If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Baby Boomer Jonah Goldberg complains that the Greatest Generation is coddled and selfish, and the cost of providing their unsustainable entitlements will bankrupt their descendants   (usatoday.com) divider line 337
    More: Ironic, Jonah Goldberg, ageism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Civilian Conservation Corps, entitlements, G.I. Bill, legacy costs, bankruptcy  
•       •       •

8912 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 05:40:08 PM

Diogenes: GAT_00: 2wolves: Doughy Pantsload hasn't said anything this dumb in days. Good to see he's still being paid to dare to be stupid.

This isn't all that stupid.  How often have we seen members of the Greediest Generation screaming about how we need to stop socialism but don't you dare touch their Social Security or Medicare?  What better proof of that is there than Paul Ryan trying to "reform" Medicare by utterly destroying it for people under 55, but keeping it for the old because he didn't want to dare offend them.  We had to see Medicare totally destroyed, but they got to keep the existing system without changes.

And I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.  Now my generation will have to see a huge tax increase in the future to keep paying for them.

Oh, come on.  No one could have seen or anticipated this.  The population boom just snuck up on them.  They're very quiet.


More truthfully, the population boom <b>did</b> come, but <b>didn't</b> sustain itself. SS was based on a bunch of assumptions which seemed reasonable at the time, but history doesn't bear them out. Things like a consistently growing population, growing taxable income and the like. No one thought we would have a population boom, then decline of birth rates, coupled with complete stagnation of taxable incomes for decades on end with no relief in sight. The only politically feasible way to fix it is to raise the taxable income cap or reduce payments. It would be foolhardy of the highest magnitude to spur population increases (as well as being a really long term solution, i.e. unpalatable), and getting the tax base roaring just isn't going to happen.

The people who are just now getting to benefit from the program are the ones who strangled it to death and should really feel the pain from their monumentally stupid decisions. Who knew that relying on abject greed as your retirement vehicle would completely fall apart when someone even more ruthless would crash the system for their own benefit, even when it happened plenty of times before? It's not like history books were invented in the last 20 years.

Honestly I have no idea on how to fix it in a way that's possible. It's just not going to happen.
 
2013-03-11 05:44:28 PM

Stibium: Diogenes: GAT_00: 2wolves: Doughy Pantsload hasn't said anything this dumb in days. Good to see he's still being paid to dare to be stupid.

This isn't all that stupid.  How often have we seen members of the Greediest Generation screaming about how we need to stop socialism but don't you dare touch their Social Security or Medicare?  What better proof of that is there than Paul Ryan trying to "reform" Medicare by utterly destroying it for people under 55, but keeping it for the old because he didn't want to dare offend them.  We had to see Medicare totally destroyed, but they got to keep the existing system without changes.

And I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.  Now my generation will have to see a huge tax increase in the future to keep paying for them.

Oh, come on.  No one could have seen or anticipated this.  The population boom just snuck up on them.  They're very quiet.

More truthfully, the population boom <b>did</b> come, but <b>didn't</b> sustain itself. SS was based on a bunch of assumptions which seemed reasonable at the time, but history doesn't bear them out. Things like a consistently growing population, growing taxable income and the like. No one thought we would have a population boom, then decline of birth rates, coupled with complete stagnation of taxable incomes for decades on end with no relief in sight. The only politically feasible way to fix it is to raise the taxable income cap or reduce payments. It would be foolhardy of the highest magnitude to spur population increases (as well as being a really long term solution, i.e. unpalatable), and getting the tax base roaring just isn't going to happen.

The people who are just now getting to benefit from the program are the ones who strangled it to death and should really feel the pain from their monumentally stupid decision ...


Hopefully things get fixed right after the Boomers die off.  fark them, they've been a voting bloc since the 70's and you've seen where that's gotten us.
 
2013-03-11 05:49:27 PM

dready zim: The wages for that company DO increase, they are called profit. Often this is not matched by an increase in wages for the staff. Why should more profit be made yet your wages not increase?

That`s not fair. Are you saying it is?

/on a seperate note, lots of money in a few hands is bad for the economy, which thrives when many hands all have money to spend.


It is absolutely fair.  People should be paid equivalent to what their labor is worth on the open market.  If that isn't enough to live at a level society deems adequate, we need to make up the shortfall by redistributing wealth.
 
2013-03-11 05:53:27 PM

Girion47: mongbiohazard: trappedspirit: mongbiohazard: Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing

You're sense of reality is wonkers

Not at all. It might suprise you to find out that I'm correct... but I'm absolutely correct. At least half your congressperson's day is spent fundraising.

In fact, I'm local to DC and it's an open secret that the buildings around the Capitol building are filled with second offices for our representatives. Since they are not supposed to fundraise from their offices they set up second offices across the street to fundraise from - which is how they spend more of their time then anything else.

You only THOUGHT you voted for lawmakers, but in reality you voted for fundraisers.

Hell I worked for the AOC, it was very well known that happened.  What a lot of people don't know is that senators get a private lounge in the Capitol...for each of them.   Guess who pays to decorate that?  we do.


Isn't it sad not only how bad it's gotten, but also how out of touch most people are with how their representatives ACTUALLY work? I say something completely factual and non-controversial and the response is that I'm "wacky"... The reality is what's "wacky". It's madness.
 
2013-03-11 05:56:06 PM

mongbiohazard: Girion47: mongbiohazard: trappedspirit: mongbiohazard: Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing

You're sense of reality is wonkers

Not at all. It might suprise you to find out that I'm correct... but I'm absolutely correct. At least half your congressperson's day is spent fundraising.

In fact, I'm local to DC and it's an open secret that the buildings around the Capitol building are filled with second offices for our representatives. Since they are not supposed to fundraise from their offices they set up second offices across the street to fundraise from - which is how they spend more of their time then anything else.

You only THOUGHT you voted for lawmakers, but in reality you voted for fundraisers.

Hell I worked for the AOC, it was very well known that happened.  What a lot of people don't know is that senators get a private lounge in the Capitol...for each of them.   Guess who pays to decorate that?  we do.

Isn't it sad not only how bad it's gotten, but also how out of touch most people are with how their representatives ACTUALLY work? I say something completely factual and non-controversial and the response is that I'm "wacky"... The reality is what's "wacky". It's madness.


Yeah I can't tell you how many expensive renovations were done in their offices so they could smoke in a federal building(against the law) and get away with it.

Or the fact that most of them move offices every 2 years because they want a "better" one.   Moves are completely funded by the taxpayers, including the new carpet, paint, furniture, etc...
 
2013-03-11 06:35:26 PM
"When GIs were children, the White House held its first Conference on Children, and Congress created the first U.S. Children's Bureau and passed the first federal child labor law. They benefited from government-run schools in large numbers, and after the war from the aptly named GI Bill. And when the first wave of GIs approached old age, Howe and Strauss noted, the White House held its first Conference on Aging. Congress created the National Institute on Aging and passed the first federal age discrimination law. "

Oh those bastards!
 
2013-03-11 06:38:19 PM

mongbiohazard: trappedspirit: mongbiohazard: Our congresspeople don't spend more than half their time "fundraising" for nothing

You're sense of reality is wonkers

And just in case you need a second source to back that up... Here you go. Also "Your" not "You're".

So now who has the wonkers sense of reality, hmmmnnn?


thatsthejoke.pcx
 
2013-03-11 06:48:07 PM

Wendy's Chili: Pangea: MattStafford: The solution should be wealth redistribution, so the vast majority has access to those goods.  Not trying to have the vast majority still somehow "contribute" even though they aren't needed or helping in any way.

I'm a libby libtard, and this is an absolutely terrible suggestion. You're like a caricature of what the conservatives think all liberals want.

In your scenario there isn't even the unbelievable facade of contributing to the greater good that socialism has on the surface. Even talented, motivated people would stop producing in a scenario like yours. I would honestly rather be dead than to live in the world you describe.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 580x448]

It's ridiculous to assume everyone would drop their dreams and aspirations because they get $10/hr for laying in a hammock. In fact, a guaranteed minimum income would probably turn a lot of wage slaves into risk-taking entrepreneurs, artists, and inventors.


Speaking personally if I got $10/hr for sitting on my ass, I would use the time and financial stability to do what I've been trying to do for years, finish school so I can goddam make more freakin' money!!!!  Making $10/hr is something you can live on, just barely, but I'm sick of just barely getting by.  I'm sick of having skills I can't get a job for because I don't have some stupid piece of paper to let idiots in HR departments know I can do it.  When every job you can get is a temp one that doesn't leave you room to build savings you can't really make year long plans, let alone a plan for an entire semester.
 
2013-03-11 06:50:45 PM

mongbiohazard: Were you homeschooled? I'm split on homeschooling... on the one hand I like the whole libertarian appeal of it, but on the other hand in reality there's just so much out there to teach that I can't see one person being able to realistically provide a quality K-12 education to their kids - and the invasion of creationist evangelicals into the home schooling movement can't exactly help things.


Actually, yes. My education actually was incredibly high-quality; I actually only learned one or two things in high school (my HS was great for other reasons, but as far as actual education...not so much), and I placed into college with no problems despite that, because I'd already learned all of it during my homeschooling years. It's also probably the only reason I don't display many symptoms of Asperger's, even though I wasn't diagnosed until eighteen. Public school screwed me over utterly on history, but my brothers and I are far ahead of most of our peers academically, and always have been, because our mother homeschooled us and knew what she was doing. The trick is to find good, quality texts and a support group.

/Also, to have kids that actually  remember history classes. :p
 
2013-03-11 07:06:43 PM
The only entitlements bankrupting the economy are the Aged's belief that they're entitled to dangerously low tax rates and unlimited warring. End of story.
 
2013-03-11 07:30:16 PM

Marcus Aurelius: More tax cuts for the wealthy is the only solution.


But, but, but... We just made the Bush tax cuts for Billionaires permanent a few weeks ago!

Wish I was kidding.

We made the effective tax rate for Billionaires lower than the rate for the working poor earning only 35K a year.

Now, of course, we need to screw over the poor some more, since both parties are owned by the rich and they wouldn't want us to cut into all that sweet endless war profiteering and corporate welfare they've got going on.

Unsurprisingly, they pull this bullshiat right after an election so you have time to forget they tried to screw you before the next one rolls around.
 
2013-03-11 07:34:09 PM

JackieRabbit: r, I have seen my plan hammered by severe economic downturns. I have thus far regained the losses, but it took several years to do so. So in reality, I have still lost a lot of money. My 401(k) account lost 40% of its value in the Great Recession. A lot of other people are in the same boat and some will not ever be able to retire until they can (or have no choice but to) accept living their last years in poverty.

I feel so bad for the young folk coming out of school with so much debt and such bleak prospects for finding a job good enough to allow them to do the things that we have so long taken for granted. It's going to be a tough road for so many of them.


My Dad has worked like crazy since he was 14, pulled himself out of poverty, and is probably never going to be able to properly retire.  Worked for one company for 15 years that went bankrupt and IIRC that stock collapsing took out a good part of the retirement fund, then Great Recession took a big swing at Retirement Fund 2 Electric Boogaloo.  He doesn't really know how to not work, but yeah... it just makes me sad.  They won't be living in poverty and own the house outright but I don't think the buying up north cabin to retire to plan is ever gonna happen unless my brother and I start bringing in bank.

/we're in our 20s
//that ain't happening anytime soon, and we both have decent degrees
///though we did get out of school far less debt-saddled than my SO (divorced parents, no alimony to his mom on the condition that his Dad cover his schooling, *that* didn't happen and was never put into writing/notarized even so...)
 
2013-03-11 07:53:50 PM

GAT_00: I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.


Holy shiat, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?

The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1937: 2%
1950: 3%
1955: 4%
1959: 5%
1960: 6%
1966: 7.7%
1970: 8.4%
1976: 9.9%
1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%

What needs to change is that we need to stop exempting the income of the rich from this tax.

Boom. Fixes everything.
 
2013-03-11 08:13:13 PM

Sybarite: Boomers end around '64. Born in 1969, Goldberg is firmly Generation X.


Who doesnt know this?
 
2013-03-11 08:48:39 PM

BullBearMS: GAT_00: I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.

Holy shiat, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?

The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1937: 2%
1950: 3%
1955: 4%
1959: 5%
1960: 6%
1966: 7.7%
1970: 8.4%
1976: 9.9%
1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%

What needs to change is that we need to stop exempting the income of the rich from this tax.

Boom. Fixes everything.




What about means testing benefits?
 
2013-03-11 08:49:26 PM

Barfmaker: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I_Am_Weasel: The GOP is "going to glory" in 2014?

They're going to be Raptured?

They're in a bit of a hole...


Glory Holed?
 
2013-03-11 09:20:02 PM

HempHead: BullBearMS: GAT_00: I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.

Holy shiat, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?

The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1937: 2%
1950: 3%
1955: 4%
1959: 5%
1960: 6%
1966: 7.7%
1970: 8.4%
1976: 9.9%
1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%

What needs to change is that we need to stop exempting the income of the rich from this tax.

Boom. Fixes everything.

What about means testing benefits?


If we would stop allowing the filthy rich to buy off both parties and force them to pay their fair share of taxes, I don't think means testing the benefits would even be needed.

Not that it hurts, I suppose.

I recommend that people watch this video showing how badly the rich have been screwing over everyone else in the last few decades, and then recall that both parties just worked together to make the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT.

As Cenk Uygar said the last time they tried this right after the 2010 elections, "They are coming after your Social Security."
 
2013-03-11 09:37:02 PM

BullBearMS: HempHead: BullBearMS: GAT_00: I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.

Holy shiat, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?

The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1937: 2%
1950: 3%
1955: 4%
1959: 5%
1960: 6%
1966: 7.7%
1970: 8.4%
1976: 9.9%
1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%

What needs to change is that we need to stop exempting the income of the rich from this tax.

Boom. Fixes everything.

What about means testing benefits?

If we would stop allowing the filthy rich to buy off both parties and force them to pay their fair share of taxes, I don't think means testing the benefits would even be needed.

Not that it hurts, I suppose.

I recommend that people watch this video showing how badly the rich have been screwing over everyone else in the last few decades, and then recall that both parties just worked together to make the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT.

As Cenk Uygar said the last time they tried this right after the 2010 elections, "They are coming after your Social Security."


Thank you for linking this. Someone recommended it to me months ago but I lost the link.
 
2013-03-12 12:41:42 AM
And here I thought it was his Israeli brethren in banking and business that was killing us.
 
2013-03-12 01:39:09 AM

Saiga410: Delay: That's not the issue. Social Security is fully solvent for the future as benefits are paid from the SS Trust Fund. Goldberg is discussing that set of accounts owned by the Trusts of which Social Security participants are the beneficiaries. Republicans do not want to settle those accounts by increasing taxes.

And as a gen xer I say to heck with that.   You mean I am going to have to pay the same high rate into SS as the Boomers did for only a small part of their careers but I have to pay higher taxes so that they can recieve their benefits to 100% while even after all this I get 70% of the promisory.... NO.


Try being a youngin'. I get your tax rates for the next 40 years of my life AND the reduced payout AND the reduced prospect of full time employment.

I won't be sad when the Boomers are dead.
 
2013-03-12 01:43:00 AM

Insatiable Jesus: And here I thought it was his Israeli brethren in banking and business that was killing us.


www.engageonline.org.uk
 
2013-03-12 02:32:30 AM
www.wwe.com
Come on guys, everyone knows Goldberg is Gen X.
 
2013-03-12 03:04:55 AM

TheJoe03: Come on guys, everyone knows Goldberg is Gen X.


Goldberg, like all "neocons," is whatever the current hate-object is.

/conservative, communist, Gen X, Baby Boomer, one percenter, prole, etc.
//the goal isn't to define him, let alone understand him... it's to howl rage at him, as Big Brother requires
///eventually we'll distill all the various labels into one general insult, probably "Jew," and then we won't have to think any more
 
2013-03-12 03:25:53 AM

Tatterdemalian: Goldberg, like all "neocons," is whatever the current hate-object is.

/conservative, communist, Gen X, Baby Boomer, one percenter, prole, etc.
//the goal isn't to define him, let alone understand him... it's to howl rage at him, as Big Brother requires
///eventually we'll distill all the various labels into one general insult, probably "Jew," and then we won't have to think any more


Please, pretty please, say something nice about dear Mr. Goldberg. Really, I'm sure deep down he is a wise intellectual whose valuable advice we should take heed. We just don't understand him, right?

The guy takes money to shovel absolute bullsh*t for people who can't bear the stink of it themselves. Ge is intellectually dishonest in every way, and he tries his best to convince people to vote against their own interests by twisted logic and obfuscation of facts.

He is a charlatan. He prays on those who want his words to be true, and he speaks them knowing all along they are false. I have no use for one such as him.
 
2013-03-12 03:51:24 AM

ox45tallboy: Please, pretty please, say something nice about dear Mr. Goldberg. Really, I'm sure deep down he is a wise intellectual whose valuable advice we should take heed. We just don't understand him, right?


Who cares about how smart he is, he's a legendary wrestler!
 
2013-03-12 06:15:54 AM

Wendy's Chili: I don't think you're a Republican. You strike me as one of those liberals who supports dumb stuff like a civil draft for high school grads or mandatory community service for welfare recipients without realizing how horribly regressive those ideas are.


I support offering enough financial incentives to avoid needing a draft, but I've always been ok with expecting welfare recipients to have a *job* in exchange for their benefits. It might be something as simple as stuffing empty ballots into envelopes for submission to absentee voters, but something on the level of their capacity.

In fact, I still don't see that as a bad idea, but I'll be open-minded enough to attempt some simple web searches in order to reconcile that with your statement. Any urls to elaborate on your point would also be welcome.
 
2013-03-12 07:12:36 AM

Pangea: Wendy's Chili: I don't think you're a Republican. You strike me as one of those liberals who supports dumb stuff like a civil draft for high school grads or mandatory community service for welfare recipients without realizing how horribly regressive those ideas are.

I support offering enough financial incentives to avoid needing a draft, but I've always been ok with expecting welfare recipients to have a *job* in exchange for their benefits. It might be something as simple as stuffing empty ballots into envelopes for submission to absentee voters, but something on the level of their capacity.

In fact, I still don't see that as a bad idea, but I'll be open-minded enough to attempt some simple web searches in order to reconcile that with your statement. Any urls to elaborate on your point would also be welcome.


If a job needs doing, it should pay a livable wage. $150 a month is not a livable wage.
 
2013-03-12 08:29:52 AM

Wendy's Chili: If a job needs doing, it should pay a livable wage. $150 a month is not a livable wage.


Completely disagree.  If a job needs doing, it should pay the market wage.  If the market wage is not enough to allow a person an adequate lifestyle, we should correct that via wealth redistribution.

We shouldn't fight the market, we should fix the imbalances that the market causes.
 
2013-03-12 09:48:38 AM

ox45tallboy: Tatterdemalian: Goldberg, like all "neocons," is whatever the current hate-object is.

/conservative, communist, Gen X, Baby Boomer, one percenter, prole, etc.
//the goal isn't to define him, let alone understand him... it's to howl rage at him, as Big Brother requires
///eventually we'll distill all the various labels into one general insult, probably "Jew," and then we won't have to think any more

Please, pretty please, say something nice about dear Mr. Goldberg. Really, I'm sure deep down he is a wise intellectual whose valuable advice we should take heed. We just don't understand him, right?

The guy takes money to shovel absolute bullsh*t for people who can't bear the stink of it themselves. Ge is intellectually dishonest in every way, and he tries his best to convince people to vote against their own interests by twisted logic and obfuscation of facts.

He is a charlatan. He prays on those who want his words to be true, and he speaks them knowing all along they are false. I have no use for one such as him.


And the difference between him and Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" is...?

/Jon Stewart's false words are the ones you want to be true, of course
//also, Stewart is pretty enough to appear on TV, while Goldberg has to rely on actually being smart, because he sure doesn't have good looks
///also, only one side demands two minutes of hate from its followers every day, and it's not the conservatives
 
2013-03-12 09:55:29 AM
BullBearMS: The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%



Please clarify what you're claiming. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but those numbers don't make sense to me. I'm going to paste an example from my life, based on a job I started at the end of last year with 0 exemptions claimed on the I-9.

My SSN withholding is 4% of my earnings, but 25% of my federal withholding.  Where does 12% come from? To me 12% means 12% of gross, but that's not the case at all.

WAGES: 24749
FED: 4455
SSN: 1039
MED: 359
 
2013-03-12 10:02:00 AM

Pangea: BullBearMS: The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%


Please clarify what you're claiming. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but those numbers don't make sense to me. I'm going to paste an example from my life, based on a job I started at the end of last year with 0 exemptions claimed on the I-9.

My SSN withholding is 4% of my earnings, but 25% of my federal withholding.  Where does 12% come from? To me 12% means 12% of gross, but that's not the case at all.

WAGES: 24749
FED: 4455
SSN: 1039
MED: 359


half is paid by your employer.
 
2013-03-12 10:58:09 AM

Girion47: half is paid by your employer.


I don't like my chances of collecting benefits.I do like your quick response though.
 
2013-03-12 12:11:17 PM

HempHead: BullBearMS: GAT_00: I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.

Holy shiat, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?

The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1937: 2%
1950: 3%
1955: 4%
1959: 5%
1960: 6%
1966: 7.7%
1970: 8.4%
1976: 9.9%
1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%

What needs to change is that we need to stop exempting the income of the rich from this tax.

Boom. Fixes everything.

What about means testing benefits?


I'm okay for removing the income cap on contributions and instead putting a payout cap.
 
2013-03-12 12:24:02 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Saiga410: Delay: That's not the issue. Social Security is fully solvent for the future as benefits are paid from the SS Trust Fund. Goldberg is discussing that set of accounts owned by the Trusts of which Social Security participants are the beneficiaries. Republicans do not want to settle those accounts by increasing taxes.

And as a gen xer I say to heck with that.   You mean I am going to have to pay the same high rate into SS as the Boomers did for only a small part of their careers but I have to pay higher taxes so that they can recieve their benefits to 100% while even after all this I get 70% of the promisory.... NO.

Try being a youngin'. I get your tax rates for the next 40 years of my life AND the reduced payout AND the reduced prospect of full time employment.

I won't be sad when the Boomers are dead.


Just put the kool aid down and hope for a better reincarnation next time.
 
2013-03-12 12:45:39 PM

shortymac: HempHead: BullBearMS: GAT_00: I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.

Holy shiat, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?

The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1937: 2%
1950: 3%
1955: 4%
1959: 5%
1960: 6%
1966: 7.7%
1970: 8.4%
1976: 9.9%
1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%

What needs to change is that we need to stop exempting the income of the rich from this tax.

Boom. Fixes everything.

What about means testing benefits?

I'm okay for removing the income cap on contributions and instead putting a payout cap.


Go away Canuckian.
 
2013-03-12 01:31:08 PM

shortymac: HempHead: BullBearMS: GAT_00: I still haven't mentioned how the Greediest Generation could have fixed Social Security for decades, but never did because it would have meant a very slight increase in their own taxes.

Holy shiat, you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about, do you?

The Social Security tax rate has been raised over and over and over and over again.

1937: 2%
1950: 3%
1955: 4%
1959: 5%
1960: 6%
1966: 7.7%
1970: 8.4%
1976: 9.9%
1981: 10.7%
1990: 12.4%

What needs to change is that we need to stop exempting the income of the rich from this tax.

Boom. Fixes everything.

What about means testing benefits?

I'm okay for removing the income cap on contributions and instead putting a payout cap.


I'm NOT OK with both parties working together to make the "temporary" Bush tax cuts PERMANENT only a couple of weeks before they go after Social Security.

If the rich paying their fair share of taxes is out of bounds, then going after the poor should be also.
 
2013-03-13 05:00:10 AM
How to Help Fix Things:

1) Health care for every American. And I don't mean insurance. No one should go to the doctor, dentist, opthamologist or hospital unsure how to pay for it.

2) Reform student loans. Offer forgiveness for those hopeless. Want to see the biggest flowering of ideas since the end of WWII? Let the bright, inventive and most of all connected Post-Gen-X-and-Millennial generations start businesses and take jobs without soaking them for 500$ a month they were told they HAD to have.

3) Pull Troops home. Shut down bases in low-threat places, Germany, Japan, Australia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Italy, UK. Keep them in places where trouble starts: near the middle east, Korea. Put more money into Aircraft Carriers with faster response.

4) Remove cap on Social Security earnings. Make a small tax on investment profits that mimics FICA, so the wealthy chip in more clearly.

5) Businesses are slowly squeezing out jobs by attrition. Pay businesses who hire replacement workers for jobs instead of shrinking them, especially in entry-level positions.

6) Make going to college easier. Put federal limits on the growth of public colleges and university costs. 8 or 10 times inflation yearly for 20 years is insane. Furthermore, on the topic,  Encourage mobility by letting states createreciprocal agreements for in-state tuition costs. Vermont student want to go to a SUNY School, or a New Yorker to Rutgers (State U. of New Jersey)? States can make that happen. Greater choice and students gain more mobility. More on-line directed courses by accredited state universities for students who don't get benefits from classroom education, or who can't make the time to go to a building. My mother did this 20 years ago and that raised our family's standard of living more then anything. Move this to the 21st century.
 
Displayed 37 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report