ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

Except, what bankrupted the country was the refusal to demand these things be paid for.

That's because they're impossible to pay for. Social Security was created at an age that was ABOVE the life expectancy at that time. But instead of continuing to move that age up as the life expectancy increased, it was kept the same. So now we have approximately 3 workers for every retiree instead of 20. For Medicare, in 1990 the costs were WAY above what had been projected at the time of passing. For the Affordable Care Act, it relies on 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of expenditures, meaning it was in the hole the moment the law was signed. Every single government entitlement system is unsustainable.

The programs do need modification, but we also need more taxes from those who benefit most from government largess. And we do not need to go even further back to the almsot unregulated turn of the century. Just a few lapses today and we see BP/Halliburton, Massy energy, Madoff, etc, etc, etc.. and those are just the very big, very recent ones.

[Night Strike]

Except, what bankrupted the country was the refusal to demand these things be paid for.

That's because they're impossible to pay for. Social Security was created at an age that was ABOVE the life expectancy at that time. But instead of continuing to move that age up as the life expectancy increased, it was kept the same. So now we have approximately 3 workers for every retiree instead of 20. For Medicare, in 1990 the costs were WAY above what had been projected at the time of passing. For the Affordable Care Act, it relies on 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of expenditures, meaning it was in the hole the moment the law was signed. Every single government entitlement system is unsustainable.

The programs do need modification, but we also need more taxes from those who benefit most from government largess. And we do not need to go even further back to the almsot unregulated turn of the century. Just a few lapses today and we see BP/Halliburton, Massy energy, Madoff, etc, etc, etc.. and those are just the very big, very recent ones.

Those were already regulated, the regulators just weren't doing their jobs.


By the way, Social Security is a MUCH bigger ponzi scheme than the one Madoff ran.

[PLAYER57832]

Those were already regulated, the regulators just weren't doing their jobs.

Yes, and why might that be.... perhaps the fact that the regulatory agencies are perpetually understaffed? etc....

By the way, Social Security is a MUCH bigger ponzi scheme than the one Madoff ran.

Its not a ponzi scheme when it works. It worked well until a lot of unintended people were added.

[Night Strike]

By the way, Social Security is a MUCH bigger ponzi scheme than the one Madoff ran.

Its not a ponzi scheme when it works. It worked well until a lot of unintended people were added.

Or when they stopped raising the eligibility age even as the life expectancy skyrocketed.

[Phatscotty]

Except, what bankrupted the country was the refusal to demand these things be paid for.

See, you want to take us back to the 1900's, when sure, the government did little... and people suffered. We want to move forward to a time when we decide that what is still the wealthiest nation on earth can actually afford to care for ALL its citizens at a basic level without it somehow meaning the end of economic society.

H'mm sounds nice Player. Freedom.

"Freedom" if you happen to be male and of the elite ... otherwise, not.

However, what decade I want to go back to or if I want to go back at all has nothing to do with the previous statement about entitlement spending growing so large that we will not even be able to keep our schools open or have police or fire services.

It is when you are among the most ardent about "no taxes" and when the result of all that will be far worse than even closed schools and police departments.

Also, you were quite fine with cutting those in other threads as "inefficient wastes"

I have never once in my life taken a position on "no taxes", so quit making shit up how about??? Please your streak off straying off topic. for the third time, entitlement spending is going to swallow our entire budget during our lifetime. Is bitching about one person's stance on taxes going to fix that? Why do you even respond with something that does not follow the previous post?

We need major entitlement reform. The programs are simply unsustainable. They were an experiement with "good intentions". It always ends the same way. I learned that from studying history for the first time ever the other day, as you suggested. TY

Working for "other people" does not motivate workers to better themselves or their family, as that is a direct contradiction.

[Night Strike]

Working for "other people" does not motivate workers to better themselves or their family, as that is a direct contradiction.

Phatscotty hits on a great point here: it's my responsibility to work for my family, not for everybody else. If my family is taken care of and we still have money and resources left over, then that's when we have the chance to help out others. If calamities such as the recent tornado devastations occur, then my family can go on less for a time in order to help out those who are in dire straights. But it's NOT my responsibility to work half of the week to pay for everybody else's expenses and the other half for our own expenses. It's my job to provide for MY family first.

[Timminz]

Every single government entitlement system is unsustainable.

Except subsidies to for-profit "schools", right?

[Phatscotty]

Every single government entitlement system is unsustainable.

Except subsidies to for-profit "schools", right?

Oh yeah, I forgot everyone is entitled to that. Good one

[GreecePwns]

Both of y'all are making some broad sweeping statements. I'd love to see you two talk about how the 1960s was either a period of erosion of government regulation or the US becoming more socialist.

I didn't say it was a period of erosion, but rather that the erosion began in the 60s. The 70's - 80s would have been the greatest period of erosion (then again under Bush II).
Our government never really warmed up all that much to socialist hippie culture.

Wow JB. Doing a lot of fact checking on me lately.

Instead of finding a single opinion on it, perhaps you should look at the chunk that entitelements took of the US budget. the 60's took up a greater % than the 50's, the 70's took a greater % than the 60's and so on, until now, the moment of truth, when entitlement take up suh a large part of the budget we are going to be unable to pay for anything else, in other words, pure redistribution.

These entitelement programs almost seemed meant to bankrupt this country. There is no way around this, and that is why I am against creating a new entitlement program.
Oh yeah, and hippies of the 60's have nothing to do with this.

I'm preeeety sure that says regulation, not entitlement.

[PLAYER57832]

By the way, Social Security is a MUCH bigger ponzi scheme than the one Madoff ran.

Its not a ponzi scheme when it works. It worked well until a lot of unintended people were added.

Or when they stopped raising the eligibility age even as the life expectancy skyrocketed.

Yes, added more people and allowed more people to be added. (far more disabled individuals today than in the past). Social Security ironically enough, is in trouble becuase it worked, not because it did not. So all this talk about eliminating it is nonsense... at least for anyone not already a multi millionaire. And, since many of them wont stay that way, in truth even them.

[Night Strike]

By the way, Social Security is a MUCH bigger ponzi scheme than the one Madoff ran.

Its not a ponzi scheme when it works. It worked well until a lot of unintended people were added.

Or when they stopped raising the eligibility age even as the life expectancy skyrocketed.

Yes, added more people and allowed more people to be added. (far more disabled individuals today than in the past). Social Security ironically enough, is in trouble becuase it worked, not because it did not. So all this talk about eliminating it is nonsense... at least for anyone not already a multi millionaire. And, since many of them wont stay that way, in truth even them.

I guess it "worked" if you account for the fact that people were (are) forced into the system and are allowed to take out more money than they put in.


That doesn't sound like something working to me.

[PLAYER57832]

By the way, Social Security is a MUCH bigger ponzi scheme than the one Madoff ran.

Its not a ponzi scheme when it works. It worked well until a lot of unintended people were added.

Or when they stopped raising the eligibility age even as the life expectancy skyrocketed.

Yes, added more people and allowed more people to be added. (far more disabled individuals today than in the past). Social Security ironically enough, is in trouble becuase it worked, not because it did not. So all this talk about eliminating it is nonsense... at least for anyone not already a multi millionaire. And, since many of them wont stay that way, in truth even them.

I guess it "worked" if you account for the fact that people were (are) forced into the system and are allowed to take out more money than they put in.


That doesn't sound like something working to me.

That's how insurance works. You don't buy fire insurance becuase you hope to use it and you don't consider yourself to have "failed" because your house doesn't burn (at least most honest people do not!). People who get out less than they put in are fortunate not to need Social Security the way lower income people do.

You want to talk about "fairness", but you want to ignore how that situation happens.. why it is that some people get very wealthy and others can barely make ends meet. And no, it is not about being lazy or on drugs or stupid.

Social Security is one of those baseline limits that we set, as a society that says if you work all your life, do what you are "supposed to do" (stay out of jail, paid your taxes due, etc), then you have earned the right to this minimum level of care. And don't give me this "that's a family and friend's responsibility". The reason we have social security is precisely because those things too often failed. They sometimes fail now, too, but at least most seniors have this bare minimum upon which to rely.

[Night Strike]

That's how insurance works. You don't buy fire insurance becuase you hope to use it and you don't consider yourself to have "failed" because your house doesn't burn (at least most honest people do not!). People who get out less than they put in are fortunate not to need Social Security the way lower income people do.

You want to talk about "fairness", but you want to ignore how that situation happens.. why it is that some people get very wealthy and others can barely make ends meet. And no, it is not about being lazy or on drugs or stupid.

Social Security is one of those baseline limits that we set, as a society that says if you work all your life, do what you are "supposed to do" (stay out of jail, paid your taxes due, etc), then you have earned the right to this minimum level of care. And don't give me this "that's a family and friend's responsibility". The reason we have social security is precisely because those things too often failed. They sometimes fail now, too, but at least most seniors have this bare minimum upon which to rely.

Social Security is NOT insurance, it's the government thinking they can "protect" your money better than you can. Since when is it the government's responsibility to set aside your money for later in your life? Why isn't it YOUR responsibility to save your own money? If you don't set aside money, then you don't get to retire. It's quite simple.

Social Security should be exactly like any other form of retirement: you get back exactly what you put in plus some interest. You don't get more money than you put in and you don't get less. It's supposed to be the lock box policy, not a form of taxation.

By the way, Social Security was not passed to help people who did what they were supposed to do. It's another case of progressives not wanting to let a crisis go to waste. There was massive unemployment, so the government decided to swoop in and decide they knew how to take care of a person's money better than than person would. And it has failed our society!

[PLAYER57832]

That's how insurance works. You don't buy fire insurance becuase you hope to use it and you don't consider yourself to have "failed" because your house doesn't burn (at least most honest people do not!). People who get out less than they put in are fortunate not to need Social Security the way lower income people do.

You want to talk about "fairness", but you want to ignore how that situation happens.. why it is that some people get very wealthy and others can barely make ends meet. And no, it is not about being lazy or on drugs or stupid.

Social Security is one of those baseline limits that we set, as a society that says if you work all your life, do what you are "supposed to do" (stay out of jail, paid your taxes due, etc), then you have earned the right to this minimum level of care. And don't give me this "that's a family and friend's responsibility". The reason we have social security is precisely because those things too often failed. They sometimes fail now, too, but at least most seniors have this bare minimum upon which to rely.

Social Security is NOT insurance, it's the government thinking they can "protect" your money better than you can.

You can quibble about semantics and definitions all you like, but it was designed to operate on the same basic principles as insurance. A lot of people pay in for fewer people to collect. You pay now and collect more later, when needed.

Since when is it the government's responsibility to set aside your money for later in your life? Why isn't it YOUR responsibility to save your own money? If you don't set aside money, then you don't get to retire. It's quite simple.

Because the dirty secret folks like you pretend is not real is that most working people plain cannot set aside enough for retirement. To benefit from things like 401K's, etc, and truly insulate yourself against market vagaries, you have to be able to put in each year more than many people make.

Social Security should be exactly like any other form of retirement: you get back exactly what you put in plus some interest. You don't get more money than you put in and you don't get less. It's supposed to be the lock box policy, not a form of taxation.

In fact, old style pensions, which were getting to be common about the time SS came into fruition often did pay out more, are having to pay out more.

But, you operate under a misunderstanding. Social security was supposed to be set aside. Its just that Reagan, etc decided "hey, why leave all this money just sitting there, let's lower taxes".. and voila.. yet another cost was passed on to us. Also, to fund something the size of SS with stocks and bonds is very difficult. Not just difficult, but in any bond/stock setup there are both winners and losers. Social security was intended as a minimum everyone would have despite other losses.

By the way, Social Security was not passed to help people who did what they were supposed to do. It's another case of progressives not wanting to let a crisis go to waste. There was massive unemployment, so the government decided to swoop in and decide they knew how to take care of a person's money better than than person would. And it has failed our society!

Nice try. it was a bottom line safety net, a supplement to most people's retirement, but a bare minimum upon which people could rely because being unemployed, working a poor job is not a crime and happens to plenty of people who do "follow the rules" and yet get screwed over royally. And, if it has "failed" as you claim, then it would not be as popular as it is. The problem is, as I noted above, the funds for Baby boomers and others was not set aside as it was to have been.

[Night Strike]

Because the dirty secret folks like you pretend is not real is that most working people plain cannot set aside enough for retirement. To benefit from things like 401K's, etc, and truly insulate yourself against market vagaries, you have to be able to put in each year more than many people make.

Maybe if they weren't having to pay the 1.45% for Medicare and 6.2% for Social Security (plus the 6.2% payed by the employer), they would have enough money to invest in true benefits. You always try to treat these issues in a vacuum. If people don't have enough money to do things currently, it's because they're being taxed too much to pay for their own responsibilities. Take away those massive taxes and suddenly they have a lot more money available.

[PLAYER57832]

Because the dirty secret folks like you pretend is not real is that most working people plain cannot set aside enough for retirement. To benefit from things like 401K's, etc, and truly insulate yourself against market vagaries, you have to be able to put in each year more than many people make.

Maybe if they weren't having to pay the 1.45% for Medicare and 6.2% for Social Security (plus the 6.2% payed by the employer), they would have enough money to invest in true benefits.

Not even close.
Up those to 8% total ... someone making $20,000 can put away a "whopping" $1600... a $1600 that, unlike social security is NOT gauranteed to produce anything. Even put away in a IRA or 401K, it can be lost.

Further, did you happen to read ANY of the healthcare thread? medical costs are a major reason why people go into debt, go into poverty and go bankrupt. So cutting out that is plain stupid.

You always try to treat these issues in a vacuum. If people don't have enough money to do things currently, it's because they're being taxed too much to pay for their own responsibilities. Take away those massive taxes and suddenly they have a lot more money available.

Oh baloney! You accuse me of being in a vacume, but pretend that all that matters is what happens to the wealthy. THEY are the ones who are not paying their fair share. And no... taxes are not the reason for a down economy. NOR is giving big business tax breaks really the best way to spur an economy. They might, in an already good economy, hire a few people. When things are bad, they use their largess to buy up stock, set aside funds, etc. Poorer people, by contrast, SPEND a high percentage of what they get.. they have little choice.

And don't even begin to try an lecture me on saving money. I can gaurantee I do better than you and your family. I have to, we have a lot of debt mostly from medical expenses.. debt we got when we had insurance, no less!

[GreecePwns]

Because the dirty secret folks like you pretend is not real is that most working people plain cannot set aside enough for retirement. To benefit from things like 401K's, etc, and truly insulate yourself against market vagaries, you have to be able to put in each year more than many people make.

Maybe if they weren't having to pay the 1.45% for Medicare and 6.2% for Social Security (plus the 6.2% payed by the employer), they would have enough money to invest in true benefits. You always try to treat these issues in a vacuum. If people don't have enough money to do things currently, it's because they're being taxed too much to pay for their own responsibilities. Take away those massive taxes and suddenly they have a lot more money available.

...and the money will just trickle down to the bottom right? IA myth more contrived than Aesop

Your preference for the few is striking here, for since 1965, elderly poverty is down to less than 10 percent from over 30 percent. What are the two biggest concerns of the elderly? Medical expenses and having the money needed to sustain retired life. What are the two government-run programs that are designed to handle these? Medicare and Social Security. However imperfect as they are (and they really are), their flaws are that they don't go far enough.

Social Security has a cap on that 6.2 percent tax, I hope you're aware. The fact that there is a cap of any sort makes it a regressive tax. This tax asks the poor and the middle class (I believe the cap is at $92,000) to help aid the poor. Guess what? If the cap were lifted and borrowing were banned, the tax could actually be made at a LOWER PERCENTAGE and Social Security could be made solvent for at least the next 100 years.

Medicare's problem is it's inefficiency in spending. Yeah, Medicare is inefficient, because we need a Dept. of HHS that interacts more with doctors, giving them more incentives, etc. We have the most inefficient health insurance of industrialized nations and we have the most "free market' form of health insurance. The only argument for such a system is OH LOOK! FOREIGN LEADERS COME HERE FOR CARE! Because they can afford it. As much as you would like to say that quality and efficiency has nothign to do with "freedom," you're wrong. Health insurance isn't a manufactured good. It is not limited in quantity. Leaving it to the free market would be treating it like so. Americans are just ashamed to say the French are doing it better or too busy to even care to look at it, pointing to England and Canada assembly-line like hospitals as the be all, end all of socialized health INSURANCE.

In any case, these two programs and unemployment insurance are designed to keep people from fallign out of the economy altogether, which is what produces such high deficits at the federal level due to reduced tax income. In other words, your free market solutions end up helping a few but hurting everyone else. Privatize profit, socialize risk, as they say.

[Night Strike]

You always try to treat these issues in a vacuum. If people don't have enough money to do things currently, it's because they're being taxed too much to pay for their own responsibilities. Take away those massive taxes and suddenly they have a lot more money available.

Oh baloney! You accuse me of being in a vacume, but pretend that all that matters is what happens to the wealthy. THEY are the ones who are not paying their fair share. And no... taxes are not the reason for a down economy. NOR is giving big business tax breaks really the best way to spur an economy. They might, in an already good economy, hire a few people. When things are bad, they use their largess to buy up stock, set aside funds, etc. Poorer people, by contrast, SPEND a high percentage of what they get.. they have little choice.

You're seriously going to go down this route? I'm still amazed people actually believe this lie. The bottom 50% of income earners pay almost 0 (ZERO!) dollars in income taxes. The top 5% (those over $150,000 in income, including small businesses) pay over 60% of ALL income taxes collected by the government. The top 1% pay around 40% of ALL income taxes. That's MORE than their fair share, despite the constant calls to emotion the left continually cries for.

[PLAYER57832]

You always try to treat these issues in a vacuum. If people don't have enough money to do things currently, it's because they're being taxed too much to pay for their own responsibilities. Take away those massive taxes and suddenly they have a lot more money available.

Oh baloney! You accuse me of being in a vacume, but pretend that all that matters is what happens to the wealthy. THEY are the ones who are not paying their fair share. And no... taxes are not the reason for a down economy. NOR is giving big business tax breaks really the best way to spur an economy. They might, in an already good economy, hire a few people. When things are bad, they use their largess to buy up stock, set aside funds, etc. Poorer people, by contrast, SPEND a high percentage of what they get.. they have little choice.

You're seriously going to go down this route? I'm still amazed people actually believe this lie. The bottom 50% of income earners pay almost 0 (ZERO!) dollars in income taxes. The top 5% (those over $150,000 in income, including small businesses) pay over 60% of ALL income taxes collected by the government. The top 1% pay around 40% of ALL income taxes. That's MORE than their fair share, despite the constant calls to emotion the left continually cries for.

You are not debating her point. Ironically enough you are proving it. If the bottom 50% are not paying taxes (I dispute that, but accept it for this argument so as not to get sidetracked), then they are not being paid enough to pay taxes, they are not being paid enough to truly support themselves. And, that small businesses pay so much in taxes is partly baloney (they get to deduct many things like vehicles and meals that enhance their quality of life and ability to get by without technically adding to their taxable income) and partially because the government currently seems to have it in for people who make moderate incomes, but who are not yet wealthy (particularly those in the 100K-300K or so range)

Further, to decide if it is a "fair share" means not just looking at what is paid, but at what is used, the costs encurred. Trucks, for example, exact a very heavy toll on our highway system. We HEAVILY subsidize the trucking industry because it is more convenient(oil company lobbies, etc had a lot to do with that, but I am trying not to spin this off into another topic), particularly for many businesses, as opposed to having maintained the far more efficient rail systems we see in most of the world . The amount of pollution we just accept is simply criminal. Similarly, we give big companies tax BREAKS for utilities and water, thus exacerbating the pollution problems. They should be charge more, not less. The costs don't disappear simply becuase its convenient for business to ignore them. Those kinds of blind and short-sighted decisions are why we are in the state we are in today.

I will go off topic a tac, but becuase it is very, very related to this. To truly get our economy back on track, we have to FIRST ensure that we keep our waters and air clean and readily available, protect enough forest land, marshes to protect what we gave. We need to protect the base ecosystem, the basis for not just our economy, but our very lives. anything else means even higher death and illness rates. jhigher medical costs, lower productivity and far fewer consumers. (both because they are not well enough and becuase so much of their money has to go to insurance companies and for healthcare).

[Metsfanmax]

The top 1% pay around 40% of ALL income taxes. That's MORE than their fair share, despite the constant calls to emotion the left continually cries for.

The top 1% also own about 40% of ALL the wealth.

[Phatscotty]

I'ts actually pretty simple. Freedom and Liberty is too large a burden to bear for some people. I only ask them why they want to live in a free country?

[Timminz]

I'ts actually pretty simple. Freedom and Liberty is too large a burden to bear for some people. I only ask them why they want to live in a free country?

Why? Have you found one?

[PLAYER57832]

I'ts actually pretty simple. Freedom and Liberty is too large a burden to bear for some people. I only ask them why they want to live in a free country?

What you propose is selling our country to big corporations. Sorry, most of us prefer a system where even those who are not wealthy get a vote.

Our system is far from perfect, but the imperfections lie in the wealthy already having too much control, not too little.

Furthermore, what kind of freedom is it to have to wait until you are in a true crisis to get medical care, to worry about every step you take for fear you might get injured and leave your kids without a house or much else.

Even simple things get complex when you lack insurance. My husband waited 3 weeks to get treated for strep. I waited 2 weeks, both of us passing it along to many others while we waited. I knew it was stupid, but kept hoping it was something else. Only when I was absolutely positive I had strep did I go. And the result? I have a $248 bill. (my husband's doctor did not require him to get an exam, knowing him well enough and knowing already that our kids were diagnosed with strep). That means, among other things, we cannot now buy a half a cow. Not having that meat in our freezer means we will be paying higher costs at the grocery store and serving a lot of beans and chicken, both of which my husband absolutely hates. (usually I serve those for the kids at lunch and for the 2-3 days a week he is gone for meetings).

All that DESPITE having paid insurance companies for over 30 years! And, as I noted before if this latest healthcare law is rescinded, we won't even GET coverage again.. because we each have "pre-existing conditions". Not major ones, but that doesn't matter.

[Phatscotty]

I'ts actually pretty simple. Freedom and Liberty is too large a burden to bear for some people. I only ask them why they want to live in a free country?

What you propose is selling our country to big corporations.

That's a pretty fucking huge assumption. You are getting nuttier by the day. I propose nothing close to that, yet you continue to tell me that is what I propose.

What reason do I have to continue posting with you?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'ts actually pretty simple. Freedom and Liberty is too large a burden to bear for some people. I only ask them why they want to live in a free country?

What you propose is selling our country to big corporations.

That's a pretty fucking huge assumption. You are getting nuttier by the day. I propose nothing close to that, yet you continue to tell me that is what I propose.

What reason do I have to continue posting with you?

For comical effect?