Are Seniors Lazy Parasites

[ecofarm]

This is a horrible thing to say but Ima do it anyway.


When I am striken with a horrible illness that is mostly terminal, I'm just gonna go. I'll take a few pills and a little help from the hospital, but I'm not gonna do millions in chemo, surgery and hospital stays. I'm only 40, but I've made my choices (I smoke and drink) and I have been blessed beyond anything I could possibly deserve. An old person terrified of death is a sad thing in my book. There are children who starve at age 3 having never seen real food. 50,000 children die every day from lack of clean food and water. I've lived free and done what I wanted for a long time (all of my 40) and I just cannot see going in an economic scream. I don't understand blessed mature adults crying about million dollar treatments while children who've had nothing starve.

I don't wanna die. My days are wonderful and I want them to never end. But, by 40 or so at least, people should be comfortable with their lives. They should have their things settled, their friends made, their famly aware and their soul established. I do not get why some go out the way they came in, as if they never saw nothin'.

 

[DemonMyst]

That $22 trillion is not in cash, nor is it in value added income producing assets.
It is in special government bonds, where the money is borrowed by Congress to spend as they wish.

It is a false surplus.

Prove it.. I don't see no links in your post??

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I certianly like this plan and see the merits of it.. I do however have a few questions??

Thank you. Happy to answer.

What if the person in question has no drug or alcohol history?? Would they still have to submit to testing??

Minimally. I liken it to when I worked in a psychiatric outpatient facility. Those with a substance use history were tested 1-2 times per week. Those without were tested upon admission and then once randomly during their stay.

What about patients of medical treatment, that are on medications for life?? Some people are on pain killers for life, others are on blood thinners, some are on heart medications?? Would these people have to submit??

Same as above, but their PRESCRIBED medications would be exceptions.

Does the reason someone is on SS or medicare or medicaid have any bearing on on these tests?? Someone with down syndrome perhaps?? Severly Autistic?? Any other affliction??

Absolutely. They would go into the "minimal" pool.

The issue that seems to be missed is that most and most by a tremendous margin are on SS and medicare or medicaid for a reason.. Not because they want to be.. It seems unfair to require drug screens and alcohol tests that most likely many of these people will fail anyways because of the meds they are on..

Testing for prescribed meds is not very complicated. However, there are folks who are on prescribed meds AND are substance abusers. That is why I want a minimal plan in place for those who are not identified as users in any way. You never know when the problem might start, and I think it is unreasonable for someone to spend government money on alcohol or drugs rather than food or shelter.

Another thought that is never considered is what exactly makes someone unable to work?? Let's consider for a moment someone that is on blood thinners but otherwise for the most part healthy.. Depending on how high the INR has to be, but for this discussion we well say between 2.5 and 3.5, which is pretty high.. A simple nose bleed can become deadly rather quickly.. A simply papercut could also become a serious issue.. No medical insurance company is going to touch them with a 50 foot pole.. Most employers won't higher them because of the possible liability.. Even to be a greeter at a Walmart.

This is managed under "The CaptainCourtesy Health Plan". It is a tiered plan with a government option. I've posted it a few times over the past two years.

So?? What happens to such a person?? This isn't really to you CC, but it sickens me to see the number of people here that simply think people are lazy and want to be on SS.. I am sure there is some fraud out there.. There is fraud in anything.. But I never hear anyone condemn banks or bank customers because some people rob banks.

There is no possible way to make a perfect system where fraud will never occur. I think putting more controls and monitoring in the system can significantly reduce it. I am big on regulation... as most progressives are. If left to their own devices, without regulations, people will do what they can to take advantage of the system. It is the psychology of greed and it over-rules just about everything. The more regulations that are put into place in a system like this, the less likely it is that there will be abuses. They cannot be eliminated, but they can be reduced.

Everyone needs to stop and consider why people are on SS and medicare.. It is either because they are old and retired or forced out of the work force.

There are lots of reasons why people are on SS and Medicare. What is equally important, though, is why people REMAIN on SS and Medicare. Sometimes it is because of legitimate circumstances. Sometimes not.

Again, that wasn't to you SS.. I am just trying to make a point here.

I know. Your points and concerns are valid. I hope I addressed them.

 

[DemonMyst]

This is a horrible thing to say but Ima do it anyway.


When I am striken with a horrible illness that is mostly terminal, I'm just gonna go. I'll take a few pills and a little help from the hospital, but I'm not gonna do millions in chemo, surgery and hospital stays. I'm only 40, but I've made my choices (I smoke and drink) and I have been blessed beyond anything I could possibly deserve. An old person terrified of death is a sad thing in my book. There are children who starve at age 3 having never seen real food. 50,000 children die every day from lack of clean food and water. I've lived free and done what I wanted for a long time (all of my 40) and I just cannot see going in an economic scream. I don't understand blessed mature adults crying about million dollar treatments while children who've had nothing starve.

I don't wanna die. My days are wonderful and I want them to never end. But, by 40 or so at least, people should be comfortable with their lives. They should have their things settled, their friends made, their famly aware and their soul established. I do not get why some go out the way they came in, as if they never saw nothin'.

No offense.. And maybe you will.. But saying that here, and actually staring death in the face is two different things.. Nobody wants to die.. And nobody should be faulted for choosing to live..

 

[ecofarm]

No offense.. And maybe you will.. But saying that here, and actually staring death in the face is two different things.. Nobody wants to die.. And nobody should be faulted for choosing to live..

No offense taken. I've been close plenty and I live in the bush. Ain't no cops for miles on dirt roads or hospitals either; and ain't nobody got a car around here (when I'm in village). I've been uninsured for about 15 years and I don't have any money. Ain't no help comin' my way. I walk like I talk. It's been fun and I ain't a bit scared, just wanna go with my boots on if that's ok with us.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Prove it.. I don't see no links in your post??

The 2011 annual report by the program's Board of Trustees noted the following: in 2010, 54 million people were receiving Social Security benefits, while 157 million people were paying into the fund; of those receiving benefits, 44 million were receiving retirement benefits and 10 million disability benefits. In 2011, there will be 56 million beneficiaries and 158 million workers paying in. In 2010, total income was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security, as demographic shifts burden the system. By 2035, the ratio of potential retirees to working age persons will be 37% — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036 without legislative action.

In 2009 the Office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration calculated an unfunded obligation of $15.1 trillion for the Social Security program. The unfunded obligation is the difference between the present value of the cost of Social Security and the present value of the assets in the Trust Fund and the future scheduled tax income of the program.

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The bonds are not putting the money towards income producing assets, like creating value added products or services.
They are merely paying for government programs and services.

 

[DemonMyst]

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The bonds are not putting the money towards income producing assets, like creating value added products or services.
They are merely paying for government programs and services.

You will have to do better than wikipedia.. No college in america accepts that as a credible source.. That would be strike one..

 

[Mensch]

You will have to do better than wikipedia.. No college in america accepts that as a credible source.. That would be strike one..

Actually, you are incorrect in that regard. Three or four years ago, you would be correct. However today there is actually more peer-review of Wikipedia, even among academic circles, than is commonly found in traditional academic online databases such as JSTOR and LexusNexus.

 

[DemonMyst]

Actually, you are incorrect in that regard. Three or four years ago, you would be correct. However today there is actually more peer-review of Wikipedia, even among academic circles, than is commonly found in traditional academic online databases such as JSTOR and LexusNexus.

Well.. I am just going by some of the issue my wife is having.. Pima medical won't accept it.. Highline commuty college won't accept it and neither will the UW.. So maybe there are some colleges out there that will.. It still isn't a good source..

There are a number of articles out there about the SS surplus.. It doesn't matter if it is bonds or what it is.. The issue is that SS isn't this big burdon that conservatives like to say it is.. They just want it to be, because it is more tasteful to them to make grandma and grandpa poorer than they already are, instead of making the rich pay their share..

Anyone remember talk about Bush raiding the SS lockbox?? What exactly were they talking about then??

http://www.slate.com/id/2093707/

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You will have to do better than wikipedia.. No college in america accepts that as a credible source.. That would be strike one..

These are the articles that are referenced for each of the quoted areas I used from Wiki.
Feel free to peruse them for validity.
Of course Wikipedia is just as good and collegiate discrimination is not evidence that the material is factually incorrect.

2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees – Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran1/an2008-1.pdf

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2009/tr09.pdf

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Well.. I am just going by some of the issue my wife is having.. Pima medical won't accept it.. Highline commuty college won't accept it and neither will the UW.. So maybe there are some colleges out there that will.. It still isn't a good source..

There are a number of articles out there about the SS surplus.. It doesn't matter if it is bonds or what it is.. The issue is that SS isn't this big burdon that conservatives like to say it is.. They just want it to be, because it is more tasteful to them to make grandma and grandpa poorer than they already are, instead of making the rich pay their share..

Anyone remember talk about Bush raiding the SS lockbox?? What exactly were they talking about then??

Congress was using SS funds before Bush.
You don't need to turn this into a political mud slinging fest.

 

[DemonMyst]

Congress was using SS funds before Bush.
You don't need to turn this into a political mud slinging fest.

I am not.. My point is that SS isn't this big huge debt that conservatives think it is.. That is all..

At the very least there is conflicting information out there.. I have seen tons of graphs showing it to be a huge debt, which still strikes me as odd as it has it's own tax to fund it.. It isn't part of the general fund or tax..

And then there are tons of articles claiming it has a surplus and all is well?? I would guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.. Which means that SS isn't in a lot of trouble and for the most part is most likely solvent for the time being.. Which means there is no reason to mess with it..

 

[Mensch]

Well.. I am just going by some of the issue my wife is having.. Pima medical won't accept it.. Highline commuty college won't accept it and neither will the UW.. So maybe there are some colleges out there that will.. It still isn't a good source..

There are a number of articles out there about the SS surplus.. It doesn't matter if it is bonds or what it is.. The issue is that SS isn't this big burdon that conservatives like to say it is.. They just want it to be, because it is more tasteful to them to make grandma and grandpa poorer than they already are, instead of making the rich pay their share..

Anyone remember talk about Bush raiding the SS lockbox?? What exactly were they talking about then??

What is absolutely hilarious is that so many individuals believe the SS surplus of 2000 somehow meant that our government had completely paid its debt. We still had an enormous deficit and the bond surplus, whatever it was, was a very short-term gain that ended quickly. In Clinton's glorious years, we were still seeing an increase in spending, but the increase in spending was limited relative to the spending habits of previous and future administrations.

 

[DemonMyst]

These are the articles that are referenced for each of the quoted areas I used from Wiki.
Feel free to peruse them for validity.
Of course Wikipedia is just as good and collegiate discrimination is not evidence that the material is factually incorrect.

2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees – Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/NOTES/ran1/an2008-1.pdf

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2009/tr09.pdf

Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years.

That was from one of your links.. There is your surplus..

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I am not.. My point is that SS isn't this big huge debt that conservatives think it is.. That is all..

At the very least there is conflicting information out there.. I have seen tons of graphs showing it to be a huge debt, which still strikes me as odd as it has it's own tax to fund it.. It isn't part of the general fund or tax..

And then there are tons of articles claiming it has a surplus and all is well?? I would guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.. Which means that SS isn't in a lot of trouble and for the most part is most likely solvent for the time being.. Which means there is no reason to mess with it..

The truth is that the money is collected, spent on current retirees, while all surpluses are given to Congress to spend in the general fund and the treasury is issued bonds, to supposedly cover future payments.

This isn't the 1st time SS has had problems, it's been an on going issue since the 70's.
With band aids made to patch it up.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

That was from one of your links.. There is your surplus..

I am aware of that, but that surplus is not the $22 trillion your article cited.
That's why it's a false surplus.

 

[DemonMyst]

What is absolutely hilarious is that so many individuals believe the SS surplus of 2000 somehow meant that our government had completely paid its debt. We still had an enormous deficit and the bond surplus, whatever it was, was a very short-term gain that ended quickly. In Clinton's glorious years, we were still seeing an increase in spending, but the increase in spending was limited relative to the spending habits of previous and future administrations.

The surplus we had in 2000 was a budget surplus.. Which Bush turned into a deficit.. I don't know anything about the SS surplus in 2000.. I could look it up.. But I never believed the debt was paid off.. Bush should have used the surplus to pay down the debt.. Instead he gaves the rich his tax cuts.. He even used the surplus as a selling point for his tax cuts..

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The surplus we had in 2000 was a budget surplus.. Which Bush turned into a deficit.. I don't know anything about the SS surplus in 2000.. I could look it up.. But I never believed the debt was paid off.. Bush should have used the surplus to pay down the debt.. Instead he gaves the rich his tax cuts.. He even used the surplus as a selling point for his tax cuts..

If all you care about is playing the blame game and making misleading claims about taxation, then nothing will get solved, other than more people playing the blame game.

 

[DemonMyst]

I am aware of that, but that surplus is not the $22 trillion your article cited.
That's why it's a false surplus.

Well.. I don't know what to say there.. There is more than one site that quotes the $22 trillion and others that quote a much smaller amount.. Could be a typo.. Maybe it is supposed to be $2.2 trillion.. Who knows..

 

[DemonMyst]

If all you care about is playing the blame game and making misleading claims about taxation, then nothing will get solved, other than more people playing the blame game.

What is wrong with my statement?? Are you claiming that Bush did not use the surplus as a selling point for his tax cuts?? Would you like a Youtube video?? This isn't about a blame game.. This is historical fact.. Bush took office with a surplus.. One that he acknowleged existed.. It is not a large deficit.. Why do those statements offend you??

Nothing in my comments are misleading.. I am sorry history offends you..



There you go.. Bush himself..

 

[ecofarm]

What is wrong with my statement?? Are you claiming that Bush did not use the surplus as a selling point for his tax cuts??

Tax cuts are good when there's a surplus. That does not prove that tax cuts are bad in a recession. You need a venn diagram, tax cuts cover the page.

Would you like a Youtube video??

No, thank you.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What is wrong with my statement?? Are you claiming that Bush did not use the surplus as a selling point for his tax cuts?? Would you like a Youtube video?? This isn't about a blame game.. This is historical fact.. Bush took office with a surplus.. One that he acknowleged existed.. It is not a large deficit.. Why do those statements offend you??

Nothing in my comments are misleading.. I am sorry history offends you..



There you go.. Bush himself..

"Tax cuts for the rich" is misleading, because every income level got a tax rate cut.

 

[DemonMyst]

"Tax cuts for the rich" is misleading, because every income level got a tax rate cut.

Sure.. But we all know they benefited the rich more than anyone else..

 

[DemonMyst]

Tax cuts are good when there's a surplus. That does not prove that tax cuts are bad in a recession. You need a venn diagram, tax cuts cover the page.

I would agree with that if 9/11 hadn't just happened.. When you are a nation about to go to war.. The tax cuts should have been round filed and forgotten about.. You don't cut taxes and then increase spending..

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Sure.. But we all know they benefited the rich more than anyone else..

Well you don't really expect a person who makes less money to benefit as much from a tax rate cut as a person who makes much more.
It's a deceptive argument.