Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[Davros]

There is nothing to give. One more time for the REALLY slow kid: the money SIMPLY IS NOT FUCKING THERE The question is irrelevant because (one more time) the money is gone!

One more time for the public school student: The money isn't there for all of our social programs, so shouldn't we eliminate those first before going to a program where people paid into it their entire lives?

Did you not actually read my posts? Have you been drinking? I have been saying for YEARS that the budget needs to be slashed...but we are at the point I'm not sure it CAN be slashed enough.

Sure we can, just cut off all those social programs nobody paid into but taxpayers. And think how badly Medicare is broke. I just looked at my paycheck stub, and I realized I put over four times the contribution to SS as I do in Medicare. And let's face it, one major surgery for a senior citizen and that bill could cost us almost a life times worth of Social Security.

So I like your idea. Let's start with Medicare first since that costs us more. When do we pull the plug on those old people already?????

Now we have Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare.

Correct. Commie Care was a trillion dollars alone that increased our already outrageous debt, and they are expecting it to cost a lot more by the time all is said and done.

Only the geniuses on the left would consider starting yet another social program we can't afford when we can't even support the ones we've had for decades. Medicaid is one of the largest expenditures for many states and even driving them in the red.

Because of Medicare's shortfalls, they have been underpaying health providers for years now--sometimes paying only 2/3 of the bill. Health facilities had to recoup that money somewhere so they increased fees on everybody which eventually fell on private insurance who had to keep increasing premiums to the point employers could no longer afford them.

Ronald Reagan said it best "Government is not the solution to our problems--government is the problem."

Well that's a pretty big problem, then, that Medicare is underpaying like that and yet it is still now in the red. If it were paying what the greedy doctors were asking, the Medicare deficit would be hundreds of billions.

Time to work together and fix this cost of healthcare thing. It is out of control, and yes Obama is to blame for failing to work with Republicans and pass something sensible

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One more time for the public school student: The money isn't there for all of our social programs, so shouldn't we eliminate those first before going to a program where people paid into it their entire lives?

Did you not actually read my posts? Have you been drinking? I have been saying for YEARS that the budget needs to be slashed...but we are at the point I'm not sure it CAN be slashed enough.

Sure we can, just cut off all those social programs nobody paid into but taxpayers. And think how badly Medicare is broke. I just looked at my paycheck stub, and I realized I put over four times the contribution to SS as I do in Medicare. And let's face it, one major surgery for a senior citizen and that bill could cost us almost a life times worth of Social Security.

So I like your idea. Let's start with Medicare first since that costs us more. When do we pull the plug on those old people already?????

Now we have Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare.

Correct. Commie Care was a trillion dollars alone that increased our already outrageous debt, and they are expecting it to cost a lot more by the time all is said and done.

Only the geniuses on the left would consider starting yet another social program we can't afford when we can't even support the ones we've had for decades. Medicaid is one of the largest expenditures for many states and even driving them in the red.

Because of Medicare's shortfalls, they have been underpaying health providers for years now--sometimes paying only 2/3 of the bill. Health facilities had to recoup that money somewhere so they increased fees on everybody which eventually fell on private insurance who had to keep increasing premiums to the point employers could no longer afford them.

Ronald Reagan said it best "Government is not the solution to our problems--government is the problem."

Well that's a pretty big problem, then, that Medicare is underpaying like that and yet it is still now in the red. If it were paying what the greedy doctors were asking, the Medicare deficit would be hundreds of billions.

Time to work together and fix this cost of healthcare thing. It is out of control, and yes Obama is to blame for failing to work with Republicans and pass something sensible

That's been the problem right from the beginning: nobody addressed the cost of healthcare. Just pass the problem to the next entity.

There are several ways to lower the cost of healthcare and some of them wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime. The pragmatic solution is to lower the cost first, and then figure out how we are going to pay for it.

 

[Davros]

Did you not actually read my posts? Have you been drinking? I have been saying for YEARS that the budget needs to be slashed...but we are at the point I'm not sure it CAN be slashed enough.

Sure we can, just cut off all those social programs nobody paid into but taxpayers. And think how badly Medicare is broke. I just looked at my paycheck stub, and I realized I put over four times the contribution to SS as I do in Medicare. And let's face it, one major surgery for a senior citizen and that bill could cost us almost a life times worth of Social Security.

So I like your idea. Let's start with Medicare first since that costs us more. When do we pull the plug on those old people already?????

Now we have Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare.

Correct. Commie Care was a trillion dollars alone that increased our already outrageous debt, and they are expecting it to cost a lot more by the time all is said and done.

Only the geniuses on the left would consider starting yet another social program we can't afford when we can't even support the ones we've had for decades. Medicaid is one of the largest expenditures for many states and even driving them in the red.

Because of Medicare's shortfalls, they have been underpaying health providers for years now--sometimes paying only 2/3 of the bill. Health facilities had to recoup that money somewhere so they increased fees on everybody which eventually fell on private insurance who had to keep increasing premiums to the point employers could no longer afford them.

Ronald Reagan said it best "Government is not the solution to our problems--government is the problem."

Well that's a pretty big problem, then, that Medicare is underpaying like that and yet it is still now in the red. If it were paying what the greedy doctors were asking, the Medicare deficit would be hundreds of billions.

Time to work together and fix this cost of healthcare thing. It is out of control, and yes Obama is to blame for failing to work with Republicans and pass something sensible

That's been the problem right from the beginning: nobody addressed the cost of healthcare. Just pass the problem to the next entity.

There are several ways to lower the cost of healthcare and some of them wouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime. The pragmatic solution is to lower the cost first, and then figure out how we are going to pay for it.

I agree, and the Republicans proposed doing that and Obama rejected it. "Elections have consequences".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

so am I considered manual labor?

do you have to get out in 20 below and crawl around fixing tie-downs? Not enough. Denied!

do you have to load and unload? what percentage is forklift? do you have help? deny!

95% of my loads or uploads are no touch. There are times when I have to load or unload using a pallet jack. I think my employer would have some consideration when I get a little older for those stops.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

it ain't that easy is it? IF you contribute more........then that person gets bigger payout, right? So if someone pays in up to 1mil.........they get 10K/mo? is there any savings? If the guy get nothing out of it then this is a TAX increase on the wealthy. right?

Maybe they need a MAX payout per month?

?????


Social Security has always been capped,

Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2015)

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

 

[leftwinger]

it ain't that easy is it? IF you contribute more........then that person gets bigger payout, right? So if someone pays in up to 1mil.........they get 10K/mo? is there any savings? If the guy get nothing out of it then this is a TAX increase on the wealthy. right?

Maybe they need a MAX payout per month?

?????


Social Security has always been capped,

Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2015)

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

I know. They may run out of Wealthy. Or worse, the level moves down to my level! IF you want less of something TAX IT. If you want more of it SUBSIDIZE IT.

 

[BluesLegend]

All you 70 year old seniors grab your damn catheter bags and get back to work your 30 minute lunch is over. And you limpy lose the walker congress says you can stand for an 8 hour shift stop milking it.

 

[Davros]

it ain't that easy is it? IF you contribute more........then that person gets bigger payout, right? So if someone pays in up to 1mil.........they get 10K/mo? is there any savings? If the guy get nothing out of it then this is a TAX increase on the wealthy. right?

Maybe they need a MAX payout per month?

?????


Social Security has always been capped,

Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2015)

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

 

[Davros]

?????


Social Security has always been capped,

Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2015)

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

I know. They may run out of Wealthy. Or worse, the level moves down to my level! IF you want less of something TAX IT. If you want more of it SUBSIDIZE IT.

When tax rates on the wealthy are as low as they are today, there is no need for your hyperbole. The rich are doing more than fine. They don't need your help.

 

[BluesLegend]

?????


Social Security has always been capped,

Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2015)

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

?????


Social Security has always been capped,

Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2015)

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

APR 3, 2012 @ 02:39 PM 37,821 VIEWS
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”

But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

 

[Davros]

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the fucking top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's fucking bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor by eliminating welfare.

 

[Davros]

Third post by me to try to get point across: We all know it SSI pay - In amount is capped (always).

What you get back is based on how much you put in. If you keep paying in up to 1mil then that guy will get a huge monthly check. defeating your purpose, correct? why is this so hard to say?

Give me and EXPERT so explain what i mean. My freakin' RINO hoofs are chapped!

So if you lift this "cap" you may have to adjust payback amount for those persons?

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

APR 3, 2012 @ 02:39 PM 37,821 VIEWS
John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Progressives say, if you’re so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan of the group Demos put it this way: “Wealthy Americans who have done so well in the past decade should help get us out.”

But it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.

Increase the top bracket to 40% as part of a balanced deficit cutting deal, that is much heavier on the spending cutting side. The rich will not suffer with that, believe me.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

Callous conservatism has downsides, something callous conservatives simply can't seem to understand. Cutting SS and medicare puts more economic pressure on state and local governments, it solves noting, would increase unemployment and make the misery index rise.

The solution to SS is simple, raise the artificial ceiling; provide universal preventative health care to every citizen from cradle to grave and put doctors and other health care providers who cheat into prison, and take away their license to practice medicine.

 

[BluesLegend]

Their idea is to lift the cap but not pay anymore out to those who paid the most. That's the way liberalism works: put it on the shoulders of the wealthy.

You're a truck driver and you're worried about the damn wealthy. Fuck the wealthy. They can afford to pay more tax to sustain thus program that you're counting on being there for you. Sounds like you want me to pay half my salary to keep your pet program afloat while keeping the fat cat's tax rate down at 10%.

The liberal position is to take more from the wealthy no matter what the cause. More SS needed, tax the wealthy. More welfare needed, tax the wealthy. Federal deficit is up, tax the wealthy. Out of control debt, tax the wealthy. Free college, tax the wealthy.

That's because taxes on the wealthy are low.

Cut spending, then raise taxes on those who can afford it if necessary to balance the budget.

There should be a balanced budget amendment, with no gimmicks such as separating out social security or wars allowed, deficit allowed if voted on by supermajority in case of national emergency.

And no, needing to invade Iraq or Syria to overthrow their leader is not a national emergency.

Look punishing the wealthy isn't the answer, they don't have enough wealth to fund the goddamn liberal utopia the lying liberal politicians keep promising the dumb as a brick Democrats.

You missed the part where I said cut spending. I don't want to punish the wealthy, but god damn it don't increase my goddamned payroll tax to sustain your generation so that I'm paying 25% of my paycheck in taxes while then cutting the fucking top bracket to 10%. In what universe would it be fair for the payroll tax to increase to 25% on the first 100,000 someone makes, drops to 0 on the second 100,000, and then make the income tax rate for millionaires 10%. That's fucking bullshit, but it seems to be something you guys would support to keep you baby boomer asses living fat in retirement while screwing over the poor.

Look I understand your anger but step 1 is coming to grips with the fact that you are being lied to. You are being lied to, used, manipulated, and enslaved by the Washington establishment. Its not just the Democrats its both parties. In back rooms all across Washington the establishment is laughing about how easy it is to re-direct peoples anger to the boogieman of the week. This week its the rich, next week it will be corporations, the following week it will be 'Wall Street'. Meanwhile the establishment is lubricating to screw you over again.

There are simply not enough 'rich' people to tax to make a dent. Obama already raised taxes on the 'rich' and people cheered but guess how much revenue it actually generated, almost nothing. It wasn't even a rounding error in the deficit. It made no difference in the lives of the poor or middle class at all. At the time using Obama's own numbers he would have had to raise the tax rate on the rich to 99% and that would have just barely covered the deficit at the time. Do you think the are going to raise taxes on the rich to 99%? No way in hell right. They have to tax and fee the crap out of the poor and middle class, there's 300 million of them that's a big fat juicy cash cow.

What's happening of late? Yes Colorado is getting ready to slam everyone with an additional 10% payroll tax to fund a $25 billion dollar a year free healthcare system. That's more than the entire Colorado state budget. Washington state is trying to slam the poor and middle class with a huge gas tax increase, a 'carbon' tax. Where's the money going? Yes right into the pockets of the public employee unions, they are the politicians cash cow for campaign contributions.

If you stop listening to the narrative being spun out of Washington DC, and instead look around at exactly what these politicians are doing vs what they are saying, you will find they say one thing and do another. They claim to be representing the poor and middle class while repeatedly screwing over the poor and middle class. Actions vs words.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

when social security was instituted, the average life expectancy was 61 years old. it is now over 70. they should raise the age to 65 or 67. then they wouldn't need to cut anything.

It's already 67

 

[Interpol]

You don't have to tinker with Medicare or Social Security or cut services if you just expand Medicare to automatically cover every American from birth. Seniors already get the best deal negotiated more than any other group around. With every single person in that pool, the negotiating power of "We the People" would mean that finally WE have the power to control our own destinies in America by having the healthcare industry work for us rather than the other way around. Americans are the only people in any developed nation who are slaves to corporate healthcare masters. Makes no sense. The money people would be saving would dramatically improve our economy overnight because we'd institute cost-controls for everyone, just like how every other developed nation does it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

Slash defense before slashing anything else. Or at least admit we're planning to take over the world that we spend so much.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

Slash defense before slashing anything else. Or at least admit we're planning to take over the world that we spend so much.

The defense of this country is outlined in the Constitution. Our founders thought it most important that we do. They mentioned nothing about food stamps, housing or WIC.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You don't have to tinker with Medicare or Social Security or cut services if you just expand Medicare to automatically cover every American from birth. Seniors already get the best deal negotiated more than any other group around. With every single person in that pool, the negotiating power of "We the People" would mean that finally WE have the power to control our own destinies in America by having the healthcare industry work for us rather than the other way around. Americans are the only people in any developed nation who are slaves to corporate healthcare masters. Makes no sense. The money people would be saving would dramatically improve our economy overnight because we'd institute cost-controls for everyone, just like how every other developed nation does it.

Medicare is already going broke and it only covers Seniors. Who and how would we pay for this Medicare expansion?

That's besides the fact Medicare for many years has been skipping out on paying the full bill for their patients. Private insurance and private pay patients have been making up the losses. Take them out of the pictures and our health facilities close down like they had in the past in inner-cities where most of the patients are government pay patients.