- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 10/4/23 at 9:34 pm to One Arm Steve
quote:
That along with Medicare are far and away our biggest expenses as a nation.
Not true. Both Medicare and defense spending comprise 13% of federal spending. If you don't think that defense is ripe for cuts, then you're probably a neo-con.
This post was edited on 10/4/23 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 10/4/23 at 9:35 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
all the old people will go J6, scary
No one more dangerous than he who has nothing to lose.
Remember, for a lot of these pissed off old guys, a life sentence is not necessarily a deterrent.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 9:37 pm to POTUS2024
quote:Bold. Post it and I got permission to put a yard side up.
My healthcare plan completely fixes Medicare. Gives us a lot of breathing room on SS as a result.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 9:41 pm to shutterspeed
quote:Neat buzzword.
neo-con
Medicare and SS are lumped together because they're both entitlements.
This post was edited on 10/4/23 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 10/4/23 at 9:41 pm to Lou Pai
Doesn't matter. They will crash the banking system in the next year and then issue digital Currency, and a new era of slavery will begin.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 9:45 pm to Lou Pai
The government will seize all pensions and private retirement accounts and dump them into SS. And there will be overwhelmingly public support to do so in another 15 years.
Bookmark it.
Bookmark it.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 9:47 pm to keakar
quote:
both would be fully funded for the next 50 years if they just shift that ukraine money to the SS account to pay for it
You're being sarcastic, right?
Posted on 10/4/23 at 9:59 pm to One Arm Steve
quote:
Medicare and SS are lumped together because they're both entitlements.
Lumped together by who? You?
Separated out, Medicare represents 13% of spending, same as defense.
LINK
Posted on 10/4/23 at 10:03 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
all the old people will go J6, scary
Look what happened in France when they raised it 2 years. Any changes would have to be phased in so it wouldn’t have an extreme impact on someone near retirement.
PS: If SS could be insolvent then why can’t the military or any other branch of the government go insolvent? It’s just a scare tactic.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 10:10 pm to keakar
quote:
both would be fully funded for the next 50 years if they just shift that ukraine money to the SS account to pay for it
i'm with you. we should removed that allocation from the military and pump it back into these programs. not entirely sure about that math though.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 10:33 pm to Lou Pai
Medicare reimbursements are going to plummet.
There's a lot of fat in healthcare that'll be cut.
Retirement age will have to go up.
I wonder how much SS disability matters? There are millions of shitheads claiming bullshite disability. Example, my wife's cousin is on disability for Anxiety. GTFO
There's a lot of fat in healthcare that'll be cut.
Retirement age will have to go up.
I wonder how much SS disability matters? There are millions of shitheads claiming bullshite disability. Example, my wife's cousin is on disability for Anxiety. GTFO
Posted on 10/4/23 at 10:42 pm to shutterspeed
quote:
Medicare represents 13% of spending, same as defense.
quote:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
Yet, appropriations are being made for far longer terms, even for something explicitly authorized by the US Constitution. I do not see any explicit permission for the dental work or medical care of old folk mentioned in the document. You will raise the general welfare statements as justification, of course. General welfare didn't mean back then what it does today. There are many, many letters between politicians of that time that made it clear it wasn't supposed to be for whatever the current initiative or bleeding heart cause was, including widows and orphans.
Posted on 10/4/23 at 11:12 pm to Lou Pai
quote:
There are some like GumboBot on here who claim we can simply print money to inflate our way out of this. I disagree. Actually that concept doesn't make one fricking bit of sense at all when you factor in Cost of Living adjustments. It's also an irredeemably anti-conservative point of view.
That’s my black pilled wanting to see the system collapse approach.
My red pilled approach is aligned with your view.
My practical realistic approach is to first GET ELECTED. Running on any SS cuts via actual cuts or age eligibility increases does not get you elected.
Posted on 10/5/23 at 12:37 am to Lou Pai
quote:Lou, I agree with the sentiment. However, in a situation where our total budget shortfalls now run ~20% - 40% with Social Security still in the black, it's odd your focus would be on SS. I get it, SS is on a 10-yr path to deficits approaching the rest of our budget. But if that is "insolvent," the rest of our budget has been "insolvent" for years.
We are barreling headfirst over a cliff and it seems like no one cares about advocating for solutions like gradually raising the retirement age, etc
I guess my gripe is that SS is not a benefit. It is a forced loan.
The Government is forcing employed American workers to lend it money at very low rates. When the government pays that money back (if it does), it labels it a "benefit". The government badly wants SS to run in the black, because it uses the SSTF to help finance and offset its other deficits and debt.
In the end, SS in its current design will run at ~20% shortfall (revenue-to-benefits) for the next 75 years. So there are three ways to fix that. (1) Reduce benefits, or (2) Increase revenue, or (3) Some combination of revenue increase and benefit reduction.
Because of the program design, and the government addiction to SSTF money, you can bet your arse there will be a revenue increase and a design to keep SS in the black.
So when you hear folks like Cassidy harping on the need to fix SS as they vote for budgets in continual deficit, BOHICA buddy.
Posted on 10/5/23 at 12:50 am to Lou Pai
quote:SS is currently in the black.
We spent just under $2 trillion annually on SS and Medicare in 2022...
But check out that shiny object over there!
Our budget is not.
So with reference to "shiny objects" calculate the cost-of-carry for our $34Trillion debt at the current ~5% bond rate.
NEWSFLASH: At 5%+, interest on the National Debt approaches your "just under $2 trillion" number ... for nothing.
So again, if your focus is on SS going red 10yrs from now, instead of EVERYTHING in the budget at present, ask yourself why that is.
This post was edited on 10/5/23 at 1:02 am
Posted on 10/5/23 at 1:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So again, if your focus is on SS going red 10yrs from now, instead of EVERYTHING in the budget at present, ask yourself why that is.
Addressing spending broadly is necessary, as is addressing social security. The reason you address social security ten years before it becomes insolvent is so it doesn’t become insolvent.
Posted on 10/5/23 at 1:13 am to David_DJS
quote:Let's be clear. If there was ANY legitimate government interest in "fixing" SS, do you think we'd have increased SS COLA by 12% in two years? Does that register?
The reason you address social security ten years before it becomes insolvent is so it doesn’t become insolvent.
In fact, at that rate, all we'd need do is freeze the damn COLA's, and voila! Fixed!
The fact is, DC doesn't really care about SS per se. It wants the "trustfund" to be expanded.
Posted on 10/5/23 at 1:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Let's be clear. If there was ANY legitimate government interest in "fixing" SS, do you think we'd have increased SS COLA by 12% in two years? Does that register?
What’s your point? I don’t recall posting that I thought government wanted to fix social security.
quote:
The fact is, DC doesn't really care about SS per se. It wants the "trustfund" to be expanded.
Of course it does. The more people it can get dependent/resisting change, the more power accrues to DC.
But none of the above means we shouldn’t be fixing social security (and other entitlements).
Posted on 10/5/23 at 1:39 am to David_DJS
quote:Expanding the SSTF "fixes" our deficit spending like giving Hunter Biden a kilo of cocaine "fixes" his drug habit.
What’s your point?
My point is SS is the shiny object
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News