means testing social security

[Butthead]

the dems are floating it. i f'n hate these f'n douchbag polesuckers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/13/both-parties-mull-raising-retirement-age/

[Karl Hungus]

The article at your link says it's Hoyer and Boehner. Both parties. I'm not saying that they're not douchebag polesuckers though.

Wasn't there just a few years ago a limit on how much income you could earn while drawing Social Security? And that limit was eliminated?

[Spicoli]

Boehner's saying it too....

What a bunch of crap to suggest that people have to pay 6% (+employe paid 6%)of their first 100K into a mandatory system and then use the proceeds to spread the weath around...

So basically if I was Mike Tyson and spent $100M over my life time but was now totally bankrupt I'd get SS, but the construction worker that saved for retirement and made sound investments to ensure a comfortable retirement gets locked out?

Government gone insane - reward bad decisions by making the people who made good decisions pay for it...

[U.F.O.]

From the article: "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke?"

How about the fact that you took money from that person while they were working with the promise that you would pay them back?

Bernie Madoff is rotting in jail but these sons of bitches walk free? Their ponzi scheme is now measured in the Trillions. Dems, Pubs, all of them with very few exceptions are scumbags and crooks interested in only preserving their own hides.

November is going to be hell, incumbents.

[Butthead]

yes, they are all douchbags.

[02ep3]

You guys want entitlement reform, but don't like it when the start to discuss ideas of how to reform entitlements? You want to trim to deficit, but don't like it when they talk about trimming defence spending or Medicare?

To me, it doesn't seem like there's anything that can make you happy. Want to have your cake and eat it too, eh?

[Karl Hungus]

How about the fact that you took money from that person while they were working with the promise that you would pay them back?


On this you're wrong. There is no promise whatsoever. Some people die young and get nothing. Others die really old and get much more than they put in.

I don't like SS either. I wish they'd let me out and they could keep my contributions. But we're stuck with it because old people vote like crazy.

[U.F.O.]

You guys want entitlement reform, but don't like it when the start to discuss ideas of how to reform entitlements? You want to trim to deficit, but don't like it when they talk about trimming defence spending or Medicare?

To me, it doesn't seem like there's anything that can make you happy. Want to have your cake and eat it too, eh?

Oh... I want to do more than talk about it. I want to do it.

Let's start with an immediate spending freeze. Then we can do an item by item budget review and eliminate all non-defense (notice I didn't say non-military) and non-interstate commerce related spending and bring the Federal budget back to reasonable levels. You know, just the stuff that the Constitution mandates the Fed actually spend.

[U.F.O.]

On this you're wrong. There is no promise whatsoever. Some people die young and get nothing. Others die really old and get much more than they put in.

On this you are both technically correct and speaking with forked tongue (much like our politicians oddly enough). The IMPLIED promise is that if you pay into Social Security you'll get benefits when you're old, disabled or whatever. Whatever technical spin you want to put on it the fact of the matter is the Congress over the last thirty or so years has STOLEN money from the SS "Trust Fund" and now cannot dip into that reservoir so they can continue to pay benefits so they have to raise retirement ages and cut back benefits.


I don't like SS either. I wish they'd let me out and they could keep my contributions. But we're stuck with it because old people vote like crazy.

Not to bash but attitudes like this perpetuate the problem. We're stuck with it because we refuse to do anything about it.

[impalanar]

You guys want entitlement reform, but don't like it when the start to discuss ideas of how to reform entitlements? You want to trim to deficit, but don't like it when they talk about trimming defence spending or Medicare?

To me, it doesn't seem like there's anything that can make you happy. Want to have your cake and eat it too, eh?

Wow, you have a way with words. How about saying it the correct way?

You guys want entitlement reform, but don't like it when they start to discuss ideas of how to take your money and give it to others while returning less of it to you? You want to trim the deficit, but don't like it when they talk about trimming constitutional spending? (Who here gets upset about medicare cuts?)

To me, it doesn't seem like there's anything that can make you happy as long as the Government is taking your money and giving it to the other people. Want to have your cake and expect others to buy their own as well, eh?

[Spicoli]

SS Reform: Simplu give me back what I've contributed to date w/o interest. You can keep my employer contrubution. Gurantee that I will never have to pay another cent and I will be fine with never receieving the benefits.

[Dan43]

The article at your link says it's Hoyer and Boehner. Both parties. I'm not saying that they're not douchebag polesuckers though.

Wasn't there just a few years ago a limit on how much income you could earn while drawing Social Security? And that limit was eliminated?The limit refers to wages, not income.

[Dan43]

You guys want entitlement reform, but don't like it when the start to discuss ideas of how to reform entitlements? You want to trim to deficit, but don't like it when they talk about trimming defence spending or Medicare?

To me, it doesn't seem like there's anything that can make you happy. Want to have your cake and eat it too, eh?Part of reform (IMO) means that the redistribution needs to STOP.

[Dan43]

Wow, you have a way with words. How about saying it the correct way?

You guys want entitlement reform, but don't like it when they start to discuss ideas of how to take your money and give it to others while returning less of it to you? You want to trim the deficit, but don't like it when they talk about trimming constitutional spending? (Who here gets upset about medicare cuts?)

To me, it doesn't seem like there's anything that can make you happy as long as the Government is taking your money and giving it to the other people. Want to have your cake and expect others to buy their own as well, eh?I would happily forfeit everything that I have paid into SS and Medicare if the government would suspend all further collections and produce a time line to wind down paying out benefits over the next 10-20 years. And stick to the plan.

[Spicoli]

I would happily forfeit everything that I have paid into SS and Medicare if the government would suspend all further collections and produce a time line to wind down paying out benefits over the next 10-20 years. And stick to the plan.

You do realize that 50K @ 6% would equal about 16 more years of working until you break even.... I want my money back....

[Spicoli]

Another thought on this... why aren't they looking at means testing government pensions?

[G_MAN]

On this you're wrong. There is no promise whatsoever. Some people die young and get nothing. Others die really old and get much more than they put in.

I don't like SS either. I wish they'd let me out and they could keep my contributions. But we're stuck with it because old people vote like crazy.

Also there aren't many who can stomach the sight of old people living on the street. I agree something needs to be done, how about starting with a ban on borrowing from the social security fund to pay for things other than SOCIAL SECURITY.

[Butthead]

you prove me right every post you make.

how about this plan? you only take out what you put in? is that fair?


You guys want entitlement reform, but don't like it when the start to discuss ideas of how to reform entitlements? You want to trim to deficit, but don't like it when they talk about trimming defence spending or Medicare?

To me, it doesn't seem like there's anything that can make you happy. Want to have your cake and eat it too, eh?

[02ep3]

Only take out what you put in, at that point it ceases to be Social Security. I think it comes down to one thing: you don't want to reform the system, you want the system to be abolished.

Others don't want their "wealth redistributed" to others while at the same time accepting their wealth being redistributed to the military industrial complex through bloated defense budgets, all under the guise of "constitutional spending." Here again, no reform desired but the status quo is accepted.

You're never going to have those programs which you personally hate abolished. And if you want to be serious about trimming the deficit ALL programs, those you deem "constitutional" and non, will need to be reviewed and take likely a hit. Aren't conservatives supposed to be pragmatic? Don't you realize you're not going to get it YOUR way, there will have to be compromise. Compromise will get your reform, reform will get you deficit cuts, deficit cuts and discipline will get you lower taxes. Then, pop a beer, we've won.

[impalanar]

Only take out what you put in, at that point it ceases to be Social Security. I think it comes down to one thing: you don't want to reform the system, you want the system to be abolished.

Others don't want their "wealth redistributed" to others while at the same time accepting their wealth being redistributed to the military industrial complex through bloated defense budgets, all under the guise of "constitutional spending." Here again, no reform desired but the status quo is accepted.

You're never going to have those programs which you personally hate abolished. And if you want to be serious about trimming the deficit ALL programs, those you deem "constitutional" and non, will need to be reviewed and take likely a hit. Aren't conservatives supposed to be pragmatic? Don't you realize you're not going to get it YOUR way, there will have to be compromise. Compromise will get your reform, reform will get you deficit cuts, deficit cuts and discipline will get you lower taxes. Then, pop a beer, we've won.

And yet it is just the Conservatives who are unwilling to bend? I think most of us are willing to concede some ground but have yet to find anyone on the other side who is willing to concede any.

I have posted this video before but, it is a good representation of what it will take to balance the budget.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70lkobYY0Hc

[02ep3]

Raising the retirement age under social security is one such example of the other side bending. It's gotta start somewhere.

[impalanar]

Raising the retirement age under social security is one such example of the other side bending. It's gotta start somewhere.

If you say so, I will take your word for it.

[02ep3]

Well, how is it not? By raising the retirement age, less benefit will be paid out, lowering cost. While this sucks, since we've been paying into the system with a certain understanding of benefit, it's clearly a way to tighten the belt. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing, tightening the belt?

France is currently trying to do the same thing.

[impalanar]

Well, how is it not? By raising the retirement age, less benefit will be paid out, lowering cost. While this sucks, since we've been paying into the system with a certain understanding of benefit, it's clearly a way to tighten the belt. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing, tightening the belt?

France is currently trying to do the same thing.

What does that have to do with the other side bending?

[02ep3]

The point of the article posted was that BOTH parties were mulling raising the retirement age. This implies that both sides were hopefully bending towards compromise.

[Butthead]

that sounds like an unlubricated anal violation to me. you call it what you want.


The point of the article posted was that BOTH parties were mulling raising the retirement age. This implies that both sides were hopefully bending towards compromise.

[Dan43]

You do realize that 50K @ 6% would equal about 16 more years of working until you break even.... I want my money back....As I said, I would be willing to forfeit the money I have paid in, if doing so resulted in being able to get rid of these programs before they destroy the nation.

[Dan43]

Only take out what you put in, at that point it ceases to be Social Security. I think it comes down to one thing: you don't want to reform the system, you want the system to be abolished.

Others don't want their "wealth redistributed" to others while at the same time accepting their wealth being redistributed to the military industrial complex through bloated defense budgets, all under the guise of "constitutional spending." Here again, no reform desired but the status quo is accepted.

You're never going to have those programs which you personally hate abolished. And if you want to be serious about trimming the deficit ALL programs, those you deem "constitutional" and non, will need to be reviewed and take likely a hit. Aren't conservatives supposed to be pragmatic? Don't you realize you're not going to get it YOUR way, there will have to be compromise. Compromise will get your reform, reform will get you deficit cuts, deficit cuts and discipline will get you lower taxes. Then, pop a beer, we've won."Compromise" is the politicians favorite term. That is what got us in the mess we are in now with government spending. There should be no compromise on spending.

[U.F.O.]

I think it comes down to one thing: you don't want to reform the system, you want the system to be abolished.

Damn straight. Unabashedly.


Others don't want their "wealth redistributed" to others while at the same time accepting their wealth being redistributed to the military industrial complex through bloated defense budgets, all under the guise of "constitutional spending." Here again, no reform desired but the status quo is accepted.

Wrong. I'd like the Federal government to get out of my pocket entirely. The entire concept of taxing earned income is abhorrent but necessary for some certain things that the individual states can't do for themselves. The state of Federal abuse of power and mismanagement today is criminal.


Compromise will get your reform, reform will get you deficit cuts, deficit cuts and discipline will get you lower taxes. Then, pop a beer, we've won.

Pardon me while I scoff. Compromise has been occurring in Washington DC for years and it's gotten us a bloated money sucking monster that abuses the freedoms of it's citizens and turns a blind eye to murder and foreign incursion on US territories while suing those that try to fight said incursions.

Keep your compromise. I'll vote for someone that will be fiscally responsible and adheres to the principles of liberty and accountability, thank you.

[Butthead]

^^
yup, the only compromise of any ponzi scheme is that you either continue to increase the money spent or it collapses. those are the facts.

ss plus medicare/medicaid plus the healthcare debacle will eventually bankrupt the nation if not ended.

[winmutt]

Let's start with an immediate spending freeze.
This will only happen 2 ways. Raising taxes to meet our expenditure, or bankruptcy. No politician is going to stop spending until its all gone or their constituents revolt.

[wallypiper]

Until what's all gone? We're already spending money we don't have to run the government, borrowing from our future. Our deficit has already passed $1 trillion for the current fiscal year. They need to invent new more difficult words for the amounts of money being discussed. It's too easy to say "trillion". It should be a word that has a lot of syllables and twists your tongue uncomfortably. Proposing to spend another trillion dollars should be painful, like proposing to sterilize welfare recipients or proposing to cut off medicaid. As it is, congress and the president (and it's not just the current congress and president) find it easy to just continue spending without regard for the consequences. In another generation, that won't be possible any more. The consequences will be real, present and painful. Sorry kids. We just lacked the self control necessary to stop stealing from you.

[winmutt]

Until what's all gone?
Our money our credit and our self worth.

[ga_skyline_rydr]

Anyone who is under 50 years old today, should never expect social security, sorry kiddies it won't happen. Retirement that too may not happen in our generation.

[impalanar]

Our money our credit and our self worth.

Gone, going and going.

[impalanar]

Anyone who is under 50 years old today, should never expect social security, sorry kiddies it won't happen. Retirement that too may not happen in our generation.

I knew that 15 years ago.

[02ep3]

So you want the system abolished, OK. Well, in that case you're either A: a cockeyed optimist or B: an anarchist. If A: you're going to be sorely disappointed because the system won't be abolished. It will be abolished no more than a truly socialist system be implemented. If B: no one is going to take you seriously because society must be governed, which begs a system of government.

So if you want to talk pragmatically about solutions, we can debate. And if you want to just gripe, go ahead, that's what the internet is for. But don't expect much to come from it.

[DecepticonDon]

the facts
ponzi scheme run by the fedgov= social security
ponzi scheme run by Bernie madoff= jailtime

[Dan43]

So you want the system abolished, OK. Well, in that case you're either A: a cockeyed optimist or B: an anarchist. If A: you're going to be sorely disappointed because the system won't be abolished. It will be abolished no more than a truly socialist system be implemented. If B: no one is going to take you seriously because society must be governed, which begs a system of government.

So if you want to talk pragmatically about solutions, we can debate. And if you want to just gripe, go ahead, that's what the internet is for. But don't expect much to come from it.You would only be an optimist if you thought it might actually happen. Believing a course of action is correct and believing that the government will take that action is not the same thing.

How does believing that SS and medicare should be abolished equate to being an anarchist? Are you sure that word means what you think it means?

[impalanar]

So you want the system abolished, OK. Well, in that case you're either A: a cockeyed optimist or B: an anarchist. If A: you're going to be sorely disappointed because the system won't be abolished. It will be abolished no more than a truly socialist system be implemented. If B: no one is going to take you seriously because society must be governed, which begs a system of government.

So if you want to talk pragmatically about solutions, we can debate. And if you want to just gripe, go ahead, that's what the internet is for. But don't expect much to come from it.

Wait... Did you just make the jump from "wanting SS to be abolished" to "wanting the Federal Government to be abolished?" I thought your earlier rewording was just you being snarky, but apparently I was wrong.

[U.F.O.]

Personally I'm not an anarchist... there are valid functions a federal government can fill in our republic. The problem we currently face at the fed level is we don't do what we should be doing (perimeter defense for one) and do things that should not be done at that level (like welfare).

Too many people look to DC for everything when they should be looking to their State and Local governments. It makes no sense to collect money, send it to DC and then turn around and redistribute it right back to the state level. That's inefficient and breed corruption.

Winmutt is right about one thing... the only way this ends is constituent revolt. Whether it's over increased taxation or loss of benefits, either way it's a revolt. Let's just hope it's a peaceful revolution at the ballot box.

[Dan43]

Let's just hope it's a peaceful revolution at the ballot box.I think it is already too late for that.

[DecepticonDon]

I think it is already too late for that.

+2

[02ep3]

Someone from a different perspective might say there was a peaceful revolution at the ballot box two years ago. Try to accept that there are those with an opposing view to your own. Understanding their view is important to achieve some sort of resolution.

When I suggest that some might be anarchist --which I admit is hyperbolic, I intended it to be so-- it's that your position is that the current system must be thrown out. Take a big picture view of the Obama election. He's pissing off conservatives AND liberals alike, he's been trying very hard to find the middle ground (You're going to have to try hard to take a big picture view because I know from your perspective he's a maniacal "socialist"). But at least he knows that we cannot throw out the more conservative elements of the government no more than we can implement a system which could be more accurately defined as a Socialist Democracy e.g., France.

All I'm saying, is that each side, liberal and conservative, needs to find ways to get small wins. Consider: we don't have a public option in the health care debate (win for the conservatives) We don't have the fees levied on financial institutions as part of the regulatory overhall (win for conservatives). Raising the retirement age on social security could be another small win for the conservatives. The fact that the broader legislation was/will soon be advanced is a win for the more-liberal elements of gov't. I'm not saying that the score for each faction has been equal, but neither has the balance of power in gov't been equal these two years, so that's to be expected. If the balance of power shifts in the fall, we can expect the score to even out. But don't expect that the paradigm will completely shift, it rarely does.

[KTM Rider]

Try to accept that there are those with an opposing view to your own.

Sadly many people who voted for Obama cant quantify why and yet their vote is worth the same as mine. Not knowing why you support Obama or supporting him because you are ignorant and his skin is the right color is not an opposing view....its stupidity. Opposing views can be discussed. Stupidity cannot.

[Dan43]

Someone from a different perspective might say there was a peaceful revolution at the ballot box two years ago. Try to accept that there are those with an opposing view to your own. Understanding their view is important to achieve some sort of resolution.
Are your refering to when the Dems took control from the Reps? That was not a revolution. That was a revolving door. It does not matter which party the politician elected belongs to. The problem is that we have politicians running the government.

BTW: Obama would not know what "the middle ground" looked like it a 9.9 earth quake reached up an slapped him with it. He is just another damn politician.

[Karl Hungus]

Are your refering to when the Dems took control from the Reps? That was not a revolution. That was a revolving door. It does not matter which party the politician elected belongs to. The problem is that we have politicians running the government.

And very little will change this year. Did you see that the "Gather Your Armies" Tea Party guy lost the primary in Alabama? That one surprised even me.