What's new
By:

GOP and Tea BAggers to force government shutdown

franklin said:
Kicky--It would be easier to listen to what you are saying if you gave credit to Marcus for the "paid not to work" claim. You're taking those who truly need help and lumping them in with everyone else who does not. I'd guess that's the majority (at least at the front end years), but it doesn't really matter either way. The problem I see is we're paying people who have no assistance needs whatsoever. I knew a millionaire, with two pensions, still working full time and 35+ years on that pension, and was still collecting SS benefits. That's a great big WTF? to me. The explanation is always "well, we paid into it so we deserve it". BS. I pay into the food bank but I'm not demanding a bag of potatoes and daily bread.

The way I see it is the right promotes a socialist system that pays everyone regardless of social stature, while the left whines about working during elderly years like it's some innate right to retire and live off of others. Out of 10,000 years, there was a 40 year or so period when pensions provided this. That model is a company buster and has rightfully went away for the most part.

I say make it a true safety net for the needy and encourage everyone to take responsibility for themselves. Run out of money at 83 and there's a check waiting for you.
Click to expand...

If your posts weren't always so reasonable I'd be jumping all over the word "socialist". The system, when put like that is definitely socialist I totally agree, and I'm glad that wasn't used as pejoratively as it often is. I do see you have a problem with the idea of social security, but I think we should be celebrating that in a political discussion on the internet, someone with conservative views used the word socialist without being a total douche. You instead made a valid point with a defensible argument (that I disagree with). Internet history here people.
 
fallenchicken said:
I would be much more willing to give the republicans credit if they weren't fighting over things like NPR and Plan Parenthood, which is a very very little part of our budget. They do this so they don't have to cut the things that actually cost us money but at the same time appear that they are working to fix things.
Click to expand...

They do this for the same reason cities poise themselves to lay off the firemen and police and garbage collection if they don't get the bond passed to build the new "Hall of Justice" or if citizens are mad about the property tax increase.

The wars to impose American/corporate interests around the world are all bad ideas. And unconstitutional because we haven't done the congressional declaration of war routine required. . . . I say let's put pressure on congress to cut the military budget in half. . . . oh wait, we have ATK, Hill Field, and half of Tooele county living off that dole.

I know, let's get our state legislature to claim that Federal ownership of large land masses is unconstitutional and turn the Dugway range into an OHV park. . . . uhmmmmm. . . . . cough. . . . . darn it. . . . too many unexploded rounds of artillery and bombs buried in that salt. . . . seems like a lot more degrading to our environment that even the waste sites. . . . .

Not much I see the government doing really warms my heart. And I think if the Feds just donated some tax money to private charities with some non-profit management they could do more to provide for our old and feeble no-longer-able-to-work folks. . . . more bang for the buck, less fix administrative salaries and such. And I just wish I had the money that's been deducted from my pay as FICA. I'd have about twice the net worth I've got now. The Fed gov wouldn't be a loser either on that deal. I would have earned enough on my investements to pay the same amount back to the Fed gov mismanagement bureaucracy.
 
babe said:
I know, let's get our state legislature to claim that Federal ownership of large land masses is unconstitutional and turn the Dugway range into an OHV park. . . . uhmmmmm. . . . . cough. . . . . darn it. . . . too many unexploded rounds of artillery and bombs buried in that salt. . . . seems like a lot more degrading to our environment that even the waste sites. . . . .
Click to expand...

To me that is the selling point for the true extreme sports enthusiasts. "You may or may not live through your OHV experience" would be our slogan.
 
franklin said:
Kicky--It would be easier to listen to what you are saying if you gave credit to Marcus for the "paid not to work" claim. You're taking those who truly need help and lumping them in with everyone else who does not. I'd guess that's the majority (at least at the front end years), but it doesn't really matter either way. The problem I see is we're paying people who have no assistance needs whatsoever. I knew a millionaire, with two pensions, still working full time and 35+ years on that pension, and was still collecting SS benefits. That's a great big WTF? to me. The explanation is always "well, we paid into it so we deserve it". BS. I pay into the food bank but I'm not demanding a bag of potatoes and daily bread.

The way I see it is the right promotes a socialist system that pays everyone regardless of social stature, while the left whines about working during elderly years like it's some innate right to retire and live off of others. Out of 10,000 years, there was a 40 year or so period when pensions provided this. That model is a company buster and has rightfully went away for the most part.

I say make it a true safety net for the needy and encourage everyone to take responsibility for themselves. Run out of money at 83 and there's a check waiting for you.
Click to expand...

Sirkickyass said:
Franklin: I don't have any real objection to means testing social security at the individual level. I do have an objection to abolishing the system in its entirety.
Click to expand...

How much extra time and manpower ($$$) would it take to go through every case individually and determine true need? I'm guessing much more than it would save.

But I'm only guessing.

And I apologize for even commenting.
 
fallenchicken said:
I would be much more willing to give the republicans credit if they weren't fighting over things like NPR and Plan Parenthood, which is a very very little part of our budget. They do this so they don't have to cut the things that actually cost us money but at the same time appear that they are working to fix things.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Isn't the most of the opposition against the Right based on their desire to gut government, particularly the large entitlement programs?
 
babe said:
And I just wish I had the money that's been deducted from my pay as FICA. I'd have about twice the net worth I've got now. The Fed gov wouldn't be a loser either on that deal. I would have earned enough on my investements to pay the same amount back to the Fed gov mismanagement bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

I don't know what your audited, properly calculated portfolio returns are, but the overwhelming research shows that most retail investor returns investing for themselves, particularly over multiple market cycles and spanning an entire lifetime are abysmal. If the data showing investor returns in 401k plans and morningstar's investor returns in mutual funds are any indication, I would guess it would be over 90% of people would under perform SS's long term returns, as paltry as they are.

I am against SS in theory, however, as time goes on I am 100% in favor of the program and this coming from someone who would profit greatly from its demise.

It is not a ponzi scheme and it is not an entitlement program as least for the overwhelming majority of citizens.
 
The Pearl said:
I don't know what your audited, properly calculated portfolio returns are, but the overwhelming research shows that most retail investor returns investing for themselves, particularly over multiple market cycles and spanning an entire lifetime are abysmal. If the data showing investor returns in 401k plans and morningstar's investor returns in mutual funds are any indication, I would guess it would be over 90% of people would under perform SS's long term returns, as paltry as they are.

I am against SS in theory, however, as time goes on I am 100% in favor of the program and this coming from someone who would profit greatly from its demise.

It is not a ponzi scheme and it is not an entitlement program as least for the overwhelming majority of citizens.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your perspective on this. . . . a lot of folks just say that the abysmal "returns" on social security would be outperformed by money in the bank at those low interest rates.

It is true that investors who gamble their stash on stocks don't do well unless they have connections or a very smart way of doing it. My father did well in his opinion playing the stock market, and I tried in "theoretical" investments and found I was usually a loser. I saw where if my father had taken a different course and just bought property he would have done much better.

What I did do was buy distressed properties at deep discounts using my brother's loans which I repaid inside of three years. I did the fix-up and management. I guess that if you count all that work, maybe I didn't do that well either. But I made the most of my own savings, and if I could have had that FICA part of my deductions I would have had about three times as much to invest.

A lot of people I know who relied on their 401(k) for their retirement are just still working.

I would not abolish SS without returning the money taken from folks with some interest, and I intend to work until I drop dead somehow. And I never believed I could actually count on or expect SS money to be returned, not even a part of my plan. But for those who have nothing else I think it's just inhumane to not live up to the national promise /obligation. I would advise younger folks to seek converting it to an option, and require the government to actually keep the money in question invested, at least placing a security like a US Treasury bond in their account.

It's been more like having Uncle Walter in sole control of the family trust while he has been using the money to pay his bills. If Uncle Walter has a lot of money in the bank it's one thing, you might have recourse in time of need. . . . , but if he runs a printing press and expects to pay the trust back in freshly printed cash it's another.
 
fallenchicken said:
I would be much more willing to give the republicans credit if they weren't fighting over things like NPR and Plan Parenthood, which is a very very little part of our budget. They do this so they don't have to cut the things that actually cost us money but at the same time appear that they are working to fix things.
Click to expand...

It's not about PP or NPR, those organizations will be fine without goverment money... the point is that if you can't cut spending on this, what can you cut spending on?
 
Maktub said:
It's not about PP or NPR, those organizations will be fine without goverment money... the point is that if you can't cut spending on this, what can you cut spending on?
Click to expand...

us_vs_world.gif
 
The Thriller said:
us_vs_world.gif
Click to expand...

I'm not saying military spending shouldn't be cut, especially if it could be executed with more wisdom and care, but you need to consider that the defense budget covers MILLIONS of jobs - military and civilian - and that sweeping, hasty cuts in that area would have a huge impact on those workers, the vast majority of whom are not fat cat contractors.
 
Bronco70 said:
I'm not saying military spending shouldn't be cut, especially if it could be executed with more wisdom and care, but you need to consider that the defense budget covers MILLIONS of jobs - military and civilian - and that sweeping, hasty cuts in that area would have a huge impact on those workers, the vast majority of whom are not fat cat contractors.
Click to expand...

Which, again, is an argument for not engaging in budget cutting during a weak economy.
 
You missed the point. Yes military spending can/should come down, but some military spending is necessary. Federal spending on PP and NPR is not. Without it, those programs will be just fine, most of their funding is private.
 
Bronco70 said:
I'm not saying military spending shouldn't be cut, especially if it could be executed with more wisdom and care, but you need to consider that the defense budget covers MILLIONS of jobs - military and civilian - and that sweeping, hasty cuts in that area would have a huge impact on those workers, the vast majority of whom are not fat cat contractors.
Click to expand...

You just made the greatest argument in favor of the Democrats' economic and fiscal policy with this last post.
 
Maktub said:
You missed the point. Yes military spending can/should come down, but some military spending is necessary. Federal spending on PP and NPR is not. Without it, those programs will be just fine, most of their funding is private.
Click to expand...

How much is some?

How do you know that federal spending for something like NPR isn't necessary? What does necessary mean? They'll continue exactly the same without any loss in jobs, benefits, etc? Or does necessary mean that the program will "survive?"

I think you people have been taught all your life certain things. But have never really thought these things through.

You have been taught to cut as many programs as possible, live within your means, yet believe that it would be bad to make cuts that would result in further unemployment, further suffering, and further debt.
 
The Thriller said:
How do you know that federal spending for something like NPR isn't necessary?
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.

The big difference between your argument and those that want to do away with PP and NPR is that it is the federal government's responsibility is to put forth a strong military to both protect its citizens and its borders. PP and NPR are pet social projects of the left that they have been able to get the feds to pay for.
 
Marcus said:
You can't be serious.

The big difference between your argument and those that want to do away with PP and NPR is that it is the federal government's responsibility is to put forth a strong military to both protect its citizens and its borders. PP and NPR are pet social projects of the left that they have been able to get the feds to pay for.
Click to expand...

Care to answer anyone's questions?

Or do you only show up to pick things out of your rear?

I noticed after Kicky and a few others blew you up that you took a 2 day hiatus from this thread.

Interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top