Experts warn debt may threaten economy

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Quick question: If you had been paying into SS for 30 to 40 years, as those utterly discgusting people have been, would you expect to get it?

That's what I am going to be doing for the next 40 years. $250k+ minimum for a measly $1.5k or so monthy payment.

Maybe you will...maybe you won't as the system "can" change. Should they "expect" to get it? If no, why not?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Quick question: If you had been paying into SS for 30 to 40 years, as those utterly discgusting people have been, would you expect to get it?

That's what I am going to be doing for the next 40 years. $250k+ minimum for a measly $1.5k or so monthy payment.

Maybe you will...maybe you won't as the system "can" change. Should they "expect" to get it? If no, why not?

Not at all. They can take a few pennies but the system was designed so their predecessors died before looting the system.

The baby boomers are in charge of the country now and if they refuse to change this program to work for young Americans they can go fvck themselves.

 

[nergee]

Don't forget you or your employer will match that $250K and you will still get a measly
$1.5K or so monthly...................

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Quick question: If you had been paying into SS for 30 to 40 years, as those utterly discgusting people have been, would you expect to get it?

That's what I am going to be doing for the next 40 years. $250k+ minimum for a measly $1.5k or so monthy payment.

Maybe you will...maybe you won't as the system "can" change. Should they "expect" to get it? If no, why not?

Not at all. They can take a few pennies but the system was designed so their predecessors died before looting the system.

The baby boomers are in charge of the country now and if they refuse to change this program to work for young Americans they can go fvck themselves.

Ah, so you want yours but they shouldn't want theirs? How very hyprocritical of you, my young feathered friend.

 

[zendari]

That's exactly what their generation says to me. And no, I don't want mine.

I'm very happy with not receiving any SS when I get older if I don't have to put any in today.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
That's exactly what their generation says to me. And no, I don't want mine.

I'm very happy with not receiving any SS when I get older if I don't have to put any in today.

Well, of course you wouldn't mind if you paid nothing in, but they have paid in. I guess it's OK to say "you paid in all your life...fvck you...you don't deserve it or get it". Must be something with the current generation of "selfish" youth.

I want mine too, but I also understand that they did pay in, regardless of amount, and was promised SS. Could it be cut? Sure thing as EVERYBODY has to sacrifice if necessary for the country. Should they get nothing? Only if the US goes bankrupt (a distinct possibility).

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari
That's exactly what their generation says to me. And no, I don't want mine.

I'm very happy with not receiving any SS when I get older if I don't have to put any in today.

If your so concerned with the elderly controlling government spending, you should get more people your age to vote. In the end, that's really the only way to be heard.

Also, do you believe that you should get the money if you've paid into the system for 30 years?

In my opinion, the only way to kill the system, is for one gneration to be the sacrifice. Your generation (mine too) could just pay enough in to keep the system viable for those older than us that are approaching retirement, but we would forfeit our benefits for the sake of our children. Sucks for us, but it gives our children a free slate.

 

[Kalbi]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Too many entitlement programs exist

/thread

You forgot the $600 billion military budget.

And, fwiw,

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1594399&enterthread=y&arctab=y

what good is your dollar if you have no military to defend it? :roll:

 

[luigi1]

Guys here is a thought thats been kicking around for a while. The line item veto. And you young ones want to cut SS for seniors? I think the population buldge favors me at your expence (I'm 50+) and we still enjoy majority rule around these parts. You dont gotta like it (that part is optional) but you are gonna pay it.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
That's exactly what their generation says to me. And no, I don't want mine.

I'm very happy with not receiving any SS when I get older if I don't have to put any in today.

Well, of course you wouldn't mind if you paid nothing in, but they have paid in. I guess it's OK to say "you paid in all your life...fvck you...you don't deserve it or get it". Must be something with the current generation of "selfish" youth.

I want mine too, but I also understand that they did pay in, regardless of amount, and was promised SS. Could it be cut? Sure thing as EVERYBODY has to sacrifice if necessary for the country. Should they get nothing? Only if the US goes bankrupt (a distinct possibility).

It's not like they are entitled to the Social Security money. It's a tax just like any other. They had years to fix Social Security but they did nothing except have the SS surplus cover the rest of the deficit (making trillions of dollars worth of government IOUs). Any way you look at it, someone is going to get screwed over SS. Someone is going to be paying more into Social Security than they will be getting out. Should it be the current generation? Making the current generation pay to keep SS solvent does nothing to fix the problem. If you slightly screw over the baby boomers at least you have a chance at fixing the problem (via privitization). It would suck if they get screwed over but it's better than bankrupting the nation.

Anyway, it really is easy to balance the budget. The problem lies with getting everyone to agree on what programs to cut. The Republicans don't want to cut miltary spending and corporate welfare and the Democrats don't want to cut their social spending. Those bastards need to at least agree on a few things to cut. What happened to the good ol' days in the '90s when the Republican congress would pass budgets that had reduced military spending and raise taxes to boot? Instead we have Republicans spending out the wazoo and thinking nothing of it. It's sad when the Democrats are calling for fiscal responsibility.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: Kalbi

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Too many entitlement programs exist

/thread

You forgot the $600 billion military budget.

And, fwiw,

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1594399&enterthread=y&arctab=y

what good is your dollar if you have no military to defend it? :roll:

Our dollars were perfectly fine in the '90s when our military spending was less than half as much. You don't think $600 billion is ridiculous? That's $2k per person. Imagine if the economy had an extra $200 billion in it each year. That would give way to a decent amount of extra GDP growth.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
That's exactly what their generation says to me. And no, I don't want mine.

I'm very happy with not receiving any SS when I get older if I don't have to put any in today.

Well, of course you wouldn't mind if you paid nothing in, but they have paid in. I guess it's OK to say "you paid in all your life...fvck you...you don't deserve it or get it". Must be something with the current generation of "selfish" youth.

I want mine too, but I also understand that they did pay in, regardless of amount, and was promised SS. Could it be cut? Sure thing as EVERYBODY has to sacrifice if necessary for the country. Should they get nothing? Only if the US goes bankrupt (a distinct possibility).

Everybody? Funny, the elderly overlords just got a huge Medicare boost and aren't getting any SS cutbacks.

I propose eliminating the worthless trust fund, cutting payments 50% starting in 2008 and then 1% per year for the next 50 years.

 

[imported_Condor]

The experts in 1977-79 said that we should buy up and warehouse old appliances to see us through the coming economic doom of the eighties. Anyone need a used iron? coffee pot? mixer?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
That's exactly what their generation says to me. And no, I don't want mine.

I'm very happy with not receiving any SS when I get older if I don't have to put any in today.

Well, of course you wouldn't mind if you paid nothing in, but they have paid in. I guess it's OK to say "you paid in all your life...fvck you...you don't deserve it or get it". Must be something with the current generation of "selfish" youth.

I want mine too, but I also understand that they did pay in, regardless of amount, and was promised SS. Could it be cut? Sure thing as EVERYBODY has to sacrifice if necessary for the country. Should they get nothing? Only if the US goes bankrupt (a distinct possibility).

It's not like they are entitled to the Social Security money. It's a tax just like any other. They had years to fix Social Security but they did nothing except have the SS surplus cover the rest of the deficit (making trillions of dollars worth of government IOUs). Any way you look at it, someone is going to get screwed over SS. Someone is going to be paying more into Social Security than they will be getting out. Should it be the current generation? Making the current generation pay to keep SS solvent does nothing to fix the problem. If you slightly screw over the baby boomers at least you have a chance at fixing the problem (via privitization). It would suck if they get screwed over but it's better than bankrupting the nation.

Anyway, it really is easy to balance the budget. The problem lies with getting everyone to agree on what programs to cut. The Republicans don't want to cut miltary spending and corporate welfare and the Democrats don't want to cut their social spending. Those bastards need to at least agree on a few things to cut. What happened to the good ol' days in the '90s when the Republican congress would pass budgets that had reduced military spending and raise taxes to boot? Instead we have Republicans spending out the wazoo and thinking nothing of it. It's sad when the Democrats are calling for fiscal responsibility.

Fiscal conservatism is dead...at least at the moment! 🙁

 

[mithrandir2001]

CAT 5 Katrina waits in the winds to drain a few more bucks from the Treasury.

 

[BBond]

For those of you with either no memory or a selective memory that makes no memory the better option, you should read more of what Ronnie had to say about Social Security when he insisted that Congress "fix" it the first time...

Ronald Reagan on Social Security

Also, if you insist on ending the program, to be fair and forestall any undue hardship, the people who already invested must be given a return on their investment. So it's simple. Pay everyone who contributed to Social Security a lump sum equal to the amount of their contribution plus their employer's contribution plus the average rate of return for Social Security over the years they invested. Then you can have it your way. It's everybody for themselves. But if you continue to insist on robbing millions of Americans who were forced to pay into the program you're not ever going to win.

 

[BBond]

Also, place the blame for this sorry fiscal situation where it lies.

Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond
For those of you with either no memory or a selective memory that makes no memory the better option, you should read more of what Ronnie had to say about Social Security when he insisted that Congress "fix" it the first time...

Ronald Reagan on Social Security

Also, if you insist on ending the program, to be fair and forestall any undue hardship, the people who already invested must be given a return on their investment. So it's simple. Pay everyone who contributed to Social Security a lump sum equal to the amount of their contribution plus their employer's contribution plus the average rate of return for Social Security over the years they invested. Then you can have it your way. It's everybody for themselves. But if you continue to insist on robbing millions of Americans who were forced to pay into the program you're not ever going to win.

YOu do realize, no reform plan has threatened to take away of the benefits of anyone who has paid in all their life.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond
Also, place the blame for this sorry fiscal situation where it lies.

Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.

And most of the time over the past 59 years the congress has been strongly controlled by democrats and it this body that actually write the budget. But lets not let that little detail get in the way.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BBond
For those of you with either no memory or a selective memory that makes no memory the better option, you should read more of what Ronnie had to say about Social Security when he insisted that Congress "fix" it the first time...

Ronald Reagan on Social Security

Also, if you insist on ending the program, to be fair and forestall any undue hardship, the people who already invested must be given a return on their investment. So it's simple. Pay everyone who contributed to Social Security a lump sum equal to the amount of their contribution plus their employer's contribution plus the average rate of return for Social Security over the years they invested. Then you can have it your way. It's everybody for themselves. But if you continue to insist on robbing millions of Americans who were forced to pay into the program you're not ever going to win.

Who will cover the cost of the rebate?

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
That's exactly what their generation says to me. And no, I don't want mine.

I'm very happy with not receiving any SS when I get older if I don't have to put any in today.

Well, of course you wouldn't mind if you paid nothing in, but they have paid in. I guess it's OK to say "you paid in all your life...fvck you...you don't deserve it or get it". Must be something with the current generation of "selfish" youth.

I want mine too, but I also understand that they did pay in, regardless of amount, and was promised SS. Could it be cut? Sure thing as EVERYBODY has to sacrifice if necessary for the country. Should they get nothing? Only if the US goes bankrupt (a distinct possibility).

Everybody? Funny, the elderly overlords just got a huge Medicare boost and aren't getting any SS cutbacks.

I propose eliminating the worthless trust fund, cutting payments 50% starting in 2008 and then 1% per year for the next 50 years.

It really would be appropriate for you to answer his question. If you had paid into SS for 20 years, would you be ok with not getting your money back in return?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BBond
For those of you with either no memory or a selective memory that makes no memory the better option, you should read more of what Ronnie had to say about Social Security when he insisted that Congress "fix" it the first time...

Ronald Reagan on Social Security

Also, if you insist on ending the program, to be fair and forestall any undue hardship, the people who already invested must be given a return on their investment. So it's simple. Pay everyone who contributed to Social Security a lump sum equal to the amount of their contribution plus their employer's contribution plus the average rate of return for Social Security over the years they invested. Then you can have it your way. It's everybody for themselves. But if you continue to insist on robbing millions of Americans who were forced to pay into the program you're not ever going to win.

Who will cover the cost of the rebate?

It can easily be hidden in the budget -- just like the cost of the Iraq invasion.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Also, place the blame for this sorry fiscal situation where it lies.

Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.

And most of the time over the past 59 years the congress has been strongly controlled by democrats and it this body that actually write the budget. But lets not let that little detail get in the way.

The Republican presidents had their "bully pulpit" and their veto. Stop making excuses for their obvious failure in controlling the budget during the years that the country was under their leadership.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BBond
Also, place the blame for this sorry fiscal situation where it lies.

Over the last 59 years Republican Presidents have out borrowed Democratic Presidents by almost a three to one ratio. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican Presidents have raised the debt by $2.87.

And most of the time over the past 59 years the congress has been strongly controlled by democrats and it this body that actually write the budget. But lets not let that little detail get in the way.

The Republican presidents had their "bully pulpit" and their veto. Stop making excuses for their obvious failure in controlling the budget during the years that the country was under their leadership.

I love how they pick and choose the years and administrations to either attract accolades or deflect blame from. It's quite funny.

 

[nergee]

Reagan's biggest spending was done building our military back up from nothing to the strongest in the world. What is Bush spending on? Record spending on lots of socialist crap and a misguided war........