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.
This "they go low we go high" thing really worked out great for the democrats, did it?
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.
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.
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.
since you pay more in taxes, you're vote counts more than a poor person living in a red state?
No, apparently the vote of the poor person in the red state counts more. That's how we got Trump.
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.
Anonymous wrote:To the poster who said Trump never talked about slashing entitlements:
1) What Trump says and what he does are very loosely correlated. Pence is the one currently running the show.
2) Paul Ryan is the one who will control legislation and Trump will sign it. Paul Ryan wants to cut Medicaid and Medicare. In fact, his plan for Medicare is to turn it in a tax credit private thing like Obamacare.
Prepare yourself.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here. FYI. I voted for Hillary and would do so again, meaning I voted against my economic interests. But Trump "won" and his party wants to privatize SSA and slash Medicare/Medicaid. Not only do Red States fund the Blue States, but the Reddest of the Red States are in the bottom 10 of almost every list that ranks a state's education, poverty, health, etc level. So, I say give those voters what they voted for. You may call me "mean/etc" but I am not the one who voted for him. Our fellow citizens in Rural America did so give them what they apparently want. I will be enjoying that extra bottle of wine.
OP, Trump doesn't plan on cutting any entitlements. He wants to increase spending. He doesn't care about debt, he never has.
Anonymous wrote:OP here. FYI. I voted for Hillary and would do so again, meaning I voted against my economic interests. But Trump "won" and his party wants to privatize SSA and slash Medicare/Medicaid. Not only do Red States fund the Blue States, but the Reddest of the Red States are in the bottom 10 of almost every list that ranks a state's education, poverty, health, etc level. So, I say give those voters what they voted for. You may call me "mean/etc" but I am not the one who voted for him. Our fellow citizens in Rural America did so give them what they apparently want. I will be enjoying that extra bottle of wine.
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.
Not exactly. The first participants did get a higher rate of return than you or I will get. But we still will get a return. Some politicians like to pretend the government can and eventually will write off this debt to itself, but many of them know better and are just lying. Social Security is invested in non-marketable government debt, just like the savings bonds you may own. Like with savings bonds, the debt has to be paid off from general revenue, that's specified in federal law in the Social Security Act. Congress would have to pass a law to overturn the existing law. Do you think our craven congresspeople, even and especially the super-conservative ones, would risk their seats by supporting that? No way.
There are a lot of possible remedies and anybody who wants to save the system in good faith (which excludes a lot of folk on Capitol Hill) could probably easily reach a compromise on a balanced package of benefit cut and revenue increase measured that wouldn't hurt any given group too much. Go to the American Academy if Actuaries site, or SSA's research page, or even BPC, AARP or the Dominick-Rivlin commission. The menu of possible remedies is well known and has been debated and analyzed for many years. What we really need is political will.
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.
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.
Of course I'd like the money I put in. I never said I didn't want it. I'm a liberal dem, and while I won't need the money (lots of savings, traditional pension, and inheritance), it would be nice to have. I want it to be there for people whose employers never offered them a 401(k). Also the Social Security benefit is progressive, and I totally support that.
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.
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 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.