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.

People need to take responsibility for their votes. You voted for Trump. You voted for a bigot who has zero demonstrated record of caring about the poor or disadvantaged or vulnerable. Heck, he openly mocked a disabled reporter. You voted for someone who scammed students at Trump University. His tax plan gives enormous cuts to billionaires; middle income taxpayers get peanuts.

And now the GOP and Trumps nominees have plans to cut SS, privatize Medicare through vouchers, and eliminate the school lunch program, not to mention repeal ACA. Who does this hurt? The same middle Americans who voted for them. Only they have no right to complain; they knew who they were getting.

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.

Trump has never talked about slashing entitlements.

Price, his pick for HHS, has. Ryan has. Presumably these two will get their way.

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.

since you pay more in taxes, you're vote counts more than a poor person living in a red state?

Yes, it does.

in his head

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not slash entitlements, but instead reduce the 100 billion dollar overhead administrative costs to deliver those benefits. And cut out the fraud too.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

SSA has overhead costs of less than 1% of their total expenditures. Can you name any other entity, public or private, that operates that efficiently? Yeah, didn't think so.

Any Vanguard fund.

Is Vanguard distributing checks to millions of people around the country? I'm not talking financial funds, I'm talking entities that actually do things. Like manage millions of transfer payments every month. Vanguard is charging you that amount to have a very small number of investment professionals sit in front of a computer and make trades, which is nowhere near as complex as what the SSA does.

Both entities get money, invest money, pay away money.

If it's so expensive to mail checks...don't. Pay via bank deposits, or issue debit cards.

(I do think the SS is pretty well run, but couldn't resist to take on your challenge above...)

Ah, okay. Though your comment about debit cards is interesting. I'm a former Fed who used to work closely with budgets but now lives in California. I recently got state-funded Short Term Disability and Paid Family Leave benefits for my maternity, which were distributed via a Bank of America card. The list of fees associated with that card was a page long. I actually was able to avoid paying them, but it's only because I have a good checking/savings account, an internet connection, and am able to wait 3 days for the funds to transfer (and my bank is BofA also!). These semi-private cost-savings/efficiency measures seem to just end up costing people more in the long run.

All of that said, I dispute the premise that Vanguard is doing anything as complex as SSA, b/c they don't make payments at nearly the same scale or frequency. But I'm glad to have provided the challenge

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not slash entitlements, but instead reduce the 100 billion dollar overhead administrative costs to deliver those benefits. And cut out the fraud too.

Aren't admin costs in Medicare are lower than those of private insurers?

Yes, sigh. Part of the push to privatize these programs is to capture money for an already tiny elite of Americans. Can you only imagine what would have happened in '08 if Bush had been successful with his privatization push in '05?

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

Ofcourse 17/20 most dependent states are red states. I think CA, NY, IL, MA etc should really pass laws to stop sending big portion of revenue from their state to fund welfare dollars of red states. They can't have both electoral college skewed to give them more than one vote as well as money from blue states.

Anonymous wrote:Let's not slash entitlements, but instead reduce the 100 billion dollar overhead administrative costs to deliver those benefits. And cut out the fraud too.

Aren't admin costs in Medicare are lower than those of private insurers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not slash entitlements, but instead reduce the 100 billion dollar overhead administrative costs to deliver those benefits. And cut out the fraud too.

OK. As a senior, I'd like a refund of the money (plus interest) that I was required to pay into Social Security for almost 40 years.

As a taxpayer, I would like to see my monies shore up the nation's safety net. Unfortunately, a majority of people in states aggregating 306 EC votes don't agree.

Let's slash entitlement to the free loaders such as Trump, the Waltons...

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.

This "they go low we go high" thing really worked out great for the democrats, did it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not slash entitlements, but instead reduce the 100 billion dollar overhead administrative costs to deliver those benefits. And cut out the fraud too.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

SSA has overhead costs of less than 1% of their total expenditures. Can you name any other entity, public or private, that operates that efficiently? Yeah, didn't think so.

Any Vanguard fund.

Is Vanguard distributing checks to millions of people around the country? I'm not talking financial funds, I'm talking entities that actually do things. Like manage millions of transfer payments every month. Vanguard is charging you that amount to have a very small number of investment professionals sit in front of a computer and make trades, which is nowhere near as complex as what the SSA does.

Both entities get money, invest money, pay away money.

If it's so expensive to mail checks...don't. Pay via bank deposits, or issue debit cards.

(I do think the SS is pretty well run, but couldn't resist to take on your challenge above...)

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not slash entitlements, but instead reduce the 100 billion dollar overhead administrative costs to deliver those benefits. And cut out the fraud too.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

SSA has overhead costs of less than 1% of their total expenditures. Can you name any other entity, public or private, that operates that efficiently? Yeah, didn't think so.

Any Vanguard fund.

Is Vanguard distributing checks to millions of people around the country? I'm not talking financial funds, I'm talking entities that actually do things. Like manage millions of transfer payments every month. Vanguard is charging you that amount to have a very small number of investment professionals sit in front of a computer and make trades, which is nowhere near as complex as what the SSA does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's not slash entitlements, but instead reduce the 100 billion dollar overhead administrative costs to deliver those benefits. And cut out the fraud too.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

SSA has overhead costs of less than 1% of their total expenditures. Can you name any other entity, public or private, that operates that efficiently? Yeah, didn't think so.

Any Vanguard fund.