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

[Luddly Neddite]

I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits

I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.

How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?

I think we’re taxed enough already

You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.

Got it.

I think I should be able to invest my own money for my own retirement.

What's stopping you?

 

[TNHarley]

Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?

According to most righties there is no such thing as corporate welfare. We all know better, but righty loves him some corporate give aways.

Righty didnt like the welfare we gave energy companies..

 

[LoneLaugher]

Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?

According to most righties there is no such thing as corporate welfare. We all know better, but righty loves him some corporate give aways.

Righty didnt like the welfare we gave energy companies..

Surely, you are referring to oil, natural gas and coal......right?

 

[danielpalos]

Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?

According to most righties there is no such thing as corporate welfare. We all know better, but righty loves him some corporate give aways.

I don’t mind corporations keeping more of their money.

I’d like to keep more of my own money and use it for myself and my retirement.

All political talk and no political action. End our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to end our income tax.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing cannot be serious about our alleged wars by lowering taxes.

 

[deanrd]

This will not happen before the midterms as it will be met with fierce opposition and backlash by the electorate. There will be a political price for these cuts and a heavy one.

Not from the Republican base. They like being fukked over.

 

[NightFox]

I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits

I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.

How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?

I think we’re taxed enough already

You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.

Got it.

I think I should be able to invest my own money for my own retirement.

What's stopping you?

Probably something to do with the federal government forcibly confiscating payroll taxes from his paycheck and from his employer and forcing him into a federal retirement "program".

A lot of people would rather invest that payroll tax money on their own and opt out of SS rather than giving it the federal government.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?

According to most righties there is no such thing as corporate welfare. We all know better, but righty loves him some corporate give aways.

I don’t mind corporations keeping more of their money.

I’d like to keep more of my own money and use it for myself and my retirement.

Weird concept, right?

I'd like to keep more of the money that I work to earn.

 

[danielpalos]

I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.

How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?

I think we’re taxed enough already

You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.

Got it.

I think I should be able to invest my own money for my own retirement.

What's stopping you?

Probably something to do with the federal government forcibly confiscating payroll taxes from his paycheck and from his employer and forcing him into a federal retirement "program".

A lot of people would rather invest that payroll tax money on their own and opt out of SS rather than giving it the federal government.

Having recourse to an income means more people would be paying taxes.

And, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner also improves the efficiency of our economy.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?

According to most righties there is no such thing as corporate welfare. We all know better, but righty loves him some corporate give aways.

Righty didnt like the welfare we gave energy companies..

Only because Trump didn't give it to them. The brown guy did.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.

How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?

I think we’re taxed enough already

You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.

Got it.

I think I should be able to invest my own money for my own retirement.

What's stopping you?

Probably something to do with the federal government forcibly confiscating payroll taxes from his paycheck and from his employer and forcing him into a federal retirement "program".

A lot of people would rather invest that payroll tax money on their own and opt out of SS rather than giving it the federal government.

Yeah...and when they go broke after a market crash or because some hedge fund ripped them off, you will be fine to tell them "life sucks, shit happens" and
allow them to spend their golden years destitute.

No thanks. Social Security has been extremely successful at improving the lives of Americans. It works.

 

[OldLady]

Guns or butter.....I vote butter.

Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.

I sort of understand that. If we have to prioritize our spending.

*BINGO*, the question is when are the voters ever going to hold politicians accountable for doing that instead of just doing the *gimme**gimme**gimme* dance and punishing them at the ballot box for any attempt at prioritizing spending, being fiscally responsible and thinking about the long term good of the Republic instead of just buying votes by catering to short term wants?

Why must it always be cuts to the poorest?

Under the existing welfare state configuration the poor only receive around 13 cents of every subsidy dollar nationally, which doesn't leave a whole lot left to cut. The question you should be asking is when are we going to stop subsidizing people that ARE NOT POOR. If we did that we might actually have some resources to help the people at or below the poverty line to raise their own economic status to economically independent NOT POOR.

Interesting. Medicare and Social Security ONLY for people below the poverty line? People way above the poverty line still can't afford luxuries like good retirement plans and good medical insurance. I wouldn't want to see that happening.

 

[NightFox]

I think we’re taxed enough already

You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.

Got it.

I think I should be able to invest my own money for my own retirement.

What's stopping you?

Probably something to do with the federal government forcibly confiscating payroll taxes from his paycheck and from his employer and forcing him into a federal retirement "program".

A lot of people would rather invest that payroll tax money on their own and opt out of SS rather than giving it the federal government.

Having recourse to an income means more people would be paying taxes.

"Having recourse to an income" what does that mean in practical terms?

And, social services cost around fourteen dollars an hour, anyway.

$14 an hour to what? Administer them ? Which "social services" are you referring to?

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner also improves the efficiency of our economy.

Define "simple poverty"
Define "market friendly manner"

 

[OldLady]

Guns or butter.....I vote butter.

Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.

I sort of understand that. If we have to prioritize our spending, why must the priorities be more and more military, walls to keep out the scary Spanish speaking lettuce pickers, and giving massive tax cuts to the richest individuals in our country? I'd rather see our money going to health and housing and education for all our people. Not just the rich ones. Yes, cuts need to be made. Why must it always be cuts to the poorest?

Cut everything 25%, corporate welfare 100%. We are running out of choices. All we are currently doing is pushing the inevitable down the road a year or two. Raise taxes, lower spending is the only choice or we go into a depression that the US could never imagine.

What is corporate welfare?

 

[TNHarley]

Fed Gov cant handle their own money. Why would anyone want them to handle theirs?

 

[NightFox]

Guns or butter.....I vote butter.

Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.

I sort of understand that. If we have to prioritize our spending.

*BINGO*, the question is when are the voters ever going to hold politicians accountable for doing that instead of just doing the *gimme**gimme**gimme* dance and punishing them at the ballot box for any attempt at prioritizing spending, being fiscally responsible and thinking about the long term good of the Republic instead of just buying votes by catering to short term wants?

Why must it always be cuts to the poorest?

Under the existing welfare state configuration the poor only receive around 13 cents of every subsidy dollar nationally, which doesn't leave a whole lot left to cut. The question you should be asking is when are we going to stop subsidizing people that ARE NOT POOR. If we did that we might actually have some resources to help the people at or below the poverty line to raise their own economic status to economically independent NOT POOR.

Interesting. Medicare and Social Security ONLY for people below the poverty line?

Medicare and SS are ostensibly retirement "programs" so if they were treated in a defined contribution manner instead of defined benefit those people at or below the poverty line would find themselves to be quite well off at retirement, since they'd be building actual assets throughout their working years. 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 .

People way above the poverty line still can't afford luxuries like good retirement plans and good medical insurance. I wouldn't want to see that happening.

Define "can't afford" ... people shouldn't be able to "afford" what they don't earn and just handing them money to maintain subsistence does nothing to aid them in building the human capital and financial assets needed to become financially independent.

Based on historic returns $5K a year invested in a simple S&P500 index fund over 30 years would be worth around $890K today (which at a 4% rate of return; would giver you $35,600 in interest annually), many might call that a "good" retirement plan and if you applied that same methodology of savings for a medical voucher account for retirement you'd have a pretty fair amount of "good" medical insurance to boot.

Not to mention the fact that any unused portions of either of those PRIVATE accounts would be passed on to your heirs in the form of transfers to your heir(s) retirement accounts.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The sooner we reduce the entitlements we have over-promised, the less painful it will be. We have over-promised, vastly, on entitlements. We simply cannot afford what we have promised.

Similarly, most states have over-promised on retirement pensions and medical plans. Those that have faced reality and have reduced their pension plans and medical plans to affordable levels have avoided disaster and have put their plans on a sound footing. Some of the states that have not done these things are already starting to face the consequences of their unrealistic promises (e.g., IL, CA).

Medicare covers far too many things. It should only cover serious injury and life-threatening illness. If it did not cover so many things that it should not, it could cover serious things 100%.

SS is going to implode if we don't scale back the benefits by about 25-33%.

 

[Papageorgio]

Guns or butter.....I vote butter.

Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.

I sort of understand that. If we have to prioritize our spending, why must the priorities be more and more military, walls to keep out the scary Spanish speaking lettuce pickers, and giving massive tax cuts to the richest individuals in our country? I'd rather see our money going to health and housing and education for all our people. Not just the rich ones. Yes, cuts need to be made. Why must it always be cuts to the poorest?

Cut everything 25%, corporate welfare 100%. We are running out of choices. All we are currently doing is pushing the inevitable down the road a year or two. Raise taxes, lower spending is the only choice or we go into a depression that the US could never imagine.

What is corporate welfare?

Government giving grants and monies to fund research, programs, subsidies and other nonsense. The government spends billions if not trillions on deciding which business succeeds or fails.

 

[OldLady]

Guns or butter.....I vote butter.

Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.

I sort of understand that. If we have to prioritize our spending.

*BINGO*, the question is when are the voters ever going to hold politicians accountable for doing that instead of just doing the *gimme**gimme**gimme* dance and punishing them at the ballot box for any attempt at prioritizing spending, being fiscally responsible and thinking about the long term good of the Republic instead of just buying votes by catering to short term wants?

Why must it always be cuts to the poorest?

Under the existing welfare state configuration the poor only receive around 13 cents of every subsidy dollar nationally, which doesn't leave a whole lot left to cut. The question you should be asking is when are we going to stop subsidizing people that ARE NOT POOR. If we did that we might actually have some resources to help the people at or below the poverty line to raise their own economic status to economically independent NOT POOR.

Interesting. Medicare and Social Security ONLY for people below the poverty line?

Medicare and SS are ostensibly retirement "programs" so if they were treated in a defined contribution manner instead of defined benefit those people at or below the poverty line would find themselves to be quite well off at retirement, since they'd be building actual assets throughout their working years. 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 .

People way above the poverty line still can't afford luxuries like good retirement plans and good medical insurance. I wouldn't want to see that happening.

Define "can't afford" ... people shouldn't be able to "afford" what they don't earn and just handing them money to maintain subsistence does nothing to aid them in building the human capital and financial assets needed to become financially independent.

Based on historic returns $5K a year invested in a simple S&P500 index fund over 30 years would be worth around $890K today (which at a 4% rate of return; would giver you $35,600 in interest annually), many might call that a "good" retirement plan and if you applied that same methodology of savings for a medical voucher account for retirement you'd have a pretty fair amount of "good" medical insurance to boot.

Not to mention the fact that any unused portions of either of those PRIVATE accounts would be passed on to your heirs in the form of transfers to your heir(s) retirement accounts.

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, you are part of the problem. I can tell you have enough money to make money. Not understanding how more and more people actually live is part of the problem right now.
I do appreciate the explanation, though.

 

[OldLady]

The sooner we reduce the entitlements we have over-promised, the less painful it will be. We have over-promised, vastly, on entitlements. We simply cannot afford what we have promised.

Similarly, most states have over-promised on retirement pensions and medical plans. Those that have faced reality and have reduced their pension plans and medical plans to affordable levels have avoided disaster and have put their plans on a sound footing. Some of the states that have not done these things are already starting to face the consequences of their unrealistic promises (e.g., IL, CA).

Medicare covers far too many things. It should only cover serious injury and life-threatening illness. If it did not cover so many things that it should not, it could cover serious things 100%.

SS is going to implode if we don't scale back the benefits by about 25-33%.

SS is already barely a subsistence amount. Cutting it back 25-33% would make it worthless. I can see stopping benefits to people making over $200,000 per year, but that would be a rip off for them. They paid in and they deserve to get the benefit.