Are Entitlements Corrupting Us?

[cleller]

This was the topic in the WSJ point/counter point article for the weekend.

Saying Yes:
The writer points of that even after adjusting for inflation and population increases, government outlays for these entitlements have risen 727% in the last 50 years. Half of US households now received some form of them. Maintains that it is corrupting our national character.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619671931313542.html

Saying No:
The writer says the baby boomers are to blame, and that we are still a hard working country. Interestingly, though he does conclude with this:

"Left unchanged, the programs that we have created in the past half-century will make it difficult to stabilize our finances, to invest in the future and to defend the country. These are compelling reasons to rethink and reform the entitlement state."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577619672512345362.html

Hope those links will open without a subscription.

[soonercruiser]

I agree with the "yes".
But, I refuse to let that harden my heart in working for the less fortunate.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yes, without a doubt.


I agree with the "yes".
But, I refuse to let that harden my heart in working for the less fortunate.
i do not include the generations of those on welfare as less fortunate, they are there by choice and we need to kick there arse off the dole. Those others that have bad things happen and need help, thats another issue.

[diverdog]

I agree with the "yes".
But, I refuse to let that harden my heart in working for the less fortunate.

Cruiser you are included in that discussion. A military retirement is an entitlement and something that is blowing up our defense budget.

Note: (As others pointed out this is a benefit not an entitlement. My mistake and apologies).

[diverdog]

Yes, without a doubt.


i do not include the generations of those on welfare as less fortunate, they are there by choice and we need to kick there arse off the dole. Those others that have bad things happen and need help, thats another issue.

Oh the myth of the welfare queen.

[cleller]

Cruiser you are included in that discussion. A military retirement is an entitlement and something that is blowing up our defense budget.

I don't know if these articles would consider a military retirement an entitlement, or not. A lot of obligations had to be met to qualify for that. Not sure if you can also draw Soc Sec with a military pension, either.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Oh the myth of the welfare queen.


What myth? Do you deny generations of people living on the dole? 'cause if you are, you are effing delusional...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Cruiser you are included in that discussion. A military retirement is an entitlement and something that is blowing up our defense budget.

Nope, they earned the retirement. They played by the rules went going in, this is a commitment, not an entitlement.

In other words they worked for it, unlike your welfare queens, hos and pimps.

[diverdog]

I don't know if these articles would consider a military retirement an entitlement, or not. A lot of obligations had to be met to qualify for that. Not sure if you can also draw Soc Sec with a military pension, either.

No you are right. My apologies. However, it is an issue. A colonel who retires will get almost $900,000 in payments on average or more over their retirement. Plus they will also get SS and medical care. Cost could go to over $1.3 million dollars for the entire benefits package! Enlisted are about half that.

I heard on the news the other night that the civilian part of the pentagons workforce retirement cost will start to soar over $60 billion dollars in the not too distant future. Military pay and benefits is now $181 billion dollars. The retirement and disability cost are set to explode. We are now choosing between pay and weapon systems. Something has got to give.

[diverdog]

What myth? Do you deny generations of people living on the dole? 'cause if you are, you are effing delusional...

No you do not understand TANF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANF#Impact_of_TANF

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Oh, I understand just fine. These Bozo's are sitting home, not working, doing and selling drugs, screwing around and just not contributing to society while hard working people are funding their way to a lifestyle above the poverty level.

It is smoke and mirrors.

These people have never worked, they will never work and they expect the government to provide for them. Your TANF arguement Is just redistribution of wealth and rewards slackers. I hate slackers.

[diverdog]

Oh, I understand just fine. These Bozo's are sitting home, not working, doing and selling drugs, screwing around and just not contributing to society while hard working people are funding their way to a lifestyle above the poverty level.

It is smoke and mirrors.

These people have never worked, they will never work and they expect the government to provide for them. Your TANF arguement Is just redistribution of wealth and rewards slackers. I hate slackers.

Who are these people? Blacks?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

They are anyone on the dole their entire life. I don't see color, I see deadbeats. Multiple generations have grown up on assistance.

Here's an example... (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/08/31/woman-82-suspected-of-burglary-rap-sheet-dates-back-to-1955/)

[diverdog]

They are anyone on the dole their entire life. I don't see color, I see deadbeats. Multiple generations have grown up on assistance.

Here's an example... (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/08/31/woman-82-suspected-of-burglary-rap-sheet-dates-back-to-1955/)

I am fine with cutting welfare as long as children and the elderly are not hurt. You can also drug test recipients if you want.

SSI is another issue. A friend of mine says they should label some of the disability checks so people know your disability like...crack check, fat check or drunk check. SSI disability is the one that really chaps my ***.

[cleller]

They are anyone on the dole their entire life. I don't see color, I see deadbeats. Multiple generations have grown up on assistance.

Here's an example... (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/08/31/woman-82-suspected-of-burglary-rap-sheet-dates-back-to-1955/)

"wouldn't do all this nonsense if the government gave us more money"

Kind of like blackmail. Pay us or suffer the consequences.
Unfortunately, she sounds like she's been a hopeless case forever. Its the tendency of people with the ability to provide for themselves but gradually give up that worries me more. Once you get used to not working, its hard to break the habit. Going back to work after Labor Day weekend is a good example.

[Breadburner]

Yes...Its become a life-style.....

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Whether entitlement is well defined or not, gov't spending is bankrupting us.

Social security and medicare (w/ or w/o obamacare) outlays are unsustainable.

At the state and local levels, public employee benefits are unsustainable in many states. I would guess the same issues may need to be addressed at the federal level, including military benefits.

Let's not include just the welfare queens though. Those of us who paid in-state tuition and left the state for a high paying job got more than our fair share.

[soonercruiser]

Cruiser you are included in that discussion. A military retirement is an entitlement and something that is blowing up our defense budget.

Note: (As others pointed out this is a benefit not an entitlement. My mistake and apologies).

Yes Diver!
And the military and retirees are always the only ones that the Democrats can seem to convince themselves to cut!Like they did again this past year.
And, my TRICARE premuims went up significantly.
And, I can't have a PCM/PCP on base anymore....over 65!
SO! What is the Left willing to give up????

Someone should slap Obama too and say....."Don't make promises you can't keep".
I'll bet you'd sing a different tune if you weren't just an angry medical retiree.
:beguiled:

[soonercruiser]

No you are right. My apologies. However, it is an issue. A colonel who retires will get almost $900,000 in payments on average or more over their retirement. Plus they will also get SS and medical care. Cost could go to over $1.3 million dollars for the entire benefits package! Enlisted are about half that.

I heard on the news the other night that the civilian part of the pentagons workforce retirement cost will start to soar over $60 billion dollars in the not too distant future. Military pay and benefits is now $181 billion dollars. The retirement and disability cost are set to explode. We are now choosing between pay and weapon systems. Something has got to give.

Yup! This is what really "chaps" Diver's lips.
He didn't "get in".
Be it bad luck, or bad rules.
That's what really makes Diver mad and envious!
ENVY! It can eat you up from inside Diver!

[FaninAma]

Unpaid for entitlements appeal to undesirable qualities in human nature.

It is hard to get up every day and go to work especially in jobs that are entry level jobs. It is hard to put off having a family and spending years getting an education that pays nothing but the possibility of getting a better job when you graduate. It is hard breaking out of a lifestyle in which your parent(or parent) took the easy way out.

It is easy to fall into the trap of seeing others around you not working but being able to get most of what you want by playing the handout/entitlement game. It is easy to avoid any self-examination by hiding behind the "everybody does it" excuse.

And exactly how does one equate receiving welfare benefits to paying instate tuition? That is quite a leap in logic and is, IMO, an example of enabling those who receive welfare to keep using the previously mentioned excuse that "everybody does it" to justify their continues dependence on handouts. There is no equivalency whatsoever.

[rock on sooner]

Growing up on southern OK and having to get by on help
from the state, (the man who married my mom was working,
in the oil patches) I remember seeing a number of people
driving new or almost new cars walking out of the county
offices carrying the county "bounty", clearly not deservng
or needing the help, so I can understand a lot of the feelings
about "deadbeats". At the same time, I think that by and
large today that is the minority. A number of solutions have
been floated..means testing, drug testing, job training, even
work gangs, a la chain gangs for prisoners. Maybe all of the
above, but you're all correct about unsustainablility! A sensible
approach is needed, from both sides...from BOTH sides.

[cleller]

Let's not include just the welfare queens though. Those of us who paid in-state tuition and left the state for a high paying job got more than our fair share.

Hoorah! I am innocent.

Does this mean I can get some money?

[pphilfran]

In a lot of cases, to keep current salaries (thus current spending) in line, the retirement packages are bumped up...they get less in salary today but will receive more in benefits down the road...so we look good today....but....

Another case of passing liability down the road

[TitoMorelli]

Interesting column from the UK -

We should tune in to the Romney and Ryan show
The myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9513687/We-should-tune-in-to-the-Romney-and-Ryan-show.html


Whatever the outcome of the American presidential election, one thing is certain: the fighting of it will be the most significant political event of the decade.....

...What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust.

The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phony money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union...

...Contrary to what many know-nothing British observers seem to think, the message coming out of Tampa was not Tea Party extremism. It was just a reassertion of the basic values of American political culture: self-determination, individual aspiration and genuine community, as opposed to belief in the state as the fount of all social virtue....Or as Marco Rubio put it in his speech, Obama is “trying ideas that people came to America to get away from”....

[BigTip]

Who are these people? Blacks?

Racist. And I am not kidding.
I am so tired of the liberal always being the first to mention race in discussions.
Why does the liberal so quickly see things in black people and white people?
Must be racism.

[BigTip]

Interesting column from the UK -


Very good article Tito. Thanks for posting it. I have posted the link on another couple of websites I participate in.

[diverdog]

Racist. And I am not kidding.
I am so tired of the liberal always being the first to mention race in discussions.
Why does the liberal so quickly see things in black people and white people?
Must be racism.

He used the term " those people" and then posted a link about an 82 year old African American woman being arrested. So what am I suppose to get out of that?

[BigTip]

He used the term " those people" and then posted a link about an 82 year old African American woman being arrested. So what am I suppose to get out of that?

No need to backtrack now. We see how you are. YOU are the one that assumed the statement was race based. I did not. I assumed that "those people" referred to people that abuse our entitlement system. That is what we are discussing, yes?

[diverdog]

No need to backtrack now. We see how you are. YOU are the one that assumed the statement was race based. I did not. I assumed that "those people" referred to people that abuse our entitlement system. That is what we are discussing, yes?

And you probably assume it is mostly black people if you were sitting at a dinner conversation. Right?

[SoonerorLater]

Nope, they earned the retirement. They played by the rules went going in, this is a commitment, not an entitlement.

In other words they worked for it, unlike your welfare queens, hos and pimps.

There are all kind of people who played by the rules who will need to have their benefits cut or eliminated. Sad fact is that rules change. Entitlements will have to be cut no matter what the circumstances are. We're broke. This is the problem with a social welfare state. Current taxpayers can't keep up with long-dead politicians promises.

[cleller]

And you probably assume it is mostly black people if you were sitting at a dinner conversation. Right?

In our current society, I don't at all believe people automatically think of welfare reliance as a racial problem. That's the whole point of these articles from the WSJ. It is cutting across all demographics, and becoming startlingly commonplace, when it was established for extreme and rare circumstances.

If any race is represented at a disproportionate rate compared to another, it should be cause for concern. It could indicate that the programs may have been targeting that race. Increasing reliance on these programs can only be detrimental.

[rock on sooner]

The vast majority of the folks on here don't really know about
being deprived. Some do, but my feeling is that most do not
and think that since they are okay, well then, heck with the
rest of ya...haven't been down the road of, geez, thanks for
the cheese, flour, peanut butter, and butter, just to frickin'
get by. They want jobs but none are there. If one of you
mf'rs tell me that to just look for them, them up yours, 'cause
I have and they aint there. This was years ago and since
then I have pulled myself out of that, turned my back on
on my heritage and got the eff out of that stuff and gotten
better. Took leavin' OK ta do it and I luv tha state. Seems
ta me that a lot of folks just cant figger it out & most of em
are Pubs...just judgin by what I read on here.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Rock, the vast majority of those we speak of will never ever have a job nor likely want one. I am glad that you moved on and made a better situation, however, saying the "Pubs" have no clue, you are just wrong. Most of the people are "Pubs" becuase they have been there and done that. Let me see, I slung fast food, I mowed lawns, and I moved phone books in 112 degree heat to make ends meet while in college and grad school. I never ever entertained that I need help or unemployment, I went out there found a job and then moved on up... I do not see serious "Dems" advocating that, they always say people need more money or more programs. B.S. They've had that and the welfare rolls have only increased since Johnson. Expect people to get a job and make it a requirement of getting government help. Hell, time to roll out the WPA and force these jokers to work building trails, erosion dams, picnic parks, dams, roads, whatever, just get them moving and constructing. But what does the Socialist in Chief do? He issues an executive order to allow "flexibility" in the work welfare requirements.

[8timechamps]

Growing up on southern OK and having to get by on help
from the state, (the man who married my mom was working,
in the oil patches) I remember seeing a number of people
driving new or almost new cars walking out of the county
offices carrying the county "bounty", clearly not deservng
or needing the help, so I can understand a lot of the feelings
about "deadbeats". At the same time, I think that by and
large today that is the minority. A number of solutions have
been floated..means testing, drug testing, job training, even
work gangs, a la chain gangs for prisoners. Maybe all of the
above, but you're all correct about unsustainablility! A sensible
approach is needed, from both sides...from BOTH sides.

So true.

Unfortunately, there is no clear cut answer. However, it must be addressed, and soon.

[rock on sooner]

Know what, THA, WPA might not be a bad idea...it'd take a TON
of folks from welfare and keep 'em there. (I brought this up in
another thread weeks ago, when this whole arguement started.)
Gov't work programs aren't necessarily the long term answer but
with the right kind of managing a LARGE number of those who want
to work would be identified and moved away from gov't assisstance.
So many people don't know what they can do because no one has
helped them to understand. My viewpoint is that so many of the Pubs
don't even want to find a solution, just want to point fingers and scream.
If more would do more than scream and simply talk then lots of this "stuff"
could be fixed. JMO...

The issue of flexibility came at the request of a bucket load of Pub governors...

[8timechamps]

Rock, the vast majority of those we speak of will never ever have a job nor likely want one. I am glad that you moved on and made a better situation, however, saying the "Pubs" have no clue, you are just wrong. Most of the people are "Pubs" becuase they have been there and done that. Let me see, I slung fast food, I mowed lawns, and I moved phone books in 112 degree heat to make ends meet while in college and grad school. I never ever entertained that I need help or unemployment, I went out there found a job and then moved on up... I do not see serious "Dems" advocating that, they always say people need more money or more programs. B.S. They've had that and the welfare rolls have only increased since Johnson. Expect people to get a job and make it a requirement of getting government help. Hell, time to roll out the WPA and force these jokers to work building trails, erosion dams, picnic parks, dams, roads, whatever, just get them moving and constructing. But what does the Socialist in Chief do? He issues an executive order to allow "flexibility" in the work welfare requirements.

What you said sounds harsh, but in reality, true. I realize that there are always going to be situations that folks may need government help to get back on their feet, but there is a huge difference in "getting back on your feet" and taking advantage of the system.

The fact of the matter is that in this day and age, there are very few legitimate reason as to why someone couldn't better themselves or their situation.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

And exactly how does one equate receiving welfare benefits to paying instate tuition? That is quite a leap in logic and is, IMO, an example of enabling those who receive welfare to keep using the previously mentioned excuse that "everybody does it" to justify their continues dependence on handouts. There is no equivalency whatsoever

Both are taxpayer subsidies. Tuition on the taxpayer's dime. Transfer of wealth, e.g., childless taxpayers shelling out their hard earned money to educate other people's kids. And there is no obligation to pay the taxpayer back in any way. You aren't required to use what you learn. You aren't required to live and work in the state where the taxpayers reside. In fact, if you fail every course you take, you aren't obligated to pay the taxpayers back.

[diverdog]

Rock, the vast majority of those we speak of will never ever have a job nor likely want one. I am glad that you moved on and made a better situation, however, saying the "Pubs" have no clue, you are just wrong. Most of the people are "Pubs" becuase they have been there and done that. Let me see, I slung fast food, I mowed lawns, and I moved phone books in 112 degree heat to make ends meet while in college and grad school. I never ever entertained that I need help or unemployment, I went out there found a job and then moved on up... I do not see serious "Dems" advocating that, they always say people need more money or more programs. B.S. They've had that and the welfare rolls have only increased since Johnson. Expect people to get a job and make it a requirement of getting government help. Hell, time to roll out the WPA and force these jokers to work building trails, erosion dams, picnic parks, dams, roads, whatever, just get them moving and constructing. But what does the Socialist in Chief do? He issues an executive order to allow "flexibility" in the work welfare requirements.



As best as I could find this is demographics of folks on welfare:Race--------------White 38.8%Black 37.2Hispanic 17.8Asian 2.8Other 3.4Time on AFDC---------------------------Less than 7 months 19.0%7 to 12 months 15.2One to two years 19.3Two to five years 26.9Over five years 19.6Number of children-------------------One 43.2%Two 30.7Three 15.8Four or more 10.3Age of Mother------------------Teenager 7.6%20 - 29 47.930 - 39 (tel:47.930 - 39) 32.740 or older 11.8Status of Father 1973 1992-------------------------------------Divorced or separated 46.5% 28.6Deceased 5.0 1.6Unemployed or Disabled 14.3 9.0Not married to mother 31.5 55.3Other or Unknown 2.7 5.5The largest percentage of people on welfare are single moms who are either divorced or unmarried. It seems to me that men are an issue because they are not supporting their children. I also know from working in banking that divorce is devastating to women and children. I also understand that this is AFDC stats but I think TANF would be about the same except we would have older Americans.

Here is another chart that provides some interesting facts:file:///page5image532

[badger]

There is no doubt that the crummy economy is solving some of the bloated government problems, if you believe that government is bloated. If you are of the opinion that taxes are not fair and need to hit the wealthy harder, there's lots of movements in that direction, too, worldwide.

As fun of a ride as it (probably) was for the Baby Boomer generation, it wasn't going to last forever. Hope you all enjoyed it up till now, because your golden years might actually be tinfoil years.

[rock on sooner]

There is no doubt that the crummy economy is solving some of the bloated government problems, if you believe that government is bloated. If you are of the opinion that taxes are not fair and need to hit the wealthy harder, there's lots of movements in that direction, too, worldwide.

As fun of a ride as it (probably) was for the Baby Boomer generation, it wasn't going to last forever. Hope you all enjoyed it up till now, because your golden years might actually be tinfoil years.

Ya know, Badg, you're on to something here. I AM a boomer, on SS after 52 years of
working and look VERY closely at what R/R want to do. Scares the bejeezus outa me!
Know why? R/R have no clue what costs will be because they don't want to try to control
them, just give us vouchers without clamping down on runaway providers and insurance,
they figure the "marketplace" will handle it. Remarkably similar to "trickle down economics".
Didn't happen then and won't happen in the future. If you all believe that you're okay now
and aren't worried about the future with the "free market" taking care of things, well, may
the almighty look over you, because noone else will and I weep for my kids and grandkids
when I'm gone.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Rock, you've been busy this morning (my time). Listen, either way right now you will be weeping for your kids and grandkids. For the first time this year SS has more payees than payers or somehting like that (I believe). We are down from 7 paying for 1 to now 2 paying for 1 or less. The numbers are not there anymore and the system is broken.

I am not advocating any agenda here, but NO ONE is looking at the issue and fixing it or just damn killing it. It cannot be sustained as it currently is down the road. NO one has the guts to do anything.

In some ways, I would reather have control of that percentage of money now given to the government to pay for the system (a ponzi scheme, IMO, but many people don't like that description I have of it). Now the downside is I could lose everything if I invest it poorly. If so, would I get a bailout later in life? or should I live with the supposed guaranteed money from the FEDGOV? Problem is, the FEDGOV keeps raiding the till...

[rock on sooner]

Rock, you've been busy this morning (my time). Listen, either way right now you will be weeping for your kids and grandkids. For the first time this year SS has more payees than payers or somehting like that (I believe). We are down from 7 paying for 1 to now 2 paying for 1 or less. The numbers are not there anymore and the system is broken.

I am not advocating any agenda here, but NO ONE is looking at the issue and fixing it or just damn killing it. It cannot be sustained as it currently is down the road. NO one has the guts to do anything.

In some ways, I would reather have control of that percentage of money now given to the government to pay for the system (a ponzi scheme, IMO, but many people don't like that description I have of it). Now the downside is I could lose everything if I invest it poorly. If so, would I get a bailout later in life? or should I live with the supposed guaranteed money from the FEDGOV? Problem is, the FEDGOV keeps raiding the till...

The biggest "raider " of all time is the fed gov't...some 2.6 trillion bucks
from SS over the years and both parties do it. I have advocated for a long
time to raise the salary cap on SS to at least $180K and at the same time
legislate, somehow, that it only be used as the charter originally intended.
I don't have SS by itself to live on so it's not much about me as it is about
wtf is fair....

[olevetonahill]

The biggest "raider " of all time is the fed gov't...some 2.6 trillion bucks
from SS over the years and both parties do it. I have advocated for a long
time to raise the salary cap on SS to at least $180K and at the same time
legislate, somehow, that it only be used as the charter originally intended.
I don't have SS by itself to live on so it's not much about me as it is about
wtf is fair....
Yup SS Aint Broke, Its just been Robbed Blind By the ****in Pols

[jkjsooner]

Nope, they earned the retirement. They played by the rules went going in, this is a commitment, not an entitlement.

In other words they worked for it, unlike your welfare queens, hos and pimps.

I agree with everything you say here but there are plenty on this board who have referred to pensions (especially non-military government pensions) as entitlements.

I hate it when people do that. Whether or not we've been lenient with our government pension systems, people worked 30-40 or more years to obtain those benefits. Those on here who act as if these people are equivalent to welfare recipients are simply wrong.

I'll also say this. We might have to reorganize our public sector pensions. That means we may have to go back on promises we've made. Even if that is ultimately necessary, don't be too critical of those who feel cheated because they worked their entire lives under a promise that wasn't fulfilled. There's not a single one of us who wouldn't complain under similar circumstances.

[badger]

Lesson in Social Security going broke: Don't be distant from family or friends. Make lifelong connections to them and perhaps, like the old days, granny can come live with you when she's retired (or her money runs out).


We might have to reorganize our public sector pensions. That means we may have to go back on promises we've made.
There may be a wailing wall over this nationally, but I think people would settle for half of what they were promised rather than be left with nothing at all from the system going bankrupt. Broken promises? Oklahoma is filled with Native Americans that have endured generations of broken treaties.

[jkjsooner]

I am not advocating any agenda here, but NO ONE is looking at the issue and fixing it or just damn killing it. It cannot be sustained as it currently is down the road. NO one has the guts to do anything.


The big problem I have is that nobody wants to propose cuts to those already receiving SS or those who will in the next 10 years. Even the toughest of proposals put the pain on the backs of the generations that follow the baby boomers.

Not only is this simply unfair. It just doesn't make sense since the demographic problem with the baby boomers is one of the primary problems with the system.

I will not support any plan that doesn't at least somewhat make an attempt to share the burden equally.

[cleller]

Its a horrible situation. Its like being in a overfilled, slowly sinking lifeboat.

What to do?

[badger]

Its a horrible situation. Its like being in a overfilled, slowly sinking lifeboat.

What to do?

Kick the can down the curb... errrr.... wave?

[jkjsooner]

Let me see, I slung fast food, I mowed lawns, and I moved phone books in 112 degree heat to make ends meet while in college and grad school. I never ever entertained that I need help or unemployment, I went out there found a job and then moved on up...

It sounds like you did this while in school. Everyone does that while in school. Many of us worked minimum wage jobs in 100+ degree heat through high school and college.

I did so too. Guess what, I had it pretty good. In the summers I lived with my parents and saved almost 100% of the money I made. Had I had a similar job as an adult with a wife and kids and it wouldn't have been the same story. Let's not try to compare the two.

You can get buy working at McDonalds in high school or college. You can't if you find yourself in that situation at 40.

[sappstuf]

The biggest "raider " of all time is the fed gov't...some 2.6 trillion bucks from SS over the years and both parties do it. I have advocated for a long time to raise the salary cap on SS to at least $180K and at the same time legislate, somehow, that it only be used as the charter originally intended. I don't have SS by itself to live on so it's not much about me as it is about wtf is fair....

So because politicians f*cked it up before, people making up to $180K should have to pay more to the government on the hope that the politicians don't f*ck it up again...

[okie52]

The big problem I have is that nobody wants to propose cuts to those already receiving SS or those who will in the next 10 years. Even the toughest of proposals put the pain on the backs of the generations that follow the baby boomers.

Not only is this simply unfair. It just doesn't make sense since the demographic problem with the baby boomers is one of the primary problems with the system.

I will not support any plan that doesn't at least somewhat make an attempt to share the burden equally.

There are some of us baby boomers that would be happy to see benefits moved to 67-68 age range to help sustain SS and medicare. We are living longer and generally could be working longer.
When SS was originated life expectancy was in the low 60s. Now you are looking at around 82. It really isn't that big of a sacrifice.

[olevetonahill]

The big problem I have is that nobody wants to propose cuts to those already receiving SS or those who will in the next 10 years. Even the toughest of proposals put the pain on the backs of the generations that follow the baby boomers.

Not only is this simply unfair. It just doesn't make sense since the demographic problem with the baby boomers is one of the primary problems with the system.

I will not support any plan that doesn't at least somewhat make an attempt to share the burden equally.

You wanta FIX SS? Seriously?
Tell the ****ing Government Hands off , If they want extra Money to pay for their Pork projects, Tell em have the balls to raise taxes

SS aint the Prob, Its The Pols robbin the **** out of it

[jkjsooner]

There are some of us baby boomers that would be happy to see benefits moved to 67-68 age range to help sustain SS and medicare. We are living longer and generally could be working longer.
When SS was originated life expectancy was in the low 60s. Now you are looking at around 82. It really isn't that big of a sacrifice.

I respect that. The problem is that there aren't enough like you. Even most Republicans are hesitant to go against the AARP.

[okie52]

You wanta FIX SS? Seriously?
Tell the ****ing Government Hands off , If they want extra Money to pay for their Pork projects, Tell em have the balls to raise taxes

SS aint the Prob, Its The Pols robbin the **** out of it


Absolutley. SS and pensions should be untouchable.

[cleller]

There are some of us baby boomers that would be happy to see benefits moved to 67-68 age range to help sustain SS and medicare. We are living longer and generally could be working longer.
When SS was originated life expectancy was in the low 60s. Now you are looking at around 82. It really isn't that big of a sacrifice.

This is true. Everyone gears their expectations at a certain age, and can't reset those expectations. Back then, they were sure a lot fewer folks living into their 70s, 80s and 90s.

[okie52]

I respect that. The problem is that there aren't enough like you. Even most Republicans are hesitant to go against the AARP.

Yep, that's why you see only those not about to qualify mentioned for benefit deferment. It sucks but that's politics.

[jkjsooner]

You wanta FIX SS? Seriously?
Tell the ****ing Government Hands off , If they want extra Money to pay for their Pork projects, Tell em have the balls to raise taxes

SS aint the Prob, Its The Pols robbin the **** out of it

That is a problem. There's no doubt about that. However, there is a huge demographic problem as well that simply can't be ignored.

People just aren't having enough kids to nowadays. Obviously there's a good side to that but there is a big economic and demographic problem with it as well (see Japan).

[cleller]

People just aren't having enough kids to nowadays. Obviously there's a good side to that but there is a big economic and demographic problem with it as well (see Japan).

Economists had been saying this would kill Europe for the last 15 years, but no one acted on it. Politicians cannot stand up and say no to anyone these days. Its like tossing someone out of the lifeboat. Someone who votes.

[cleller]

Anyone really pay attention to Bernanke's speech in Jackson Hole? An interpretation I read boiled it down to:

The debt and spending is going to kill us. However, if we quit spending right now, the economy will tank, which will also kill us. Rosy outlook.

[rock on sooner]

So because politicians f*cked it up before, people making up to $180K should have to pay more to the government on the hope that the politicians don't f*ck it up again...

Well, Sapp, then get the gov't to pay back what it took from those of us
who paid into the SS trust fund for, in my case, 43 years! I use the $180K
figure based on studies put forth 3-4 years ago, when there was a big
argument about how to save SS. What is it now..$105600...you stopped
bolding my post before the point of legislating a hands off deal...

[sappstuf]

Well, Sapp, then get the gov't to pay back what it took from those of us
who paid into the SS trust fund for, in my case, 43 years! I use the $180K
figure based on studies put forth 3-4 years ago, when there was a big
argument about how to save SS. What is it now..$105600...you stopped
bolding my post before the point of legislating a hands off deal...

That is because it is pointless.. No Congress can dictate to a future Congress what they can do with money.

You elected the politicians that stole your money.. The circle is complete.

[FaninAma]

Anyone really pay attention to Bernanke's speech in Jackson Hole? An interpretation I read boiled it down to:

The debt and spending is going to kill us. However, if we quit spending right now, the economy will tank, which will also kill us. Rosy outlook.

Essentially, yes. So their solution? Kick the can down the road for as long as they can. After all, Bernanke's predecessor, Alan Greenspan, got away with it.

Right now the only 2 things standing between their fantasy of a slow recovery and the reality of a collapsing economy are:

1. The ability to inflate the stockmarket upwards or at least allow it to tread water with enormous contributions form the Fed.

2. The appearance that the housing market has stabilized by keeping a lot of the foreclosed inventory off the books and allowing banks to not adjust the prices of forclousre to the current market price. And again, the Fed has contributed heavily by aquiring a lot of mortgage assets that they now hold on their books. If all the foreclosures were released into the market we would see housing prices drop another 30 to 40% from their current levels.

[rock on sooner]

That is because it is pointless.. No Congress can dictate to a future Congress what they can do with money.

You elected the politicians that stole your money.. The circle is complete.

So you advocate doing nothing?

[sappstuf]

So you advocate doing nothing?

Raise the age limit. Raise the age limit again.. Reduce annual COLA adjustments. Possibly means test.

That, at least, falls on the people who voted in the politicians that created the problem in the first place.

[rock on sooner]

Raise the age limit. Raise the age limit again.. Reduce annual COLA adjustments. Possibly means test.

That, at least, falls on the people who voted in the politicians that created the problem in the first place.

Reduce COLA?! Hell, man, 2010 and 2011 were both zip, nada, nicht, zero and 2012
was very small! Means test? Good f****** idea! Raise the age limits, good to a point.

Raising the salary cap over a three year period extends the life of the trust fund (ha,
funny phrase, "trust") well into the future and not only helps the aging "boomers"
but those that aren't far behind and there are a bunch of 'em...

[rock on sooner]

That is because it is pointless.. No Congress can dictate to a future Congress what they can do with money.

You elected the politicians that stole your money.. The circle is complete.

I'm not so sure about being unable to legislate a hands off deal. Seems to me
that if one Congress had the brass to do the right thing that any in the future
wouldn't undo that, some might call it political suicide and we both know how
much the 535 monkeys want to stay in office and eat bananas!

[sappstuf]

I'm not so sure about being unable to legislate a hands off deal. Seems to me that if one Congress had the brass to do the right thing that any in the future wouldn't undo that, some might call it political suicide and we both know how much the 535 monkeys want to stay in office and eat bananas!

Well Congress originally set it up "right" and it was later gutted by politicians who thought raiding it was in their personal best interests regardless of what it caused down the road.

I highly doubt that has changed..

[LiveLaughLove]

Yes.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Absolutley. SS and pensions should be untouchable.


There are some of us baby boomers that would be happy to see benefits moved to 67-68 age range to help sustain SS and medicare.

Make up your mind. Touchable or untouchable?

[pphilfran]

Make up your mind. Touchable or untouchable?

Reading comprehension is your friend...he was replying to Vet about the raiding of the SS trust fund...the money in the fund should be untouchable....

[cleller]

^ Yes, that they way I read it. Raising age limits does not equate to "touching"; as in removing money....

[marfacowboy]

The reason we have Social Security is because of poverty rates among seniors during and after the Depression. Those rates exceeded 50 percent, and that's when we had around 125 million people.
Personal savings and the private sector were insufficient then. Now, imagine what it would be like with 300 million people. If you want a really ugly society with millions upon millions of desperate senior citizens, get rid of Social Security. Let the private sector have it, so they can **** it up.
The system would be much closer to solvency if, as others have stated, people would just keep their hands out of the ****ing cookie jar.

[pphilfran]

Marfa...even without the raiding there would not be enough money to cover expenditures...

Instead of x trillions of cash on hand there are x trillions of special issue bonds...

So as far as SS is concerned it would still be insolvent with or without the politicians taking out the cash...