Why only now?? (politics)
 

Why do the dem's only now realize that this kind of spending is unsustainable?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/world-news-...ry?id=10965659

I have my theroies but yea I'm a conspiratorial loon :rock:

Can you hear the thumping of the black helicopters?

I think they can raise taxes on union dues. That's my tax plan anyway.
There must be an election coming up.

That's called keeping an open (and alert) mind.
Better than soaking up all the BS from the mass media, as though it were "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

The vast majority of voters, regardless of party or wealth operate within limits on spending.

The only voters that think that the solution to our fiscal woes is rabid spending are those that live off the public teat, or who are so partisan that they don't vote based on issues, just party.

As a result, the dems up for reelection are fearing for their political lives. Americans know what the real solution is—spending cuts. Obama, et al, look into the camera and claim they want to reign in spending and expect no one to notice that the amount they want to limit spending is vastly lower than the pork they just voted to their pals (for just one year!).

If they actually cared about the deficit, they could stop all automatic program growth for several years, raise the retirement age for medicare and SS, etc, and easily bring the budget into positive balance.

Well said tater.

I've been saying they need to do away with SS completely.

whats the point?

We pay gobs of money into SS, and nobody from my generation or any which follows it will ever see that money again.:nope:

it would be far more entertaining to just go and flush it down the toilet

@GoldenRivet

Agreed whole heartedly.
It's the same story with the pensions in Europe.

It's no longer a question of whether socialism and "the system" will implode, but rather when it will do so.

Quit saying that! Telling people that you don't expect to get your money back is the surest way of ensuring that you won't.

It's just realism.

The choice is to massively tax our kids since fewer of them will have to pay off the ponzi scheme for more of us, or take some modest steps to make SS what it was supposed to be in the first place—a safety net for the poor who were far too old and infirm to work. Note that when passed, people lived far shorter lives, and only those who saved themselves could "retire." Everyone else worked til they could not any more. Do you think John Adams stopped managing his farm to "retire?" Washington? Anyone else? No, they worked til they couldn't, or died. That is the norm, "retirement" as some sort of right is absurd.

I agree, SubSim is a pointless waste of Neal Steven's money and time and needs to go :DL



Sorry :oops:

I think the idea that our kids would be massively taxed to pay for our social security is false. Nothing but propaganda designed to make people think they have to accept not getting what they paid for.

The US population stands now at 299 million. By 2050 it's projected to be 400 million. You do the math. The boomers aren't suddenly going to increase in number so obviously this means more people paying into the system than before.

Your deluded my friend... that money has already been spent ;)

Thank you for clearing that up! I thought he was talking about me! :gulp: