Democrats FEAR TACTIC..GOP CUTTING SS/MEDICARE!!!!

[healthmyths]

From the NYT...
"The Republicans are interested in cutting these programs, that is how their plans would bring down deficits. While a "cut" can be termed a change, in the same way that a punch to a person's head can be described as a "change" in their circumstances, this is not the way such actions would typically be described.
Republicans Want to "CUT" Social Security and Medicare not "Change" Them | Beat the Press

WHAT A FU...KING big LIE!!!!!!

A) NOT ONE GOP wants to change ANYTHING about SS or Medicare for ANYONE over 55!
B) GOP wants to return to the people FREEDOM of choice where their $244,000 taken from their paycheck over 40 years of working goes!

Instead of this money sent directly to the US treasury coffers to meet current expenses some of which are like these atrocious examples of wasteful
spending of OUR payroll taxes:

- $2.6 million to make sure prostitutes in China drink less on the job.
-$1.44 million in federal funds estimating the size of the population and examining the “social milieu” of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
-Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties
-Studying pig poop. The EPA awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and
-$1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.

WHY should OUR payroll taxes USED for our retirement and health expenses be used for those wasteful stupid expenditures?

Well if when I started working in 1968 instead of my $244,000 going to pay for the above I was able to have that money sent to my local bank's savings account at average of 2% with FDIC security.. I would have today in MY account: $269,990. again at 2% interest rate and my salary increasing at 5% a year for 40 years!

MY MONEY accumulation. $269,990.
NO "risky stock market" as stupid dems always yell!
Now if I buy an annuity with $200,000 the insurance company guarantees me a lifetime income of $1,000 plus I still have $69,000 left!

NOW If over the 40 years I did "Risky investing" that instead of 2% for 40 years I had averaged 1% growth in my basic growth of 2% or after 40 years
my interest earnings was an awesome 3.1% I would accumulate $422,000!

Now if I buy an annuity for $325,000 leaving $100,000 fun/medical/etc.. I could have for life $1,660 WHAT I'm getting NOW with SS!

BUT I have THIS to pass on to my heirs when I die.. plus whatever is left of the $100,000!


So TELL ME WHY couldn't I have had that option when I was 25???

 

[bucs90]

Yes, the GOP doesnt want to change it for anyone under 55.

That upsets a lot of 54 year olds. And 53 year olds. And 52, 51, 50, 49, and so on.

I bet over 47% of the country is under age 55.

Which, one again, is among the many reasons the GOP lost, and will continue to lose ground, in the elections.

 

[bucs90]

Right wingers may be shocked by this, but Im not. We are a "NIMBY" society. Loyal right wingers who live in gated communities may hate the HOA rules that apply to their house, but LOVE the ones that apply to their neighbors house when something pisses them off.

Well, our society has "NME" syndrome, aka, "Not My Entitlement" syndrome. They love talking about cutting spending, cutting budgets, etc, etc, etc. BUT....when the shit starts being put on paper, they get mad thinking "OH NO I didnt mean you should cut MY entitlement".

And bottom line is....our population likes the safety net and entitlements a lot more than right wingers think. We are a lot more euro-thinking today than 20 years ago. That isn't good for hardcore right wingers and/or rich people.

 

[Truthmatters]

somebody doesnt remember they want to privatize everything

 

[bucs90]

Well, privatizing may be good or bad.

But I know this: The PRIVATE SECTOR gas companies are fucking killing my community with these for-profit gas prices. I dont remember a gas company going out of business...well, ever....so, they seem to be doing ok, but happily keep hurting Americans.

 

[JoeNormal]

From the NYT...
"The Republicans are interested in cutting these programs, that is how their plans would bring down deficits. While a "cut" can be termed a change, in the same way that a punch to a person's head can be described as a "change" in their circumstances, this is not the way such actions would typically be described.
Republicans Want to "CUT" Social Security and Medicare not "Change" Them | Beat the Press

WHAT A FU...KING big LIE!!!!!!

A) NOT ONE GOP wants to change ANYTHING about SS or Medicare for ANYONE over 55!
B) GOP wants to return to the people FREEDOM of choice where their $244,000 taken from their paycheck over 40 years of working goes!

Instead of this money sent directly to the US treasury coffers to meet current expenses some of which are like these atrocious examples of wasteful
spending of OUR payroll taxes:

- $2.6 million to make sure prostitutes in China drink less on the job.
-$1.44 million in federal funds estimating the size of the population and examining the “social milieu” of male prostitutes in Vietnam.
-Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties
-Studying pig poop. The EPA awarded a $141,450 grant under the Clean Air Act to fund a Chinese study on swine manure and
-$1.2 million grant to the United Nations for clean fuel promotion.

WHY should OUR payroll taxes USED for our retirement and health expenses be used for those wasteful stupid expenditures?

Well if when I started working in 1968 instead of my $244,000 going to pay for the above I was able to have that money sent to my local bank's savings account at average of 2% with FDIC security.. I would have today in MY account: $269,990. again at 2% interest rate and my salary increasing at 5% a year for 40 years!

MY MONEY accumulation. $269,990.
NO "risky stock market" as stupid dems always yell!
Now if I buy an annuity with $200,000 the insurance company guarantees me a lifetime income of $1,000 plus I still have $69,000 left!

NOW If over the 40 years I did "Risky investing" that instead of 2% for 40 years I had averaged 1% growth in my basic growth of 2% or after 40 years
my interest earnings was an awesome 3.1% I would accumulate $422,000!

Now if I buy an annuity for $325,000 leaving $100,000 fun/medical/etc.. I could have for life $1,660 WHAT I'm getting NOW with SS!

BUT I have THIS to pass on to my heirs when I die.. plus whatever is left of the $100,000!


So TELL ME WHY couldn't I have had that option when I was 25???

First of all, the pork you mentioned probably couldn't even be displayed on a pie chart of US government expenditures it's such a small percentage.

Second, most people are notoriously bad at socking money away for the future. There's always some other more urgent thing that requires money. Aside from your 401k which is subsidized by your employer, how much money do you have in savings? I'm glad that there's a fund to deal with that rather than having to live in a nation of indigents.

 

[edthecynic]

From the NYT...
"The Republicans are interested in cutting these programs, that is how their plans would bring down deficits. While a "cut" can be termed a change, in the same way that a punch to a person's head can be described as a "change" in their circumstances, this is not the way such actions would typically be described.
Republicans Want to "CUT" Social Security and Medicare not "Change" Them | Beat the Press

WHAT A FU...KING big LIE!!!!!!

A) NOT ONE GOP wants to change ANYTHING about SS or Medicare for ANYONE over 55!

At least you warned us that what follows is a F...ING Lie!

The GOP want to cut SS and Medicare for everybody, every age. The GOP wants to change the way the cost of living is calculated for those already collecting SS so that it is greatly reduced, and they want to turn Medicare into block grants to the states where it can die a slow death.

 

[bucs90]

Basically, the GOP is running on a "I Got Mine" attitude. They want people to be rich........just not anyone other than the ones who are already rich.

 

[Jarhead]

lol. You people are pathetic.
The parties have you believe whatever they need you to believe...and then you argue with each other about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security is 100% paid for with its own revenue source, the payroll tax. Medicare is 60% paid for by the payroll tax.

They are not nearly the problem as is the rest of the government's spending, that are paid for entirely by the general fund, which is borrowing 40% of what it spends.

 

[healthmyths]

Yes, the GOP doesnt want to change it for anyone under 55.

That upsets a lot of 54 year olds. And 53 year olds. And 52, 51, 50, 49, and so on.

I bet over 47% of the country is under age 55.

Which, one again, is among the many reasons the GOP lost, and will continue to lose ground, in the elections.

I bet???

FACTS!!!

Age and Sex - The Older Population in the United States: 2011 - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau
Table 1. Population by Age and Sex: 2011
306,110,000 total
====================

• 229,947,000 Under age 55 75.1% NOT 47% 75.1%
  
• 19,554,000 age 55 to 59 6.4%
• 17,430,000 Age 60 to 64 5.7%
• 27,018,000 age 65 and over 12.8%

PLUS these people UNDER 55 according to GOP "PLANS" to cut ... COULD HAVE A CHOICE dumb f...k!!!
They can continue under the OLD antiquated current method.. i.e. sending to US treasury to spend on Chinese/Vietnamese prostitutes for example
OR
Can accumulate on their own their own money to pay out when they retire,, if as my example after paying in for 40 years if I averaged 7% return on my
accumulation I would have had almost $1 million at retirement.. and NONE of it the governments.. MINE!! To buy an annuity for 500,000 keeping the other
500,000 for fun/health care.etc.. I'd be paid $2,500 per month for the rest of my life!

 

[g5000]

healthmyths, I think if you were left to your own devices to invest your own money for retirement, you'd be dead broke at 65. Judging by the amazing amount of bullshit you regurgitate on this forum, ironically including the opening post of this topic, you'd be buying the Brooklyn Bridge and waterfront property like they were going out of style.

And then you and the millions of other homeless and hungry senior citizen rubes would be pounding on Congress's door to feed and clothe and shelter you.



The entitlement problem is easily solved: raise the Medicare and Social Security eligiblity age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Only 5.6 percent of the population was eligible for Social Security when our ancestors implemented it in 1935. By 1965, when Medicare was piled on, 9 percent of the population was eligible.

Today, over 13 percent of the population is eligible for Medicare and Social Security. That's more than twice the Social Security entitlement load than originally implemented, with an even more expensive additional load piled on top (Medicare).

This is clearly an unsustainable path.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should not be retiring at the same age they did.

 

[healthmyths]

somebody doesnt remember they want to privatize everything

YOU say that! Prove that EVERYTHING should be privatized?


I would NOT want a privatized effort to "provide for the common defense" as required by the CONSTITUTION!

 

[healthmyths]

healthmyths, I think if you were left to your own devices to invest your own money for retirement, you'd be dead broke at 65. Judging by the amazing amount of bullshit you regurgitate on this forum, ironically including the opening post of this topic, you'd be buying the Brooklyn Bridge and waterfront property like they were going out of style.

And then you and the millions of other homeless and hungry senior citizen rubes would be pounding on Congress's door to feed and clothe and shelter you.



The entitlement problem is easily solved: raise the Medicare and Social Security eligiblity age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

Only 5.6 percent of the population was eligible for Social Security when our ancestors implemented it in 1935. By 1965, when Medicare was piled on, 9 percent of the population was eligible.

Today, over 13 percent of the population is eligible for Medicare and Social Security. That's more than twice the Social Security entitlement load than originally implemented, with an even more expensive additional load piled on top (Medicare).

This is clearly an unsustainable path.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors, we should not be retiring at the same age they did.

Everything you said (except the first paragraph is correct.. i.e. I get from a business I start a monthly income for the rest of my life FAR FAR in excess of SS. I also resent your statement "amazing amount of bullshit you regurgitate" I provide sourcing documents Proof so what is the bullshit???)

But I agree with the rest of your comments! That is logical and totally factual!
SO what is wrong then with my topic" Democrats FEAR Tactic..GOP Cutting SS/Medicare!!!"?
That was my point that rather then deal with the facts as you have and the GOP has.. Democrats run around using terms like "risky stock market"... "privatizing"...
I mean they totally ignore realities as you pointed out age 65 was seldom reached by people in the 30s!
Today 12.7% of the population is over 65! Age and Sex - The Older Population in the United States: 2011 - People and Households - U.S. Census Bureau (SEE I document where is yours.. and not BULLSHIT!!!)

 

[Claudette]

I doubt SS and Medicare would be popular if people could only take out EXACTLY what they put into the program. In fact. If that were the case I think we would see an end to both programs.

I don't know about you but I can take better care of my money than some clown in DC.

 

[g5000]

I doubt SS and Medicare would be popular if people could only take out EXACTLY what they put into the program. In fact. If that were the case I think we would see an end to both programs.

I don't know about you but I can take better care of my money than some clown in DC.

A senior citizen today consumes about four times the amount of money they put into Medicare over their lifetime.

It is time to raise the eligibility age by at least five years. That's five more years a person contributes, and five less years they draw out.


I predict, though, Congress will raise the Medicare eligibility age to 68 instead, and they will take 20 years to fully implement it, by which time our life expectancy will have already outpaced that pathetic increase in the eligibility age. In addition, I predict they will not index it to life expectancy or a percentage of the population.

In other words, the spineless people we keep re-electing will kick the problem down the road to the next generation. Again.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The problem with this thread - beyond the fact that the author of the OP is a partisan hack - is that the need for SS and Medicare (or similar such services) have existed for all time in all societies. SS is not the be all end all of retirement plans, individuals know they must have some other plan or will be destined to rely on their kids or live in poverty.

Anyone who has traveled around the globe has seen beggars, the infirmed and the aged begging on the streets of urban cities; hordes of children living alone or in bands of disorganized crime, all amid pockets of wealth incarcerated in office towers and gated communities.

The attack on SS and Medicare is and has been an effort by the 'banksters', snake oil sales personnel and the power elite to secure the dollars working men and women send in payroll taxes to the federal government, and of course allow the business community greater profits by eliminating their contributions to SS and Medicare and to create markets, selling more insurance and investment products without a full force and credit guarantee (and loaded with fine print).

 

[NYcarbineer]

somebody doesnt remember they want to privatize everything

YOU say that! Prove that EVERYTHING should be privatized?


I would NOT want a privatized effort to "provide for the common defense" as required by the CONSTITUTION!

A very large portion of defense is privatized. For-profit private sector companies get billions in defense contracts.

That's one big reason defense spending is our biggest government waste of all government waste.