Stop all benefits for one year.

[Cecilie1200]

Why should anyone end up on the street? You seem to think that people cannot survive without the government paying all their bills. That's a ridiculous idea.

No, it's a reality. We live in a society that has spent decades convincing people to become totally dependent on the government for their income, and simply pulling the rug out from under them all at once and saying, "Psych! You're on your own! But here's a check for a pittance. Good luck!" is about as useless as . . . well, you are.

 

[SwimExpert]

The silly ass doesn't care in the least about the results as long as his supposed tax bill would be lowered. Personally, from the tone of his posts, I am betting that his tax bill is very low already. At least compared to that of a middle class earner.

Silly ass, if that were true I would be calling for the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Tanf, and every form of government assistance, along with the elimination of every tax that pays for those things. But that's not what I am after. I want our federal government to be able to pay down the debt, for our federal government to invest in the public good instead of just providing a watering trough, for Social Security to still be around 30 years from now when my time comes, and 50 years from now when I'm still kicking, and 60 years from now when I probably won't be around anymore but my kids will have had their time come.

 

[SwimExpert]

You do realize that there are already many old people who were brainwashed into putting all their eggs into the "social welfare" basket for their retirement, and now are incapable of surviving without it, right?

That's ridiculous. People are responsible for themselves. Nobody has brainwashed them. If they did put all their eggs into the social welfare basket, as you say, the fact of the matter is that that was their choice and nobody forced them to do it. So they'll have to take responsibility for finding new ways to take care of themselves. They can move into a cheaper place to live, they can sell their house and buy something half the price, they can move in with their children. There are alot of low cost retirement apartment communities out there that offer rather nice places to live. Or they can go get a job. There are alot of retired people who are more than capable of working. Even if it's just a minimum wage job at 20 hrs a week, along with $7500 for the year they'll be more than capable of getting by.

This is the real world, with real problems, and requires thoughtful, long-term, real solutions created by adults. The dependency on the government to act as husband/parent/nanny needs to be ended, but it needs to be done in a positive, beneficial way that will truly end the created need for it once and for all.

Sometimes you just gotta cut the umbilical cord. Sure, there will be people who fall flat. But that's a fact of life. Jesus taught us that there will always be poor no matter what. I know it won't be fun, but we have to take painful actions if we want any progress whatsoever. I don't see any alternatives that will get anything done.

 

[SwimExpert]

There are lots of ideas out there for how to fix the system without puerilely insisting that a $7500 lump sum payment is exactly the same as the benefits people are currently getting through the social welfare system

I never said it was the same. Never once. It is most certainly a reduction, I thought I was very clear about that. The very quote you responded to says that the goal is to reduce spending. Giving people a lump sum is intended to offset the impact of the reduced benefit total. They can use the money to prepare themselves in whatever way they see fit. If they decide to move to reduce their bills, they'll have cash on hand to help them do that if necessary. If they decide to invest in equipment so that they can gain freelance work on the side, they'll have the money up front to do that. If they want to start a garden to grow food so they can reduce their grocery budget, they can do that.

On the other hand, if they decide to sit back and just wait for the money to run out and assume that the government teat will provide more, then they'll suffer the consequences of their own actions and decisions.

and thus leaving people completely helpless and bereft because they're not prepared to take care of themselves, and you're too frigging stupid to understand how the system, or the world in general, currently works.

People have been taking care of themselves for tens of thousands of years without the government doing it for them. Why do you want people to be dependent on the government?

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't actually know of ANY job that goes from regular paychecks every month to one lump sum payment for the year that totals much less than the employee normally gets for the year, and thinks they're going to get away with it.

JOB.

A job is something that you go to and work to earn a paycheck. Sucking the government teat is not a job, it's being a leach.

 

[SwimExpert]

Really? You're going to cut off social welfare benefits for a year, but they're going to receive "substantial government aid"? What aid would that be, precisely, that's going to take up the slack for what they're dependent on now, and how is that then going to reduce government spending? Furthermore, what makes you think they're living high on the hog and have the ability to downsize even more? Or that their children are any more prepared to abruptly take on that responsibility than the seniors are to abruptly fend for themselves?

You're talking nonsense.

Don't you think that a government check for $7500 is pretty substantial government aid? Maybe we live in different worlds, but I've never received a check from the government for $7500 for the entire year. To the contrary, they take nearly that much from me every single year. What does it take in your entitled, leaching mind for the government finally to give "enough" aid? Maybe we should give everyone $1 million. Would that make you happy? I guess it would. Yeah, let's do that.

 

[g5000]

The federal government is spending roughly $1.5 trillion a year on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid alone. That doesn't even include foodstamps and other welfare programs, pensions, etc. How much is this doing for our economy, as we sink deeper into debt? I propose we cease all spending on such things for one year. The only exception being for those are disabled. During that same time, payroll taxes be reduced by 50% for everyone.

With the money saved, every tax payer and person who receives benefits gets a check for $7500. Use it as you see fit. Use it for food, use it for health care, use it for rent, use it to start your own business. This approach will offer substantial aid for people in need, will be a lesser total expenditure, and will actually yield a lesser deficit. Meanwhile, individuals will be able to have more disposable income with which to stimulate the economy.

Why shouldn't we do this?

Don't forget the $1.2 trillion spent on tax expenditures each year. Those should be suspended for one year, too. If you are serious, then EVERYONE has to sacrifice.

 

[SwimExpert]

^^^^Moron. It's this kind of stupid shit that the cons would do, that would totally wreck everything in this country. If this happened, there would be 100 million people out on the street, or in prison just to get something to eat and a place out of the cold.

Paying $15k to keep a elderly person on Social Security, or paying $40k to keep that person in prison, which one is cheaper? Which one is dumber?

Do tell. You are free to look up and post any thread by a conservative that has said this.

Or reference any mainstream conservative (I'm really not interested in fringe Internet kooks no one's ever heard of, thanks) who has articulated this position, for that matter.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

 

[SwimExpert]

Don't forget the $1.2 trillion spent on tax expenditures each year. Those should be suspended for one year, too. If you are serious, then EVERYONE has to sacrifice.

Oh, there's all kinds of other spending that should be cut as well. The entitlements are always the big problem, though. It's the biggest source of spending, so we have to cut them. But it's the thing that people resist the most, because they want to help others. It's one thing to cut defense spending by 20%. But cutting entitlements harder. If we manage to address entitlements, everything else falls into place.

 

[g5000]

Don't forget the $1.2 trillion spent on tax expenditures each year. Those should be suspended for one year, too. If you are serious, then EVERYONE has to sacrifice.

Oh, there's all kinds of other spending that should be cut as well. The entitlements are always the big problem, though. It's the biggest source of spending, so we have to cut them. But it's the thing that people resist the most, because they want to help others. It's one thing to cut defense spending by 20%. But cutting entitlements harder. If we manage to address entitlements, everything else falls into place.

So you are willing to make someone else sacrifice their food stamps and Medicare and Social Security, but you won't give up your mortgage interest deduction for one year?

"Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay for it."

 

[SwimExpert]

I don't agree with gutting the defense budget at all, but I won't say that the Department of Defense, like every other government department on Earth, doesn't have a lot of blubber it could trim away.

It seems that you want to cut spending, you just don't want to cut any of the things we spend on. You can't cut spending without cutting spending. Economics 101.

And we have no business taking on MORE social spending in the form of glomming onto the healthcare sector.

And if we get rid of Medicare for a year, we won't be spending on that. So that's moot.

 

[SwimExpert]

So you are willing to make someone else sacrifice their food stamps and Medicare and Social Security, but you won't give up your mortgage interest deduction for one year?

Where did I say that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do realize that there are already many old people who were brainwashed into putting all their eggs into the "social welfare" basket for their retirement, and now are incapable of surviving without it, right?

That's ridiculous. People are responsible for themselves. Nobody has brainwashed them. If they did put all their eggs into the social welfare basket, as you say, the fact of the matter is that that was their choice and nobody forced them to do it. So they'll have to take responsibility for finding new ways to take care of themselves. They can move into a cheaper place to live, they can sell their house and buy something half the price, they can move in with their children. There are alot of low cost retirement apartment communities out there that offer rather nice places to live. Or they can go get a job. There are alot of retired people who are more than capable of working. Even if it's just a minimum wage job at 20 hrs a week, along with $7500 for the year they'll be more than capable of getting by.

If you actually believe this steaming pile of horseshit, you either just flew your spaceship in from another solar system, or you're an even bigger nitwit than I was currently assuming.

You tell me which it is. Either way, let me know when you're talking about the realities of life on THIS planet.

This is the real world, with real problems, and requires thoughtful, long-term, real solutions created by adults. The dependency on the government to act as husband/parent/nanny needs to be ended, but it needs to be done in a positive, beneficial way that will truly end the created need for it once and for all.

Sometimes you just gotta cut the umbilical cord. Sure, there will be people who fall flat. But that's a fact of life. Jesus taught us that there will always be poor no matter what. I know it won't be fun, but we have to take painful actions if we want any progress whatsoever. I don't see any alternatives that will get anything done.

What a coincidence. I don't see any alternatives that will get anything done in your childish, kindergarten prattle.

Call me when you grow up and cut your own umbilical chord, Junior. It's painfully obvious to me that we're hearing economic philosophy developed in Mom's comfy basement right now.

 

[Kondor3]

Who said anything about living off of $7500 a year?

Indeed.

Old folks who don't have anything else, rely upon Social Security - we've all seen it time and again.

So, now, it's proposed to stop all benefits - including Social Security - for a year, in order to give every taxpayer a $7500 check?

That's great.

What are those large numbers of old folk - dependent upon Social Security - supposed to live on, for that year?

Zero?

Sounds like you're proposing that those folks live on zero ($0.00) for a year, right?

Not $7500.

But $0.

Is this a correct interpretation of what you're proposing?

Social Security retirement does not pay out very much in the first place. The nature of the programs is such that people already need some other means to support themselves. SS retirement is merely a supplemental source of income.

Meanwhile, if people do still have trouble supporting themselves they have plenty of options available. They can move to a cheaper place to live. If they own their house they can sell it and buy something half the price. They can move in with their children. There are alot of very capable options available to them.

Ultimately, the fact of the matter is that people need to take care of themselves. It's not the government's place to be providing for their every want and need.

Or they can just 'die, and thereby decrease the surplus population', of course.

 

[g5000]

We could raise the retirement age to 70 and ban all tax expenditures, and we would suddenly be flush with cash, without having to cut a single additional cent from spending.

We could use all that cash to lower tax rates and pay down the national debt. And once the debt was paid off, we could cut tax rates some more.

But our politicians are too cowardly. We have a $17 trillion debt to keep 535 people employed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are lots of ideas out there for how to fix the system without puerilely insisting that a $7500 lump sum payment is exactly the same as the benefits people are currently getting through the social welfare system

I never said it was the same. Never once. It is most certainly a reduction, I thought I was very clear about that. The very quote you responded to says that the goal is to reduce spending. Giving people a lump sum is intended to offset the impact of the reduced benefit total. They can use the money to prepare themselves in whatever way they see fit. If they decide to move to reduce their bills, they'll have cash on hand to help them do that if necessary. If they decide to invest in equipment so that they can gain freelance work on the side, they'll have the money up front to do that. If they want to start a garden to grow food so they can reduce their grocery budget, they can do that.

On the other hand, if they decide to sit back and just wait for the money to run out and assume that the government teat will provide more, then they'll suffer the consequences of their own actions and decisions.

and thus leaving people completely helpless and bereft because they're not prepared to take care of themselves, and you're too frigging stupid to understand how the system, or the world in general, currently works.

People have been taking care of themselves for tens of thousands of years without the government doing it for them. Why do you want people to be dependent on the government?

Oh, so this is even better. You've worked out a scheme to leave old people completely destitute and unable to pay their bills, KNOWINGLY doing so, just so that YOU can get yourself a tidy little check to buy a new PS4 with, and developed an entire line of self-serving "I don't need to know anything about the world" babble to justify it. Heck, those old farts just have too fancy an apartment and need to downsize so I can have my own gov't check! Let 'em get jobs!

I'm not even going to bother commenting on this juvenile garbage. It's not my job to teach you about the real world and make you understand the concept of having something intelligent to say before trying to be Mr. Cleverest-Guy-In-The-Room, although I will say that whoever WAS supposed to do that job should be horsewhipped. I will simply reiterate what I've said before: You're a clueless, immature drooler who is far, FAR more inane and useless to society than any of the people who you want to destroy just to deal yourself in on some government goodies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't actually know of ANY job that goes from regular paychecks every month to one lump sum payment for the year that totals much less than the employee normally gets for the year, and thinks they're going to get away with it.

JOB.

A job is something that you go to and work to earn a paycheck. Sucking the government teat is not a job, it's being a leach.

So's lounging in your parents' house while annoying real people with your "wisdom" about a world you've clearly never experienced making your own way in.

And by the way, shitforbrains, the word is "leech", not "leach". Get your ass back to high school before driveling at us any further.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? You're going to cut off social welfare benefits for a year, but they're going to receive "substantial government aid"? What aid would that be, precisely, that's going to take up the slack for what they're dependent on now, and how is that then going to reduce government spending? Furthermore, what makes you think they're living high on the hog and have the ability to downsize even more? Or that their children are any more prepared to abruptly take on that responsibility than the seniors are to abruptly fend for themselves?

You're talking nonsense.

Don't you think that a government check for $7500 is pretty substantial government aid? Maybe we live in different worlds, but I've never received a check from the government for $7500 for the entire year. To the contrary, they take nearly that much from me every single year. What does it take in your entitled, leaching mind for the government finally to give "enough" aid? Maybe we should give everyone $1 million. Would that make you happy? I guess it would. Yeah, let's do that.

No, dumbass, since I actually know something about what it takes to survive for a year at even a subsistence level without Mommy subsidies, I DON'T think $7500 is "pretty substantial government aid". Neither does anyone who's looking to government aid to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table, rather than just hoping to screw other people over to get some cash for a new video game.

We definitely live in different worlds, since I live in the one associated with reality, where you don't utterly mangle the fabric of society for decades, and then get bored with it and go, "Never mind" like a little kid wandering away from a sandlot baseball game.

What would make me happy, you ignorant little twit, is twofold: 1) effective, complex of the damage to our very complicated social fabric, and 2) if you got over your immature, arrogant little self and realized what a completely mindless puswad you sound like right now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do tell. You are free to look up and post any thread by a conservative that has said this.

Or reference any mainstream conservative (I'm really not interested in fringe Internet kooks no one's ever heard of, thanks) who has articulated this position, for that matter.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

Yeah, I can see you know as much about citing references as you do about social and economic reform.

Epic fail.

Now take your stupid little ass into your link and CITE THE FUCKING QUOTE, shitforbrains. Do you really think anyone's going to read through an entire, multipage document, trying to guess which part of it you were talking about? This is the same thing as saying, "I really have nothing, but I'm hoping you won't notice."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't agree with gutting the defense budget at all, but I won't say that the Department of Defense, like every other government department on Earth, doesn't have a lot of blubber it could trim away.

It seems that you want to cut spending, you just don't want to cut any of the things we spend on. You can't cut spending without cutting spending. Economics 101.

And we have no business taking on MORE social spending in the form of glomming onto the healthcare sector.

And if we get rid of Medicare for a year, we won't be spending on that. So that's moot.

No, it seems that you don't know your ass from your elbow. Only fools and little children - or, in your case, people who are both - think that you "cut spending" by simply ending an entire program all at once, with no preparation or forethought. Don't you DARE try to suggest to me that your simple-minded all-or-nothing bullshit is the only alternative to profligate federal spending.