yes, you should have your bike taken away!ask JimMac or iH8rice, I take the go around (aka the Jim M line).
unhappy in LA?
get out of here you commie pinko!
Yes, and Social Security is bankrupt. Medicare in Bankrupt. Unemployment is bankrupt. This is simple financial accouting. Left coulumn: assets, Right Column: liabilities. Yes, bankrupt.
Have you read the HC bill? A couple key points include: taxing the value of benefits from those whose employers provide them, forcing ALL americans to have a natl HC id card, forcing all Americans to provide their banking information to HC providers (WHY?)...
I'm not concerned about the idea, it's the other **** buried in the bill.
I distrust bills that are too long and complex to understand and organizations that are too large to abolish.
Unfortunately, the Republicans didn't even bother offering a single plan (that wasn't something like "hey, free money to health insurance companies, we'll trust that to trickle down to the population") when they were in power. They were quite content to sit back and watch our health care (and quality of life) get prohibitively expensive, and even made sure that Medicare couldn't negotiate prices with drug companies... Since they utterly failed to do anything, now it's the Democrats turn. Is the proposed plan perfect? No, far from it. Is it better than our current system? Probably, ANYTHING would be better than our current system.
I still don't understand why socialized security (police, fire dept, military, not Social Security) and socialized education is ok, but socialized health is anathema...
Because Americans are idiots and love paying Ferrari prices for a Toyota Corolla.
That's the first part of the equation. The second, and major part, is the delusion that most Americans have about their financial prospects in the future. Huge numbers of people in this country plan to be very rich in 10-30 years, even when that goal is unattainable. That's why they freak out about tax increases on the top 1%...they plan to be there, as soon as the trailer gets paid off in 25 years...
I owe you rep. I've been saying this for years. America, home of the worlds grandest delusions.
To be fair I'm opposed to all that **** too, so not all of us are inconsistent.
Ahh, so you'd like education and protection from crime and disaster to be contingent on your ability to pay as well. Sort of like the middle ages, but with guns and stuff.
SS and Medicare aren't bankrupt yet and some changes in the programs can avoid that problem. The reason SS came about was because Americans were dying homeless and in poverty after they were forced to retire. Most people can't work forever and most people do a sh!tty job of planning for their future. How can they do a good job when they are consumed with buying the next must have gadget? I would prefer to not give my money to SS and be able to invest that money myself, but I know what the realities are and that most Americans need that money.
Really? on what basis? And do you really think that those sort of jobs could be done by a private industry? What could possibly go wrong?
Why should so many people be bailed out for doing the wrong/stupid thing? (housing foreclosures, for instance, GM another).
No, nothing could possibly be wrong with privatizing police and fire departments... I'm sure that highly-paid mercenaries would be far cheaper than 18 year old HS students recruited by the army as well.Really? on what basis? And do you really think that those sort of jobs could be done by a private industry? What could possibly go wrong?
You are not being punished for anything. Your reward is a life without worrying so much about your future and retirement. But it is part of a government's responsibility to protect citizens, even if that protection is only necessary because of poor choices.
they shouldn't.
As long as money is taken from my income to fund the poor choices of others, I am being punished. Social Security? It's not even factored into my retirement savings models. I am using the assumption it will be gone before I turn 65 (if they do not raise retirement age before then). I am having ~2% of my pre-tax income taken away to fund other individuals retirements, because they did not plan well enough. Again, not my problem.
I agree. But we don't live in a perfect world. So SIUP!
If I lived in a perfect world
I would spend my days lying in the sun
The party never ends in a perfect world
If your life has hit the skids
Wave goodbye to the wife & kids
Im ready to move in to a perfect world
Nacho cheese and anarchy
Boy that sure sounds good to me
Every kind of drug is free
In the new america
Shoot your pistol in the air
Celebrate a brand new year
Living leisurely in a perfect world
Everybodys drinking hams
Good by all you straight edge bands
Sit around and get a tan
In the new america
When I turn on my t.v.
Nothing but pornography
No more rated g in a perfect world
Strung out hookers everywhere
Have a picnic feed the bears
Now nobody even cares
In the new america
Nothing in this worlds for free
Cause everything belongs to me
No more green fees in a perfect world
Im not saying this is the case with everyone or even most of the folks out there, but it HAS occurred to you that our economy isn't large enough for everyone to succeed to the point that they can retire on their own savings, right? I mean, unless you want to "re-distribute the wealth" to the point that everyone makes enough to do that.
Sounds like socialism to me
Then maybe those that can't support themselves should stop breeding? If there are not enough jobs, then maybe they should stop creating competition.
OR
Maybe Americans as a whole need to stop feeling entitled, and go back to doing any job, say... farming? Illegal immigrants come from Mexico specifically for farming and "menial jobs" in restaraunt industry. How about we get rid of illegal immigrant one job at a time, and replace them with unemployed americans. Bet we would see a sudden decrease in unemployment (see less $$ output), increase in SS contributions (see more $$), decrease in welfare (see less $$ output).
Last edited:
Why do you hate pro mountain bikers?
PS: Who will be the new Upton Sinclair in your new world?
You might have a valid argument for some of the stupid stuff that our government pays out right now, but SS is not necessarily one of them. That *was* my grandparent's retirement plan. Living on a farm (with little income) they weren't required to pay into the SS plan but did voluntarily (and more than the minimum) so that they would be guaranteed a worry-free retirement. My parents are another example, they both paid into the SS system for 40+ years while they were working, and their retirement plan included IRAs, 401(k)s, a pension and SS. To claim that SS is only for people who get to age 67 and go "oh, wow, I totally forgot to save for retirement..." is almost completely false. Beneficiaries are only playing by the rules that they've been given and have played by for the last 40-50 years.
Don't forget, SS came about in a time of uncertainty, and it's only in hindsight that we know that investing that money in the S&P or DJIA would've had greater returns on investment. Take the example of the recent stock market plunge (and your predictions that it's going to go lower) or Japan's lost two decades, and extrapolate either of those occurrences over the next 20-40 years, and the idea of SS sounds pretty good compared to (what happened in Japan) a 66% drop in equity markets over the long term. Sure you're sitting in cash right now, but that foresight probably applies to .000001% of the population. If the short term pain in the stock market gets extended over the long term, having private retirement accounts aren't going to do the vast majority of Americans any good.
the tags on this thread are great 
I agree, but as someone who came out of retail brokerage, a LOT of older individuals I spoke with while having 401k and ira's, only put small amounts in expeciting to lean on SS.
One would hope that the older generations, those who lived through the tail end of the depression and whose parents experienced it would know to save, and many (most?) did not. The following generations - the tail end of the boomers, Gen X, Gen Y - are not saving. They are spending. CC debt would not be a 5x annual income (pre tax) if people were saving. It is mathematically impossible. Even if they were saving, racking up massive debt will only lead to spending money to service said debt, negating any savings.
Our society is one based on consumption, not savings. People are never at fault, and do not plan for the worst case scenario, be it financially, or physically. How many households in Cali have earthquake kits? Not many. How many have evacuation plans in in the NW if a volcano were to blow? Southeast for tornado's?
It all comes down to the fact that as a society, Americans in large have become dependent on someone else (the govt ==> Acutually taxpayers) to take care of them. As long as teh govt is taking out debt and spending more than is available, the govt is ALSO following this same MO, but using China and future generations to foot the bill.
This is NOT sustainable, the money will run out!
One would hope that the older generations, those who lived through the tail end of the depression and whose parents experienced it would know to save, and many (most?) did not. The following generations - the tail end of the boomers, Gen X, Gen Y - are not saving. They are spending. CC debt would not be a 5x annual income (pre tax) if people were saving. It is mathematically impossible. Even if they were saving, racking up massive debt will only lead to spending money to service said debt, negating any savings.
Our society is one based on consumption, not savings. People are never at fault, and do not plan for the worst case scenario, be it financially, or physically. How many households in Cali have earthquake kits? Not many. How many have evacuation plans in in the NW if a volcano were to blow? Southeast for tornado's?
It all comes down to the fact that as a society, Americans in large have become dependent on someone else (the govt ==> Acutually taxpayers) to take care of them. As long as teh govt is taking out debt and spending more than is available, the govt is ALSO following this same MO, but using China and future generations to foot the bill.
This is NOT sustainable, the money will run out!
Good luck with that, the Aussies hate boat people (perhaps your used to that
). Those that make it past the naval patrols they usually chuck in jail till they can biff them on the first plane outta there.
Which would create an aging population and that makes for several big problems........ Countries as a whole do tend to do very well when most of the population are retired.
Catch22 for that "solution"?
I was referring to the lower 5-10%'s predeliction to pumping out multiple children starting at a young age. Often referred to as breeders, they tend to be the less educated population from the lower economic strata. ie those who have no jobs, making more competitoin for the menial jobs available.
Let's throw'em in ovens.
Time for another:
Idiocracy Reference!
BTW, I also did not think it was that great a movie. But the more time that goes by the more it seems like a documentary made about the future.
Idiocracy Reference!
BTW, I also did not think it was that great a movie. But the more time that goes by the more it seems like a documentary made about the future.
Not necessary, cut the subsidies for farming and let food get more expensive. Those that don't starve will need to work, as their welfare will not support the increase in food costs. Because they will take any work to pay for food, they can start working at the jobs historically taken by illegal immigrants. In doing so, the following will happen:
1) Because there is less food/dollar, those on low fixed incomes will eat less; they will lose weight, needing less healthcare.
2) because they will need real jobs to pay for food, they will need to get jobs. Jobs increase tax inflow to govt, while reducing cash outflow to those on welfare now working.
3) Because people need to eat, they will take any job. The lower income levels will take over their historically held jobs: labor. A hungry American can pick strawberries as well as a hungry Mexican, see post-depression for example.
4) because all these previously unemployed, likely fat, americans are all now doing labor intensive jobs and eating less, they are getting in shape and in doing so are more healthy. They put less of a strain on the HC system, as they are not having mcdonald's induced coronaries while on medicare.
5) Due to massive demand for menial jobs by americans, jobs are filled, and illegal immigrants do not find this to be the 'land of opportunity' (could also be assisted by adding the phrase "born to parents legally in US" when referring to US citizenship). In leaving, they reduce the load on prisons and social welfare infrastructure.
We come full circle, reduce our fiscal liabilities caused by illegal immigrants, the welfare and HC systems, and the prison system. Increase employment rates amoung citizens, and boost our tax base. Problems sovled (sort of, minus that credit issue and stuff)
But... realistically, AMericans will continue to be fat and lazy and demand that someone else fix their problems...
1) Because there is less food/dollar, those on low fixed incomes will eat less; they will lose weight, needing less healthcare.
2) because they will need real jobs to pay for food, they will need to get jobs. Jobs increase tax inflow to govt, while reducing cash outflow to those on welfare now working.
3) Because people need to eat, they will take any job. The lower income levels will take over their historically held jobs: labor. A hungry American can pick strawberries as well as a hungry Mexican, see post-depression for example.
4) because all these previously unemployed, likely fat, americans are all now doing labor intensive jobs and eating less, they are getting in shape and in doing so are more healthy. They put less of a strain on the HC system, as they are not having mcdonald's induced coronaries while on medicare.
5) Due to massive demand for menial jobs by americans, jobs are filled, and illegal immigrants do not find this to be the 'land of opportunity' (could also be assisted by adding the phrase "born to parents legally in US" when referring to US citizenship). In leaving, they reduce the load on prisons and social welfare infrastructure.
We come full circle, reduce our fiscal liabilities caused by illegal immigrants, the welfare and HC systems, and the prison system. Increase employment rates amoung citizens, and boost our tax base. Problems sovled (sort of, minus that credit issue and stuff)
But... realistically, AMericans will continue to be fat and lazy and demand that someone else fix their problems...
You say "lean on SS," but it's a government promised retirement plan. These people have paid into it their whole lives, and to deny it to them would be no different than someone taking your 401(k) or personal IRA. You've paid into it this whole time, it's been promised to you, and you're relying on it for retirement... what's the difference? By your logic, someone could take that away and *you* then wouldn't have prepared enough for retirement since you put all your faith into your 401k/IRA.
Not the right word then, these are people who expected SS to support them, with their other savings to be used for lifestyle.
Agree, but we have had this conversation before. To the greater extent, our generation does NOT save, they are relying on SS/govt/who knows. Gen X/Y are consumers.dante said:
I agree. Some services I have no problems paying taxes for: Fire, Police, Military (within reason), Mental Health, Emergency Response, etc.dante said:
If the govt wants to provide SS, fine, however REQUIRE that people save x% of their pre-tax income, either through SS or a private plan. Require those plans to invest in SAFE investments, and let it chug. Also, close the loopholes that allow funds to be taken from SS and put into the general fund. No IOU's. It MUST be held as a seperate fund base.
Totally agree. You dig your hole, live in it.dante said:
Wasn't trying to.dante said:
Heh...
conflation...heh...
conflation...heh...
Then they're bad at math. When I get my SS statement and it tells me that I'll get $1000/month when I retire, I know I can't live on $12k/year. I don't think that anybody that's expecting SS is thinking that they're going to get *more* than they're promised. They just want what's been guaranteed to them by the US gov't, and then they'll have to figure out how to make do. Nobody that I know of is pushing for increased benefits, other than SS keeping track with inflation.
See, I'd add general health to this as well. Why is it ok for me to be able to call the police if someone has a gun to my head and is going to kill me, but I can't call on the government to provide for my chemotherapy if I get cancer?
See, you're looking at this from the wrong perspective, in that it is always better for money to be invested instead of distributed amongst beneficiaries. So far, yes, it would have been better to have invested the SS money in the stock market, or hell, government bonds. But as we've seen in the past year (or in the past 20 years in Japan) safe stocks go down, unsafe bonds went down, safe securities went WAY down (AAA rated MBS), and US Gov't bonds formed one of the biggest bubbles that's yet to burst. Combine that with the effort to beat inflation (so your money isn't just sitting there LOSING value), and the impact that trillions of dollars of new money is going to be forced into the equities/securities market looking for a place to go, and I'm not so sure that's such a great idea.
People already do have to do the first part of your post, which is put aside a certain percentage of their income. That's the SS tax, and I've paid into it ever since I was 16. The only reason I get annoyed that I've paid so much into it is that it's not (as of now) going to be solvent when I get to retiring age. That's an easy enough fix, though, if they get rid of the cap on taxable income and possibly to raise the tax rate. But totally agree on the fact that the extra should NOT be added to the general budget. They should only require as much taxes as to pay out next years benefits. That would be a tax CUT for the next 15 years, and then a tax increase.
I really, really want to touch President Camacho's hair.
My mantis style can defeat your crane style. But not snake style.
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!