WE REALLY CARE ABOUT CHILDREN?

[ShadesOfGrey]

I cringe with disgust when I hear politicians say, "We're doing it for the children." What's worse is so many Americans mindlessly fall hook, line and sinker for the hype. Judging by our actions, Americans could not care less for future generations, and future generations will curse us for it. Let's look at it.

Read the whole link.

Wow, he couldn't be more spot on. If politicians and people really did care about "the children" they'd support changing Social Security and medicare, but sadly they don't because it won't win them votes. The old people would scream and the liberals would screech if we did what was right. But sadly it seems that we have too many so-called Conservatives who are afraid of making the right decisions too.

Maybe one day people will wake up and figure out how much Social Security and other socialist schemes will cost us in the long run.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I don't wholly disagree with Mr. Williams, but I'll observe that Medicare and Social Security are both presently running at a profit, and it's the unholy combination of a profligate Congress and equally free-spending, tax-cutting White House who are selling future generations down the river. Moreover, it was President Bush who pushed through the incredibly costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which appears to be an enormous cash cow for drugmakers but of nominal benefit to senior citizens.

If you remove the presently in-the-black Medicare and Social Security from the mix, the federal government is spending $1.50 for each dollar it takes in. So much for Republican fiscal restraint!

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't wholly disagree with Mr. Williams, but I'll observe that Medicare and Social Security are both presently running at a profit, and it's the unholy combination of a profligate Congress and equally free-spending, tax-cutting White House who are selling future generations down the river. Moreover, it was President Bush who pushed through the incredibly costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which appears to be an enormous cash cow for drugmakers but of nominal benefit to senior citizens.

Way to change the subject and play the "turn every thread into anti-Bush" game. :roll:

 

[zendari]

It is very sad indeed. Social Security and Medicare will cost future generations several times more than piling on the national debt that some people whine on about.

Interestingly enough the Democrats won' reform SS, when the FICA tax hurts their highschool dropout base significantly.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Way to change the subject and play the "turn every thread into anti-Bush" game. :roll:

It's not changing the subject in any way. SS and Medicare are both profitable at the present time. You just don't like the fact that the topic YOU raised is so unfavorable to your favorite marble-mouthed drunk driver, who happens to be the most profligate President in history.

 

[IronWing]

Most of the "unfunded" portion of his projection comes out of the Medicare side, not SS. Again, the solution is not that difficult to grasp. We have socialized healthcare for the highest risk pool, the elderly, and are shocked to discover that caring for the elderly is expensive. Nationalizing health insurance for all Americans reduces risk in the overall pool, bringing per capita costs down. It prevents the "inter-generational war" scenario that the Williams suggests.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't wholly disagree with Mr. Williams, but I'll observe that Medicare and Social Security are both presently running at a profit, and it's the unholy combination of a profligate Congress and equally free-spending, tax-cutting White House who are selling future generations down the river. Moreover, it was President Bush who pushed through the incredibly costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which appears to be an enormous cash cow for drugmakers but of nominal benefit to senior citizens.

Way to change the subject and play the "turn every thread into anti-Bush" game. :roll:

Didn't you bring up medicare first... unless you agree with Bush's Medicare Plan then what is the problem?

 

[shira]

What a grossly misleading thread title this is!

There'a a huge difference between "doing it for children" and "doing it for future generations."

This thread has NOTHING to do with "children". Change the title.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Way to change the subject and play the "turn every thread into anti-Bush" game. :roll:

It's not changing the subject in any way. SS and Medicare are both profitable at the present time. You just don't like the fact that the topic YOU raised is so unfavorable to your favorite marble-mouthed drunk driver, who happens to be the most profligate President in history.

:roll:

If you want to play that game, then you'd have to admit that history didn't start with Bush so you blaming him or this Congress for spending the so-called Social Security "profit" is nothing but a partisan troll.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: shira
What a grossly misleading thread title this is!

There'a a huge difference between "doing it for children" and "doing it for future generations."

This thread has NOTHING to do with "children". Change the title.

It's the title of William's piece. :roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

:roll:

If you want to play that game, then you'd have to admit that history didn't start with Bush so you blaming him or this Congress for spending the so-called Social Security "profit" is nothing but a partisan troll.

I didn't say anything of the kind.

Obviously history didn't start with Bush, but he has had five years, working with a friendly Congress, as the leader of a party that ostensibly stands for fiscal responsibility, and during that time he hasn't vetoed or even threatened to veto a single appropriations bill. Indeed, he's been spending like a drunken sailor, while cutting taxes. If you want to bitch about politicians not looking out for future generations, you have to admit President Bush is the chief offender or you, in turn, are nothing but a partisan troll.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I don't wholly disagree with Mr. Williams, but I'll observe that Medicare and Social Security are both presently running at a profit, and it's the unholy combination of a profligate Congress and equally free-spending, tax-cutting White House who are selling future generations down the river. Moreover, it was President Bush who pushed through the incredibly costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit, which appears to be an enormous cash cow for drugmakers but of nominal benefit to senior citizens.

If you remove the presently in-the-black Medicare and Social Security from the mix, the federal government is spending $1.50 for each dollar it takes in. So much for Republican fiscal restraint!

Uh dont act like this ponzi scheme magically showed up on the scene in 2001 when Bush came into office. The congress has been raiding the surplus from SS and Medicare for decades previous to now. It only looks worse now because the pilfering is soon to be shutdown by an older demographic.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

:roll:

If you want to play that game, then you'd have to admit that history didn't start with Bush so you blaming him or this Congress for spending the so-called Social Security "profit" is nothing but a partisan troll.

I didn't say anything of the kind.

Obviously history didn't start with Bush, but he has had five years, working with a friendly Congress, as the leader of a party that ostensibly stands for fiscal responsibility, and during that time he hasn't vetoed or even threatened to veto a single appropriations bill. Indeed, he's been spending like a drunken sailor, while cutting taxes. If you want to bitch about politicians not looking out for future generations, you have to admit President Bush is the chief offender or you, in turn, are nothing but a partisan troll.

No, Bush is not responsible for spending the so-called profit of Social Security. Congress has been doing that for years. For you to try to blame Bush is laughable since it has been going on long before he was elected.

Now again, you can continue to try to make this another of your blame Bush threads but it's not going to fly. The thread is about how these social entitlements are sucking us and thus the Government dry because people are too chicken to change things.

 

[Legend]

What should we help children? Make investment classes in high school. Show how a normal person can build a multi-million dollar wealth for retirement if they start young.

I'm 21, and I'm working a co-op position. Not too long ago, another co-op said that investing is too risky. Yep, that's how much our children will know about investing. He must of heard stories about someone that put everything into tech stocks or something. Nevermind that there's plenty of mutual funds that make an average of 8-10%/year and have been for the past 50 years or so.

I've maxed my Roth IRA this year. I don't plan on using SS at all. That's higher risk, and the reward is borderline poverty.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

:roll:

If you want to play that game, then you'd have to admit that history didn't start with Bush so you blaming him or this Congress for spending the so-called Social Security "profit" is nothing but a partisan troll.

I didn't say anything of the kind.

Obviously history didn't start with Bush, but he has had five years, working with a friendly Congress, as the leader of a party that ostensibly stands for fiscal responsibility, and during that time he hasn't vetoed or even threatened to veto a single appropriations bill. Indeed, he's been spending like a drunken sailor, while cutting taxes. If you want to bitch about politicians not looking out for future generations, you have to admit President Bush is the chief offender or you, in turn, are nothing but a partisan troll.

U.S. National Debt was ~$5.7 trillion when Bush took office, and SS and Medicare were already in existence, so the problem was major pre-2000. I can only agree that he's been pretty irresponsible fiscally since then (adding more than $2 trillion to the debt and expanding Medicare!), but what have the Democrats proposed in response? They complained that the prescription drug benefit wasn't generous enough, and keep talking about repealing the Bush tax cuts. Robert Samuelson's column today stated that returning taxes to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels would only generate an additional $30 billion/year - that doesn't even come close to fixing the current deficit.

 

[Genx87]

Robert Samuelson's column today stated that returning taxes to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels would only generate an additional $30 billion/year - that doesn't even come close to fixing the current deficit.

Sure it doesnt but the complaining about the tax cuts has never been about the actual money, but instead another excuse to complain about rich people. The classic class warfare democrats claim to hate, yet so gleefully provoke.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Robert Samuelson's column today stated that returning taxes to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels would only generate an additional $30 billion/year - that doesn't even come close to fixing the current deficit.

Sure it doesnt but the complaining about the tax cuts has never been about the actual money, but instead another excuse to complain about rich people. The classic class warfare democrats claim to hate, yet so gleefully provoke.

That and the tax cuts were backloaded to hit harder in the out years. We haven't seen the worst damage of Bush's irresponsibility yet.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Genx87

Robert Samuelson's column today stated that returning taxes to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels would only generate an additional $30 billion/year - that doesn't even come close to fixing the current deficit.

Sure it doesnt but the complaining about the tax cuts has never been about the actual money, but instead another excuse to complain about rich people. The classic class warfare democrats claim to hate, yet so gleefully provoke.

That and the tax cuts were backloaded to hit harder in the out years. We haven't seen the worst damage of Bush's irresponsibility yet.

If it bothers you, you can always send in a little extra. There's no law against paying more taxes than the IRS requires.
And what cuts are still to come? I'd be interested in hearing about this backloading.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

:roll:

If you want to play that game, then you'd have to admit that history didn't start with Bush so you blaming him or this Congress for spending the so-called Social Security "profit" is nothing but a partisan troll.

I didn't say anything of the kind.

Obviously history didn't start with Bush, but he has had five years, working with a friendly Congress, as the leader of a party that ostensibly stands for fiscal responsibility, and during that time he hasn't vetoed or even threatened to veto a single appropriations bill. Indeed, he's been spending like a drunken sailor, while cutting taxes. If you want to bitch about politicians not looking out for future generations, you have to admit President Bush is the chief offender or you, in turn, are nothing but a partisan troll.

There is no doubt IMO Bush has been one of the worst fiscal presidents in memory. I do not disagree tax cuts were necessary to help recover from teh twin shocks of the Internet bubble generated trhu the late 90's and the events surrounding 9/11. At the same time, we have a Republican Congress and President who see nothing wrong with building $400 million in bridges in Alsaka to serve handfuls of people. The waste is simply incredible.

Excuses for spending such as combatting the war on terror are simply strawmen in an atempt by Republicans to "buy" future elections.

In the long run, as happened in the 90's, the American people will get wise and vote the "bums" out. Unfortunatley, the alternative is even worse from a social side of things.

So where do we go? I am not sure, but I do know we have to regain control of our spending, create a tax policy that addresses a looming AMT problem and ensure our wealthy pay a greater part of the fica tax (by raising the cap on income) to put our retirement system in a better position fiscally.

I like Walt Williams. He is a straight shooter and agree or not, he provides thought provoking insight into Amercian economics and its impact on social change.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: zendari
It is very sad indeed. Social Security and Medicare will cost future generations several times more than piling on the national debt that some people whine on about.

Interestingly enough the Democrats won' reform SS, when the FICA tax hurts their highschool dropout base significantly.

Says someone who has paid nothing-very little into either. Whines that the democrats won't reform SS however there has been 5 straight years of republican rule. HA HA HA. Get a clue, the GOP doesn't care to reform it either and their base, the high school dropouts, don't seem to mind the FICA. You owned yourself. Good job. Always so priceless when the controlling party P&N'rs whine about the democrats not reforming SS! You have quite a few republican senators and house members who did not agree with Bush's solution either, so I guess you can blame Bush for having such a terrible solution to SS.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: zendari
It is very sad indeed. Social Security and Medicare will cost future generations several times more than piling on the national debt that some people whine on about.

Interestingly enough the Democrats won' reform SS, when the FICA tax hurts their highschool dropout base significantly.

Says someone who has paid nothing-very little into either. Whines that the democrats won't reform SS however there has been 5 straight years of republican rule. HA HA HA. Get a clue, the GOP doesn't care to reform it either and their base, the high school dropouts, don't seem to mind the FICA. You owned yourself. Good job. Always so priceless when the controlling party P&N'rs whine about the democrats not reforming SS! You have quite a few republican senators and house members who did not agree with Bush's solution either, so I guess you can blame Bush for having such a terrible solution to SS.

They are equally to blame.

 

[joshw10]

Who cares about the children, we can make more

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
No, Bush is not responsible for spending the so-called profit of Social Security. Congress has been doing that for years. For you to try to blame Bush is laughable since it has been going on long before he was elected.

Now again, you can continue to try to make this another of your blame Bush threads but it's not going to fly. The thread is about how these social entitlements are sucking us and thus the Government dry because people are too chicken to change things.

What "blame Bush" threads have I created?

You are the one who started this thread. If it's really a topic worthy of discussion, you're unfairly short-circuiting it by refusing even to acknowledge that the party who have controlled the executive and legislative branches for the last 5 years are at least largely to blame.

What do you think of the fact that the federal government is spending 50% more than it takes in, exclusive of SS and Medicare? Is that a recipe for helping future generations?

Don't start a thread if you're not interested in discussion, tiger.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
No, Bush is not responsible for spending the so-called profit of Social Security. Congress has been doing that for years. For you to try to blame Bush is laughable since it has been going on long before he was elected.

Now again, you can continue to try to make this another of your blame Bush threads but it's not going to fly. The thread is about how these social entitlements are sucking us and thus the Government dry because people are too chicken to change things.

What "blame Bush" threads have I created?

You are the one who started this thread. If it's really a topic worthy of discussion, you're unfairly short-circuiting it by refusing even to acknowledge that the party who have controlled the executive and legislative branches for the last 5 years are at least largely to blame.

What do you think of the fact that the federal government is spending 50% more than it takes in, exclusive of SS and Medicare? Is that a recipe for helping future generations?

Don't start a thread if you're not interested in discussion, tiger.

The thread wasn't about Bush, junior. You tried to make it one by trying to blame spending of "profits" on him.

The thread is about the future sucking sound that Social Security and Medicare are going to have and the resulting damage to our "children". Try addressing that instead of trying to point blame at A politician or only one party. If anything all politicians are to blame so your attempt at singling out one rings hollow.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

The thread wasn't about Bush, junior. You tried to make it one by trying to blame spending of "profits" on him.

The thread is about the future sucking sound that Social Security and Medicare are going to have and the resulting damage to our "children". Try addressing that instead of trying to point blame at A politician or only one party. If anything all politicians are to blame so your attempt at singling out one rings hollow.

LOL at the "junior." I mostly get called an old man here. IIRC you're younger than me.

I never, ever said anything specifically about Bush spending the positive balance of SS. I was only pointing it out to make the observation that there's more to the "crisis" than fixing SS and Medicare. I am not persuaded that President Bush's fix is the only one, and most of the country agrees.

You haven't sincerely responded to anything I've asked, which I guess isn't surprising. I am happy to admit that congressional Democrats have tended toward fiscal irresponsibility over the years, but nowadays that's almost totally the purview of Republicans. The modern Republican party has turned the whole idea of fiscal responsibility on its head.