Lets Slash Entitlements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, OP. You may be a Blue Stater, but you are not a good person. We are all Americans, Red or Blue, senior or not, rich or poor.

Uh, you realize the blue staters are willing to sacrifice personal income for the greater good, right?

Lady, states pay no income taxes. It's people who do. Around 50% Americans pay federal income tax and subsidize the rest -- the poors in the cities and the poors in rural areas.

Except the latter get a disproportionate amount of said taxes. That's the point.

Not true, run the numbers. The urban poor are the main drain of public resources.

Data please. This is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, OP. You may be a Blue Stater, but you are not a good person. We are all Americans, Red or Blue, senior or not, rich or poor.

Uh, you realize the blue staters are willing to sacrifice personal income for the greater good, right?

Lady, states pay no income taxes. It's people who do. Around 50% Americans pay federal income tax and subsidize the rest -- the poors in the cities and the poors in rural areas.

Except the latter get a disproportionate amount of said taxes. That's the point.

Not true, run the numbers. The urban poor are the main drain of public resources.

Wrong. Quite wrong and there have been numerous studies and reports on this. Seriously you are dumb.

Once upon a time, posters routinely included links to prove their arguments. Now we call each other dumb.

No links, no intelligent discussion, just name-calling. Sad, DCUM.

+1.

Oh my gosh, it took me all of 5 minutes to find on Google. Why are you lazy, PPs?

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

That's irrelevant to this diacussion. We already know the rich tend to be in coastal states, which vote blue. The question is, who's sucking most taxpayer money, the urban or the rural poor?

To give you an example. DCPS spends more than $15k per student -- a majority of whom are urban poor. Do you really think some poor district in the middle of nowhere Arkansas is spending $15k per kid?

The difference is that DC can afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, OP. You may be a Blue Stater, but you are not a good person. We are all Americans, Red or Blue, senior or not, rich or poor.

Uh, you realize the blue staters are willing to sacrifice personal income for the greater good, right?

Lady, states pay no income taxes. It's people who do. Around 50% Americans pay federal income tax and subsidize the rest -- the poors in the cities and the poors in rural areas.

Except the latter get a disproportionate amount of said taxes. That's the point.

Not true, run the numbers. The urban poor are the main drain of public resources.

Wrong. Quite wrong and there have been numerous studies and reports on this. Seriously you are dumb.

Once upon a time, posters routinely included links to prove their arguments. Now we call each other dumb.

No links, no intelligent discussion, just name-calling. Sad, DCUM.

+1.

Oh my gosh, it took me all of 5 minutes to find on Google. Why are you lazy, PPs?

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#main-findings

That's irrelevant to this diacussion. We already know the rich tend to be in coastal states, which vote blue. The question is, who's sucking most taxpayer money, the urban or the rural poor?

To give you an example. DCPS spends more than $15k per student -- a majority of whom are urban poor. Do you really think some poor district in the middle of nowhere Arkansas is spending $15k per kid?

The difference is that DC can afford it.

You are not answering the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a reasonably well off Blue State Democrat, meaning that not only do I pay high income taxes but my state is a net payor to the Red States. So, since Seniors voted for Trump and Republicans, and Republicans want to slash SS and Medicare/Medicaid, lets do it. My reduced taxes mean I win. Lets give our Seniors what they apparently want. I will be enjoying another bottle of some overpriced wine.

You're an awful person. Wishing that on the most vulnerable people says a lot about you.

Wishing bad things on women, minorities and blue state coastal "elites" who are unamerican is what Trumpers do day in and day out.

It's ridiculous of you to assume that everyone who voted for him did that. I didn't vote for him, but have women, minority and lesbian friends who did. We agree to disagree. I know they weren't intentionally voting against their own interests.

OP is basically saying he/she is ok with also punishing the almost half of seniors who didn't vote for him. I find OP's glee towards the struggles of seniors disgusting. He/she must not care about anyone that would be directly impacted if this happens.

If your minority, lesbian and women friends voted for Trump, they are as dumb as can be. Hello, Pence. Why would any LGBT support that ticket? Minorities - bitch please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm unclear how its an "entitlement" when I've been paying into it (SS and Medicare) for 25 years. Sure let's slash it - but I better get back every penny I put in so I can invest it.

And this is why our budget is in such trouble. "Slash it, but give me mine."' Are you by any chance a Trump supporter?

[Anonymous]

Arkansas spent $11,009 per pupil in 2015. Probably as a result of programs put in place by that power house First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a reasonably well off Blue State Democrat, meaning that not only do I pay high income taxes but my state is a net payor to the Red States. So, since Seniors voted for Trump and Republicans, and Republicans want to slash SS and Medicare/Medicaid, lets do it. My reduced taxes mean I win. Lets give our Seniors what they apparently want. I will be enjoying another bottle of some overpriced wine.

As long as you include farming subsidies and corporate subsidies in your slashing.

[Anonymous]

And if you adjust for cost of living, property values etc, Arkansas is likely spending more than DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm unclear how its an "entitlement" when I've been paying into it (SS and Medicare) for 25 years. Sure let's slash it - but I better get back every penny I put in so I can invest it.

And this is why our budget is in such trouble. "Slash it, but give me mine."' Are you by any chance a Trump supporter?

nope. you don't want the money you put in? Interesting.

besides I was being sarcastic by saying "slash it". It would piss me off to have those programs go away as I am approaching retirement when I've put in money for my whole career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm unclear how its an "entitlement" when I've been paying into it (SS and Medicare) for 25 years. Sure let's slash it - but I better get back every penny I put in so I can invest it.

The average person gets out, over time, much more than you pay in.

That's why it's (partially) an entitlement. A pay-in entitlement, if you prefer.

Which works fine as long as there's enough young workers to subsidize older ones--hence the need for more legal immigration--, or the whole program implodes like a pyramid scheme.

That's the whole problem... SS is a pyramid scheme. Those that benefited the most are the original beneficiaries that did not pay anything to get into the system and reaped all the rewards. The whole premise on how it was created was flawed.

What the solution is, that is a good point of debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm unclear how its an "entitlement" when I've been paying into it (SS and Medicare) for 25 years. Sure let's slash it - but I better get back every penny I put in so I can invest it.

The average person gets out, over time, much more than you pay in.

That's why it's (partially) an entitlement. A pay-in entitlement, if you prefer.

Which works fine as long as there's enough young workers to subsidize older ones--hence the need for more legal immigration--, or the whole program implodes like a pyramid scheme.

That's the whole problem... SS is a pyramid scheme. Those that benefited the most are the original beneficiaries that did not pay anything to get into the system and reaped all the rewards. The whole premise on how it was created was flawed.

What the solution is, that is a good point of debate.

Agreed. but "slash it" is not a solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, OP. You may be a Blue Stater, but you are not a good person. We are all Americans, Red or Blue, senior or not, rich or poor.

Uh, you realize the blue staters are willing to sacrifice personal income for the greater good, right?

Lady, states pay no income taxes. It's people who do. Around 50% Americans pay federal income tax and subsidize the rest -- the poors in the cities and the poors in rural areas.

Except the latter get a disproportionate amount of said taxes. That's the point.

Not true, run the numbers. The urban poor are the main drain of public resources.

Wrong. Quite wrong and there have been numerous studies and reports on this. Seriously you are dumb.

Once upon a time, posters routinely included links to prove their arguments. Now we call each other dumb.

No links, no intelligent discussion, just name-calling. Sad, DCUM.

+1000. See this so often; maybe just from one person? Or two? Drive-by comments that are worthless.

First as others have said there is google
Second there are so many thinktanks in this town you can find thinktanks that use the same data and come up with completely different outcomes
Example Paul Ryan comes up with policy. The liberal thinktanks say one thing the conservative thinktankls say something else they can't both be right..... right

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, OP. You may be a Blue Stater, but you are not a good person. We are all Americans, Red or Blue, senior or not, rich or poor.

Uh, you realize the blue staters are willing to sacrifice personal income for the greater good, right?

Lady, states pay no income taxes. It's people who do. Around 50% Americans pay federal income tax and subsidize the rest -- the poors in the cities and the poors in rural areas.

Except the latter get a disproportionate amount of said taxes. That's the point.

Not true, run the numbers. The urban poor are the main drain of public resources.

Wrong. Quite wrong and there have been numerous studies and reports on this. Seriously you are dumb.

Once upon a time, posters routinely included links to prove their arguments. Now we call each other dumb.

No links, no intelligent discussion, just name-calling. Sad, DCUM.

+1000. See this so often; maybe just from one person? Or two? Drive-by comments that are worthless.

First as others have said there is google
Second there are so many thinktanks in this town you can find thinktanks that use the same data and come up with completely different outcomes
Example Paul Ryan comes up with policy. The liberal thinktanks say one thing the conservative thinktankls say something else they can't both be right..... right

That is not how this forum works. Follow the unwritten rules. If you didn't know, now you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm unclear how its an "entitlement" when I've been paying into it (SS and Medicare) for 25 years. Sure let's slash it - but I better get back every penny I put in so I can invest it.

The average person gets out, over time, much more than you pay in.

That's why it's (partially) an entitlement. A pay-in entitlement, if you prefer.

Which works fine as long as there's enough young workers to subsidize older ones--hence the need for more legal immigration--, or the whole program implodes like a pyramid scheme.

That's the whole problem... SS is a pyramid scheme. Those that benefited the most are the original beneficiaries that did not pay anything to get into the system and reaped all the rewards. The whole premise on how it was created was flawed.

What the solution is, that is a good point of debate.

Agreed. but "slash it" is not a solution.

You need to do 2 things

Republican idea increase the age where it starts (makes sense people live longer)
Democrat idea increase the income limit where SS stops to take out more (makes sense people make more money now)

There are democrats and republicans that actually support both of these ideas

You know what the biggest hurdle is the freaking AARP and dumb boomers on this thread who don't want to change anything and say screw you to future generations

[Anonymous]

Agree OP! Ryan used to brag his mom was on Medicare and SS. Let her be the first to be w/o it.

Anonymous wrote:I am a reasonably well off Blue State Democrat, meaning that not only do I pay high income taxes but my state is a net payor to the Red States. So, since Seniors voted for Trump and Republicans, and Republicans want to slash SS and Medicare/Medicaid, lets do it. My reduced taxes mean I win. Lets give our Seniors what they apparently want. I will be enjoying another bottle of some overpriced wine.