|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events Point-Counterpoint Republicans in disarray|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
Ha,ha,ha... you play fast and loose with the facts there Muhler (typical lib - massage the facts to make them fit). We have Social Security, which is going bankrupt, so you have branded the entire system as socialist. Nothing is farther from the truth... Except, if Billary or Osama bin Obama becomes CINC. We'll take a few more steps closer, and that you can bank on. Government provided healthcare... more overt attempts at redistributing wealth... but socialist? Not hardly...
Capitalist, laissez-faire dogma?? Ha,ha,ha... Dang them capitalists, huh?? They build the most wealthiest, healthiest economic engine that the world has ever seen, and it just makes you code-pink loving libs mad as all get out... Here let me join you "Let the brothers go!... Let the brothers go!" Capitalist, laissez-faire dogma.... Ha,ha,ha... |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
History may not be kind on America as a whole before this is over, but as long as you prove you point, what does it matter? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Well since you know them, you also know who are real enemy is here in America right? Could you enlighten us oh great one of milcom? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I think you guys are both right. We were much more Socialist back during the depression then we are today. However, there were elements of that brough forward and later modified which made them truely socialist. Social Security is a perfect example. It used to be optional. Not so any more. It used to be a payer system. Not so any more. Either way these programs are frought with fruad, can't keep up with inflation and technological progress, and actually make very few people lives any better but rather just sustain them. We whine about a $1 trillion price tag for the past 7 years of the war. Yet military defense is exactly what the fed has been tasked to do by the constitution. On the other hand we seem perfectly fine with $1 trillion a year budget for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Bottom line is these programs are all going bankrupt. Medicare is projected to be running in the red this decade. Social Security by the end of the next decade. And big suprise our government itself is running in the red and has been since the 30s. It too is going broke. |
|||
|
Member |
What is your short list of to-do's to fix things? |
|||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
That is making assumptions that you probably know little about. SS will be just fine with a little tweaking and if the economic assumptions are incorrect (which I believe are set artificially low for fairly obvious reasons). Medicare is in jeopardy because of the out of control medical system we have and will require some heavy rethinking. |
||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I think your living in fantasy land. Social Security was already tweaked once back in 83. They nearly doubled the amount we all pay in in an attempt to prolong its life. Now, 2 1/2 decades later, we sit in the same position we did then trying to tweak it. And how long will your tweaks last this time? How long before we have to tweak it once again? And at what point do we put so much in and get so little out that it becomes pointless? Or are oyu in favor of pushing it more toward the socialist side of things and take from the rich so that the poor might be given? |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Thats a good question. If anyone had a simple answer it'd be fixed by now. I think the first thing we should do on Social Security is return it to its OPTIONAL payer based system. Aka you don't pay in you don't get out and you have the option of participating or not. As for Medicare. Thats a tougher one. I really have no answer on this one. I see this one as more important than social security. My first thought would be to cut medicaid and let younger people who are generally healthier and are far more capable of working pay thier own way. That would free up an aditional $200 billion a year for our elederly who are less capable of working and in far greater need of health care support. Ultimately the only real way to make SS and Medicare sustainable is for each generation to have enough children to ensure we dont have more collecting than we have paying. And you can't really leglislate that. But ultmately my real position is to return power to the states as well as taxation and prevent the Fed from mucking everything up in the first place. I have this really strange feeling that Medicare/Medicaid are a big reason behind the sky rocketing price of medical services. It just seems that the more money they throw at the more they try and apply price controls the higher the costs seem to go. But thats just an opinion at this point. Now the states could continue these programs on a more localized basis. But the fed has no business being involved in these sorts of things. They should be local. I also believe that private charities are a better way to provide some services. They are less suseptible to fraud. Although SS and Medicare really don't fall into that category. This message has been edited. Last edited by: floersh, |
|||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
I was honest enough to admit I knew little about a subject, and you ought to try it too. The future health of the SS trust fund is based on set of economic assumptions. There are three sets and all of them underestimate the increases in national productivity. With minor tweaking the trust fund could easily last for many generations. |
||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
That is pure nonsense. |
||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Two different government accounting groups disagree with you. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Really how so? You do realize that the money you paid in is not the money you will collect right? You will be collecting from the revenue generated by those who are working while you are collecting. And if the ratio of those working to recieivng drops below a certain threashold either they are being taxed into the ground and can't feed themselves or you are getting too small an amount to make it worth your time. |
|||
|
|
Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by floersh:
I will reply to your first points for now. Thats a good question. If anyone had a simple answer it'd be fixed by now. I think the first thing we should do on Social Security is return it to its OPTIONAL payer based system. Aka you don't pay in you don't get out and you have the option of participating or not. How would this be? All must have a SS number, i.e., national id. If you have paid in for 20 years you must continue to pay as you are eligible to draw. No limit on earning that will be taxed. If you have less than 20 years you may drop out but you collect nothing whatsoever. No refund. If you opt to not pay anything at all you can never draw. You can opt in up to age 40 but must have a min of 20 paying years to draw. Dependents and surviving spouses can collect benefits if payer would be eligible. As for Medicare. Thats a tougher one. I really have no answer on this one. I see this one as more important than social security. My first thought would be to cut medicaid and let younger people who are generally healthier and are far more capable of working pay thier own way. That would free up an aditional $200 billion a year for our elederly who are less capable of working and in far greater need of health care support. The only viable answer for health of the citizen is National Coverage. At least to a minimum of emergency, preventative care and drugs. QUOTE] |
|||
|
|
Member |
What services? Historically charities have been extremely corrupt or at best, dishonest in how much of what they take in, they pay out. |
|||
|
"Bowlers have BIG balls!"  |
The difference is the charitable giving is voluntary...government taxation is stealing.   "The World's Finest" |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
If things continue as they have there is NO viable answer to this question. Either way we can expect in the long run to get worse care then is possible. In the end we all must realize that we are mortal. As sad and sick as it is we all do and will die. And we can extend our lives only to a certain degree. Modern medicine has allowed us all to enjoy much longer and healthier lives. But all those fancy high tech tools that provide it are expensive. And will only get more expensive as the technology becomes more advanced. But that very same technology that can improve and extend our lives also shortens it. We do less physical work, sit far more, breath in much more polluted air, we are exposed to more and more toxic chemicals, and eat far less healthy food. Add to that our constant work work work which leads to stress and everything else. We are driving up our medical costs because we are less healthy in general. Its just unsustainable. Without some sort of miracle drug or a vastly simpler lifestyle, our ever increasing lifespan will begin to reverse itself. And there isn't enough money in the world to change that.. I look at those who are 90+ years old and they are on very few drugs. I look at the baby boomers and their drug cabinets are FULL of blood preasure meds, valium, and just about every other type of drug under the sun. Will the baby boomer generation live as long as their parents? I think the answer is NO! Diabetes will ravage their population. |
|||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
LOL If you want answers go to those that were not appointed by the current president. Believe it or not, they may have an agenda. |
||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
It is called increases in national productivity. It is one of the main economic assumptions made....the current numbers used are well below the historic averages and speak little of the technological advances that have and will be made over the coming decades. |
||
|
| <dmuhler>
|
So they paid you all those years using stolen money? Well then give it back! I am fricken rolling on that one kegler. |
||
|
|
"Bowlers have BIG balls!" |
Go find out what "legal" taxation is for. I was paid in "legal" tax dollars. I even paid taxes on my taxpayers' income. "The World's Finest" |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Neither of them were appointed by the current President and both were screaming about this long before Bush was even president. |
|||
|
