay for that.
I mean they're the richest country in the world, why don't they start acting like it.
Countries half the size have something similar.
Ah what am I saying? Rome was one of the richest empires on the world at one time and many of their subjects starved to death.
There are no kickbacks for protecting SS. Now, defense spending, on the other hand.........
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 04:16:35 PM
Christ. The money in social security is not general tax funds, it is paid in specifically by every worker for the purpose of retirement.
IF, and I mean BIG IF, this passes it just might wake Americans up. Although I doubt it except for the elderly and disabled. And they have no voice anyway.
I thought the elderly were the single most civic-minded segment of the population, in terms of voting frequency, likelyness to
actually write letters to their elected officials, etc.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on September 05, 2010, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 04:16:35 PM
Christ. The money in social security is not general tax funds, it is paid in specifically by every worker for the purpose of retirement.
IF, and I mean BIG IF, this passes it just might wake Americans up. Although I doubt it except for the elderly and disabled. And they have no voice anyway.
I thought the elderly were the single most civic-minded segment of the population, in terms of voting frequency, likelyness to actually write letters to their elected officials, etc.
That does not equate to being heard.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 05:30:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 05, 2010, 05:28:42 PM
There is a truly hilarious angle to this whole rush to reduce the deficit and pay off debts....but I'm saving that for a rant. Just be assured, this is a strike by the oligarchs in government against everyone else, regardless of how they wish to dress it up. There is a much easier option, but if they did things that way, artificial scarcity and fear could not be used to rob you of what you've earnt and paid for.
I look forward to the rant. My solution is to reduce defense spending and stop empire building and get out of senseless wars.
Not a bad one, but this is even better...plus it has historical precedent on it's side, and will make the deficient hawks cry like babies.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on September 05, 2010, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 04:16:35 PM
Christ. The money in social security is not general tax funds, it is paid in specifically by every worker for the purpose of retirement.
IF, and I mean BIG IF, this passes it just might wake Americans up. Although I doubt it except for the elderly and disabled. And they have no voice anyway.
I thought the elderly were the single most civic-minded segment of the population, in terms of voting frequency, likelyness to actually write letters to their elected officials, etc.
I'm going to expound on your comment. First, please use a finer brush, your current one is far too broad.
The AARP is the primary voice for the elderly. Now exclude most who are in nursing homes. Then exclude the apathetic ones. Next exclude all who don't understand or who have been brought up to think you can't fight the government.
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between
$880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Now, remember everybody who is working 'contributes' to social security as a means of retirement.
Social Security provides disability insurance and survivor's benefits, but when people talk about it, they tend to be referring to its role as a program that provides income support to retirees. The average monthly benefit of $1,170 replaces about 39 percent of the person's pre-retirement earnings. Over the next two decades, the "replacement rate" is slated to drop to 31 percent. That is less than in most developed countries -- the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
ranks it 25 out of 30 member nations.
Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children (or letting in enough immigrants). As Stephen C. Goss, the system's chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance "because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman." That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. "Importantly," Goss continues, "this shortfall is basically stable after 2035." In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090400096.html?hpid=topnews
So when the younger group wants to talk about how we didn't do anything to deserve our money back, or that it isn't our money, I say to you, study a bit and quit listening to the howls from your lawmakers and others who are benefitting from other programs personally. remember, a rich person doesn't need SS.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 06:13:18 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on September 05, 2010, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 04:16:35 PM
Christ. The money in social security is not general tax funds, it is paid in specifically by every worker for the purpose of retirement.
IF, and I mean BIG IF, this passes it just might wake Americans up. Although I doubt it except for the elderly and disabled. And they have no voice anyway.
I thought the elderly were the single most civic-minded segment of the population, in terms of voting frequency, likelyness to actually write letters to their elected officials, etc.
I'm going to expound on your comment. First, please use a finer brush, your current one is far too broad.
The AARP is the primary voice for the elderly. Now exclude most who are in nursing homes. Then exclude the apathetic ones. Next exclude all who don't understand or who have been brought up to think you can't fight the government.
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Now, remember everybody who is working 'contributes' to social security as a means of retirement.
Social Security provides disability insurance and survivor's benefits, but when people talk about it, they tend to be referring to its role as a program that provides income support to retirees. The average monthly benefit of $1,170 replaces about 39 percent of the person's pre-retirement earnings. Over the next two decades, the "replacement rate" is slated to drop to 31 percent. That is less than in most developed countries -- the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks it 25 out of 30 member nations.
Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children (or letting in enough immigrants). As Stephen C. Goss, the system's chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance "because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman." That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. "Importantly," Goss continues, "this shortfall is basically stable after 2035." In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090400096.html?hpid=topnews
So when the younger group wants to talk about how we didn't do anything to deserve our money back, or that it isn't our money, I say to you, study a bit and quit listening to the howls from your lawmakers and others who are benefitting from other programs personally. remember, a rich person doesn't need SS.
Yeah, that's just what you WOULD say, you socialist!
Quote from: Kai on September 05, 2010, 06:31:05 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 06:13:18 PM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on September 05, 2010, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 04:16:35 PM
Christ. The money in social security is not general tax funds, it is paid in specifically by every worker for the purpose of retirement.
IF, and I mean BIG IF, this passes it just might wake Americans up. Although I doubt it except for the elderly and disabled. And they have no voice anyway.
I thought the elderly were the single most civic-minded segment of the population, in terms of voting frequency, likelyness to actually write letters to their elected officials, etc.
I'm going to expound on your comment. First, please use a finer brush, your current one is far too broad.
The AARP is the primary voice for the elderly. Now exclude most who are in nursing homes. Then exclude the apathetic ones. Next exclude all who don't understand or who have been brought up to think you can't fight the government.
When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $216 billion and $361 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Now, remember everybody who is working 'contributes' to social security as a means of retirement.
Social Security provides disability insurance and survivor's benefits, but when people talk about it, they tend to be referring to its role as a program that provides income support to retirees. The average monthly benefit of $1,170 replaces about 39 percent of the person's pre-retirement earnings. Over the next two decades, the "replacement rate" is slated to drop to 31 percent. That is less than in most developed countries -- the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ranks it 25 out of 30 member nations.
Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children (or letting in enough immigrants). As Stephen C. Goss, the system's chief actuary, has written, Social Security projects an imbalance "because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman." That means there are relatively fewer young people paying for the old people. "Importantly," Goss continues, "this shortfall is basically stable after 2035." In other words, we only have to fix Social Security once.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090400096.html?hpid=topnews
So when the younger group wants to talk about how we didn't do anything to deserve our money back, or that it isn't our money, I say to you, study a bit and quit listening to the howls from your lawmakers and others who are benefitting from other programs personally. remember, a rich person doesn't need SS.
Yeah, that's just what you WOULD say, you socialist!
:lulz:
Damned if that didn't touch a nerve. Didn't mean to rant up like that.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves. The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things. It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.
Quote from: Cain on September 05, 2010, 05:23:22 PM
Clearly you are meant to forget about the hundreds of billions the US government forwards to its backers in the military-security-industrial complex and agitate first and foremost for Social Security to be abandoned, because clearly this will allow taxes to be lowered the fastest and thus achieve Libertopia.
cheap shot is soooo cheap.
didn't advocate for that at all in that post.
in fact, I'd be the first person (behind you that is) to say fuck the military-security-industrial complex and that THIS is where cuts need to be made. Appropriated spending is spending we know about.. I want it ALL appropriated. and accounted for. and cut.
This may not jive with any preconceived illusions about libertarians you may already hold.
or the reality many of them DO hold.
I'm ok with that.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
Then consider it theft. Ignore that only a one time fix is needed because by 2035 it will all balance out as us boomers die off.
Turn your back on the primary contributors to the system.
Feel better now? So cut services. No, seriously, listen to the wealthy who will never see a cent of SS money because they don't qualify for it.
Please advocate stepping on those of us who have contributed for decades, after all, we are old and worthless now, right? Should we all be eauthanized now or wait until the money is gone? Or do you prefer the method of ignoring us as we starve to death or die from no access to meds?
But, as I stated earlier in this thread, please continue to listen to the howls of the wealthy, who this doesn't affect.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
Jesus H Christ. We should just echo the LP board.
I mean, if we're going to get stock, canned opinions.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 01:07:08 AM
Quote from: Cain on September 05, 2010, 05:23:22 PM
Clearly you are meant to forget about the hundreds of billions the US government forwards to its backers in the military-security-industrial complex and agitate first and foremost for Social Security to be abandoned, because clearly this will allow taxes to be lowered the fastest and thus achieve Libertopia.
cheap shot is soooo cheap.
didn't advocate for that at all in that post.
in fact, I'd be the first person (behind you that is) to say fuck the military-security-industrial complex and that THIS is where cuts need to be made. Appropriated spending is spending we know about.. I want it ALL appropriated. and accounted for. and cut.
This may not jive with any preconceived illusions about libertarians you may already hold.
or the reality many of them DO hold.
I'm ok with that.
TFYS.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 05, 2010, 07:28:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves. The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things. It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.
Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit. I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so.
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 05, 2010, 07:28:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves. The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things. It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.
Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit. I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so.
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
So. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 03:38:10 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
Then consider it theft. Ignore that only a one time fix is needed because by 2035 it will all balance out as us boomers die off.
Turn your back on the primary contributors to the system.
Feel better now? So cut services. No, seriously, listen to the wealthy who will never see a cent of SS money because they don't qualify for it.
Please advocate stepping on those of us who have contributed for decades, after all, we are old and worthless now, right? Should we all be eauthanized now or wait until the money is gone? Or do you prefer the method of ignoring us as we starve to death or die from no access to meds?
But, as I stated earlier in this thread, please continue to listen to the howls of the wealthy, who this doesn't affect.
again putting words in my mouth. does that happen a lot here?
I thought I was clear that the problem is that the demographics have changed and that there are now less people paying in than are going to need benefits out. Couple that with stagnant wages and rising inflation and you have problems with solvency.
I'm with Cain, cut defense spending to something resembling reality of need, end the empire before it collapses as England's did.
get politicians who are complicit in tapping the fund out of office and ban it from being used for anything else.
but then, that would take an informed voting population not voting for "anyone but the other guy"
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:47:21 PM
again putting words in my mouth. does that happen a lot here?
Yeah, because your argument has been advanced, verbatim, by at least four other Libertarians who preceded you. It's almost like a cut and paste, you know?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 04:46:25 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 05, 2010, 07:28:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves. The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things. It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.
Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit. I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so.
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
So. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
they deserve the government they have. Starve to death (dramatic much?) is not likely, as it's clear the benefits will be paid until it requires us to start borrowing to fund it, like we do almost everything else.
you guys.. love you guys, but you're still putting words into my posts that cannot be inferred from reading them.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:52:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 04:46:25 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 05, 2010, 07:28:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves. The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things. It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.
Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit. I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so.
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
So. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
they deserve the government they have. Starve to death (dramatic much?) is not likely, as it's clear the benefits will be paid until it requires us to start borrowing to fund it, like we do almost everything else.
you guys.. love you guys, but you're still putting words into my posts that cannot be inferred from reading them.
I just go to http://lp.org and I can see what you're going to write 3 posts ahead.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 03:38:10 AM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
Then consider it theft. Ignore that only a one time fix is needed because by 2035 it will all balance out as us boomers die off.
Turn your back on the primary contributors to the system.
Feel better now? So cut services. No, seriously, listen to the wealthy who will never see a cent of SS money because they don't qualify for it.
Please advocate stepping on those of us who have contributed for decades, after all, we are old and worthless now, right? Should we all be eauthanized now or wait until the money is gone? Or do you prefer the method of ignoring us as we starve to death or die from no access to meds?
But, as I stated earlier in this thread, please continue to listen to the howls of the wealthy, who this doesn't affect.
again putting words in my mouth. does that happen a lot here?
I thought I was clear that the problem is that the demographics have changed and that there are now less people paying in than are going to need benefits out. Couple that with stagnant wages and rising inflation and you have problems with solvency.
I'm with Cain, cut defense spending to something resembling reality of need, end the empire before it collapses as England's did.
get politicians who are complicit in tapping the fund out of office and ban it from being used for anything else.
but then, that would take an informed voting population not voting for "anyone but the other guy"
so the problems I'm stating do not exist unless you're thinking about it from a libertarian view point? The solutions I've offered involve massive cuts to defense spending and closing of over seas bases.
I'm aware that also tends to be a libertarian solution to illiquid funding of the promises made to our people for retirement benefits, but are you discounting them because they're libertarian in nature?
I understand your aversion to identity politics, and I share that aversion, but the fact is that like minded people WILL come together to share ideas (and yeah, reinforce their own world view at times) but is that what you seriously think I'm doing?
I have spent a lot of time on boards for all three parties, and found I identify more with these proposed ideas.
That doesn't mean I'm not doing my own cognitive reasoning and rejecting any ideas that are fucking loony tunes.
some of you seem far more reactionary than I have ever been to thoughts and ideas. Could be I've just caught you on a day where you feel like hammering on some noobage.
I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own. So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:00:49 PM
I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own. So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?
30% more government.
But I don't want to
help, remember.
I just get a giggle out of someone who has bought into an ism.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:00:49 PM
I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own. So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?
30% more government.
But I don't want to help, remember.
I just get a giggle out of someone who has bought into an ism.
and i get a kick out of someone who says something like this:
QuoteSo. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
and then advocates for something that would ensure it.
I'm not sure yet whether you believe what you say, about not wanting to help, or you're just a very intelligent troll.
I'm guessing when you talk about Discord, if you ever do, you always leave off the ism
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:00:49 PM
I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own. So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?
30% more government.
But I don't want to help, remember.
I just get a giggle out of someone who has bought into an ism.
and i get a kick out of someone who says something like this:
QuoteSo. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
and then advocates for something that would ensure it.
I'm not sure yet whether you believe what you say, about not wanting to help, or you're just a very intelligent troll.
I'm guessing when you talk about Discord, if you ever do, you always leave off the ism
Actually, I stopped being serious the moment you announced you religious beliefs (ie, the LP).
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:52:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 04:46:25 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 05, 2010, 07:28:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves. The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things. It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.
Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit. I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so.
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
So. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
they deserve the government they have. Starve to death (dramatic much?) is not likely, as it's clear the benefits will be paid until it requires us to start borrowing to fund it, like we do almost everything else.
you guys.. love you guys, but you're still putting words into my posts that cannot be inferred from reading them.
Know what? If you had even read any of what I posted you would see that it is a one time problem brought about by people having fewer kids.
Why do you insist on taking what is mine? Who gave you that authority? Not me. It will require a ONE TIME fix, but, please don't allow fucking facts to get in your way.
Why is the idea of starving to death a joke with you? What are they supposed to buy food with? Your rhetoric?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:10:48 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:00:49 PM
I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own. So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?
30% more government.
But I don't want to help, remember.
I just get a giggle out of someone who has bought into an ism.
and i get a kick out of someone who says something like this:
QuoteSo. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
and then advocates for something that would ensure it.
I'm not sure yet whether you believe what you say, about not wanting to help, or you're just a very intelligent troll.
I'm guessing when you talk about Discord, if you ever do, you always leave off the ism
Actually, I stopped being serious the moment you announced you religious beliefs (ie, the LP).
do you even vote anymore?
god knows I'd understand if you didn't, I've wanted to stop for years..
but I'm curious.
Hell, Dok. We're just getting old and senile and our right to life and opinion just doesn't count. Please just roll off of the travois into a snowbank and die now, i will be on the next one.
Interesting how, no matter how we may have voted, that we are being blamed for the government of the past isn't it? But the government is so much better now that I guess they will show us how to do it right.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 05:13:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:52:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 04:46:25 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 05, 2010, 07:28:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves. The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things. It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.
Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit. I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so.
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
So. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
they deserve the government they have. Starve to death (dramatic much?) is not likely, as it's clear the benefits will be paid until it requires us to start borrowing to fund it, like we do almost everything else.
you guys.. love you guys, but you're still putting words into my posts that cannot be inferred from reading them.
Know what? If you had even read any of what I posted you would see that it is a one time problem brought about by people having fewer kids.
Why do you insist on taking what is mine? Who gave you that authority? Not me. It will require a ONE TIME fix, but, please don't allow fucking facts to get in your way.
Why is the idea of starving to death a joke with you? What are they supposed to buy food with? Your rhetoric?
CB, I should have addressed your post more closely, sorry for that. I haven't advocated "taking what is yours" It's yours, you paid it in, you should get it back. I read the Post article you posted, which is a reasoned solution, but it's also a solution I hear almost no one in D.C. discussing. Either the think tanks are floundering on this, or there's a bigger problem than we're being told and that solution would not fill up the potential hole of that possible problem.
That solution sounds workable, but if it would really work, why isn't it being yelled from the mountain tops in our nations capital?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
Dude that's fucking harsh.
Yeah so they may be responsible for whatever, but that's neither here nor there.
You need to take care of the elderly, they are people's parents and even if not they deserve a fucking decent standard of living like any other human being even when they're too old to work.
Plus there's always the question in how far "those people" were really responsible for their government. Last time I checked you have been playing this two-man Con for the better part of this century. I'm not too well educated on USA political history, but if I'm getting the OP ITT right, let's say you wanted to vote FOR social welfare last elections. You thought you were doing a good job by voting for teh Obama. BZZZZZZZZZZZZT apparently not. Would it have been better to vote the republican guy? Hell no. So third party, would that have helped? Let's say it would have. Do you think it would be fair if in 30 years when our kids are stuck with the crap that your government has made for them today, the kids would blame all the current-day US voters that didn't vote for the magical third-party rainbow unicorn?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:21:05 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 05:13:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:52:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 04:46:25 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on September 05, 2010, 07:28:32 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 05, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
The entire system resembles a Ponzi Scheme. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or whatever colloquialism you want to use.
It's unsustainable based on several factors:
Population growth and therefore payroll taxes as new workers enter the market, has not met the number of people in the Baby Boomer generation that have begun to retire.
Inflation has always outpaced wages, so the amount of payroll tax taken out for social security has stayed stagnant, even as prices have continued to rise for everything, especially health care and prescription drugs.
You cannot continue to take in diminishing taxes to fund a system that has only ever seen increasing costs. Either the cost for services has to come down, or the amount of services has to come down.
I'm considering it theft at this point in my life, as all data seems to say that there will be no real money left in the system when I reach retirement age in 2045.. and that's if they don't raise the minimum age, which is highly unlikely.
The issue is, people paid into the fund not to pay for older folks, but to pay for themselves. The government then chose to use that money to pay for other things. It is not old folks fault the government did this and they are not the right sector to cut to make up the difference.
Not saying that the only solution is to cut their benefit. I am aware the government spent it on other things, of course they would, because they believe themselves above retribution for doing so.
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
So. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
they deserve the government they have. Starve to death (dramatic much?) is not likely, as it's clear the benefits will be paid until it requires us to start borrowing to fund it, like we do almost everything else.
you guys.. love you guys, but you're still putting words into my posts that cannot be inferred from reading them.
Know what? If you had even read any of what I posted you would see that it is a one time problem brought about by people having fewer kids.
Why do you insist on taking what is mine? Who gave you that authority? Not me. It will require a ONE TIME fix, but, please don't allow fucking facts to get in your way.
Why is the idea of starving to death a joke with you? What are they supposed to buy food with? Your rhetoric?
CB, I should have addressed your post more closely, sorry for that. I haven't advocated "taking what is yours" It's yours, you paid it in, you should get it back. I read the Post article you posted, which is a reasoned solution, but it's also a solution I hear almost no one in D.C. discussing. Either the think tanks are floundering on this, or there's a bigger problem than we're being told and that solution would not fill up the potential hole of that possible problem.
That solution sounds workable, but if it would really work, why isn't it being yelled from the mountain tops in our nations capital?
Obvious answer is fucking obvious. They want the money. What? If SS was dropped you actually think your taxes would go down? :lulz:
Kids.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 06, 2010, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
Dude that's fucking harsh.
Yeah so they may be responsible for whatever, but that's neither here nor there.
You need to take care of the elderly, they are people's parents and even if not they deserve a fucking decent standard of living like any other human being even when they're too old to work.
Plus there's always the question in how far "those people" were really responsible for their government. Last time I checked you have been playing this two-man Con for the better part of this century. I'm not too well educated on USA political history, but if I'm getting the OP ITT right, let's say you wanted to vote FOR social welfare last elections. You thought you were doing a good job by voting for teh Obama. BZZZZZZZZZZZZT apparently not. Would it have been better to vote the republican guy? Hell no. So third party, would that have helped? Let's say it would have. Do you think it would be fair if in 30 years when our kids are stuck with the crap that your government has made for them today, the kids would blame all the current-day US voters that didn't vote for the magical third-party rainbow unicorn?
Yeah, that pissed me right the fuck off.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:14:15 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:10:48 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:04:09 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:00:49 PM
I like the way you think Howl, rejecting established ideas out of hand and forming your own, but I haven't heard you offer any of your own. So what does the Dok think is the best prescription for what ails us?
30% more government.
But I don't want to help, remember.
I just get a giggle out of someone who has bought into an ism.
and i get a kick out of someone who says something like this:
QuoteSo. 2/3rds of old people deserve to starve.
I see.
and then advocates for something that would ensure it.
I'm not sure yet whether you believe what you say, about not wanting to help, or you're just a very intelligent troll.
I'm guessing when you talk about Discord, if you ever do, you always leave off the ism
Actually, I stopped being serious the moment you announced you religious beliefs (ie, the LP).
do you even vote anymore?
god knows I'd understand if you didn't, I've wanted to stop for years..
but I'm curious.
Yes, I vote. Out of any given collection of professional liars, there is one that's nuttier or just funnier than the rest. That's the one I vote for.
someone is really disenfranchised in this thread
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 06, 2010, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
Dude that's fucking harsh.
Yeah so they may be responsible for whatever, but that's neither here nor there.
You need to take care of the elderly, they are people's parents and even if not they deserve a fucking decent standard of living like any other human being even when they're too old to work.
Plus there's always the question in how far "those people" were really responsible for their government. Last time I checked you have been playing this two-man Con for the better part of this century. I'm not too well educated on USA political history, but if I'm getting the OP ITT right, let's say you wanted to vote FOR social welfare last elections. You thought you were doing a good job by voting for teh Obama. BZZZZZZZZZZZZT apparently not. Would it have been better to vote the republican guy? Hell no. So third party, would that have helped? Let's say it would have. Do you think it would be fair if in 30 years when our kids are stuck with the crap that your government has made for them today, the kids would blame all the current-day US voters that didn't vote for the magical third-party rainbow unicorn?
Again, someone thinking I'm saying "fuck old people" when clearly I'm not. Anything that was contributed, was promised to be paid back, and should be paid back. Broad brushing me as a heartless human who wants old people to just die off is out of touch with the reality of ANYTHING I've tried to contribute to this thread.
What I did say, and yeah, it sounds pretty damn harsh, is this: the generation that contributed MOST to the fund, also put in place people all over the country who continue to vote for increased military spending, allowing the SS coffer to be raided for other things, and who's only solution to the liquidity problem is to raise the taxes on the children of that generation in order to sweep the misdeeds under the rug and cover for the massive inflation that will require more benefit paid out than is paid in, in cost of living increases.
So if I'm saying, "you made your bed, lie in it" then yeah, that part of my arguement is harsh, and pretty cut throat.. I'll be the first to admit that.
maybe I'm more like Dok than I'm really admitting, and just want to see the whole fuckin thing burn down. Nearly every baby boomer I've had in depth conversations with has bought into the "us vs them" idea of Foreign Policy with regard to the middle east, advocated for bombing brown people who don't run their country like we would want them to, and tells me in plain words that every generation since theirs has just been shit and they get what they deserve for being a bunch of slackers and video game addicts and drug addicts.
How is that collective mindset any different?
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:33:55 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 06, 2010, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
Dude that's fucking harsh.
Yeah so they may be responsible for whatever, but that's neither here nor there.
You need to take care of the elderly, they are people's parents and even if not they deserve a fucking decent standard of living like any other human being even when they're too old to work.
Plus there's always the question in how far "those people" were really responsible for their government. Last time I checked you have been playing this two-man Con for the better part of this century. I'm not too well educated on USA political history, but if I'm getting the OP ITT right, let's say you wanted to vote FOR social welfare last elections. You thought you were doing a good job by voting for teh Obama. BZZZZZZZZZZZZT apparently not. Would it have been better to vote the republican guy? Hell no. So third party, would that have helped? Let's say it would have. Do you think it would be fair if in 30 years when our kids are stuck with the crap that your government has made for them today, the kids would blame all the current-day US voters that didn't vote for the magical third-party rainbow unicorn?
Again, someone thinking I'm saying "fuck old people" when clearly I'm not. Anything that was contributed, was promised to be paid back, and should be paid back. Broad brushing me as a heartless human who wants old people to just die off is out of touch with the reality of ANYTHING I've tried to contribute to this thread.
What I did say, and yeah, it sounds pretty damn harsh, is this: the generation that contributed MOST to the fund, also put in place people all over the country who continue to vote for increased military spending, allowing the SS coffer to be raided for other things, and who's only solution to the liquidity problem is to raise the taxes on the children of that generation in order to sweep the misdeeds under the rug and cover for the massive inflation that will require more benefit paid out than is paid in, in cost of living increases.
So if I'm saying, "you made your bed, lie in it" then yeah, that part of my arguement is harsh, and pretty cut throat.. I'll be the first to admit that.
maybe I'm more like Dok than I'm really admitting, and just want to see the whole fuckin thing burn down. Nearly every baby boomer I've had in depth conversations with has bought into the "us vs them" idea of Foreign Policy with regard to the middle east, advocated for bombing brown people who don't run their country like we would want them to, and tells me in plain words that every generation since theirs has just been shit and they get what they deserve for being a bunch of slackers and video game addicts and drug addicts.
How is that collective mindset any different?
Nice to know the world has remained static for the last 60 years. Seriously, it wasn't different then. Back in the good old days when only the Japanese were afraid of nuclear weapons. But I suppost 2/3 of them deserved to be afraid, didn't they?
So, thanks old timers, for doing your best to hold shit together so the kids have today, now GTFO and die, thanks,
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:33:55 PM
Again, someone thinking I'm saying "fuck old people" when clearly I'm not. Anything that was contributed, was promised to be paid back, and should be paid back.
The fact that people need(ed) it up until now indicates that they'll need it in the future. What is your solution for disabled or feeble elderly people in the future?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:43:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:33:55 PM
Again, someone thinking I'm saying "fuck old people" when clearly I'm not. Anything that was contributed, was promised to be paid back, and should be paid back.
The fact that people need(ed) it up until now indicates that they'll need it in the future. What is your solution for disabled or feeble elderly people in the future?
See Soylent Green for details.
Meh, I need to back out of this one.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:43:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:33:55 PM
Again, someone thinking I'm saying "fuck old people" when clearly I'm not. Anything that was contributed, was promised to be paid back, and should be paid back.
The fact that people need(ed) it up until now indicates that they'll need it in the future. What is your solution for disabled or feeble elderly people in the future?
See Soylent Green for details.
Meh, I need to back out of this one.
Well, that was my thinking too, but I'd like to see HIS answer.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:33:55 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 06, 2010, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 04:40:44 PM
As to not blaming Older Folks for the government spending the money. eh.. Those older folks were younger folks once, and voted for their government, sometimes leaving the same people in Congress for decades.. For any who didn't vote, or who didn't understand or who didn't care and just pulled the lever for anyone but "the other guy"
well, they got the government they deserved, and I have no sympathy for them.. and if I'm being honest, I harbor a general resentment of the baby boomers in general, as a generation, for the government they've kept in power. Not saying they're all clueless idiots who followed the first lemming blindly off the cliff.. but damn if the largest voting population in history didn't set us on this course, I'm not sure who else did.
Dude that's fucking harsh.
Yeah so they may be responsible for whatever, but that's neither here nor there.
You need to take care of the elderly, they are people's parents and even if not they deserve a fucking decent standard of living like any other human being even when they're too old to work.
Plus there's always the question in how far "those people" were really responsible for their government. Last time I checked you have been playing this two-man Con for the better part of this century. I'm not too well educated on USA political history, but if I'm getting the OP ITT right, let's say you wanted to vote FOR social welfare last elections. You thought you were doing a good job by voting for teh Obama. BZZZZZZZZZZZZT apparently not. Would it have been better to vote the republican guy? Hell no. So third party, would that have helped? Let's say it would have. Do you think it would be fair if in 30 years when our kids are stuck with the crap that your government has made for them today, the kids would blame all the current-day US voters that didn't vote for the magical third-party rainbow unicorn?
Again, someone thinking I'm saying "fuck old people" when clearly I'm not. Anything that was contributed, was promised to be paid back, and should be paid back. Broad brushing me as a heartless human who wants old people to just die off is out of touch with the reality of ANYTHING I've tried to contribute to this thread.
What I did say, and yeah, it sounds pretty damn harsh, is this: the generation that contributed MOST to the fund, also put in place people all over the country who continue to vote for increased military spending, allowing the SS coffer to be raided for other things, and who's only solution to the liquidity problem is to raise the taxes on the children of that generation in order to sweep the misdeeds under the rug and cover for the massive inflation that will require more benefit paid out than is paid in, in cost of living increases.
So if I'm saying, "you made your bed, lie in it" then yeah, that part of my arguement is harsh, and pretty cut throat.. I'll be the first to admit that.
maybe I'm more like Dok than I'm really admitting, and just want to see the whole fuckin thing burn down. Nearly every baby boomer I've had in depth conversations with has bought into the "us vs them" idea of Foreign Policy with regard to the middle east, advocated for bombing brown people who don't run their country like we would want them to, and tells me in plain words that every generation since theirs has just been shit and they get what they deserve for being a bunch of slackers and video game addicts and drug addicts.
How is that collective mindset any different?
Nice to know the world has remained static for the last 60 years. Seriously, it wasn't different then. Back in the good old days when only the Japanese were afraid of nuclear weapons. But I suppost 2/3 of them deserved to be afraid, didn't they?
So, thanks old timers, for doing your best to hold shit together so the kids have today, now GTFO and die, thanks,
yeah, Iran-Contra was really holding things together, wasn't it?
Setting up all of the pieces necessary for the Iranian Revolution, training "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan to fight "Dem Commie Reds"
Blank Check support for Israel, no matter what they might do to anyone else.
Supporting "Kuwaiti Independence" for British Petroleum interests.
Making sure Afghanistan is a modern day wasteland in order to ensure poppy field's aren't touched.
basically NTFYS on world politics and accepting what was spoon fed from D.C. special interests.
I'm reminded of a quote from THHGTTG: "Bloody apathetic planet, I've no sympathy at all"
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 05:46:06 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on September 06, 2010, 05:43:27 PM
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:33:55 PM
Again, someone thinking I'm saying "fuck old people" when clearly I'm not. Anything that was contributed, was promised to be paid back, and should be paid back.
The fact that people need(ed) it up until now indicates that they'll need it in the future. What is your solution for disabled or feeble elderly people in the future?
See Soylent Green for details.
Meh, I need to back out of this one.
Well, that was my thinking too, but I'd like to see HIS answer.
If the system can remain liquid, I see no reason NOT to continue it. This is a large hurdle that I believe can be overcome without complete collapse. Hard decisions will have to be made that will make very powerful and influential people in the defense industry very angry. Massive cuts to defense spending combined with a rational deflationary monetary policy that should mirror the drop in the birth rate and thus, drop in population and number of people entering the work force.
If wages will remain stagnant, and history has shown that they have compared to inflation, then controlled deflation should help us cover costs as well as allow a return to normal prices compared to wages.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:54:59 PM
yeah, Iran-Contra was really holding things together, wasn't it?
Setting up all of the pieces necessary for the Iranian Revolution, training "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan to fight "Dem Commie Reds"
Blank Check support for Israel, no matter what they might do to anyone else.
Supporting "Kuwaiti Independence" for British Petroleum interests.
Making sure Afghanistan is a modern day wasteland in order to ensure poppy field's aren't touched.
basically NTFYS on world politics and accepting what was spoon fed from D.C. special interests.
I'm reminded of a quote from THHGTTG: "Bloody apathetic planet, I've no sympathy at all"
So, because some things were bad, all things are bad.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on September 06, 2010, 05:33:55 PM
If the system can remain liquid, I see no reason NOT to continue it. This is a large hurdle that I believe can be overcome without complete collapse. Hard decisions will have to be made that will make very powerful and influential people in the defense industry very angry. Massive cuts to defense spending combined with a rational deflationary monetary policy that should mirror the drop in the birth rate and thus, drop in population and number of people entering the work force.
If wages will remain stagnant, and history has shown that they have compared to inflation, then controlled deflation should help us cover costs as well as allow a return to normal prices compared to wages.
Controlled deflation? Please elaborate.
and before you say it, no, I did not read that from some LP page or other.
can't remember the last time I was on one actually. A lot of those fuckers are off their rocker survivalist types that rub me the wrong way.
QuotePosted by: Doktor Howl
Insert Quote
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on Today at 08:54:59 AM
yeah, Iran-Contra was really holding things together, wasn't it?
Setting up all of the pieces necessary for the Iranian Revolution, training "Freedom Fighters" in Afghanistan to fight "Dem Commie Reds"
Blank Check support for Israel, no matter what they might do to anyone else.
Supporting "Kuwaiti Independence" for British Petroleum interests.
Making sure Afghanistan is a modern day wasteland in order to ensure poppy field's aren't touched.
basically NTFYS on world politics and accepting what was spoon fed from D.C. special interests.
I'm reminded of a quote from THHGTTG: "Bloody apathetic planet, I've no sympathy at all"
So, because some things were bad, all things are bad.
those stand out, because we have proof of their stupidity in the way they manifest in current world affairs.
just because other's didn't bear fruit that requires future generations to mop up the mess, doesn't mean we should have still done them.
and it also doesn't mean the consequences will not or could not be felt in the future. I don't think we should be exporting democracy (whatever that is) and taking a "fumbling virgin in the dark" approach to foreign policy and military involvement in other soverign countries affairs.
what I mean by controlled deflation is this: after whatever recovery from this recession we will have, the inflation inherent in the system that pumped trillions of dollars in will begin to manifest in the sorts of conditions that existed in the 70's.. except there will not likely be as many people demanding higher wages, as there will not be as many people working. Stagflation of the economy, while always a potential risk, will likely only be garden variety high inflation, while wages stay stagnant.
The Fed will have to raise interest rates, like Volker did in the 80's, to rein in the money supply. The cost of borrowing will go up, while encouraging more savings as interest rates rise. This should be sustained as reasonably as possible, allowing the prices of goods, property, etc to come down to levels that resemble reality based on the prevailing wage and people's ability to borrow against their own collateral and savings.
Combine this with a push to buy up a large amount of our own countries reserves being held in foreign banks and return them to this country as collateral, reducing our debt pile, including buying a significant amount of China's Silver reserves (assuming they're still on the market) and giving this country a firm financial base on which to stand, maybe for the first time in decades.
There will be pain for some. That cannot be discounted. but the alternative is to continue to push off a real recovery on the next generation, when recession after recession, it becomes clear that they get worse and worse without adressing the fundamental problems in the money supply as it relates to real wages and savings rates.
We cannot compete in the global market with countries like china and mexico providing much lower labor costs, without trying to bring our own cost of labor down. THe only rational way to do that is to lower prices in a controlled manner and allow wages to fall behind them. If Inflation has always out paced wages, then the rational push to be competitive is to let wages follow deflation of the dollar.
THe concept of "Standard of Living" is based on the inflation in the system, since there's no longer a rational basis for the value of the dollar other than the collective delusion of the people using it. Use this to everyone's advantage and bring our "price to wage" ration back to normal levels.
if it's alright with you spags, I want to re post this last post in a new thread. I'd love some feedback on this, as It's an idea I've formulated out of my own reading, not something I copied and pasted.
I want to hear arguments for and against, and I want cannonball size holes shot in it where appropriate so I can go back and polish it as an idea and work out any bugs that CAN be worked out.
man, I sure can clear a thread.
:deadhorse:
Your post on those so called economics stunk the place up pretty bad.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 08:28:00 PM
Your post on those so called economics stunk the place up pretty bad.
I was discussing methods to fund SS, while simultaniously reducing the inflation inherent in requiring "cost of living increases"
benefiting all of us.
denying no one.
if economics stinks up a thread discussing the paying of SS, you guys are not talking about the world as it exists, but as you want it to exist.
doesn't mean I don't appreciate you giving me your point of view, but if you're discounting economics out of hand as an issue that needs to be a part of the discussion, then I think you may need to rethink that position.
Hello Pot, have you met Kettle? :lulz:
ACTUALLY THE REAL PROBLEMS TO SS IS
VETERANS
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/simpson-veterans-not-helping-us-save-country-from-debt.php
QuoteIf Social Security is "a cow with 310 million tits" then what's the proper metaphor for veteran's benefits? We don't know. But Alan Simpson seems to think they're too expensive. Or too overused. Or something. Anyway, it's bad.
"The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess," said Alan Simpson, co-chair of the White House's fiscal commission, according to the Associated Press.
Simpson was referring specifically to the disability benefits the Department of Veterans Affairs dispenses to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
According to AP, Simpson declined to comment on whether this issue would be examined by the commission. But as TPM has reported, some members of the commission have sought to prioritize cuts to service members and veteran benefits over other defense spending cuts.
The AP has also reported that Vietnam veterans are more frequently compensated for diabetes than for every other ailment, besides no sure link between the disease and Agent Orange. In 1991 Congress created a system of automatic benefits for Vietnam veterans who were or may have been exposed to Agent Orange.
wow
can he be anymore of douche?
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:15:09 PM
ACTUALLY THE REAL PROBLEMS TO SS IS
VETERANS
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/simpson-veterans-not-helping-us-save-country-from-debt.php
QuoteIf Social Security is "a cow with 310 million tits" then what's the proper metaphor for veteran's benefits? We don't know. But Alan Simpson seems to think they're too expensive. Or too overused. Or something. Anyway, it's bad.
"The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess," said Alan Simpson, co-chair of the White House's fiscal commission, according to the Associated Press.
Simpson was referring specifically to the disability benefits the Department of Veterans Affairs dispenses to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
According to AP, Simpson declined to comment on whether this issue would be examined by the commission. But as TPM has reported, some members of the commission have sought to prioritize cuts to service members and veteran benefits over other defense spending cuts.
The AP has also reported that Vietnam veterans are more frequently compensated for diabetes than for every other ailment, besides no sure link between the disease and Agent Orange. In 1991 Congress created a system of automatic benefits for Vietnam veterans who were or may have been exposed to Agent Orange.
wow
can he be anymore of douche?
What a prick.
Did he just say it is the fault of nam vets because they are getting care for being exposed to agent orange without knowing that at the time it would have bad bad health consequences?
Quote from: Cudgel on September 06, 2010, 11:18:37 PM
Did he just say it is the fault of nam vets because they are getting care for being exposed to agent orange without knowing that at the time it would have bad bad health consequences?
Give the man a cigar.
I totally see his point. All these old people are a drain on our economy and our hard working young people. If only he would realize that it is because of the vets that all our young people are pill poppers.
:|
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 06, 2010, 11:16:30 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on September 06, 2010, 11:15:09 PM
ACTUALLY THE REAL PROBLEMS TO SS IS
VETERANS
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/simpson-veterans-not-helping-us-save-country-from-debt.php
QuoteIf Social Security is "a cow with 310 million tits" then what's the proper metaphor for veteran's benefits? We don't know. But Alan Simpson seems to think they're too expensive. Or too overused. Or something. Anyway, it's bad.
"The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess," said Alan Simpson, co-chair of the White House's fiscal commission, according to the Associated Press.
Simpson was referring specifically to the disability benefits the Department of Veterans Affairs dispenses to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.
According to AP, Simpson declined to comment on whether this issue would be examined by the commission. But as TPM has reported, some members of the commission have sought to prioritize cuts to service members and veteran benefits over other defense spending cuts.
The AP has also reported that Vietnam veterans are more frequently compensated for diabetes than for every other ailment, besides no sure link between the disease and Agent Orange. In 1991 Congress created a system of automatic benefits for Vietnam veterans who were or may have been exposed to Agent Orange.
wow
can he be anymore of douche?
What a prick.
FTR: that wasn't me that said that.
I'm a dick, but I'm not a COMPLETE dick.
I beg to differ. :|
Called it, 10 months ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
QuotePresident Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue. . . . As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.
Also http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/politics/07fiscal.html
Quote"The President wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade."
:cry:
YAY!! Change we can believe in........
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 06:13:18 PM
Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children (or letting in enough immigrants).
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 06:13:18 PM
Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children (or letting in enough immigrants).
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 05, 2010, 06:13:18 PM
Which brings us to Social Security's financial "crisis." The issue isn't that Social Security is spending too much or that we're living too long. It's that we're not having enough children [size=9](or letting in enough immigrants)[/size].
Karma ITT.