• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Put families on the street or raise taxes on the rich.

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
With the right going after every safety net from SS ,medicare, Medicaid ,food support ,housing support, disability , generally all of this countries safety nets . Should the right get what they want or should we raise taxes on the wealthy. To take care of it. You won't get far here with everyone's a cheat routine, without credible sources supporting that scenario.
 

nota bene

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
63,478
Reaction score
34,999
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where are your own credible sources to support the claim that "the right going after every safety net from SS ,medicare, Medicaid ,food support ,housing support, disability , generally all of this countries safety nets"?
 

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Where are your own credible sources to support the claim that "the right going after every safety net from SS ,medicare, Medicaid ,food support ,housing support, disability , generally all of this countries safety nets"?
Lets start with Paul Ryan , he alone will make my point.
 

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Where are your own credible sources to support the claim that "the right going after every safety net from SS ,medicare, Medicaid ,food support ,housing support, disability , generally all of this countries safety nets"?
Economy & Labor
After Tax Cuts for Richest, House GOP Unveils $5.4 Trillion Attack on Nation’s Safety Net https://truthout.org/articles/after...ls-5-4-trillion-attack-on-nations-safety-net/ With the nation’s attention rightly fixated on President Donald Trump’s horrific treatment of immigrant children, House Republicans on Tuesday quietly unveiled their 2019 budget proposal that calls for $537 billion in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and four billion in cuts to Social Security over the next decade in an effort to pay for their deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy.

“It’s morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American,” the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP’s budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic THIS IS WHAT THE RIGHT PLANS FOR THIS COUNTRY< REMEMBER THIS IS AFTER A CUT FOR BUSINESS AND THE WEALTHY taxscum.jpg This is what these clowns call a tax cut for everyone.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,224
Reaction score
81,333
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
"common dreams" is hardly an objective site-it is far left opinion
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,542
Reaction score
40,183
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
With the right going after every safety net from SS ,medicare, Medicaid ,food support ,housing support, disability , generally all of this countries safety nets . Should the right get what they want or should we raise taxes on the wealthy. To take care of it. You won't get far here with everyone's a cheat routine, without credible sources supporting that scenario.

How have these entitlement or "safety net" programs been "gone after"? Every year they get more funding and have more people (and businesses) becoming dependent on them. They, for the most part, are referred to as 'mandatory' federal spending.

The idea that raising individual federal income tax rates on only the (uber rich) top 1% would allow not only elimination of the current ($1T?) federal 'budget' deficit but also fund UHC and "free" college is pure fiction. Keep in mind that the total revenue from indiviual federal income taxation is less than $2T annually. In order to make that cover even just the current $1T annual federal deficit (with no added spending at all) would require an accross the board rate increase of 50% - more if it only applied to the (uber rich) top 1%.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
263,224
Reaction score
81,333
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Economy & Labor
After Tax Cuts for Richest, House GOP Unveils $5.4 Trillion Attack on Nation’s Safety Net https://truthout.org/articles/after...ls-5-4-trillion-attack-on-nations-safety-net/ With the nation’s attention rightly fixated on President Donald Trump’s horrific treatment of immigrant children, House Republicans on Tuesday quietly unveiled their 2019 budget proposal that calls for $537 billion in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and four billion in cuts to Social Security over the next decade in an effort to pay for their deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy.

“It’s morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American,” the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP’s budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic THIS IS WHAT THE RIGHT PLANS FOR THIS COUNTRY< REMEMBER THIS IS AFTER A CUT FOR BUSINESS AND THE WEALTHY View attachment 67244544 This is what these clowns call a tax cut for everyone.

how much of the federal income tax is paid by the richest 20%? the top ONE PERCENT pays about FORTY percent of the Federal income tax
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,542
Reaction score
40,183
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Lets start with Paul Ryan , he alone will make my point.

Your point is moot - Paul Ryan did not seek re-election in 2018. Why not just cite the House/Senate bills that allegedly cut these programs? Then we can all see who sponored and/or voted for those bills.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,542
Reaction score
40,183
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Economy & Labor
After Tax Cuts for Richest, House GOP Unveils $5.4 Trillion Attack on Nation’s Safety Net https://truthout.org/articles/after...ls-5-4-trillion-attack-on-nations-safety-net/ With the nation’s attention rightly fixated on President Donald Trump’s horrific treatment of immigrant children, House Republicans on Tuesday quietly unveiled their 2019 budget proposal that calls for $537 billion in cuts to Medicare, $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, and four billion in cuts to Social Security over the next decade in an effort to pay for their deficit-exploding tax cuts for the wealthy.

“It’s morally bankrupt, patently absurd, and grossly un-American,” the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires said of the GOP’s budget proposal, which calls for $5.4 trillion in spending cuts from major domestic THIS IS WHAT THE RIGHT PLANS FOR THIS COUNTRY< REMEMBER THIS IS AFTER A CUT FOR BUSINESS AND THE WEALTHY View attachment 67244544 This is what these clowns call a tax cut for everyone.

House committee resolutions (from June?) are simply talking points (fuzzy general ideas?) - they are not House bills that have been written, CBO scored or even introduced for a floor vote. There was no 'pay for' associated with the last round of federal income tax rate cuts which is why the federal deficit increased after they passed.

EDIT: Here is the actual text of that 'super detailed' House committee resolutiion:

https://budget.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/BUDGET_RESOLUTION_FY2019_xml.pdf

Note that every amount has been left blank - the horror!
 
Last edited:

distraff

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
839
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
With the right going after every safety net from SS ,medicare, Medicaid ,food support ,housing support, disability , generally all of this countries safety nets . Should the right get what they want or should we raise taxes on the wealthy. To take care of it. You won't get far here with everyone's a cheat routine, without credible sources supporting that scenario.

The problem with a lot of this support is that it doesn't perminantly lift people into prosperity. Mostly, it just keeps them surviving. This is what we need to do.

SS -> Taxpayer funded investment accounts (like 401ks)
Medicare -> Universal healthcare
Food Support -> Keep it, food is cheap. Make sure they can only buy healthy food though.
Housing Support and disabilities -> People should rely on their families and have free college programs to get people out of poverty. We can't keep giving free stuff to the weak.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,542
Reaction score
40,183
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The problem with a lot of this support is that it doesn't perminantly lift people into prosperity. Mostly, it just keeps them surviving. This is what we need to do.

SS -> Taxpayer funded investment accounts (like 401ks)
Medicare -> Universal healthcare
Food Support -> Keep it, food is cheap. Make sure they can only buy healthy food though.
Housing Support and disabilities -> People should rely on their families and have free college programs to get people out of poverty. We can't keep giving free stuff to the weak.

Social Security is OK as is (and was designed as a retirement supplement to keep the elderly "just surviving"), but the 'contributions' (FICA payroll tax rate) must be raised to keep pace with rising retirement benefit levels and the (currently) falling worker to retiree ratio.

The rest of the "safety net" is simply a subsidy to allow employers (job creators?) to pay lower wages (and taxes) without running out of folks (qualified applicants?) to meet the ridiculous 'work requirements' of 20 hours/week.

The federal government has no business (constitutional authority for) messing with health insurance or education.
 

distraff

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
839
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Social Security is OK as is (and was designed as a retirement supplement to keep the elderly "just surviving"), but the 'contributions' (FICA payroll tax rate) must be raised to keep pace with rising retirement benefit levels and the (currently) falling worker to retiree ratio.

The rest of the "safety net" is simply a subsidy to allow employers (job creators?) to pay lower wages (and taxes) without running out of folks (qualified applicants?) to meet the ridiculous 'work requirements' of 20 hours/week.

The federal government has no business (constitutional authority for) messing with health insurance or education.

Social security is dying. The problem is that when it was instituted, it was meant for the very old and the starting age for social security was above the average life expectancy. When it was instituted, there were 42 contributers for everyone who benefited. Today, it is a shocking 1 - 3, ratio and has resulted in a much higher social security tax and much worse benefits. By 2040, it will drop to 1 to 2. Even now, the social security fund is running out of money, and they are going to have to raise taxes again, or cut benefits. Even the "inflation adjusted" benefits increases don't keep up with inflation.

Whats worse is that the majority of the population is completely unprepared for retirement. According to studies 74% are not ready for retirement, 42% will retire broke, and 65% will save little or nothing. We are going to have a big problem with tens of millions of elderly retiring into extreme poverty like we have never seen before.

Another problem is that the savings rate for the middle class has declined over the decades while the rich are getting richer and richer and are investing more and more. This means that the rich use their money to make more money, which widens inequality, while the middle class just gets itself into debt.

We can solve both problems by expanding the 401K idea, so that instead of social security, we dump the same tax-payer money into retirement accounts, and people can choose how to invest it. We can then require companies to match what people put into those accounts themselves up to a certain high amount, maybe 10% of income or $20,000 or something. This way, every American will have plenty of saving and the middle class can also have money that makes them more money.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,542
Reaction score
40,183
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Social security is dying. The problem is that when it was instituted, it was meant for the very old and the starting age for social security was above the average life expectancy. When it was instituted, there were 42 contributers for everyone who benefited. Today, it is a shocking 1 - 3, ratio and has resulted in a much higher social security tax and much worse benefits. By 2040, it will drop to 1 to 2. Even now, the social security fund is running out of money, and they are going to have to raise taxes again, or cut benefits. Even the "inflation adjusted" benefits increases don't keep up with inflation.

Whats worse is that the majority of the population is completely unprepared for retirement. According to studies 74% are not ready for retirement, 42% will retire broke, and 65% will save little or nothing. We are going to have a big problem with tens of millions of elderly retiring into extreme poverty like we have never seen before.

Another problem is that the savings rate for the middle class has declined over the decades while the rich are getting richer and richer and are investing more and more. This means that the rich use their money to make more money, which widens inequality, while the middle class just gets itself into debt.

We can solve both problems by expanding the 401K idea, so that instead of social security, we dump the same tax-payer money into retirement accounts, and people can choose how to invest it. We can then require companies to match what people put into those accounts themselves up to a certain high amount, maybe 10% of income or $20,000 or something. This way, every American will have plenty of saving and the middle class can also have money that makes them more money.

The problem with the (your?) 401K 'alternative to SS' idea is that 100% (and soon to be more) of FICA payroll taxes are required to fund our current SS retirees - therefore any "instead of SS" system created rips the rug out from under current (and near current) retirees leaving (many of) them competely destitute. If you are going to increse (double?) everyone's retirement 'contribution' (FICA tax) then that alone 'fixes" the SS funding problem - leaving SS as a viable 'pay as you go' system.

You offered 10% of income as a 401K 'contribution' but that would have to be in addition to the 7.65% 'contribution' now being made - double that with mandated employer matching and you then have a 35.3% retirement tax burden placed on all (up to some cap?) gross wages - an amount higher than what is reccomened for rent/mortgage spending.
 

distraff

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
839
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The problem with the (your?) 401K 'alternative to SS' idea is that 100% (and soon to be more) of FICA payroll taxes are required to fund our current SS retirees - therefore any "instead of SS" system created rips the rug out from under current (and near current) retirees leaving (many of) them competely destitute. If you are going to increse (double?) everyone's retirement 'contribution' (FICA tax) then that alone 'fixes" the SS funding problem - leaving SS as a viable 'pay as you go' system.

You offered 10% of income as a 401K 'contribution' but that would have to be in addition to the 7.65% 'contribution' now being made - double that with mandated employer matching and you then have a 35.3% retirement tax burden placed on all (up to some cap?) gross wages - an amount higher than what is reccomened for rent/mortgage spending.

Yes, switching between our terrible program where retirees are paid by current taxpayers, to one where retirees are paid over time by taxpayers in the past will mean that current retirees will be screwed with no money in their buckets, or we will have to pay double for current retirees and future ones. But my argument is that we have to switch because our current program is dying, and this new program will be so much better, even if it hurts. It like going though a painful surgery to feel better in the future.

Also, what we can do is raise the age for social security to 80 gradually, above the current life expectancy, like it was when social security started. We can then take some of the revenues of our current social security program and fund current 401Ks. Eventually we can phase out the current social security completely and implement the new program completely.

In other countries like China, families are really important and the elderly live with their children rather than on government benefits. Some of the elderly can do this if they are having trouble dealing with the changes. Its tough, probably too tough to ever happen, but its what should happen.

Or at the very least maybe what we can do is beef up 401Ks, while we reduce the social security tax slowly, and cut benefits.
 

RileyCoyote

Banned
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
354
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why should some people get to live for free in America? Why doesn't everyone have to contribute to their own livelihoods? I see able bodied people everyday down at the business corridor, with signs begging for money.....when there are all kinds of businesses hiring right in front of them. They don't want to work an honest job for whatever reasons. People need to be responsible for their own well being, unless they are physically incapable.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,542
Reaction score
40,183
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, switching between our terrible program where retirees are paid by current taxpayers, to one where retirees are paid over time by taxpayers in the past will mean that current retirees will be screwed with no money in their buckets, or we will have to pay double for current retirees and future ones. But my argument is that we have to switch because our current program is dying, and this new program will be so much better, even if it hurts. It like going though a painful surgery to feel better in the future.

Also, what we can do is raise the age for social security to 80 gradually, above the current life expectancy, like it was when social security started. We can then take some of the revenues of our current social security program and fund current 401Ks. Eventually we can phase out the current social security completely and implement the new program completely.

In other countries like China, families are really important and the elderly live with their children rather than on government benefits. Some of the elderly can do this if they are having trouble dealing with the changes. Its tough, probably too tough to ever happen, but its what should happen.

Or at the very least maybe what we can do is beef up 401Ks, while we reduce the social security tax slowly, and cut benefits.

Raising the SS retirement age further is impractical - it would result in even more successful SSDI claims which cost taxpayers more than the basic SS retirement benefits which they would replace (avoid?).
 

manofknowledge

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
915
Reaction score
249
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yes, switching between our terrible program where retirees are paid by current taxpayers, to one where retirees are paid over time by taxpayers in the past will mean that current retirees will be screwed with no money in their buckets, or we will have to pay double for current retirees and future ones. But my argument is that we have to switch because our current program is dying, and this new program will be so much better, even if it hurts. It like going though a painful surgery to feel better in the future.

Also, what we can do is raise the age for social security to 80 gradually, above the current life expectancy, like it was when social security started. We can then take some of the revenues of our current social security program and fund current 401Ks. Eventually we can phase out the current social security completely and implement the new program completely.

In other countries like China, families are really important and the elderly live with their children rather than on government benefits. Some of the elderly can do this if they are having trouble dealing with the changes. Its tough, probably too tough to ever happen, but its what should happen.

Or at the very least maybe what we can do is beef up 401Ks, while we reduce the social security tax slowly, and cut benefits.

Social Security is not dying. It is experiencing a temporary shortfall because it has not been adjusted over time correctly and there happens to be an anomaly in the population of the elderly now due to Baby Boomers. Once we all die off the burden will be greatly reduced. SS can be easily fixed through a few minor adjustments to revenue. Historically it has run surpluses and maintains a Trust Fund. It was never a pay current benefits from current revenue system.

When SS was started more than 50% of the elderly were living in poor houses along with the mentally ill and disabled. The burden on families to support their elderly impeded their own prosperity and dragged on the entire economy. It is much better to have the elderly support themselves as SS does. Currently the elderly do quite well thanks in part to SS.

401Ks are a nice empoloyment perk, but they are unreliable and completely dependent on the state of the economy. The last thing we need is a system that fails at the same time the rest of the economy is in recession.
 

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The problem with a lot of this support is that it doesn't perminantly lift people into prosperity. Mostly, it just keeps them surviving. This is what we need to do.

SS -> Taxpayer funded investment accounts (like 401ks)
Medicare -> Universal healthcare
Food Support -> Keep it, food is cheap. Make sure they can only buy healthy food though.
Housing Support and disabilities -> People should rely on their families and have free college programs to get people out of poverty. We can't keep giving free stuff to the weak.
Go ahead tell me through history when there hasn't been people in need , what your offering will only make things worse. SS works fine and your way will increase the retired poor by many times and unless you stick to a consequence of not helping any of these retired poor then it will do nothing. These people will feed their family before they do your 401's. What do you think disability is anyway.
 

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Social security is dying. The problem is that when it was instituted, it was meant for the very old and the starting age for social security was above the average life expectancy. When it was instituted, there were 42 contributers for everyone who benefited. Today, it is a shocking 1 - 3, ratio and has resulted in a much higher social security tax and much worse benefits. By 2040, it will drop to 1 to 2. Even now, the social security fund is running out of money, and they are going to have to raise taxes again, or cut benefits. Even the "inflation adjusted" benefits increases don't keep up with inflation.

Whats worse is that the majority of the population is completely unprepared for retirement. According to studies 74% are not ready for retirement, 42% will retire broke, and 65% will save little or nothing. We are going to have a big problem with tens of millions of elderly retiring into extreme poverty like we have never seen before.

Another problem is that the savings rate for the middle class has declined over the decades while the rich are getting richer and richer and are investing more and more. This means that the rich use their money to make more money, which widens inequality, while the middle class just gets itself into debt.

We can solve both problems by expanding the 401K idea, so that instead of social security, we dump the same tax-payer money into retirement accounts, and people can choose how to invest it. We can then require companies to match what people put into those accounts themselves up to a certain high amount, maybe 10% of income or $20,000 or something. This way, every American will have plenty of saving and the middle class can also have money that makes them more money.
You have this ridiculous idea that all the retired people who are unprepared for retirement are because they bought to many yachts or something. They are using the money in totally responsible ways in most cases. They have to feed their family and put a roof over their families head. Your education Idea is good but after you do it business will still want to pay these people$7.50 and hour or whatever minimum wage is and they will. So how does that improve anything. Do you actually think that wages will go up because of total education. There is nothing wrong with social security ,the increasing the ss taxable amount to all dollars earned will be a massive step foreword, increased percentages is no problem either. Tell me what difference does it make adding more to social security oy your 401's you are suggesting. Fix SS , no big deal. The right wants to cut it to give to the wealthy. That is 100% fact, They got there tax cut for the rich and the next day started to go after all safety net programs.
 

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Social security is dying. The problem is that when it was instituted, it was meant for the very old and the starting age for social security was above the average life expectancy. When it was instituted, there were 42 contributers for everyone who benefited. Today, it is a shocking 1 - 3, ratio and has resulted in a much higher social security tax and much worse benefits. By 2040, it will drop to 1 to 2. Even now, the social security fund is running out of money, and they are going to have to raise taxes again, or cut benefits. Even the "inflation adjusted" benefits increases don't keep up with inflation.

Whats worse is that the majority of the population is completely unprepared for retirement. According to studies 74% are not ready for retirement, 42% will retire broke, and 65% will save little or nothing. We are going to have a big problem with tens of millions of elderly retiring into extreme poverty like we have never seen before.

Another problem is that the savings rate for the middle class has declined over the decades while the rich are getting richer and richer and are investing more and more. This means that the rich use their money to make more money, which widens inequality, while the middle class just gets itself into debt.

We can solve both problems by expanding the 401K idea, so that instead of social security, we dump the same tax-payer money into retirement accounts, and people can choose how to invest it. We can then require companies to match what people put into those accounts themselves up to a certain high amount, maybe 10% of income or $20,000 or something. This way, every American will have plenty of saving and the middle class can also have money that makes them more money.
letting people decide where the ycan invest will be a disaster, look at the numbers of what people invest in.
 

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Yes, switching between our terrible program where retirees are paid by current taxpayers, to one where retirees are paid over time by taxpayers in the past will mean that current retirees will be screwed with no money in their buckets, or we will have to pay double for current retirees and future ones. But my argument is that we have to switch because our current program is dying, and this new program will be so much better, even if it hurts. It like going though a painful surgery to feel better in the future.

Also, what we can do is raise the age for social security to 80 gradually, above the current life expectancy, like it was when social security started. We can then take some of the revenues of our current social security program and fund current 401Ks. Eventually we can phase out the current social security completely and implement the new program completely.

In other countries like China, families are really important and the elderly live with their children rather than on government benefits. Some of the elderly can do this if they are having trouble dealing with the changes. Its tough, probably too tough to ever happen, but its what should happen.

Or at the very least maybe what we can do is beef up 401Ks, while we reduce the social security tax slowly, and cut benefits.
How old are you, 80 retirement age. nonsense.
 

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Why should some people get to live for free in America? Why doesn't everyone have to contribute to their own livelihoods? I see able bodied people everyday down at the business corridor, with signs begging for money.....when there are all kinds of businesses hiring right in front of them. They don't want to work an honest job for whatever reasons. People need to be responsible for their own well being, unless they are physically incapable.
I love this I know a guy routine, you have no idea why this person is asking for money and you have no way to decide what he is capable of doing while he is standing in one spot with a sign, You psychic knowlegde won't work because your the only one that has it.
 

jbander

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2013
Messages
9,244
Reaction score
1,045
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Social Security is not dying. It is experiencing a temporary shortfall because it has not been adjusted over time correctly and there happens to be an anomaly in the population of the elderly now due to Baby Boomers. Once we all die off the burden will be greatly reduced. SS can be easily fixed through a few minor adjustments to revenue. Historically it has run surpluses and maintains a Trust Fund. It was never a pay current benefits from current revenue system.

When SS was started more than 50% of the elderly were living in poor houses along with the mentally ill and disabled. The burden on families to support their elderly impeded their own prosperity and dragged on the entire economy. It is much better to have the elderly support themselves as SS does. Currently the elderly do quite well thanks in part to SS.

401Ks are a nice empoloyment perk, but they are unreliable and completely dependent on the state of the economy. The last thing we need is a system that fails at the same time the rest of the economy is in recession.
Tax all income will take care of the 75 years that it will be a problem . So I fixed it. I want a trophy. (it's the baby boomer problem that actually goes away in time.)
 

Irwin Corey

Proud AmeriCAN
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
3,419
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Where are your own credible sources to support the claim that "the right going after every safety net from SS ,medicare, Medicaid ,food support ,housing support, disability , generally all of this countries safety nets"?

I think it's abundantly clear that the GOP would like to cut social programs to make up for their tax cuts for the wealthy.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/20/medicare-social-security-cuts-budget/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/17/17989354/federal-deficit-social-security-medicare-2018-midterms

https://www.newsweek.com/tax-plan-social-security-medicare-welfare-republicans-rubio-729133

And definitely would have had they won the House in the Mid-Terms.
 
Top Bottom