Doc Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Regarding social security, I pay a TON more into it on the premise that I will get more out later. Why should I pay more in AND get less out? What's the point of that? I won't probably see a dime of my medicare and SS dollars. Why should I put in any for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) I won't probably see a dime of my medicare and SS dollars. Why should I put in any for others? There's that too. I skimmed some story this morning about how Newt is proposing a plan that allows younger people to opt out of social security but not companies. I may not have gotten the gist of his plan exactly right--I wasn't sure what his plan was for someone who opts out of social security and then hits 75 and has no dollars. My plan for the person is the TS plan. "You didn't save? Tough Sh##." Edited November 22, 2011 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Regarding social security, I pay a TON more into it on the premise that I will get more out later. Why should I pay more in AND get less out? What's the point of that? Like I said- there is no easy way to fix things. What I meant is that the sliding scale was based on earnings- if you are a multi-millionaire, you get considerably less social security, as you should need a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 Like I said- there is no easy way to fix things. What I meant is that the sliding scale was based on earnings- if you are a multi-millionaire, you get considerably less social security, as you should need a lot less. But the premise of social security is that you make more money and pay more in--on the promise that you'll be getting more out. That is the whole foundation of social security. If you're just going to set up a plan to take more money from rich people, call it taxes and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 But the premise of social security is that you make more money and pay more in--on the promise that you'll be getting more out. That is the whole foundation of social security. If you're just going to set up a plan to take more money from rich people, call it taxes and be done with it. Wasn't it Donald Trump that wanted to take social security and medicare away from the rich, completely, saying they don't need it? Cuts have to be made across the board, or we are just spinning our wheels and acting like the deficit matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Like I said- there is no easy way to fix things. What I meant is that the sliding scale was based on earnings- if you are a multi-millionaire, you get considerably less social security, as you should need a lot less. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Karl "Adam" Marx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Karl "Adam" Marx At least you didn't call me Richard Marx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 At least you didn't call me Richard Marx Technically, he called Karl Marx "Adam," and didn't call you a damn thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Technically, he called Karl Marx "Adam," and didn't call you a damn thing. Regardless, I don't think Karl really cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Super Duper went out of business...... Why not 1. let the "Bush" tax cuts expire 2. consolidate Medicare/Social Security and put it on a sliding scale, with people who made the most getting fewer benefits, and then subtract from those who received a certain amount of unemployment benefits 3. End the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, bring the troops back, and slash defense spending by as close to 50% as possible- redundancies WILL NOT cover this cut, but efficiency will lessen the blow. 4. Raise taxes slightly across the board. 5. Most importantly- on all of the above, put a trigger mechanism, which decreases the severity of each, when the economy reaches certain levels. Decreasing the deficit and getting the economy rolling again is going to hurt- it is high time that both sides accept that fact. on some talking head show I heard some person say "Do you want a decade of pain, or a century of misery?" In a sense, he is right, which do you think our country will choose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 on some talking head show I heard some person say "Do you want a decade of pain, or a century of misery?" In a sense, he is right, which do you think our country will choose? We will kick the can down the road, leading to the century of misery. Both parties are utterly gutless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 We will kick the can down the road, leading to the century of misery. Both parties are utterly gutless. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47701 As if anyone watches msnbc. I have no problem with the tax cuts by themselves. But the fact that congress allowed them while we were at war wasn't a good idea. They should be allowed to expire at all levels, including the middle class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 We will kick the can down the road, leading to the century of misery. Both parties are utterly gutless. Ding Ding Ding It is about winning, not about compromise or solving problems.... And I don't think it has always been that way...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 It is about winning, not about compromise or solving problems.... And I don't think it has always been that way...... From van der Vat, The Pacific Campaign: During the campaign Dewey had seriously considered attacking Roosevelt over the Pearl Harbor debacle, which still rankled despite the subsequent accumulation of victories. [...] Dewey thought Roosevelt vulnerable on the issue and planned to exploit the "common knowledge" that America had broken Japanese codes and ciphers to accuse his opponent of foreknowledge and criminal negligence. Getting wind of this, General George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, [...] sent an aide, Colonel Carter Clarke, to Dewey with a letter he had personally written and signed. It underlined the crucial importance of Ultra and Magic [...] and that the Japanese had not substantially altered their codes and ciphers, so that the cryptanalysis operation remained as important as ever to the war effort. Dewey took the statesmanlike course and backed off; the greatest intelligence secret survived the war by a narrow margin. Roosevelt had been lucky in his wartime opponents; in 1940 Wendell Willkie had similarly forborne to make an issue of the president's foreign and defense policies when the isolationists were still strong. So no, it hasn't always been this way. But if you look at the politics leading up to the Civil War, it certainly has been before. It mostly comes down to era, political climate, and personalities involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Wasn't it Donald Trump that wanted to take social security and medicare away from the rich, completely, saying they don't need it? Cuts have to be made across the board, or we are just spinning our wheels and acting like the deficit matters Then to JA's point, "call it a tax and be done with it." Also, stop sending me the fluff statements that are supposed to make me feel good about my gov't provided safety net, when all it does is piss me off thinking how I could make that money work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Then to JA's point, "call it a tax and be done with it." Also, stop sending me the fluff statements that are supposed to make me feel good about my gov't provided safety net, when all it does is piss me off thinking how I could make that money work for me. I can't remember who had the post about how our government can't change the big things quickly. This fits that well. It would be great if we could do as you say right now, as far as social security, but that isn't realistic. I think you know that. It has to be shrunk in small steps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I can't remember who had the post about how our government can't change the big things quickly. This fits that well. It would be great if we could do as you say right now, as far as social security, but that isn't realistic. I think you know that. It has to be shrunk in small steps. Just for the record, I agree with some of your points. I'm not completely opposed to tax increases...if they were reasonable and I thought they would be used to reduce the deficit. Can't say I have that sort of confidence in our gov't right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Actually, Obama got precisely what he wanted, and that makes Boehner an idiot. How stupid do you have to be to agree to the idea that six people hand-picked from each side will try to address the defifict before Thanksgiving, and if they fail, there will be massive cuts to the military? Apparently you only need to be Boehner-stupid. Obama now has his 2012 narrative: the GOP refuses to cut military spending AND refuses to raise taxes on millionaires making over $200K a year, so the only way to address the deficit is to put the Democrats in control of the House, Senate and WH next year so we can get the job done without them standing in our way. Political leaders lead. Everyone else diverts the public's attention with moronic logic. Actually, that's a short term maybe and a long term definitely not. I hate using anything as a one-size-fits-all...but in this case, this trend is simply too significant: A George Washington University/Politico Battleground poll released last week showed one particular area of movement for Obama. Since May, the number of people who approved of Obama’s ability to deal with Congress has dropped from 49 percent to 38 percent. And while just 44 percent disapproved of his dealings with Congress six months ago, that number has since risen to 58 percent. Washington Post article link here Yeah, political leaders lead....and Obama has self-mutilated his own image as a leader to the tune of 10 points, now sub 40%. Obama has blown a huge opportunity to lead the Congress. He could have played it that way. He could have taken the tougher road, and the risk(honestly, what did he have to lose? getting beat by 10 points instead of 3? so what?). He could have basically saved his Presidency had he been able to bring a big deal to bear. Instead, he choose to take pot shots from the sidelines, and then blame people for failing after he, lamely, tried to set them up for failure. The problem is: we are all a lot smarter than they think. We have access to more info, and they are acting like its still pre-1995. The tactic was recognized by the people for what it was, and therefore had no chance of working. I wonder when DC is going to catch up to the fact that we are playing way past where they think we are...on everything. "Once again, if you want something done, put the far-left in charge of doing the opposite."TM (I am thinking I should copyright this line.) And, for the tools who will point to the end of that article? Hint: few independents will give a F about Republicans in Congress...when they are pulling the lever for President. It's about one person or the other, not a bunch of people they don't know and who don't represent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 From van der Vat, The Pacific Campaign: So no, it hasn't always been this way. But if you look at the politics leading up to the Civil War, it certainly has been before. It mostly comes down to era, political climate, and personalities involved. Great analysis with historical fact. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts