Tax, tax, tax... thats the plan

[SteamWake]

A senior administration official said the president will not explicitly call for a cap on carbon emissions or a carbon tax. In that sense, he may be laying the political groundwork for a less ambitious bill funding clean energy research and development.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575308782107364538.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[Zachstar]

We need massive funds for development of solar and algae based biofuels. No I am not naive enough to think it will do more than put a dent in coal use but solar is most effective in summer in the blazing sun meaning it gives our EXPENSIVE and aging power grid system a bit of a reprieve in danger areas.

The energy crisis in California at the turn threatened to destabilize the economy. We cant afford not to have massive funds for development

[tater]

We need massive funds for development of solar and algae based biofuels. No I am not naive enough to think it will do more than put a dent in coal use but solar is most effective in summer in the blazing sun meaning it gives our EXPENSIVE and aging power grid system a bit of a reprieve in danger areas.

The energy crisis in California at the turn threatened to destabilize the economy. We cant afford not to have massive funds for development

We don't need massive government funds, if it's cost effective, it's cost effective. Sort of like recycled materials—they are only useful when they are competitive with "virgin" stuff.

What we need are more nuclear plants.

You like to ask for massive taxpayer subsidy. Just curious, how many hundred grand a year do you pay in income taxes?

[Tchocky]

We don't need massive government funds, if it's cost effective, it's cost effective. Sort of like recycled materials—they are only useful when they are competitive with "virgin" stuff.

What we need are more nuclear plants.

Thank god those nuclear plants don't cost the governement a dime

[gimpy117]

Good! its about time we made some money so we don't have to keep paying the middle east for fuel, or giving money to BP just for them to cause huge disasters.

And what happens when we start to run out of Viable oil wells? we need a backup unless we want to go back to the stone age.

Funny how the republican party....the same party how started one of the most expensive wars in history are suddenly worried about fiscal responsibility! I guess when it fits your agenda you are all for it!

[UnderseaLcpl]

We need massive funds for development of solar and algae based biofuels. No I am not naive enough to think it will do more than put a dent in coal use but solar is most effective in summer in the blazing sun meaning it gives our EXPENSIVE and aging power grid system a bit of a reprieve in danger areas.

I really hate getting on your case every time we talk about this, ZS. But think about it, man. If those were such good alternatives, don't you think somebody would have capitalized on them by now?

Let me put it another way; do you remember what happened last time we bought the whole "green energy/biofuel" bit?

I don't want to sound condescending or harsh or anything, but think about how this stuff works, boss. It's great that you're concerned and I hope you never lose your enthusiasm for this kind of stuff, but it isn't as easy as just saying "x should do y".

When you create a tax-based revenue source for something that seems like a good idea, there will be people looking to obtain some of that revenue. It won't be people like you or me,who are concerned but not involved, it will be established interests who are in the best position to take advantage. Naturally their interest is not in actually making the thing work, but in the bottom line. When you give them handouts you're actually impeding technological development buy giving industry an easy out. Why develop an effective biofuel or other energy source when the state will give you a handout for making corn-ethanol? Why pay for expensive R&D when the state will do the work for you? Why try to give people what they want and will pay for when you can easily co-opt an agency that will simply take their money? Where's the incentive? Perversely enough, that's how it usually works.


The energy crisis in California at the turn threatened to destabilize the economy. We cant afford not to have massive funds for development

Again, I would like for you to really think about this. It wasn't just California who deregulated energy, it was everyone, and not everyone had such severe or lasting problems. California didn't have an energy crisis because its energy industry was different or worse. It didn't have less access to resources. The only thing that set it apart was that, unlike most states, it tried to retain control. The measures implemented by people who listened to people like you actually messed things up more than they helped. Ask McBee, this is one of his personal bugbears. :DL

[Platapus]

Funny how the republican party....the same party how started one of the most expensive wars in history are suddenly worried about fiscal responsibility! I guess when it fits your agenda you are all for it!

That's one of the reasons I am now a Recovering Republican. :D

[tater]

Good! its about time we made some money so we don't have to keep paying the middle east for fuel, or giving money to BP just for them to cause huge disasters.

And what happens when we start to run out of Viable oil wells? we need a backup unless we want to go back to the stone age.

Funny how the republican party....the same party how started one of the most expensive wars in history are suddenly worried about fiscal responsibility! I guess when it fits your agenda you are all for it!

As a point of information, demonstrate that the war is even "one of" the most expensive in history.

Raw dollars is not an acceptable answer. % of GDP per year would be best.

WW2 was around 15.5% of US GDP (239% of federal expenditures—deficit to pay for it, basically).

Viet Nam was 1.8% of GDP (36.7% of fed expenses)

Iraq? 1.1% of GDP (18.3% of fed expenses) (as of 2007) That had 450B, and the new total is over 700B. Even doubled it's not the most expensive, however. Not even close to WW2 in constant dollars. It's in fact not even close in actual dollars. (ww2 cost the US 288B, which is 3.6 trillion in 2010 dollars)

EDIT: if you divide 700 B$ by 7 years (2003-2010), you get 100B$ a year. (you need to make sure that you only count costs above and beyond the normal expenditure of the military) That's about 0.71% of annual GDP. Total annual US tax revenues are typically on the order of 20% of GDP.

[August]

Funny how the republican party....the same party how started one of the most expensive wars in history...

Answer Tater then explain how spending less money would not increase our casualty rate. Doesn't sound to responsible to me, fiscally or otherwise.

And what happens when we start to run out of Viable oil wells? we need a backup unless we want to go back to the stone age.Oh c'mon, Stone Age? Seems to me we managed fairly well before the age of oil without resorting to living in caves.

[mookiemookie]

As a point of information, demonstrate that the war is even "one of" the most expensive in history.

Raw dollars is not an acceptable answer. % of GDP per year would be best.

WW2 was around 15.5% of US GDP (239% of federal expenditures—deficit to pay for it, basically).

Viet Nam was 1.8% of GDP (36.7% of fed expenses)

Iraq? 1.1% of GDP (18.3% of fed expenses) (as of 2007) That had 450B, and the new total is over 700B. Even doubled it's not the most expensive, however. Not even close to WW2 in constant dollars. It's in fact not even close in actual dollars. (ww2 cost the US 288B, which is 3.6 trillion in 2010 dollars)

EDIT: if you divide 700 B$ by 7 years (2003-2010), you get 100B$ a year. (you need to make sure that you only count costs above and beyond the normal expenditure of the military) That's about 0.71% of annual GDP. Total annual US tax revenues are typically on the order of 20% of GDP.

Funny how it'ts just a billion here, a billion there, a tenth of a percentage point of GDP when it comes to war - but try proposing even a fraction of that being spent on domestic stimulus or healthcare, and all of a sudden it's Tea Party time and tyranny and Nazi Germany and cause to march in the streets with guns slung over your shoulder.

[August]

Funny how it'ts just a billion here, a billion there, a tenth of a percentage point of GDP when it comes to war - but try proposing even a fraction of that being spent on domestic stimulus or healthcare, and all of a sudden it's Tea Party time and tyranny and Nazi Germany and cause to march in the streets with guns slung over your shoulder.

Please. Exaggeration is the mark of a weak argument.

[mookiemookie]

Please. Exaggeration is the mark of a weak argument.

Given that statement, I think we can then agree that the Tea party is built upon exaggeration and hypocrisy.

[August]

Given that statement, I think we can then agree that the Tea party is built upon exaggeration and hypocrisy.

Right and your parties experiment in Socialism will only cost us one billion isn't an exaggeration and your support of everything they do regardless of it's stupidity isn't hypocritical.

[mookiemookie]

Right and your parties experiment in Socialism will only cost us one billion isn't an exaggeration and your support of everything they do regardless of it's stupidity isn't hypocritical.

Straying away from the original debate is the mark of a weak argument. The Tea Party is completely hypocritical in the way they defend the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but yet condemn any sort of domestic spending.

[gimpy117]

Funny how it'ts just a billion here, a billion there, a tenth of a percentage point of GDP when it comes to war - but try proposing even a fraction of that being spent on domestic stimulus or healthcare, and all of a sudden it's Tea Party time and tyranny and Nazi Germany and cause to march in the streets with guns slung over your shoulder.

Agreed! I'd like to see us try to spend 50% of our discretionary budget on Social programs Instead of defense. The right would have a cow!

Oh by the way. here's the Discretionary budget for 2008!
http://emergent-culture.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mic-budget.jpg


And here's what those evil former nazi's spent in 2005...surely obama wants to be just like hitler!! Funny how we throw around that word....but the country who started nazism has become more progressive in the last 70 years than the USA!

http://photos14.flickr.com/19838818_1fbcf9ab5c.jpg

and I wonder why their economy is booming? maybe it's because they spend the People's money on that it should be spent on: The people!

[August]

Straying away from the original debate is the mark of a weak argument. The Tea Party is completely hypocritical in the way they defend the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but yet condemn any sort of domestic spending.

Yeah and outright making up things is the sign of a failed argument. The Tea Party does not have an official position on anything besides run away government spending, so quit trying to cast them as some regular multi plank political party.

[tater]

Funny how it'ts just a billion here, a billion there, a tenth of a percentage point of GDP when it comes to war - but try proposing even a fraction of that being spent on domestic stimulus or healthcare, and all of a sudden it's Tea Party time and tyranny and Nazi Germany and cause to march in the streets with guns slung over your shoulder.

Over 2/3 of total federal spending is on social programs already.

46% of healthcare in the US was already delivered with the US government as the payee, and to a large degree this continues to be the problem since medicare and medicaid both reimburse BELOW COST in many cases. As a result, private insurance MUST increase to cover the negative income.

Adding new entitlements when we cannot afford the ones already on the books is insanity.

My "tea-party" like solution would be to freeze spending at a few % above 2007 for 5-10 years. In addition, I'd phase the retirement age older. Say in 3 years it goes from 65 to 66, in 5 years from 66 to 67, in 7 from 67 to 68 and so forth until it reaches whatever 65 was in terms of life expectancy when SS was first passed or the average lifespan, whichever is lower.

Retirement is not a right, the whole point for pushing retirement was in fact to screw skilled workers in favor of the young.

65 YO workers are at top pay scales, so dump them out of the workplace and hire 2 young guys for the same money—and the 65YO doesn't get counted as "unemployed" which makes the numbers look better. SS should be what it was supposed to be, a safety net. Medicare should also go up the same way.

Medicaid should be a write-off for providers.

[August]

...and so forth until it reaches whatever 65 was in terms of life expectancy when SS was first passed or the average lifespan, whichever is lower.

The only problem with that idea is back when SS was first passed it was given to people who had never contributed to it. I've been paying SS taxes forever. Money I'd much rather have kept and invested myself.

Now I wouldn't be very happy if my government tried such a Yossarian trick on me.

[ryanglavin]

And what happens when we start to run out of Viable oil wells? we need a backup unless we want to go back to the stone age.



Stone age? Ahem, I don't think our nation started in the stone age. not one bit.

[August]

Retirement is not a right,

Maybe not but I certainly have the right to every dime I was forced to put towards it over the past 40 years, plus interest. So pay up.

[tater]

The only problem with that idea is back when SS was first passed it was given to people who had never contributed to it. I've been paying SS taxes forever. Money I'd much rather have kept and invested myself.

Now I wouldn't be very happy if my government tried such a Yossarian trick on me.

How old are you? Would upping the "retirement" age to 72 change anything with your financial planning other than giving you more years to pile up money since as it stands, if you're young, SS will go belly up anyway, and you'll get nothing at all.

That's what we're talking about, getting SOMETHING at a later retirement age, or having the country go belly up. 2/3+ spending on entitlements, and pop grown not replacing the people here now. The ponzi scheme is going to fail.

[tater]

Maybe not but I certainly have the right to every dime I was forced to put towards it over the past 40 years, plus interest. So pay up.

So you are near retirement, then. As I said, pass the bill next year, and 4 years from now the retirement age ups to 66. If you retire in 4 years, you see no change at all. 4+and you work ONE year more. If you retire in 6 years, then you work 2 extra years, and so forth. The specifics can change if that is too close. 3 years then up to 66, then 3 more for 67, or whatever. Or delay 5 years before even starting. That's minutiae.

[August]

So you are near retirement, then. As I said, pass the bill next year, and 4 years from now the retirement age ups to 66. If you retire in 4 years, you see no change at all. 4+and you work ONE year more. If you retire in 6 years, then you work 2 extra years, and so forth. The specifics can change if that is too close. 3 years then up to 66, then 3 more for 67, or whatever. Or delay 5 years before even starting. That's minutiae.

I'm not that near to retirement Tater. I'm 50, and i've been working and paying into Social Security since 1970. That's 40 years of payments with at least another 15 years to go before I can collect on that very considerable investment.

If you want to end this government retirement Ponzi scheme then I completely support that, but i'll be expecting back every dime i've been forced to contribute into it, as well as 40 years worth of interest.

[tater]

You'd still get the same benefits you expect, just maybe a few years later.

Again, the choice is that, or nothing, IMO. Or we could have hyper inflation, and SS can pay you your X grand a month but it will be worth $100.

http://www.urban.org/PublicationImages/310667/310667_ST36_figure2.gif

As you can see, it's a ponzi scheme that requires the worker population to increase because everyone gets more out than they put in (the "rich" only because of medicare).

Total lifetime payments is hard to ballpark since there are no calculators set up for it. You can't just do 15.3% times incomes, since the cap in earlier years was VERY low (~10k) and is now over 100 grand. At some middle income someone would likely paid in 150 grand perhaps?

I'm all for allowing people going forward to not pay in, but I think the retirement age needs to increase since the worker population is actually shrinking.

[August]

You'd still get the same benefits you expect, just maybe a few years later.

Yeah that's what they kept telling Yossarian. I want my money and I want it when it was promised. I won't compromise and I won't let anyone off the hook.

[tater]

Yeah that's what they kept telling Yossarian. I want my money and I want it when it was promised. I won't compromise and I won't let anyone off the hook.

Then you and everyone else will get squat.

I assume (I'm 45 YO) that I'll see nothing from SS and plan with that as the base point. I don't care if I don't get it til 70. You shouldn't, either, frankly. It's the "I'm getting X at 65, period!" attitude that makes it the "third rail." That drives the government doing NOTHING to fix it, not ever. Interest? SS was never invested. It was simply spent. There is no "lock box," it's revenue, plain and simple. Asking for more than you paid in? I pay way more in taxes than I'd ever see in government benefits. I'd dearly love to get back in services what I pay in, conservatively we must pay in a large multiple of what we get.

Since they'll listen to people like you, the only solution is to become insolvent. BTW, any expectation of payment is BS, IMHO. You will get medicare drug benefit (Bush), and the bulk of your working life you will have paid in NOT expecting that at all. How about people only get the medicare drug beni if they paid in for their entire working life with that on the table? You'll have 15 years paying in with that expectation, and 40 years without.

If the US loses our credit rating, you'll not get the same benis, either. 2/3 of the budget is entitlements. The only way to reduce the deficit is to curtail entitlements, period.

[August]

Then you and everyone else will get squat.

Says who, you?

I assume (I'm 45 YO) that I'll see nothing from SS and plan with that as the base point. I don't care if I don't get it til 70. You shouldn't, either, frankly. It's the "I'm getting X at 65, period!" attitude that makes it the "third rail." That drives the government doing NOTHING to fix it, not ever.And just what motivation does being willing to accept delayed/reduced benefits provide? Answer absolutely none. All sayng "I assume (I'm 45 YO) that I'll see nothing from SS" does is tell the government that they can get away with stealing every dime you put into it because they know you'll accept your fate having prepared yourself for it for decades.

If the US loses our credit rating, you'll not get the same benis, either. 2/3 of the budget is entitlements. The only way to reduce the deficit is to curtail entitlements, period.Then curtail entitlements to those who didn't pay for them first.

Look tater SS is nothing compared to the rest of the Federal budget. Believe me when I say they'll be able to afford it when the time comes. Just because they might get to a point where they are paying out more than they are taking in doesn't mean they suddenly won't be able to afford paying any of it. That's where you entire "accept less or get nothing" argument falls apart.

[tater]

Look tater SS is nothing compared to the rest of the Federal budget. Believe me when I say they'll be able to afford it when the time comes. Just because they might get to a point where they are paying out more than they are taking in doesn't mean they suddenly won't be able to afford paying any of it. That's where you entire "accept less or get nothing" argument falls apart.

Wrong. "Programatic" spending—entitlements—like SS, medicare, and medicaid are currently TWO THIRDS of the total federal budget.

The rest of the budget is in fact nothing compared to SS. You have it backwards. The entire discretionary budget (you know, stuff like all military spending) is only 1/3 of spending. Medicaid is in fact small, the lion's share is "retirement" crap—SSI and Medicare.

Solving the budget problems requires SSI/Medicare cuts, period.

[August]

Wrong. "Programatic" spending—entitlements—like SS, medicare, and medicaid are currently TWO THIRDS of the total federal budget.

But I wasn't talking about medicare, medicaid or any other "programmatic" spending, just SS. Nor do you address the fact that any revenue shortfalls will be at first be small and easily covered. Nor did you address the millions of new taxpayers paying their share as the population grows.

But whatever, it looks like neither of us are gonna change the others mind so you tell your reps to vote your way and i'll tell mine to vote the way I want and we'll see who gets what.

[tater]

SS and medicare together are about 50% of spending. SS is more than defense alone.

For 2007:
SS: 581.4
Medicare: 436
Medicaid: 196
Income security (ERISA): 202
other retirement: 158.7

Defense: 547.9

(all in billions)

I have no care about people getting out more than they paid in. None of it was invested, the expectation of ANY return is asking for something for nothing. It's a Ponzi Scheme.

I don't want the cap raised to pay for your retirement, because I don't want to put more in when I'll get nothing meaningful back. For SS, we'll get back less than what we'll pay already. Not some small interest, less. And what we'll get for a year is trivial.

Anyone getting more than what they paid in is NOT getting something they earned, they are taking from someone else as long as the pay outs exceed revenues with no investment (and so far there has not been SS investment).

What you are asking for is a handout, plain and simple.

[Tribesman]

What you are asking for is a handout, plain and simple.
Its only a handout when someone else gets it, when its yourself it becomes an entitlement.

[August]

Anyone getting more than what they paid in is NOT getting something they earned, they are taking from someone else as long as the pay outs exceed revenues with no investment (and so far there has not been SS investment)

Well if you want to change the contract at this late date then I don't see me getting interest for the money i've put in is unreasonable. You took my money for a particular reason. Through your mismanagement you are unable to meet the commitments you made. Had I been allowed to invest my money in the stock market I would be in far better shape for retirement than SS would ever leave me.

Note you can avoid all of this by meeting your obligation so I have no sympathy at all.

[tater]

Well if you want to change the contract at this late date then I don't see me getting interest for the money i've put in is unreasonable. You took my money for a particular reason. Through your mismanagement you are unable to meet the commitments you made. Had I been allowed to invest my money in the stock market I would be in far better shape for retirement than SS would ever leave me.

Note you can avoid all of this by meeting your obligation so I have no sympathy at all.

I agree that you should have been allowed to invest it 100%.

Regardless, something needs to be done, the bulk of our spending is on "retirement" programs. The claim that SS was ever "solvent" is bogus, as a ponzi scheme it was only working because there were more payers than payees.

What's with this "you took my money" crap? I didn't take it, I'll be subsidizing someone else's SS, actually. I don't vote for people who want to take it, though none have had the balls to do anything about it in either party (the dems don't WANT to do anything about it—they count on YOUR leftist reaction to prevent any changes. It's funny, you want a privatized system (conservative), but whine like a b**** at the thought of delaying SS retirement when the current benefits are grossly in excess of what you should have expected when you paid in.

Meeting MY obligation? We pay a ton in FICA, and are in the range where we we actually get back less than we pay in. We are in effect being robbed, not like most who just get a guaranteed return—but a lower return, perhaps.

Regardless, you can whine all you want, but if the entitlements push the US over the brink, something will have to give. A small sacrifice on the part of younger workers—delaying their retirements on a sliding scale by a year or two—is hardly a draconian way to avoid insolvency.

Seriously, it's pretty whiny to complain about having to delay your retirement by a few years when it is 15 years away anyhow.

Again, as I said, the specifics of the retirement age increase could vary arbitrarily (everything else in SS has changed since you started paying in (benefits increased, etc), why is retirement age off the menu?). Maybe the switch from 65 to 66 happens after 8 years, then 67 in 4 more, then 68 in to more, etc. That would mean that people aged 51 would retire at 68. People like me would be stuck with 72.

Oh, wait, I guess what you prefer is for my taxes to massively increase, instead. So there is financial sacrifice in your world, it's for younger people to lose even more to SS than you did. Gotcha. I'm in favor of changing it so that my kids don't get stuck with the same problem. Cut benis slightly by raising the age, then cut the taxes once the bubble of boomers passes and go privatized (option) for the younger folks.

PS—the way medicare is going, good luck with finding a doc that will take it. My wife's group stopped taking any new medicare a few months ago, others have done the same, here in NM people on medicare now need to wait til they need an ER visit, or head to another state to see a specialist, lol (not sure they'll have much luck in other states as well). Oh, or they can go to the U I guess, they take indigents there.

[tater]

Its only a handout when someone else gets it, when its yourself it becomes an entitlement.

True, that's what the liberals count on. They'll add new entitlements because they know even people who post as fiscal conservatives will whine like welfare recipients when someone wants to curtail their benefits.

It's a slippery slope to insolvency.

[August]

Well I guess we have nothing to talk about then tater. :shifty:

[tater]

Well I guess we have nothing to talk about then tater. :shifty:

Well, when SS is up for discussion, and one side of the argument is open to alternative ideas, and the other side disallows touching it at all, you're right, there is nothing to discuss.

In fixing SS, some age bracket gets some "in between" stuff. Has to happen unless you start the fix so far in the future it happens for the next generation—in which case it's too late to fix it. That's really the choice, start a fix with people now 18 who have not paid in yet—in which case the fix doesn't happen for over 50 years—or someone takes a minor hit in each of a few age brackets.

Or we do nothing, which I guess is what you want.

[August]

Well, when SS is up for discussion, and one side of the argument is open to alternative ideas, and the other side disallows touching it at all, you're right, there is nothing to discuss.

In fixing SS, some age bracket gets some "in between" stuff. Has to happen unless you start the fix so far in the future it happens for the next generation—in which case it's too late to fix it. That's really the choice, start a fix with people now 18 who have not paid in yet—in which case the fix doesn't happen for over 50 years—or someone takes a minor hit in each of a few age brackets.

Or we do nothing, which I guess is what you want.

Well according to you i'm just a whiny leftist b****h so what do you care anyways?

[tater]

Well according to you i'm just a whiny leftist b****h so what do you care anyways?

I was pointing out the leftist nature of your argument—or at least the fact that your argument is exactly what they want—because overall you don't appear to be one.

Tribesman's point was actually very true. It's only a handout when it's someone you don't like getting it—or anyone other than you (not you personally, anyone). So you cannot complain about welfare, or illegals getting benis, etc, IMHO, if you don't at least admit that the largest welfare program is also just a handout, and should be on the table with everything else. Note that I'm not suggesting not paying out to people who have planned around SSI—I only propose modest changes in the retirement age that phase in over reasonable time periods that allow for altered planning. The specifics would clearly be up for grabs, the only absolute is to do it on a timeline that saves the system from going belly up and eating us alive.

Will you complain if the cost of living increases in SSI move from their bogus value now, to one that inflates at a lower rate (we're in deflation right now, after all, but the SSI formula doesn't even admit that as a possibility of course, it ONLY grows)?

My frustration is that if people on the right or center (presumably where you lie) treat entitlements with the same sense of inviolability that the welfare moms of the cities treat their "entitlements," we're toast as a country.

[August]

My frustration is that if people on the right or center (presumably where you lie) treat entitlements with the same sense of inviolability that the welfare moms of the cities treat their "entitlements," we're toast as a country.


And my frustration is with people who are all too willing to let government off the hook for the promises they have made. I firmly believe that if we let them get away with delaying SS payments they will find a way to get out of paying them altogether. I'm not just going to sit back and blithely accept that like some here seem to have resigned themselves to.

[FIREWALL]

The way to fix SS is, to work'em like a dog. Suck every cent out of em and, at a certain age put them to sleep like an unwanted pet.

As far as cutting SSI benefits goes. Why not just put them out of their misery. It's more merciful.

[tater]

And my frustration is with people who are all too willing to let government off the hook for the promises they have made. I firmly believe that if we let them get away with delaying SS payments they will find a way to get out of paying them altogether. I'm not just going to sit back and blithely accept that like some here seem to have resigned themselves to.

How is getting Madoff to keep his promises going? That's where we're headed. I don't think SS has promised me anything aside from some sort of benefits. Specifics? What was the benefit package when you started work? You know it, right? What was it 10 years ago? Again, you know all the details, right? If you don't know every single particular, then you don't even know what to expect. The things we get in the mail show current benefits we can expect. If you got that exact number 15 years from now that would be fine, right?

[tater]

The way to fix SS is, to work'em like a dog. Suck every cent out of em and, at a certain age put them to sleep like an unwanted pet.

As far as cutting SSI benefits goes. Why not just put them out of their misery. It's more merciful.

Yawn.

Retirement is not a right, no one is forcing anyone to work. Allowing employers to force retirement is another story... that allows them to dump the most skilled, highest paid employees in favor of the least experienced, lowest paid who must replace them.

As for sucking every cent out of them, you're right. Screw the current FICA rate, let's go back to the SS tax rate as it was set when the law was first passed, I'm totally fine with that. It was ONE PERCENT until 1950. The SS tax alone is now 12.4%, a 1240% increase from the law as passed!

Cutting benefits—or, rather slowing the growth in benefits, which is NOT a cut—will happen one way or another. An orderly system designed to let people close to retirement get what they've planned for—perhaps a year later than expected in some cases—is hardly draconian.

[August]

How is getting Madoff to keep his promises going? That's where we're headed. I don't think SS has promised me anything aside from some sort of benefits. Specifics? What was the benefit package when you started work? You know it, right? What was it 10 years ago? Again, you know all the details, right? If you don't know every single particular, then you don't even know what to expect. The things we get in the mail show current benefits we can expect. If you got that exact number 15 years from now that would be fine, right?

:roll: Whatever tater, you're just ranting now. Like I said, twice, you advise your reps the way you want and i'll tell mine what I want.

[Sailor Steve]

Well according to you i'm just a whiny leftist b****h so what do you care anyways?
The Pedantic Grammarian wishes to interject that you used one too many '*'s, unless of course you meant a word I've never heard of. :D

Back on topic, I think the accusation that August is asking for a handout because he wants back what is his is a bit extreme. It may never work that way, but I think it was mistaken nonetheless.

[August]

The Pedantic Grammarian wishes to interject that you used one too many '*'s, unless of course you meant a word I've never heard of. :D

I was speaking rap so it has an "o" in there too. :D

[Weiss Pinguin]

I was speaking rap so it has an "o" in there too. :D
I thought the correct spelling had an 'a'? Or is that another dialect :hmmm:

[tater]

Back on topic, I think the accusation that August is asking for a handout because he wants back what is his is a bit extreme. It may never work that way, but I think it was mistaken nonetheless.

We'll all get some SS, and unless we take out less than we put in, it's a handout for ALL OF US.

There is no "interest" it's a tax like any other, the government borrows it, and gives it back. Most people get more than they pay in, so for most it's a handout. If you count medicare, virtually all get more than they pay in.

I'm not saying it's just HIM that gets a handout, everyone does. It is a handout from our kids if we get a penny more than we put in, plain and simple. The only way to mitigate it is to take more from our kids, or ask for less.

I'll ask for less before taking from my kids, YMMV.

[gimpy117]

I don't see why you all are so mad about paying social security.
Sure, your money can be given to your fellow countrymen to help them when they are disabled and cannot work, out of a job temporarily etc. but why is that such a bad thing? are we going to digress to a "I got mine so up yours buddy!" attitude? what happened to Jesus saying "thou shalt thy neighbor as thyself"?

[nikimcbee]

Since we're talking about SS, I've had first hand experience with these guys and they rival DMV retardedness:shifty:. They over pay, then under pay, then over pay,:har: you get the cycle.

[thorn69]

Taxes aren't the problem. It's government spending that's the problem. If the government would stop spending then there would be no need for more and more taxes. Unfortunately, Obama spends money like a housewife on Ebay with her husband's credit card.

[Sailor Steve]

I was speaking rap so it has an "o" in there too. :D
:rotfl2: I stand corrected.

I thought the correct spelling had an 'a'? Or is that another dialect :hmmm:
I've seen it both ways, so it must be that. :sunny:

[Admiral8Q]

Tax tax tax tax......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7XdZTWT-1M

This is awesome!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjk6lFT-tus

[gimpy117]

Unfortunately, Obama spends money like a housewife on Ebay with her husband's credit card.

sorry...but it's not just obama...its been going on for some time.
http://www.coneofsilence.info/img/blogs/deficit%287-11-07%29.gif