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

[NightFox]

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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"

Ok. How about one simple solution; unemployment compensation that actually conforms to a federal doctrine and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

Labor not employed could be compensated on an at-will basis for a lack of employment at any given time, through unemployment compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

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%.

End our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to end our income tax, right wingers.

 

[Papageorgio]

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%.

We need to cut ALL federal spending 25%, then raise taxes, that is the only way I believe we can get out of the mess we are in. I didn’t mind Congress cutting taxes but to raise spending on top of that is just making matters worse in the long run. Short term we will be fine.

 

[danielpalos]

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%.

We need to cut ALL federal spending 25%, then raise taxes, that is the only way I believe we can get out of the mess we are in. I didn’t mind Congress cutting taxes but to raise spending on top of that is just making matters worse in the long run. Short term we will be fine.

Our wars on crime, drugs, and terror are not working; why keep them.

 

[bendog]

Columns like this are so irresponsible, the authors ought to be "disbarred" or shot. They take an off-hand remark of an obvious fact and extrapolate it into a diabolical plan to - basically - kill babies and old people.

The real question is, what kind of a moron would take this seriously? A Democrat moron...obviously.

Ayn Ryan

 

[NightFox]

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"

Ok. How about one simple solution; unemployment compensation that actually conforms to a federal doctrine

What "federal doctrine" would that be? and under which enumerated power would such a "doctrine" be authorized?

and State laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will.

The states are sovereign entities free to enact whatever laws they wish subject to their own constitutions and the limitations set forth by the federal constitution, as many states have already done with respect to "at will" employment.

Labor not employed could be compensated on an at-will basis for a lack of employment at any given time, through unemployment compensation.

How does this differ from the current unemployment insurance we have?

Now back to the original questions from your previous posts:
1. "Having recourse to an income" what does that mean in practical terms?

2. $14 an hour to what? Administer them ? Which "social services" are you referring to?

3. Define "simple poverty"

4.Define "market friendly manner"


"This restaurant seems to have plenty of word salad but very little dressing"​

 

[danielpalos]

In every way.

Why not read up on those legal concepts, so we can be on the same page.

 

[jc456]

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

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

 

[bendog]

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

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

You responded, but not to his question. LOL

 

[jc456]

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

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

You responded, but not to his question. LOL

there is no answer. that is the answer. to either question.

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

 

[TNHarley]

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

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

I am against SS. However, cutting it when people have paid for it? I can think of 1000 other things to start with.

 

[jc456]

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

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

I am against SS. However, cutting it when people have paid for it? I can think of 1000 other things to start with.

but they won't cut those who get it, they will stop it for the 50 under crowd. Haven't you been paying attention over the last two years? capped and redirected for only those under 50 something. ONLY!!!!!

 

[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.

Gosh darn it, I'm speaking from experience. I was a pink collar single mom living in a high rent state for years and at the end of every month I had to decide which bill not to pay on time because a third of my check was going straight to a day care center and some days I didn't eat (my kid always did) and life fucking sucked but I was above the poverty line by something like $200 p/year (not that I would have ever used food stamps anyway but my mother forced me to look into it). The poverty line ain't much.
You can talk about personal responsibility all you want, but it ain't about "personal sacrifice," it's about surviving for a lot of people. Looking for quarters in the couch cushions to put enough gas in the tank to get to work. Take my word for it; you're looking at life through a different lens from me.

 

[Bush92]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

I hope he goes at it like a Samurai Sword.

 

[TNHarley]

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

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

I am against SS. However, cutting it when people have paid for it? I can think of 1000 other things to start with.

but they won't cut those who get it, they will stop it for the 50 under crowd. Haven't you been paying attention over the last two years? capped and redirected for only those under 50 something. ONLY!!!!!

Only? Well thats not bad at all! I mean shit, i have only been paying into it since i was 14. No biggie.
Its not like i couldnt have directed that money into my own retirement plan and made out better...
Force the bullshit on them and then take it away? Fuck that shit.

 

[boedicca]

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

social security was a bad thing back when it was introduced and it is a bad thing today. It is a ponzi scheme. do those actually work? do you know if they do or don't?

I am against SS. However, cutting it when people have paid for it? I can think of 1000 other things to start with.

SS needs to be phased out. Current retirees and people who are nearing retirement should be completely grandfathered in. Then, a sliding scale should be put in place that allows younger workers to privatize retirement savings until the entire SS system can be eliminated

 

[Bush92]

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.

Gosh darn it, I'm speaking from experience. I was a pink collar single mom living in a high rent state for years and at the end of every month I had to decide which bill not to pay on time because a third of my check was going straight to a day care center and some days I didn't eat (my kid always did) and life fucking sucked but I was above the poverty line by something like $200 p/year (not that I would have ever used food stamps anyway but my mother forced me to look into it). The poverty line ain't much.
You can talk about personal responsibility all you want, but it ain't about "personal sacrifice," it's about surviving for a lot of people. Looking for quarters in the couch cushions to put enough gas in the tank to get to work. Take my word for it; you're looking at life through a different lens from me.

So where does my responsibility as a taxpayer intersect with your life? I have done same things in my life. Never expected government to coddle me. You struggled to make it...so do millions when they are young. Why are you special?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Gosh darn it, I'm speaking from experience. I was a pink collar single mom living in a high rent state for years and at the end of every month I had to decide which bill not to pay on time because a third of my check was going straight to a day care center and some days I didn't eat (my kid always did) and life fucking sucked but I was above the poverty line by something like $200 p/year (not that I would have ever used food stamps anyway but my mother forced me to look into it). The poverty line ain't much.
You can talk about personal responsibility all you want, but it ain't about "personal sacrifice," it's about surviving for a lot of people. Looking for quarters in the couch cushions to put enough gas in the tank to get to work. Take my word for it; you're looking at life through a different lens from me.

But whos fault is it you struggled so hard though? Whos fault is it you had kids? Whos fault is it you had to provide for so many heads?

 

[Moonglow]

Privatization will mean that the retirement accounts will be charged a percentage of around 7-10%..