CNBC: Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit

[Ray From Cleveland]

The choice is to pay down the deficit or not. Eventually our debt will effect our interest rating, our ability to borrow, and will devalue the dollar. The choice is to raise taxes and cut spending. As high as 25% cuts in all spending and ending most if not all corporate welfare. We need to cut and when we do, we will see a contraction in the economy. The contraction would be temporary however when our dollar strengthens, when our ratings go up we will see a stronger country and a more employed and more innovative America. If it is forced, expect a depression and for it to last many years. You can’t continue to borrow without paying it back. It will hurt us in the long run.

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

 

[OldLady]

That's kind of the point--if you don't realize that not all young families have $10,000 a year to put toward retirement and medical insurance after retirement,

Of course that doesn't rule out some form of tax payer funded supplements (in order to reach a minimum annual contribution amount) into those accounts for the poor .
​

​

No free rides for those that aren't poor (at or below the poverty line), if you're not willing to make sacrifices in the present for your own future financial security then you don't deserve to have any.

​

you are part of the problem.

Yeah; if you call advocating for the responsible management of finances, having the capacity for reason, thinking outside the unworkable status quo box and taking responsibility for ones own material well being "the problem".

What's you idea of being part of the solution? keep on ignoring reality until the bottom drops out?

Not understanding how more and more people actually live is part of the problem right now. I do appreciate the explanation, though.

"How more people live" is irrelevant, the numbers are what they are and failing to recognize that fact will only lead to "more people" living in an economic state that's materially WORSE than what they're living in today.

The signs are all around you (declining real wages, increasing structural unemployment, accelerating accumulation of personal and public debt and unfunded liabilities, etc..,etc..,), closing your eyes to them, stamping your feet and trying to pretend the status quo is hunky dory because you want to show how "compassionate" you are won't change the reality that our current system is a pathway to widespread economic misery and social unrest.

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population?

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone

You mean kinda like this....

give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

 

[OldLady]

I'm sure you're right that we must get our debt under control. How did Clinton do it in the 90's? I don't remember a lot of cuts in welfare or Social Security? Or other government services? Can that be done again?

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

real special needs children were segregated to other places.
Yes, and some of them should be still.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma.
And what is the reason for that? No, it isn't because of "unions." It is because schools are being "graded" by the feds for the # of kids who graduate and they are penalized if they have too many dropouts.
I'm a teacher. Trust me, it is not the unions causing the problem.

 

[LaDexter]

Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

OBAMA YOUTH

Can't read, can't spell, can't do basic single digit addition, subtraction, multiplication....


but they can HATE HOAX and RACE BAIT....

 

[TNHarley]

​

No free rides for those that aren't poor (at or below the poverty line), if you're not willing to make sacrifices in the present for your own future financial security then you don't deserve to have any.

​

Yeah; if you call advocating for the responsible management of finances, having the capacity for reason, thinking outside the unworkable status quo box and taking responsibility for ones own material well being "the problem".

What's you idea of being part of the solution? keep on ignoring reality until the bottom drops out?
"How more people live" is irrelevant, the numbers are what they are and failing to recognize that fact will only lead to "more people" living in an economic state that's materially WORSE than what they're living in today.

The signs are all around you (declining real wages, increasing structural unemployment, accelerating accumulation of personal and public debt and unfunded liabilities, etc..,etc..,), closing your eyes to them, stamping your feet and trying to pretend the status quo is hunky dory because you want to show how "compassionate" you are won't change the reality that our current system is a pathway to widespread economic misery and social unrest.

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population?

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone

You mean kinda like this....

give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

What was satisfying about it?

The results of it. More families staying together. Folks claiming they felt liberated for the fist time in their lives. Getting people off the dole is always a positive thing. You get out of the house, get a job, and actually make something of your life instead of generational welfare where you just sit home waiting for your check.

So, what they did was have people train for something like data entry at the same time they were offshoring data entry. They would make right above the cutoff mark.
PRWORA became a fiasco in retrospect.

They were trained to do entry level jobs in hopes they could advance at whatever company they worked at as time went on.

If I remember correctly, they were still allowed to stay on welfare for a few years after the law was passed to get their shit together. I believe it was something like three years. But after that time was up, you had to be working because your benefits would be cutoff.

If it were up to me, welfare would be only for those that found themselves in a bad position through no fault of their own. Getting knocked up by different men, starting a family with no money, and being a burden to the public is just too generous in my opinion. In fact, if I had my way, nobody applying for pubic assistance would get a dime until they were fixed first. No more having kids while on welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

real special needs children were segregated to other places.
Yes, and some of them should be still.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma.
And what is the reason for that? No, it isn't because of "unions." It is because schools are being "graded" by the feds for the # of kids who graduate and they are penalized if they have too many dropouts.
I'm a teacher. Trust me, it is not the unions causing the problem.

A UBI should help ameliorate this social dilemma.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population?

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone

You mean kinda like this....

give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

 

[Moonglow]

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population?

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone

You mean kinda like this....

give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

I was actually planning on dying early in life, but some plans never pan out...

 

[TNHarley]

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

You mean kinda like this....
Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Why do they have a lack of cash?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ryan will not be able to do a thing about the safety net, other than he will be forced to fund CHIPS.

 

[Thinker101]

You don't remember welfare reform? You don't remember block grants to the states? You don't remember Congress closing down three caucus buildings?

The Clinton era was the tech era, something we will likely never see again.

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

real special needs children were segregated to other places.
Yes, and some of them should be still.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma.
And what is the reason for that? No, it isn't because of "unions." It is because schools are being "graded" by the feds for the # of kids who graduate and they are penalized if they have too many dropouts.
I'm a teacher. Trust me, it is not the unions causing the problem.

What's the reason for that?....Democrats.

 

[danielpalos]

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Why do they have a lack of cash?

does all work get compensated?

 

[LaDexter]

Paul Ryan is the most useless, corrupt, and full of shit Speaker in history, and that is really saying something, considering Jim Wright and others...

 

[Moonglow]

CNBC: Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit

Good, let's start with Congressional perks and all the extras our govt. officials get that the normal worker doesn't...Then let's move on to foreign nations and the tax dollars people in our govt. feel entitled to give away to them...

 

[Moonglow]

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Why do they have a lack of cash?

does all work get compensated?

Not even a hump for honey-dos...

 

[OldLady]

I'm not saying everything is "hunky dory" but there must be a way to save SS without stealing from the entire working population?

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

Simply stomping YOUR foot and being angry with everyone

You mean kinda like this....

give up trying to get through to you. Who knew talking about Social Security would lead to such vituperative judgmental vomit?

Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

who doesn't have $ enough to save for an adequate retirement and healthcare isn't going to solve the problem either.

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

I'm not chewing my cabbage twice. This is a quiz. What did I already say?

 

[Thinker101]

Yeah there is, I've been telling you how to do it all along, change SS from a system supported by promises based on the earnings of future tax payers into a system supported by privately owned real asset accounts.

You mean kinda like this....
Is that the kind of "stomping your foot and being angry" you're referring to ?

I'm not the one that's angry, I'm the one that wants to provide the means for working Americans to build actual wealth that can not only provide them with greater incomes in their retirements than the current system but will also act as a vehicle for them to pass that wealth forward to future generations rather than the current system that passes it backwards.

You seem to be angry that anyone would even dare suggest people should be held responsible for their own financial futures and fixated on why people cannot do it.

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Lack of petty cash? Who in their right mind relies on petty cash for retirement...dumbass.

 

[danielpalos]

Ryan will not be able to do a thing about the safety net, other than he will be forced to fund CHIPS.

We have a Second Amendment and plenty of gun lovers.

Why does the right wing need, expensive and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror?

We should be cutting that government waste and ending our income tax.

 

[Disir]

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

What was satisfying about it?

The results of it. More families staying together. Folks claiming they felt liberated for the fist time in their lives. Getting people off the dole is always a positive thing. You get out of the house, get a job, and actually make something of your life instead of generational welfare where you just sit home waiting for your check.

So, what they did was have people train for something like data entry at the same time they were offshoring data entry. They would make right above the cutoff mark.
PRWORA became a fiasco in retrospect.

They were trained to do entry level jobs in hopes they could advance at whatever company they worked at as time went on.

If I remember correctly, they were still allowed to stay on welfare for a few years after the law was passed to get their shit together. I believe it was something like three years. But after that time was up, you had to be working because your benefits would be cutoff.

If it were up to me, welfare would be only for those that found themselves in a bad position through no fault of their own. Getting knocked up by different men, starting a family with no money, and being a burden to the public is just too generous in my opinion. In fact, if I had my way, nobody applying for pubic assistance would get a dime until they were fixed first. No more having kids while on welfare.

TANF started time limits or life time benefits. The point is that whole theory and application did not work out as a plan. In theory they would have been able to work themselves up...............had the jobs not been offshored.