The "Penny Plan:" A 1% Cut In Real Spending (Not the Rate of Growth) For Six Years

One snag: It includes 1% cuts, per year, to SS and Medicare too, which is probably unworkable right now.

WASHINGTON, July 13, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Congressman Mack today welcomed the support of Tea Party Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) as he signed on to the "One Percent Spending Reduction Act," legislation - also known as the "Penny Plan" - that was introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) last week, and authored by Congressman Connie Mack (R-FL) last spring in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mack stated: "The support for the Penny Plan is growing almost daily on both sides of Capitol Hill as we draw closer to President Obama's August 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling and continue Washington's reckless spending. Senator Paul's election last year was another clear example of the voters saying 'enough is enough' with the way Washington spends their money and having Senator Paul's support for the Penny Plan should send say to those voters, 'We heard you loud and clear.'"

Presently the Mack Penny plan enjoys the support of over 40 co-sponsors in the U.S. House, the backing of the Republican Study Committee's 103 Members, and two key U.S. Senators.

The Penny Plan balances the budget by:
-- Cutting total federal spending by one percent each year for six
consecutive years,
-- Setting an overall spending cap of 18 percent of gross domestic
product in 2018, and
-- Reducing overall spending by $7.5 trillion over 10 years.

If Congress and the President are unable to make the necessary cuts, the bill's fail-safe triggers automatic, across-the-board cuts to ensure the one percent reductions are achieved.

Last week Senator Enzi stated: "This proposal is simple, effective and real. That's a winning combination that I hope my colleagues can get behind. If they can't, I hope the people who elect them will."

Mack added, "At President Obama's news conference last week, he talked about hard-working American families having to make tough budget decisions at home - so is it too much to ask the federal government to do the same and eliminate one penny out of every federal dollar spent?"

ArthurK. just alerted me to this plan, which I hadn't heard about; Truman North wanted to write about a similar idea but I didn't believe him (that is, I didn't believe the magnitude of the cuts in ten years).

I don't know how you actually just cut SS and Medicare for current retirees without simply losing all political power next year and having those changes undone.

However, as far as every other account...

Posted by: Ace at 06:23 PM



Comments

1 First!

Posted by: The Status Quo at July 28, 2011 06:25 PM (FIDMq)

2 Unicorns? Does everybody get one? I want a Unicorn pony. With glitter.

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 06:27 PM (OhYCU)

3 Utter nonsense! Cutting real spending? "Dead on Arrival" in the Senate.

This is the worst idea Harry Reid has heard since the last one he heard a couple of minutes ago.

Bush's Fault!

Posted by: filbert at July 28, 2011 06:28 PM (smvTK)

4 Ace, I think the point of including SS and Medicare is in forcing some kind of reform. Otherwise, that snag would make it a hard sell. It's probably necessary, but like I said two threads ago I doubt there's the political will to do so.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 06:28 PM (k6J0r)

5 A penny saved is a penny earned.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin at July 28, 2011 06:28 PM (/izg2)

6 Fox saying the House members are going to pray in the chapel.

wth?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 06:29 PM (UOM48)

7 >>>Ace, I think the point of including SS and Medicare is in forcing some kind of reform. Otherwise, that snag would make it a hard sell. It's probably necessary, but like I said two threads ago I doubt there's the political will to do so.

based on comments in this blog, older conservatives are fighting mad whenever cuts to their benefits are mentioned.

Whether they stick with the party or sit it out, I don't know. But if we have to worry about our own most ideological seniors, we can write off independent seniors.

Posted by: ace at July 28, 2011 06:29 PM (nj1bB)

8 The plan actually allows Congress to direct the 1% in cuts. It only kicks in as mandatory across the board if they fail to come up with the cuts. (So yeah, it's basically across the board like you think)

Posted by: mugiwara at July 28, 2011 06:30 PM (KI/Ch)

9 "A penny saved is a penny earned."

or at least one less borrowed in our case.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at July 28, 2011 06:30 PM (HAdov)

10 if one penny is cut from current federal spending, life on the planet as we know it will end.

Who knows, if this 1% nonsense kills the baseline budgeting gimmick, this could be the compromise we're all looking for...

Posted by: joeindc44 at July 28, 2011 06:30 PM (QxSug)

11 But SS and Medicare are huge accounts. You can't "make up" the 1% from those accounts out of discretionary funding. Either account, itself, is bigger than discretionary.

You can make up a bit of it but not much.

Posted by: ace at July 28, 2011 06:31 PM (nj1bB)

12 It has been announced that the House is moving forward with the vote.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 28, 2011 06:31 PM (mf8Ua)

13 Just wondering, has the unsustainable spending trajectory even entered the conversationsince the gaytarded debt ceiling kabuki theater non-event sideshow began?

Posted by: Red Shirt at July 28, 2011 06:31 PM (FIDMq)

14 Fox saying the House members are going to pray in the chapel.wth?
--------
This is fascinating to me. The damn thing won't pass the Senate, yet here people are acting like it's life and death if they pass this bill. If you truly believe the world ends August 2nd, then this bill doesn't mean a damn thing to you. Just call Harry and get to compromising.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:31 PM (OX4OZ)

15 Posted by: ace at July 28, 2011 06:29 PM (nj1bB)

I know. And I don't wanna start another flame war today, but it pisses me off to no end. I have two little ones that are going to get the short end of this stick so that the old folks down the road in the Villages can keep golfing their days away on our dime.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 06:31 PM (k6J0r)

16 Although...

An immediate 10% across the board cut in every agency (and say 5% in defense)... well that can probably be done, and based on this math I'm seeing, would have a big impact 10 years out.

Posted by: ace at July 28, 2011 06:31 PM (nj1bB)

17 I like it.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 06:31 PM (I6NSI)

18 flaming skull futures are way up.

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 06:32 PM (q177U)

19 Flash: "The GOP just passed a bill in the House that reads... 'The date August 2nd 2011 is hereby canceled from all US calendars. And if other countries don't cancel theirs, we'll bomb them to hell.' "

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 06:32 PM (OhYCU)

20 I must say it would be cool to have mandatory cuts instead of mandatory increases. Make the "autopilot" go the other way.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 28, 2011 06:33 PM (mf8Ua)

21 9
"A penny saved is a penny earned."



or at least one less borrowed in our case.

It also means one less penny going into funding China's "research" into aircraft carriers.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 28, 2011 06:33 PM (c0A3e)

22 An immediate 10% across the board cut in every agency (and say 5% in defense)... well that can probably be done, and based on this math I'm seeing, would have a big impact 10 years out.
-------------
Cut the EPA by 10% and you'd have the Sierra Club running ads non-stop in every home about how the GOP wants to poison water and killer animals.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:33 PM (OX4OZ)

23 ace,
You should probably change that from a penny to a nickle after interest rates shoot up here over the next couple of days.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 06:35 PM (MtwBb)

24 Cut the EPA by 10% and you'd have the Sierra Club
running ads non-stop in every home about how the GOP wants to poison
water and killer animals.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:33 PM (OX4OZ)
Don't we already poison killer animals? Well, that or shoot them.

Posted by: mugiwara at July 28, 2011 06:35 PM (KI/Ch)

25 gaytarded debt ceiling kabuki theater non-event sideshow

I don't even know what that means, but I like it.

Posted by: pep at July 28, 2011 06:35 PM (6TB1Z)

26 "Cut the EPA by 10% and you'd have the Sierra Club running ads non-stop in every home about how the GOP wants to poison water and killer animals."

The environmentalist's version of killing Grannies and starving children.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 06:35 PM (k6J0r)

27 Steven Hayes is saying they're two votes short.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (UOM48)

28 killer animal futures are way up

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (q177U)

29 or force a tie between baseline budgeting and GDP growth minus a set number.
So, if GDP up by 2% in a year, budget can only grow -1%.

Posted by: joeindc44 at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (QxSug)

30
Ok, here's the new plan.
Continue stalling and freaking everyone out until gold can't go any higher and people flee to silver, then to copper.
When the price of copper and eventually zincskyrockets, we pay off the national debt with pennies. Problem solved.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (GKQDR)

31 The across the board 1% cut only would effect SS and Medicare if congress can't make the hard decisions to make up the cut amount elsewhere.

Posted by: Listkeeper at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (EOnxQ)

32 Two votes is all? Shit they'll have that in an hour.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (OX4OZ)

33 I don't know how you actually just cut SS and Medicare for current retirees without simply losing all political power next year and having those changes undone.

What if they were more afraid of something else than they were of having 1% of their benefits cut?

I like to call my plan "Ensure-nacht."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff, EXXXTREMIST at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (lGFXF)

34 yeah, cut anything by 10% and the left will shriekwail. So what, if we're eeeevil, be eeevil.

Posted by: joeindc44 at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (QxSug)

35 If they cannot cut this measly amount, we're done.

Posted by: cranky-d at July 28, 2011 06:37 PM (sNyNR)

36 I'm not trying to be a dick, but ....
Obama jacked spending by 30%.
So ... we're going to cut it by 1% every year for six years ...
I'm seriously not trying to be a dick. Is this the plan? We're starting with the post-stimulus -baked-into-the-baseline cakelevel of spending?

Posted by: Warden at July 28, 2011 06:37 PM (HzhBE)

37 This just goes to show that the repubs aren't lacking in any practical solutions to help this economy. It's just that we have to do some more housecleaning in order to get them enacted.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 06:37 PM (I6NSI)

38 Well they could cut 1% in SS per year by raising the age for benefits fast enough to realize some savings, or cutting SS disability by making it harder to qualify .....

But if entitlements are 65% of spending they could cut 3% from the EPA, DOEs, NOAA, ....., cut out the new Obamacare agencies altogether....

I love the plan which means it probably has zero shot of getting thru the senate but its so simple I think the media would have a harder time spinning it as mean to granny and poor people so I hope the GOP house goes ahead and passes it.

Posted by: Now I'm just spitballin at July 28, 2011 06:37 PM (dkExz)

39 wooden nickels are better

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 06:37 PM (OhYCU)

40 Posted by: Empire of Jeff, EXXXTREMIST at July 28, 2011 06:36 PM (lGFXF)

If you were to cut Part D so that they couldn't get their discounts on Viagra you'd probably have a riot.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 06:37 PM (k6J0r)

41 Pat Caddell going Hulk on Fox Business News right now . . . complete with the green skin.

Posted by: filbert at July 28, 2011 06:38 PM (smvTK)

42 Two votes is all? Shit they'll have that in an hour.

Hookers and booze. Works every time.

Posted by: John Boehner at July 28, 2011 06:38 PM (zgZzy)

43 I heard Connie Mack on Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday and he said what's great about this plan is its flexibility. You don't have to cut 1% from every single program, but you can cut more from a different program to make up for maintaining spending on another program. So to maintain spending on Medicare and SS cut more than 1% from the Departments of Energy, Education, and Interior.

In fact, let's get rid of the Energy and Education departments altogether. That will allow for more spending in Medicare and SS.

Posted by: Kim Priestap at July 28, 2011 06:38 PM (xDetv)

44 I don't know how you actually just cut SS and Medicare for current retirees without simply losing all political power next year and having those changes undone.
-------------------------------------------------
Easy. You don't cut current retirees.

You kick the fraudsters the hell off SS Disability and you CRACK THE F$@* Down on Medicare fraud!

The cuts will pay for themselves.

Posted by: Larry Dickman at July 28, 2011 06:39 PM (4t9J5)

45 I have two little ones that are going to get the short end of this stick
so that the old folks down the road in the Villages can keep golfing
their days away on our dime.

You have two little ones about to enter a school that I paid for for the past thirty plus years, driving down a highway that I paid for a number of times, enjoying all the benefits of an infrastructure that older people paid for many times over, and just because you can enjoy a better quality of life if you stick it up the ass of the elderly you expect some sympathy because you brought two kids into the world?

Fuck you.

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 06:39 PM (IhHdM)

46 Everyone of us could cut and balance the budget, but those in DC will not ever do it. This is all kabuki, we will end up with a higher debt limit and increased spending.

Everything is always a crisis, always we must do it to save the country, to save jobs. Meanwhile, our children are facing a life a slavery to the state. That's why I sincerely hope for an impasse and forced reality, to give the country time to recover so my children don't live under a debilitating conditions.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 28, 2011 06:39 PM (mf8Ua)

47 Caddell: "There's a time when suicide is not an option . . ."

Posted by: filbert at July 28, 2011 06:40 PM (smvTK)

48 I understand the 1% to be everything. (Mugiwara said this in post 8.) 1% of the budget is about 46 billion? They could probably cut out that much fraud from Medicare and still have enough headroom to double reasearch into man made global warming.

Posted by: kurtilator at July 28, 2011 06:41 PM (juh4Z)

49 You have two little ones about to enter a school that I paid for for the
past thirty plus years, driving down a highway that I paid for a number
of times, enjoying all the benefits of an infrastructure that older
people paid for many times over, and just because you can enjoy a better
quality of life if you stick it up the ass of the elderly you expect
some sympathy because you brought two kids into the world?Fuck you.

What's your favorite color, Mr. Roth?

Posted by: Just a guy at check-in, with a clipboard at July 28, 2011 06:41 PM (B60j2)

50 I like the idea of an "across the board" cut. When we argue about whether to cut the military, or entitlement spending, or Uncle Ed's sweet subsidy, we get bogged down in the details. Cut everything. I do believe that the only way we will get significant cuts is by some kind of panel. Simply put, there are many politicians for whom voting to cut entitlements or military spending is unacceptable. I wouldn't include spending caps or any other legislative limits, though - those rules always have unintended consequences and have never constrained spending. Just look at California if need to be reminded.

Posted by: Jordan at July 28, 2011 06:41 PM (4z6KA)

51 You have two little ones about to enter a school that I paid for for the past thirty plus years, driving down a highway that I paid for a number of times, enjoying all the benefits of an infrastructure that older people paid for many times over, and just because you can enjoy a better quality of life if you stick it up the ass of the elderly you expect some sympathy because you brought two kids into the world?Fuck you.
-----------
Hey bro, did you use that highway? Yes. Did you use that public school system? Yes.
Is her kids going to get touse social security or medicare? No.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:41 PM (OX4OZ)

52 The problem with one-time cuts is that the budgets will grow right back to where they are now in no time. The whole system needs to be changed.

Posted by: cranky-d at July 28, 2011 06:41 PM (sNyNR)

53 Caddell now mentioning the Constitutional crisis Obama would provoke by going 14th Amendment on our asses--on top of the financial crisis . . .

Posted by: filbert at July 28, 2011 06:42 PM (smvTK)

54 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 06:39 PM (IhHdM)

You didn't pay for it, debt did, which is passed on to future generations. Enjoy your retirement.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 28, 2011 06:42 PM (mf8Ua)

55 Yes, this is getting in the right direction. Zero chance of passing though. If we can buy enough time and win the senate and presidency in 2012, we might have a chance.
As it is, we're getting perilously close to a debt compound death trap. If we're downgraded, the rate spike will start that death spiral immediately.
And that's not the only problem. We're in a depression. The only thing that is keeping GDP propped up is the ridiculous government spending with borrowed money. Cuts will start killing GDP, which will kill revenues further. IOW, we're in a catch-22 right now.
While cutting is the only way out, in the short term, it makes the debt to GDP situation even worse. (Think of it as chemotherapy for advanced cancer. The treatment makes you very sick, and could well kill you, but without it, you'll certainly die). If that initial turn in the wrong direction spooks markets enough to cause a downgrade, then we die anyway.
This is what is happening to Greece and the PIIGS. But there's nobody who can bail out Uncle Sam.
We've got to take the chemo, and I don't think our ruling class has the balls to do it.

Posted by: publius(NotBreitbartPublius) at July 28, 2011 06:42 PM (VVB18)

56 Off old sock

Posted by: palerider at July 28, 2011 06:42 PM (dkExz)

57 Fuck you, give me mine. I'll be dead before I have to worry about you getting yours.

Posted by: sifty at July 28, 2011 06:42 PM (ECjvn)

58 What's annual federal spending, 3.5 trillion per year?
So, we're going to cut $30.5 billion dollars each year for 6 years for a total of 183 billion in six years?
Is my math correct?

Posted by: Warden at July 28, 2011 06:43 PM (HzhBE)

59 Posted by: Warden at July 28, 2011 06:37 PM (HzhBE)

Yes. Isn't it lovely.

Pay no attention to that mounting pressure on your anus. It will eventually go away, or you will just get used to it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 28, 2011 06:43 PM (LH6ir)

60 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 06:39 PM (IhHdM)

Actually, my little one's are going to parochial school, asswipe. So I'm paying for that shit on my own. And just about starving to do so. And because I happen to be in the 50% of the population that actually pays taxes, I pay for those roads and other services, too.

Fuck you very much.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 06:43 PM (k6J0r)

61 Penny is a lovely girl and she's very important to my life.

Posted by: Chad at July 28, 2011 06:44 PM (EG/p1)

62 Paul Ryan is saying they'll get it passed.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:45 PM (OX4OZ)

63

This shit won't get cut, it will never get cut.

The dumbass Repubs love sinking their hands into the jar just as much as the lunatic Democrats.

It is a long rollercoaster ride to the bottom folks. Learn Chinese.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz at July 28, 2011 06:45 PM (s5aNX)

64 51

You have two little ones about to enter a school that I paid for
for the past thirty plus years, driving down a highway that I paid for a
number of times, enjoying all the benefits of an infrastructure that
older people paid for many times over, and just because you can enjoy a
better quality of life if you stick it up the ass of the elderly you
expect some sympathy because you brought two kids into the world?

Fuck you.




Orange? Sure, we can do orange.
Light classical okay? Good.

Okay, just have a sip of this and lie back. That's it...

Posted by: Just a guy at check-in, with a clipboard at July 28, 2011 06:45 PM (B60j2)

65 You
have two little ones about to enter a school that I paid for for the
past thirty plus years, driving down a highway that I paid for a number
of times, enjoying all the benefits of an infrastructure that older
people paid for many times over, and just because you can enjoy a better
quality of life if you stick it up the ass of the elderly you expect
some sympathy because you brought two kids into the world?Fuck you.


Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 06:39 PM (IhHdM)

When's that Indiana Jones review going to be done, Mr. Plinkett?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 06:45 PM (IhrXZ)

66 57 Fuck you, give me mine. I'll be dead before I have to worry about you getting yours.



That's my motto!

Posted by: Betty White at July 28, 2011 06:46 PM (zgZzy)

67 The problem with one-time cuts is that the budgets will grow right back to where they are now in no time. The whole system needs to be changed.
Posted by: cranky-d at July 28, 2011 06:41 PM (sNyNR)

Getting rid of baseline budgeting would go a long way toward that. It's really the crab in the pubesthat begets all crabs.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 06:46 PM (I6NSI)

68 This is going to get ugly.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 06:46 PM (fq7xf)

69 It is a long rollercoaster ride to the bottom folks. Learn Chinese.


Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz at July 28, 2011 06:45 PM (s5aNX)
I'd also recommend investing in precious metals.Gold, silver, copper, lead... Especially lead.

Posted by: mugiwara at July 28, 2011 06:47 PM (KI/Ch)

70 So, we're going to cut $30.5 billion dollars each year for 6 years for a total of 183 billion in six years?
Is my math correct?
Ahh, but it the Penny Plan doesn't use baseline budgeting.

Posted by: kurtilator at July 28, 2011 06:47 PM (juh4Z)

71 By denying old people medical care, Social Security pretty much takes care of itself.

Posted by: Dr Spank at July 28, 2011 06:47 PM (IMglX)

72 Posted by: Warden at July 28, 2011 06:43 PM (HzhBE)

No, it's incorrect.

100% -1% -1%- 1% -1%- 1% -1% = 94.148% It's actually a bit less!

I would love to see the assumptions they are making, because it sure as shit doesn't make much sense to me now.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 28, 2011 06:48 PM (LH6ir)

73 New Jersey and Wisconsin have proven that even slight reductions to budgets, fiscal discipline and a pro-business environment can produce not only good results but results that are exponentially better than anticipated.

While "better late than never" is the operative phrase, it looks like business leaders are finally beginning to wake up. I have always felt the best way forward would be to roll back everything to 2008 levels and simply not "grow the government".

This Mack Penny proposal makes a lot of sense and could restore some certainty to the marketplace.


Posted by: BigDaddy1964 at July 28, 2011 06:48 PM (1GqYX)

74 55: but private sector growth would come if we repealed obamacare, made it clear that EPA is not regulating CO2, rolled back EPA regulations to 1994 levels --things were good under Clinton right aww forget it we are doomed to chaos; and then probably a dictator for life out of the ashes since there is no "new USA" that can rescue us like we rescued them from WW2.

Posted by: palerider at July 28, 2011 06:48 PM (dkExz)

75 Hey, I'm not getting rich on SS but I would be willing to take a 1% hit IF EVERYONE ELSE TOOK ONE.

That includes the farmers, the bankers, the doctors, the lawyers, the wall street brokers, the entertainers et al.

If it's really shared sacrifice then ok.

So far it's been dueling constituencies with the poor and the old being left out for the wolves.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 06:48 PM (zPb4d)

76 Fuck you, give me mine. I'll be dead before I have to worry about you getting yours.

He better die soon, then. Because in about three years it's gonna be, "You want this Ensure, Pops? Then suck this dick, bitch!"

But he doesn't understand - He's. Not. Getting. The. Fucking. Money.

It's gone.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff, EXXXTREMIST at July 28, 2011 06:48 PM (lGFXF)

77 It's really the crab in the pubesthat begets all crabs.

Dude, I'm right here.

Posted by: Paris Hilton at July 28, 2011 06:49 PM (zgZzy)

78 By denying old people medical care, Social Security pretty much takes care of itself.
------
Now this is outside the box thinking.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:49 PM (OX4OZ)

79 Wasn't there a senator or congressman from Minn or Wis had this idea sometime ago. 70/80's time frame. Believe his name was Penny. Just a thought that new ideas are not normally new.

Posted by: Jjoe at July 28, 2011 06:50 PM (VM5DP)

80 71
By denying old people medical care, Social Security pretty much takes care of itself.

True, but there are...alternatives.

Canapé?

Posted by: Simonson, William R. at July 28, 2011 06:50 PM (B60j2)

81 Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 06:48 PM (zPb4d)

I'm fine with that. Frankly, it pisses me off that half of the population doesn't pay federal income taxes. It's not a popular position, but they need to be paying their "fair share," too.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 06:50 PM (k6J0r)

82 Hey, I'm not getting rich on SS but I would be willing to take a 1% hit IF EVERYONE ELSE TOOK ONE.That includes the farmers, the bankers, the doctors, the lawyers, the wall street brokers, the entertainers et al.If it's really shared sacrifice then ok.So far it's been dueling constituencies with the poor and the old being left out for the wolves.
---------------
Not sure if serious........

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:50 PM (OX4OZ)

83 Cut Social Security for the folks who are already receivng it? Try that, and you haven't seen ugly yet, dummies.

Posted by: mikeyslaw at July 28, 2011 06:51 PM (QMGr1)

84 This has been popping up a bunch on the pundit's shows.

Apparently, it's based on today's budget as a baseline. Not today's budget with a 7% increase. And the cuts are discretionary to make the 1%... if congress can't come to a decision about how to make up that cut, THEN it goes across the board.

It's about the best plan I've heard of which means the chances of it getting implemented this year are next to nil.

But if we get the executive or the senate in 2012, it could have a chance.

And of course any success it enjoyed would be credited to Obama's stimulus plan.

Posted by: Swimming in Amity at July 28, 2011 06:51 PM (VKURp)

85 Cut the EPA by 10% and you'd have the Sierra Club
running ads non-stop in every home about how the GOP wants to poison
water and killer animals.

--------

How about force-feeding babies arsenic out of babyfood jars? Too extreme even for them?

Nope, you've seen their latest commercial, right?

Posted by: Johnny at July 28, 2011 06:51 PM (iT/Iy)

86 Posted by: Empire of Jeff, EXXXTREMIST at July 28, 2011 06:48 PM (lGFXF)

Most people don't really get it. It isn't just the old farts who are hoping. Ask the typical schmuck on the street, and he'll tell you that "yes, I plan on receiving SS when I am old! Why?"

Long pig recipes will be in huge demand.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 28, 2011 06:51 PM (LH6ir)

87 It's not a popular position, but they need to be paying their "fair share," too.


Friggin' right - even if it's a flat tax idea.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at July 28, 2011 06:51 PM (zgZzy)

88 Hmmmm.....stolen from ZH....

The three options for Bernanke are to i) book profits; ii) prepay expenses and, yes, iii) sell gold. Combined,
these three approaches could squeeze out well over half a trillion
dollars, giving the Treasury breathing room not only past August 2, but
potentially into 2012! That said, "The Fed would not want to
advertise to Congress the possibility of delaying default. It does not
want to take Congress off the hook on increasing the debt ceiling." But
it will, if it has to, and the end result will be a delay potentially
of up to a month. And if it means selling off the Fed's gold, so be it.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at July 28, 2011 06:52 PM (mf8Ua)

89 Posted by: mikeyslaw at July 28, 2011 06:51 PM (QMGr1)

We already did up thread.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 06:52 PM (k6J0r)

90 It is a long rollercoaster ride to the bottom folks. Learn Chinese.

Even that isn't a path to salvation, as the Chi-Coms are about to experience the Mother of All Housing Bubble Bursts.

Learn to embrace the suck, as that is all that awaits us in the end.

That and...only chaos.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 28, 2011 06:52 PM (c0A3e)

91 By denying old people medical care, Social Security pretty much takes care of itself.
Posted by: Dr Spank at July 28, 2011 06:47 PM (IMglX)

I'mbuying into the elixor business. I'm going to be rich.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 06:53 PM (I6NSI)

92 Actually, my little one's are going to parochial school, asswipe. So I'm
paying for that shit on my own. And just about starving to do so. And
because I happen to be in the 50% of the population that actually pays
taxes, I pay for those roads and other services, too.





Yeah, yeah, yeah. I paid double, too. Both of my kids went to parochial school, too. While I employed a couple dozen people and (as employer) had to match their SS 'contribution'. So I got shafted many more times then you. Because I would have loved to have shoved that 6 point plus into my own back pocket or stuck it into a retirement account for myself.

But if you want to play into the game of 'old people are the problem' instead of seeing a runaway bureaucracy as the issue, then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 06:54 PM (IhHdM)

93 Completely off topic, but this guy's been featured on the ONT here at the HQ at least once....and now he's back. This time, the man who's awaiting trial on capital murder charges, is getting married. He's a white supremacist....has a few tattoos, but nothing too outlandish....and his blushing bride to be, is hispanic.

http://tinyurl.com/3dwcvdt

P.S. Erica best hope Jolene never finds out about this.

Posted by: DngrMse at July 28, 2011 06:54 PM (3WmKX)

94 Apparently, it's based on today's budget as a baseline.
Right. So Obama jacked spending by 30% over acouple of yearsand the Republicans are proposing to reduce it by 6% over 6 years.
Right?

Posted by: Warden at July 28, 2011 06:54 PM (HzhBE)

95 Our debt ceilings all float here.

Posted by: Congressman Penny Wise (D-Maine) at July 28, 2011 06:55 PM (IhrXZ)

96 Just emailed my Congressman to tell him to get behind Connie Mack on this. Luckily for Connie, I am not in Barney Frank's district.

Posted by: Larry Dickman at July 28, 2011 06:55 PM (4t9J5)

97 I don't know how you actually just cut SS and Medicare for current
retirees without simply losing all political power next year and having
those changes undone.

This is the reason we are terminally BONED.

Posted by: rockhead at July 28, 2011 06:55 PM (ZMHGo)

98 I paid for for...

Yes now we have to pay for all of that. Because guess what, the sh*t you put in is worn out and needs replacement. Welcome to the real world.

You know what you didn't pay for? These massive programs that you voted in that would clearly become unsustainable by the time you retired. You left a financial mess of government dependence for your kids to sort out, while they were trying to fund a military and maintain the country's infrastructure.

F* you. I'm not going to be like you. I'm not going to spend my kids dime, indenture their future to my inability to act responsibly. And I have no problem reducing your benefits to make it happen because the problem is largely your fault to begin with. I'll take the hit and give up perhaps the majority if not all of my entitlements, but don't think you deserve to get out of this scot free.

When that time of choosing came around? Yeah you and yours chose poorly. Leaving it to me and mine to clean up. Don't get all testy because we use a capitalist cut entitlements mop on your ass.

Posted by: OPEC declaring a new reserve currency. at July 28, 2011 06:55 PM (0q2P7)

99 Yeah, yeah, yeah. I paid double, too. Both of my kids went to parochial school, too. While I employed a couple dozen people and (as employer) had to match their SS 'contribution'. So I got shafted many more times then you. Because I would have loved to have shoved that 6 point plus into my own back pocket or stuck it into a retirement account for myself.But if you want to play into the game of 'old people are the problem' instead of seeing a runaway bureaucracy as the issue, then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
--------
No, see, this is what math is for. They have charts and graphs and shit. It's neat. Now, when you look at these charts and graphs they can predict future growth. And in these graphs, social security and medicare are going to consume nearly the entire revenue stream by themselves. Not the bureaucracy.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:56 PM (OX4OZ)

100 This site is fucking schizophrenic right now. I have no idea where anybody stands on anything. I'm outta here till the ONT.

Posted by: mpfs at July 28, 2011 06:56 PM (iYbLN)

101 And F* you sock!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 06:56 PM (0q2P7)

102 83 Cut Social Security for the folks who are already receivng it? Try that, and you haven't seen ugly yet, dummies.
Posted by: mikeyslaw at July 28, 2011 06:51 PM (QMGr1)
Those canes HURT! Also, I'm taking the first 'Free' scooter I see

Posted by: Red Shirt at July 28, 2011 06:57 PM (FIDMq)

103 He better die soon, then. Because in about three years it's gonna be, "You want this Ensure, Pops? Then suck this dick, bitch!" But he doesn't understand - He's. Not. Getting. The. Fucking. Money. It's gone.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff, EXXXTREMIST at July 28, 2011 06:48 PM (lGFXF)

That was fucking classic. Not many get it outside of blogs like this. The cuts WILL come. Math is rolling into town with his zombie posse and they are going to turn america into a giant rape town.

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 06:57 PM (q177U)

104
Posted by: DngrMse at July 28, 2011 06:54 PM (3WmKX)
Some comedian had a joke. You're a racist stuck on an island. The only way to repopulate the world is Roseanne or Beyonce. If you choose Roseanne, yes, you are a racist.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 28, 2011 06:57 PM (GKQDR)

105 @15...shhh - i think its time for death panels

Posted by: Speaker Boehner at July 28, 2011 06:57 PM (nVLlM)

106 Rich,
"Is her kids going to get touse social security or medicare? No."
Do you really think I care?

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 06:57 PM (JMsOK)

107 But if you want to play into the game of 'old people are the
problem' instead of seeing a runaway bureaucracy as the issue, then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM

Nope old people aren't the problem.

However old people who think we owe them more than we can afford to pay are a huge part of the problem.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 06:58 PM (0q2P7)

108 My brain hurts.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 06:58 PM (fq7xf)

109 Take another pull from that jug, CletusA'fore Obama's revenuers arrive to jump your claim
His posse is much bigger than the crimes you've committedBut it's a small price, a sucker's sacrifice, for a cowboy poet's fame

Posted by: Tumbleweeds Fritz, Cowboy Poet Laureate at July 28, 2011 06:58 PM (p2IBw)

110 The crisis will be over when Soros has decided he's made enough money.

/paranoia

Posted by: filbert at July 28, 2011 06:58 PM (smvTK)

111 Right. So Obama jacked spending by 30% over acouple of yearsand the Republicans are proposing to reduce it by 6% over 6 years.
Right?

Posted by: Warden at July 28, 2011 06:54 PM (HzhBE)
Yeah but it also cuts the growth that's already baked into the cake. Like medicare over that 6 years is scheduled to grow about 38% (which is probably low) Social Security is expected to grow 18%. Under his plan you would be cutting both of those cash hogs 44% and 24% respectively.
It's bullshit when he says you can spread it around and not cut those programs. They are where the money is at.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 06:59 PM (MtwBb)

112 "Is her kids going to get touse social security or medicare? No."
Do you really think I care?
----------
You should if you're asking for her to pay for it.
If you don't, then why should I care about paying for you? The hell kind of stupid logic is that...

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 06:59 PM (OX4OZ)

113 36

I'm not trying to be a dick, but ....

Obama jacked spending by 30%.

So ... we're going to cut it by 1% every year for six years ...

I'm seriously not trying to be a dick. Is this the plan? We're
starting with the post-stimulus -baked-into-the-baseline cakelevel of
spending?

Posted by: Warden at July 28, 2011 06:37 PM (HzhBE)
I think the plan is to cut spending by 1% of GDP for six years until federal spending is back to about 18% of GDP (in line with revenue). So it's not cutting 1% of the budget from each program each year. It would come out to more than that.But it's probably easier to promote (i.e.) pass if they just keep saying "1%".

Posted by: robviously at July 28, 2011 07:00 PM (81ia8)

114 By denying old people medical care, Social Security pretty much takes care of itself.

That's Obamacare in a nutshell. That's why I don't understand why all you ageists are so much against it.

The young won't be troubled by it much and within 10 years the boomers will be rotting in that Repository in Nevada just like you all say you want.

Then, after all the old people are conveniently dead, you can enact something more reasonable.

Of course if said old people resist being discarded like an old pair of shoes then all bets are off.

What's that saying, no ones fights harder than when they have nothing to lose?

Sleep tight f**kers, Grand(p/m)a's asleep in the basement and that creaking noise you just heard was the house settling. Yeah, that's what it was.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 07:00 PM (zPb4d)

115 They promised me oatmeal, but all I got was this shit-stained underwear.

Posted by: Death panel candidate at July 28, 2011 07:02 PM (I6NSI)

116 Math is rolling into town with his zombie posse
I will make you suck my giant cock.
But first I will make you take your dentures out so that I am ensured a smooth ride down your throat.
Don't worry, though. I assure you that your lips will taste nothing but PI.

Posted by: Math at July 28, 2011 07:02 PM (44nEC)

117 That's Obamacare in a nutshell. That's why I don't understand why all you ageists are so much against it. The young won't be troubled by it much and within 10 years the boomers will be rotting in that Repository in Nevada just like you all say you want.Then, after all the old people are conveniently dead, you can enact something more reasonable.Of course if said old people resist being discarded like an old pair of shoes then all bets are off. What's that saying, no ones fights harder than when they have nothing to lose?Sleep tight f**kers, Grand(p/m)a's asleep in the basement and that creaking noise you just heard was the house settling. Yeah, that's what it was.
---------
What the hell is an ageist?
I'm going to start calling you guys mathists, because clearly you hate math.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 07:02 PM (OX4OZ)

118 Nope old people aren't the problem. However old people who think we owe them more than we can afford to pay when they insisted on repeatedly voting for the assholes who caused this but now act bewildered and blame Republicans are a huge part of the problem.

Posted by: minor correction at July 28, 2011 07:02 PM (B60j2)

119 Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 06:58 PM (fq7xf)

Stop complaining.

Posted by: The chicken at July 28, 2011 07:02 PM (LH6ir)

120 maybe its time to redefine "old people" like obama did with "rich people"

Posted by: Speaker Boehner at July 28, 2011 07:02 PM (nVLlM)

121 Rich,
I am alot younger than you are...your expecting me to rely on S.S.? I don't think so Pal!
Hell No! Quick making me pay for it...you don't want pay for me....I don't give a shit cause you aren't...it isn't gonna be there for me!
It is pay-go anyway...we are paying for spolied brat who created this entire mess.

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:03 PM (JMsOK)

122 83
Cut Social Security for the folks who are already receivng it? Try that, and you haven't seen ugly yet, dummies.

Posted by: mikeyslaw at July 28, 2011 06:51 PM (QMGr1)
That will never pass. They *might* be able to get some rollbacks but even that would cause a shitstorm.The most common sense thing to do is push back the ages of eligibility and benefits for people who aren't on SS yet. Almost everyone I know who is 50 or younger seems to understand that the money isn't there for them.

Posted by: robviously at July 28, 2011 07:03 PM (81ia8)

123 What the hell is an ageist?

Apparently it's someone who doesn't want to work his entire life to meet the welfare payments an earlier generation voted itself.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:03 PM (IhrXZ)

124 'Dark have been my dreams of late,' he said, 'but I feel as one new-awakened. I would now that you had come before, Gandalf. For I fear that already you have come too late, only to see the last days of my house. Not long now shall stand the high hall which Brego son of Eorl built. Fire shall devour the high seat. What is to be done?'

Posted by: Theoden at July 28, 2011 07:04 PM (/6SUk)

125 Fuckit, I'm going home.

Posted by: Sol Roth at July 28, 2011 07:04 PM (B60j2)

126 114 No.We don't want old people to die.We want the ponzi scheme gone.For too long it has been untouchable,as it's creators intended.People should provide for their own retirement and healthcare.If we had stuck by that principle we wouldn't be here now.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 07:04 PM (fq7xf)

127
Fuck you, give me mine. I'll be dead before I have to worry about you getting yours.

I paid for them! They're mine!

Posted by: Count de Money at July 28, 2011 07:05 PM (uhAkr)

128 Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:03 PM (IhrXZ)

Thread, day, and probably week winner.

Posted by: The chicken at July 28, 2011 07:05 PM (LH6ir)

129 Man, I'm hating the hating on old people here. As someone who's buried both her parents and misses them terribly, I'm taking a break.

My dad grew up poor, served his country, didn't believe in credit cards, paid off his house and lived modestly. He died at 76. Just lost my mom two years ago this October.

Ya'll have fun.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:05 PM (UOM48)

130 Special Report w/ Bair tonight

Mentioned a SP teleconference today. Where’s the $4T come from? Simpson-Bowles. Is it enough to stabilize the debt? The IMF is recommending 7.5% (T?). $4T is not enough, but it’s a good down payment.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 07:05 PM (ucq49)

131 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 06:54 PM (IhHdM)

Yes, you did all those things. And in the mean time managed to vote for a whole pile of shit that we can't freaking afford. My kids will be left a whole lot more than the $14 trillion in debt we have now, plus a severely weakened country. And, unlike you, they'll be paying into the system their entire lives and never receive SS or Medicare.

As it stands now, SS and Medicare are set to consume all federal revenues in the next decade or so. And they're headed for collapse because we will never be able to tax people enough to cover your bennies, buddy. In other words, its not a bureaucracy problem.

Contrary to what you may believe, I do care about old people. Those people are called my parents and my parents-in-law. My family is preparing now to be able to take those old folks in when they retire. So, I'm doing my part, asshole. Now how about you do yours and refrain from making it worse on my kids, please.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:05 PM (k6J0r)

132 Rich,
I am alot younger than you are...your expecting me to rely on S.S.? I don't think so Pal!
Hell No! Quick making me pay for it...you don't want pay for me....I don't give a shit cause you aren't...it isn't gonna be there for me!
It is pay-go anyway...we are paying for spolied brat who created this entire mess.
----------
Then we are on the same page.
You misunderstood or I typed poorly the post you quoted of me.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 07:06 PM (OX4OZ)

133 Can we please pay someone to fix this blog?


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 28, 2011 07:06 PM (LH6ir)

134 120
maybe its time to redefine "old people" like obama did with "rich people"

Here, have a cracker. They're better on Tuesday.

*munch munch*

Posted by: Sol Roth at July 28, 2011 07:06 PM (B60j2)

135 I think the plan is to cut spending by 1% of GDP for six years until federal spending is back to about 18% of GDP (in line with revenue). So it's not cutting 1% of the budget from each program each year. It would come out to more than that.

It says 1% of federal spending, not GDP.
I'm confused. If you cut 1% of federal spending every year for six years, you get 185 billion or so.
But then it says the plan is to cut 7.5 trillion over 10 years.
Huh?

Posted by: Math at July 28, 2011 07:06 PM (44nEC)

136 6
Fox saying the House members are going to pray in the chapel.

wth?


Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 06:29 PM (UOM4
LOL, might be the most useful thing they'll do all week.

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 07:07 PM (LD21B)

137 Did anyone else read that Congress' net worth increased 62% on average just last year alone? They much be doing a great job investing their hard earned money.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at July 28, 2011 07:07 PM (yQWNf)

138 129 I don't take it as hate.Financial reality is catching up to fantasy.People who bought into SS in good faith were mislead.That is all,we want them to see it our way.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 07:07 PM (fq7xf)

139 133
Can we please pay someone to fix this blog?

Nah. Chaos is its own reward.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 28, 2011 07:07 PM (c0A3e)

140 Let me be clear. If you like your old people, you can.... keep your old people.

Posted by: B to the H to the O at July 28, 2011 07:08 PM (q177U)

141 Cut 1 cent per year? What about the children you assholes!

Posted by: The Pelosi Reid Funky Bunch at July 28, 2011 07:08 PM (+lsX1)

142 Get off me Math! I was told there'd be no Math!

Posted by: Warden at July 28, 2011 07:08 PM (44nEC)

143 136
6
Fox saying the House members are going to pray in the chapel.wth?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 06:29 PM (UOM4

They have a bar hidden there.

Posted by: no one of consequence at July 28, 2011 07:09 PM (B60j2)

144 The Onion's solution to Social Security.

Posted by: buzzion at July 28, 2011 07:09 PM (oVQFe)

145 Cut Social Security for the folks who are already receivng it? Try that, and you haven't seen ugly yet, dummies.

Oh no. It isn't political feasible. Not by a long shot. But it would be....appropriate..shared sacrifice if you will.

It isn't a promise we made seniors, it is one they made for themselves, knowing that being twice the size of the generation previous, they would have no problem paying for it, never caring how *we* would pay for it. What it would do to our future.

And that's just SS and MC, let's not get started on the other things they voted in by proxy over the years.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 07:09 PM (0q2P7)

146 The House is out? The House is out?

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 07:10 PM (OhYCU)

147 Now, is this plan based on before QE3 or after QE3. We know it'll probably happen. Dick is hell-bent on making it happen.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 07:10 PM (I6NSI)

148 Posted by: Truck Monkey at July 28, 2011 07:07 PM (yQWNf)

Because most of them are fucking criminals. They are not held accountable for insider trading. You know, the kind of stuff that the government sends people to prison for?

Professor Bainbridge writes about it occasionally. He is worth a read.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 28, 2011 07:10 PM (LH6ir)

149 Haha, Rosa DeLauro speaking on the house floor. What a picture of female pulchritude. She reminds me of Jerry Lewis.

I wonder if she sends in extra taxes to the treasury, since she feels 'rich folks' like her don't pay enough?? Does she take tax credits/deductions? Wouldn't that make her a...hypocrite? Kinda like Barry?

Posted by: Lizbth at July 28, 2011 07:10 PM (JZBti)

150 Collapse will be the only way to cut SS and Medicare.People will only let it go when it becomes obvious what a fraud they are.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 07:11 PM (fq7xf)

151 129
Man, I'm hating the hating on old people here. As someone who's buried
both her parents and misses them terribly, I'm taking a break.

I'm sorry, Mrs. D'oh, but I doubt few people on here really "hate" old people, it's merely that people are noting that the iron laws of financial reality are going to take dominion over the empty, hollow promise of SS and Medicare - there is truly no free lunch.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 28, 2011 07:12 PM (c0A3e)

152 Everyone keeps pointing to fraud and waste in Medicare and SS. There's your 1%, each and every year. Root out the malingerers and cheats, and you've got way more than 1%. Then cut your staff accordingly (the SS Administration prides itself on spending less than a penny per dollar paid out. But they paid out $60 billion last month. So.... you do the math. Surely they can cut the warm body count).
SS and Medicare don't just go to old people and old people need to understand that the malingerers are taking the old people's share. Only somewhere between half and 2/3 of what the SSA pays out goes to people over 65.The other 1/3 goes to what I think are suspect groups."Dependent parents of deceased workers" for example (um, shouldn't parents be standing on their own 2 feet? Why am I paying for them?). "The disabled" - about 2.4% of the US Population is drawing disability benefits if the Administration's own stats are to be believed - are collecting $22 billion a month. You can't get me to believe that 2.4 out of every 100 people is severely disabled to where they need government charity.
Check out the SS stats page for yourself. Your tax money is going to support retired workers children who are under the age of 18. WTH?

Posted by: the other coyote at July 28, 2011 07:12 PM (yK44T)

153 if 10 states just cut from their budget a total of $1 billion in medicaid should there not be a $3 billion cut in the federal Medicaid budget since the feds match at 2:1. Its obvious that more states have cut more so should we not all ready be able to see immediate savings in the medicaid budget based on all the budget cutting the state just finished? Also realize that even when states are cutting back in medicaid dollars CMS is rejecting some of it. Take for instance medicaid provider reimbursment rates. If a state cuts that rate too much it reduces the number of docs who will see medicaid patients, creating (wait for it) long waiting lines and access to care problems.

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 07:12 PM (nVLlM)

154 I doubt few people on here really "hate" old people

Speak for yourself, punk.

Posted by: Disgruntled Squirrel Trying to Eat Away the Foundation of Old Mr. Henderson's House at July 28, 2011 07:13 PM (IhrXZ)

155 Haha, Rosa DeLauro speaking on the house floor. What a picture of female pulchritude. She reminds me of Jerry Lewis.
Isn't that the dude that looks like Keith Richards?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at July 28, 2011 07:14 PM (yQWNf)

156 Can we please pay someone to fix this blog?
We need to win a few small victories first, remember your Clausewitz, but in 2012 we'll fight hard to bring it up to 1997 standards.

Posted by: andycanuck at July 28, 2011 07:14 PM (oUG6f)

157 I doubt few people on here really "hate" old people

ahem
- Hugh Hefner's hos

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 07:15 PM (OhYCU)

158
How about this? If were not going to get meaningful cuts, in return for a debt ceiling increase, we get things we want to grow the economy
-permit drilling in Anwar
-open up drilling in most places of the United States, ditch rules and regulations hampering oil and gas exploration and drilling
-permit the building of nuclear plants
-gut most EPA regulations that hamper business
Add in a few other bureaucratic crap we'd like businesses to not deal with.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 28, 2011 07:15 PM (GKQDR)

159 The Onion's solution to Social Security.
Posted by: buzzion at July 28, 2011 07:09 PM (oVQFe)

That's funny.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 07:15 PM (I6NSI)

160 there is truly no free lunch.

Yes, but we need to pretend there is such a thing until we have the white house.

Posted by: John Boehner, Tzeentch Incarnate at July 28, 2011 07:15 PM (uhAkr)

161 Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:05 PM (k6J0r)

See, you contradict yourself. You claim to be paying for parochial school education for your children. Do you have any idea who was the driving force behind Social Security in the first place?

Edumacate yourself. And stop having kids. Society can't afford any more as dumb as you.

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:15 PM (IhHdM)

162 Asked whether divine inspiration might hit during prayer, Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), a freshman from Charleston, replied: “Divine inspiration already happened. I was a lean no, and now I’m a no.”

I like this. I don't know whether it's good or bad, but I like it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 28, 2011 07:16 PM (LH6ir)

163 Another dead alien was found! From outer space!!! I am vindicated.

Posted by: Dennis Kucinich at July 28, 2011 07:16 PM (/izg2)

164 We need to win a few small victories first, remember your Clausewitz,
but in 2012 we'll fight hard to bring it up to 1997 standards.

Two MuNu Praetorian Guards are at the door to the server room. Their shift ends in 2012.

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 07:16 PM (OhYCU)

165 Anything that stops treating growth in the federal government as stagnation is a very good start. But completely tossing a few of the truly ridiculous and total wastes of money - like the $47 billion wasted every year on the federal department of edumacation - should be put on with it.

It's funy how technology and economies of scale make everything cheaper to do ... except for carrying out the tasks of an allegedly limited government, which actually grows faster than population and inflation (just to rub salt in our wounds, I guess).

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 28, 2011 07:17 PM (G/MYk)

166 Do you have any idea who was the driving force behind Social Security in the first place?

Catholic Schools created Social Security? That's a new one on me.

Tell me, my good man, do you believe the Vatican is...after...you?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:19 PM (uhAkr)

167 Progressives brought us SS.People were sold a bill of goods by their socialist masters who wanted massively more power over our lives.They bought it.It's only gotten worse since.Time to change all that.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 07:20 PM (fq7xf)

168 OT: was the dead alien named José and killed by a weapon from the Laser Walker program?

Posted by: andycanuck at July 28, 2011 07:21 PM (oUG6f)

169 "Tell me, my good man, do you believe the Vatican is...after...you?"

There are some underage alter boys that might say "yes"

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 07:21 PM (nVLlM)

170 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:15 PM (IhHdM)

You're a real piece of work, man. OMG CATHOLICS ENDORSED SS!!!

I've yet to find anywhere in the social teaching where it says we must bankrupt our kids to fund the old. Its immoral.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:21 PM (k6J0r)

171 And at least we know there's at least one albino commenter at Ace's.

Posted by: andycanuck at July 28, 2011 07:22 PM (oUG6f)

172 Jerry Pournelle wrote on Tuesday:

"There is a way out. It starts with cuts in Entitlements. Begin this
way: from this moment, you are entitled to only 99% of what you were
previously entitled to. That includes Social Security, Welfare, your
pension, Medicare. Meanwhile all government salaries and benefits are
reduced by 1%. Once again, these are real cuts."

http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=909

Posted by: geoffb at July 28, 2011 07:22 PM (d3wbb)

173 OT That Casey Anthony mask is scary accurate.Bitch is teh crazy.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 07:22 PM (fq7xf)

174 Anybody post the link to David Burge's latest yet? (Yes, too lazy to go back and look.)

A sample:

the post-apocalyptic future of August 3, 2011 looks grim indeed:

Beltway policy experts begin living by own wits; after 45 minutes there are no survivors.Roving bands of outlaws stalk our streets, selling incandescent bulbs to vulnerable children.. . .NPR news segments no longer buffered by soothing zither interludes.. . .General Motors unfairly forced to build cars that people want, for a profit.Chaos reigns at Goldman Sachs, who no longer knows who to bribe with political donations.Mankind's dream of high speed government rail service between Chicago and Iowa City tragically dies.Sesame Street descends into Mad Maxian anarchy; Oscar the Grouch fashions shivs out the letter J and the number 4

No longer protected by government warning labels, massive wave of amputations from people sticking limbs into lawn mowers

. . .

Posted by: filbert at July 28, 2011 07:22 PM (smvTK)

175 If we can't cut Social Security and Medicare, what's the point? Why bother? Just tell the oldsters "Thanks for dooming us all, hope ya enjoy it," Then turn out the lights in DC and go home.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 28, 2011 07:22 PM (xy9wk)

176 #88
The US govt could do a lot of stuff to raise revenue.

Here's one. Lease some offshoreacreage. Charge a healthy lease bonus and demand a 25% royalty. Win Win.

Posted by: the other coyote at July 28, 2011 07:22 PM (yK44T)

177 There are some underage alter boys that might say "yes"

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 07:21 PM (nVLlM)
Alter boy? Is that some kind of Thai thing?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (uhAkr)

178 I've yet to find anywhere in the social teaching where it says we must bankrupt our kids to fund the old. Its immoral.
Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:21 PM (k6J0r)
This. Thomas Jefferson agrees with you.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (yQWNf)

179 We're all going to die. So suck it, bitches

Posted by: Jocylen Elders at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (I6NSI)

180 Really? The entitled won't take even a 1% hit?

God, I hope we're not that far gone.

Posted by: moviegique at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (Cepxj)

181 "Catholic Schools created Social Security?"
Alright I call Bullshit! There was time in this country when Catholisism was "evil."
FDR had an itchin for Socilaism and S.S is the baseline for that.
The New Deal, The Great Society, The New Deall II, ObamaCare and Cap Trade. You get all these rockin at the same time....which is the Democratic Agenda.....and guess what our future is?

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (JMsOK)

182 At the behest of Democrats the banking industry (deregulated by Clinton) made a shitpot of loans to folks who are/were bad risks.

They then bundled all these bad loans and sold them to brokerage houses as 'investments' or 'securities'.

Then the housing bubble broke and those 'investments' and 'securities' turned out to be worthless.

The bankers got bailed out, the brokerage houses got bailed out but it's the folks on SS who are going to get thrown overboard?

GM having made a bunch of bad business and manufacturing mistakes along with giving the Union everything they asked for realized they were going to fold.

The full faith and credit of the U.S.A. was rolled out and lo and behold, GM gets rid of all those pesky vendor's bills AND the nonunion pension liabilities and is suddenly solvent. Meanwhile the Unions are fat but not happy as now that GM is supposedly making money, they want MORE. Meanwhile GM is losing money and the U.S.A. is on the hook for billions and some of those vendors went belly-up.

And it's the folks on SS who are going to get thrown overboard?

I don't think so.

yeah, I understand the math quite well. Tell me again about how I'm responsible for the problem of SS not being resolved when I voted for every fiscon that had the balls to point it out?

It's easy to say 'tough shit grandpa, it's the math' or 'you've selfishly saddled your children with a Ponzi scheme' but the reality is that no matter how true the outcome may be, PEOPLE WILL DIE.

So I'd appreciate it if all you math whizzes would treat this situation as the f**king tragedy it is and not take the easy way out by trying to make it somehow ALL OUR FAULT that the country's in this mess. I know it eases your conscience some but it's a lie and deep down you know it. So show some respect and some courtesy cause the next generation will throwing YOU overboard next.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (zPb4d)

183 Forgot the damn link.

Posted by: filbert at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (smvTK)

184 172 Jerry is a smart guy,never happen of course.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (fq7xf)

185 @177 - good one

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 07:24 PM (nVLlM)

186 I'm beginning to wonder why this guy's on a conservative blog to begin with. If you don't give a shit what you leave behind, why not just go full retard and bow to the Dems? They love that shit.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:24 PM (k6J0r)

187 I've got a sister who drank herself out of a liver and she now collects $1200/mo in disability? Ruby eats her way up to 560 pounds and so she gets disability? My neighbor limps, so he gets disability? COME ON PEOPLE.

We aren't going after the over 65 crowd getting their SS checks, but man, if you've got an investment portfolio with over $500,000 or so, you can't give up 1%? Give me a break. Giddy up and give a little. God knows the rest of us will who have paid into this system for our entire lives and probably won't get squat.

Posted by: Aunty Entity at July 28, 2011 07:24 PM (FU3yL)

188 180
Really? The entitled won't take even a 1% hit?





God, I hope we're not that far gone.

Posted by: moviegique at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (Cepxj)
That's the most hateful thing I've ever heard. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Harry Reid at July 28, 2011 07:24 PM (smvTK)

189 @5: "A penny saved is a penny earned."
A penny saved is worthless, andgiven the rate of inflation, the longer you save it, the less it's worth.
Better to just melt the sumbitch down - the metal is worth more than the coin, now.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 28, 2011 07:25 PM (xy9wk)

190 Catholic Schools created Social Security? That's a new one on me.

Are you so blinded by hatred for the aged that you won't spend two minutes on Google or Bing searching for the driving force behind SS? I see these people nearly every day and the worse possible curse I could possibly place upon you is to hope that you become like them.

But I won't. I only hope that you spend some time at a 'senior center' or nursing home or assisted living center and see the light for yourself.

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:25 PM (IhHdM)

191 159
The Onion's solution to Social Security.
Posted by: buzzion at July 28, 2011 07:09 PM (oVQFe)

That's funny.

No matter who you are

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 07:25 PM (0q2P7)

192 It saddens me that people would have the balls to complain about a 1% cut in SS. To those people I must say: Fuck You.

Posted by: Terry at July 28, 2011 07:25 PM (W1mrP)

193 If we let the Dims have their way we will have total collapse and everyone will suffer, but the weakest will be hardest hit.

If only we could be realistic before things totally collapse and say "Everyone will be getting out what they put into SS --but not that employer matching if you worked for Coca Cola, GE, etc vs being self employed; be realistic that matching contribution is and was and always will be a tax" , and those who need more money than they put into SS to avoid starving in the street will get welfare and we will call it welfare and none of this sugar coating it as SS, old age pension or what have you, if you are getting funds out beyond what your lifetime contributions were (+ T-bill interest rate) it is welfare and you don't get to pretend otherwise"

Ah well. I've had a good life so far, collapse is probably still 10, maybe 20 years off and who knows if I would have remained healthy enough to enjoy retirement anyway.

Posted by: palerider at July 28, 2011 07:25 PM (dkExz)

194 I posted this in the other thread, and it's worth posting here:
http://tinyurl.com/6zvypk4
That's the MTS, the Monthly Treasury Statement. Read that and ponder the massive federal leviathan. Take note of the biggest budget items. Medicare/Medicaid, SS, and Defense, followed by interest. The first three alone consume nearly all revenue.
Now take a gander at the breakdown of revenue, looking at income tax vs the "social insurance" take.
Take all that in and soon you will grasp the enormity of the problem.

Posted by: publius(NotBreitbartPublius) at July 28, 2011 07:25 PM (VVB18)

195 Contrary to what you may believe, I do care about old people. Those people are called my parents and my parents-in-law. My family is preparing now to be able to take those old folks in when they retire. So, I'm doing my part, asshole. Now how about you do yours and refrain from making it worse on my kids, please.
Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:05 PM (k6J0r)
I don't think you understand how social security works. Right now it's solvent until 2042. The curren retirees and most if not all of the baby boomers will be dead by then. The problem comes after that, like when you retire. As it stands now there aren't enough people behind you to pay for your retirement. It has nothing to do with the current retirees or the baby boomers. The surplus that is there now was payed by the baby boomers and pretty much pays their way with of course the added help of those still working.
Medicare is a differnent problem, it starts spending more than it takes in by 2022. Benefits will need to be cut after 2022, it's the law. If nothing changes it fixes itself. What happens between now and then is up to the voters. If nothing happens it gets cut, if the voters decide not to cut it changes will be made.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:25 PM (MtwBb)

196
Posted by: John Boehner, Tzeentch Incarnate at July 28, 2011 07:15 PM (uhAkr)
lol. It took me a minute to figure out the deeper meaning behind that sock. I think I'm losing brain cells...

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at July 28, 2011 07:26 PM (c0A3e)

197 I doubt few people on here really "hate" old people

It's not a hate for old people as much as it is a love for setting fire to nursing homes.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 28, 2011 07:26 PM (+lsX1)

198
Psssst! A carefully concealed fact is that a large percentage of geezers have considerable assets, and take great pain to hide as much as possible to reward their children through inheritance.

Also, when dealing with Medicare/Medicaid on large surgical procedures, understating assets is a time-honored method of preserving family money.

So, what's the answer? Well, I believe both Social Security and Medicare to certain limits should be means tested. Yes, I'm probably considered a prick for making that statement, and I accept the derision, but I'm also a white hair myself who is concerned for the future.

Posted by: Fish the Impaler at July 28, 2011 07:26 PM (Lt/Za)

199 So I'd appreciate it if all you math whizzes would
treat this situation as the f**king tragedy it is and not take the easy
way out by trying to make it somehow ALL OUR FAULT that the country's in
this mess.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (zPb4d)
I know! Nobody ever saw this coming and just ignored it. This is a total blindside.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:26 PM (uhAkr)

200 @192
When you put it like that it makes sense.

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 07:26 PM (nVLlM)

201 John Boehner, Tzeentch Incarnate


That there's funny.

Posted by: sifty at July 28, 2011 07:27 PM (ECjvn)

202 why not just recess the house, send everyone on vacation and come back refreshed to fight another day? The dems in the senate and the president are controlling everything anyway. Boehner and company are a moot point now so why continue the mello drama?

Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 07:27 PM (k1rwm)

203 Another frickin' dumb-butt gimmick. All generalities and no specifics, all hat and no cattle, just like the Balanced Budget Amendment.
The legislators are supposed to do a budget. THAT'S where the cutting happens, in the appropriations bills,and not before. Don't wave some piece of paper at me telling me this PLAN to fix the deficit is what you will use. It's not and you know it. It's the BUDGET.
Of course, we can not win the BUDGET fights until 2013.
Right now, the House Republicans are being too nice. They keep putting up a plan and they keep getting shot down by the Democrats. Who WANTS to raise the borrowing limit so the government can keep spending? I don't care personally. Let the Democrats do something useful for a change if they want the money.

Posted by: Whitehall at July 28, 2011 07:27 PM (FmPSC)

204 "It's easy to say 'tough shit grandpa, it's the math' or 'you've selfishly saddled your children with a Ponzi scheme' but the reality is that no matter how true the outcome may be, PEOPLE WILL DIE."
Yeah......We Got It Old Man.......Just make sure you put the blame in the right spot. I don't owe you shit!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:28 PM (JMsOK)

205 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 06:39 PM (IhHdM)

Wow.

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 07:29 PM (LD21B)

206 the folks who bought you the "penny plan" were on hannity this afternoon basically saying they are being ignored and that they see the handwriting on the wall and that the new bill in the senate will be named the boehner/reid bill and pass and it's done.

So why continue the kabucki dance.

the only way boehner can make a statement is to send back a bill they already passed and recess.

Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 07:29 PM (k1rwm)

207 Waay o/t but interesting to note. That muzzie that was planning the attack on Fort Hood was lauded by anti-war group. Stolen from Hotair:

Pfc. Nasser Abdo, the 21-year-old soldier arrested Thursday in connection withan alleged plot to attack Fort Hood, had ties to a number of prominent anti-war organizations, including Iraq Veterans Against the War and Courage to Resist, Raw Story can confirm.


In addition, he was caught because of a sharp, retired cop (probably racially profiling):
A law enforcement official told CBS News that Abdo had asked how to build explosives at a gun store near Fort Hood. His questions about explosives made the gun store worker suspicious and contact police, the official said. When police questioned Abdo at his motel, he made references to a plan to kill or injure people.
Gun store clerk Greg Ebert, a 17-year veteran of the Killeen police force who retired in 2010, said a customer arrived by taxi Tuesday at Guns Galore LLC, where the 2009 Fort Hood rampage suspect bought a pistol used in the attack. The customer bought 6 pounds of smokeless gunpowder, three boxes of shotgun ammunition and a magazine for a semi-automatic pistol, paying about $250. …
“(We) felt uncomfortable with his overall demeanor and the fact he didn’t know what the hell he was buying,” Ebert said. “I thought it prudent to contact the local authorities, which I did.”

So there you go!

Posted by: runningrn at July 28, 2011 07:30 PM (ihSHD)

208 funny how people who will die take center stage over the people who are dying in our now forgotten wars!

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 07:30 PM (nVLlM)

209 Posted by: the other coyote at July 28, 2011 07:22 PM (yK44T)

Just think of all the wind farms we could build!

Posted by: progressive on the short bus at July 28, 2011 07:31 PM (LH6ir)

210 So I'd appreciate it if all you math whizzes would treat this situation as the f**king tragedy it is and not take the easy way out by trying to make it somehow ALL OUR FAULT that the country's in this mess. I know it eases your conscience some but it's a lie and deep down you know it. So show some respect and some courtesy cause the next generation will throwing YOU overboard next.
Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (zPb4d)

The moneys gone, grandpa. In 10 years 14 Trillion is gonna be 30 Trillion. No one will lend to us. We will be broke. You will starve. Your welcome.

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 07:31 PM (q177U)

211 Aw, there I go again. Just shit my drawers.

Posted by: Death panel candidate at July 28, 2011 07:31 PM (I6NSI)

212 If this situation were the other way around, with a Dem House and GOP Senate and White House, the House Dems would have passed nothing and fleebagged to Mexico City, already. Nanzi Lugosi would be given interviews from hidden locations, talking about how democratic processes in America required the dems to flee to Mexico, invader of our land/disrespector of our sovereignty. "It was Democracy in action!"

You think I'm joking?

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 28, 2011 07:31 PM (G/MYk)

213 On its face, it's a good plan to add to a later budget.

Posted by: 80sBaby at July 28, 2011 07:32 PM (o2lIv)

214 Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 07:23 PM (zPb4d)

People will not die. Look, I know not all old people are rich. But I would guarantee you we could root out AT LEAST 1% by trimming SS for the elderly who are well off. I know I've mentioned this before, but I live right down the road from the Villages- about 15 miles or so. All my neighbors are elderly and they're very sweet. But they all live high on the hog for people who are "dependent" on those checks. In the Villages and a good deal of the surrounding areas, people pay hundreds of thousands for tiny little houses on golf courses. They spend their days putting away. And clog up the roads and every restaurant in town at night with their golf carts. And I don't begrudge anyone a nice retirement at all. I'm happy for people who can afford to do that in their later years. But these folks are the same one's who will riot at the suggestion of reform. They "need" those checks, see. And those are the folks who probably need to take one for the team.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:32 PM (k6J0r)

215 "I don't know how you actually just cut SS and Medicare for current
retirees without simply losing all political power next year and having
those changes undone."

Half of them won't even know they took the hit. Out of $1,000 that would be ten bucks, right?

Posted by: PJ at July 28, 2011 07:32 PM (FlVA8)

216 The slams at the elderly on this thread have become disgusting.

Enjoy yourselves.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (UOM48)

217 So show some respect and some courtesy cause the next generation will throwing YOU overboard next.

Don't think you understand. Our generation (under 40) has already been thrown overboard, in that we are going to spend most of our lives giving up most of what we earn to pay for previous generations' entitlements. We are under no illusions that those entitlements are ever going to be there for us OR for the next generation.

Our kids are going to be amazed at the stories they hear about the standard of living Americans enjoyed for a brief shining moment in the 20th Century. They won't be able to comprehend that people were able to live so well.

Frankly, I envy them that.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (IhrXZ)

218 >>I don't think you understand how social security works. Right now it's solvent until 2042.

Actually, according the SS Trustees report this year the insolvency date is now 2036 and getting worse every year.

When SS was first put in place there were something like 25 workers for every person getting benefits. Now it's something like 4 to 1 and getting worse.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (TMB3S)

219 "Right now it's solvent until 2042."
Sorry Pal....accounting wise maybe...it changes every year now, because of the failure of growth in the economy compared to the retirement of the "Baby Scammers"
It is basically Pay-as-you-Go now, and there is no way in hell that Trust Will ever be able to be redeemed. Especially when interest rate go back up, and more more leave the General Fund for Interest Payments on the Debt. Only a S.S. tax increase, time, and a massive growth in the economy can ease the looming crisis.

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (JMsOK)

220 #198 Fish

Why should people who were frivolous with their money and failed to pay much into the system get to live on it, but those who sacrificed, worked hard, paid in and planned NOT be able to participate?

Aren't we encouraging irresponsible behavior? Remember Nancy Pelosi talking about Obamacare - now people are free to be artists and not have to worry about paying for health insurance, because some chump like me will pay for it.

My in-laws blew every dime they ever made, one day my father in law got hurt on the job and bam, not a penny. Guess who I'm supporting?

My dad ate lunch meat he didn't like because the stuff he did cost more. All that scrimping and saving so he wouldn't be a burden on anyone in his old age. He put in 10x more money into SS than my in-laws, and he should reap the rewards for his industry, thrift and frugality.

My in-laws SHOULD be high and dry, not collecting $20k a year on SS.

Posted by: the other coyote at July 28, 2011 07:34 PM (yK44T)

221 Listen, old guy, I don't care what you think or what you think I think, the money is simply gone and the system is going to collapse in on you whether anyone likes it or not. There is no stopping it. There is only changing the system. Now you can hate us all you want, but we didn't create it, and if we did it still doesn't change the fact that it's going to implode. This is reality.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 07:34 PM (OX4OZ)

222 I don't think you understand how social security works. Right now it's solvent until 2042.
Hah. It's only solvent with the fictional "trust funds", a little accounting trick known as intragov debt. Yep, SS ran a cash surplus, peaking at around $80B a year at the last before it all went to hell in '08. That money was dumped in the general fund and spent, with SS being given IOUs, special "Government Account Series Treasury bonds". These are non-marketable and can only be redeemed by Treasury itself.
Treasury pays interest on those GAS bonds...with yet more GAS bonds, more IOUs for the interest.
Where does Treasury get the money to pay back those IOUs? Either from taxes (and that is just income taxes, mind you) or borrowing from the public, issuing real Treasury bonds that borrow real money from the market.
Thus the ability of Uncle to continue to pay SS and Medicare depends solely on his ability to collect current taxes and borrow from the public.
When Owe-bama threatened not to send out SS checks, he was admitting (perhaps unwittingly in his zeal to scare the geezers) that the trust funds were a scam.

Posted by: publius(NotBreitbartPublius) at July 28, 2011 07:34 PM (VVB18)

223 1.5 Trillion deficit per year = 15 Trillion in 10 years

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (q177U)

224 Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:25 PM (MtwBb)

I'm sorry, did you say surplus? Ummm, last I heard there was no surplus. The "lockbox" money has been long spent and SS's has been in the red since a few months ago.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (k6J0r)

225 Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (UOM4

It's an incredibly unpleasant view of the future. Nobody is happy about it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (LH6ir)

226 216
The slams at the elderly on this thread have become disgusting.

Enjoy yourselves.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (UOM4
you, the me generation put us here and now you demand your checks, you should be paying all of us back for putting up with you.

Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (k1rwm)

227 How about we just cut spending back to 2007 levels. That would save us over 1 trillion next fiscal year and every year afterward. Oh, and repeal Obamacare.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (yQWNf)

228 It's kind of pathetic but it is a start. Hell, it might be the best plan out there. Even the BS the Boehner was slinging didn't really cut anything, just "projected spending." So in reality, this thing will make enormous cuts, but utilizes the same budgeting gimmick to show large cuts.

Tactically speaking, the cut is so small, publicly attacking it is almost impossible. It preserves everything we are hoping for in '12, while making a difference and having something to push in the up coming campaigns. Also, no new taxes.

Strategically speaking, at the end of 4 years, hopefully after retaking the Senate and the White House, we begin working on the remaining 24% expansion that Barry shit into our laps. It starts as 1%, nothing says it can't be boosted later.

Not the least bit - I am sorry, but die in a fire you lazy, useless, self old piece of shit. I know you paid in, but fuck you, so did I, and I won't see a damn nickel. Ohh piss and moan about your contributions over the years, nevermind the fact you will probably draw far more than you ever paid in with personal contributions, and that there will only be three workers to carry your greedy ass into retirement instead of ~30 when you were paying in. Nevermind that a reduction in your benefits could prevent your grandchildren from financial slavery for the rest of their days. Fucking prick.

Some days, Barry's death panels look more and more like a winner. Somebody should go Tylenol killer on the Viagra supply.

Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 07:36 PM (3jLFu)

229 Now it's something like 4 to 1 and getting worse.

I didn't think it was even that high. I'd have guessed 2 to 1.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:36 PM (IhrXZ)

230 America is ALREADY insolvent.

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 07:36 PM (q177U)

231 1.5 Trillion deficit per year = 15 Trillion in 10 years

Jeez, I wish people would stop harping on this. A trillion dollars will be the cost of a loaf of bread in a few years. Won't you feel silly then?

Posted by: John Boehner, Tzeentch Incarnate at July 28, 2011 07:36 PM (uhAkr)

232 The slams at the elderly on this thread have become disgusting.Enjoy yourselves
-----------
It started with the old guy saying "fuck you" to someone who said they were worried about their children. Just fyi.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 07:37 PM (OX4OZ)

233
Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 07:27 PM (k1rwm)

What, no links today? Its almost like its another person...or cat?...posting.

Posted by: NC Ref at July 28, 2011 07:37 PM (/izg2)

234 you, the me generation put us here and now you demand your checks, you should be paying all of us back for putting up with you.


Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (k1rwm)
----
Fuck you, princess.

Posted by: Y-not at July 28, 2011 07:38 PM (5H6zj)

235 Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (k1rwm)

Are you fucking retarded?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 28, 2011 07:38 PM (LH6ir)

236 216 The slams at the elderly on this thread have become disgusting.

Enjoy yourselves.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (UOM4


I don't want to be rude here, but did you miss the part early on where the guy said he didn't give a shit about our kids and to fuck us and them?

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:38 PM (k6J0r)

237 I've yet to find anywhere in the social teaching where it says we must bankrupt our kids to fund the old. Its immoral.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:21 PM (k6J0r)

It's under "First Come, First Serve." Somewhere toward the back.

Posted by: greedy old fart at July 28, 2011 07:38 PM (B60j2)

238 Don't think you understand. Our generation (under 40) has already been thrown overboard, in that we are going to spend most of our lives giving up most of what we earn to pay for previous generations' entitlements. We are under no illusions that those entitlements are ever going to be there for us OR for the next generation.Our kids are going to be amazed at the stories they hear about the standard of living Americans enjoyed for a brief shining moment in the 20th Century. They won't be able to comprehend that people were able to live so well.Frankly, I envy them that.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (IhrXZ)
I know you feel like you need someone to blame but it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about.
The current retirees aren't the problem, the boomers will be a problem regarding medicare not social security and will have to take a hit on their medicare.
It's your generation that is the problem regarding those two programs, you didn't breed enough. There aren't enough people behind you to pay for your benifits. It has nothing to do with the current retirees, they were never going to be alive to pay for you benefits.
Now you can go ahead and blame someone else.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:38 PM (MtwBb)

239 226
216
The slams at the elderly on this thread have become disgusting.

Enjoy yourselves.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:33 PM (UOM4
you, the me generation put us here and now you demand your checks, you should be paying all of us back for putting up with you.


Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (k1rwm)You stupid little twit. You know absolutely NOTHING about me, except I'm a parent of a Marine, who's worth a thousand of your worthless self.I'm not on SS, not a member of the "me" generation, and you don't "put up with me."
You wore out your welcome with most people here a long time ago.
Stupid vapid twit.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:38 PM (UOM48)

240

The slams at the elderly on this thread have become disgusting.

Try being me
- The Chicken

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 07:39 PM (OhYCU)

241 Jeez, I wish people would stop harping on this. A trillion dollars will be the cost of a loaf of bread in a few years. Won't you feel silly then?
Posted by: John Boehner, Tzeentch Incarnate at July 28, 2011 07:36 PM (uhAkr)

LOL, I hadn't even thought about inflation. Truely math IS hard. And by hard I mean fully erect and glistening with pre cum.

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 07:39 PM (q177U)

242 But
I won't. I only hope that you spend some time at a 'senior center' or
nursing home or assisted living center and see the light for yourself.

I have. I know what it looks like. My compassion does not change the laws of mathematics, nor reverse the laws of consequence, and certainly doesn't erase en total my sense to assign some responsibility to the generations immediately preceding my own. You can look me straight in the eye and tell me with mathematically unavoidable higher taxes I have to make do with less than what I have now to support you , less than what you had when you were my age, I have to give up benefits in order to save my kids the same fate, and stridently claim not even 1% can be reduced from what you are to receive? Sorry no sale.




Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 07:39 PM (0q2P7)

243 you, the me generation put us here and now you demand your checks, you should be paying all of us back for putting up with you.

The last shift didn't give you clear instruction when you came in and took over the curious handle today, did it?




Posted by: sifty at July 28, 2011 07:39 PM (ECjvn)

244 @239
B+.

Mine was more succinct. ;-)

Posted by: Y-not at July 28, 2011 07:39 PM (5H6zj)

245 "It's easy to say 'tough shit grandpa, it's the math' or 'you've selfishly saddled your children with a Ponzi scheme' but the reality is that no matter how true the outcome may be, PEOPLE WILL DIE."


Shhhhh...

It's gone.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff, EXXXTREMIST at July 28, 2011 07:40 PM (lGFXF)

246 Hey I got it how 'bout to get your SS check when you get old you have to show up at the local SS office once a year with the severed head of an old lady 'cuz they live longer and so it'd be like exponential.

Posted by: oblig. at July 28, 2011 07:40 PM (xvZW9)

247 Hey, we have a POTUS trying to divide us, let's not do it here with the older versus younger. Let's just figure this budget out 'cause the asshats on the Hill sure as hell can't seem to do it.

Posted by: Aunty Entity at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (FU3yL)

248
Why should people who were frivolous with their money and failed to pay
much into the system get to live on it, but those who sacrificed, worked
hard, paid in and planned NOT be able to participate?
Posted by: the other coyote at July 28, 2011 07:34 PM (yK44T)


I agree completely that scumbaggery should not be celebrated and rewarded with other peoples money. If SS were truly a Trust Fund as has been stated for decades, paying out remittances to those who never contributed would not be possible, but that measure wouldn't allow politicians to buy votes with someone else's money.

Unfortunately, Congress has routinely rewarded immigrants coming from Cuba and Eastern Europe with SS benefits. Upon arrival, if they are over age 62, they qualify and are paid SS without ever having contributed to the system. Disgusting.

Posted by: Fish the Impaler at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (Lt/Za)

249 But
I won't. I only hope that you spend some time at a 'senior center' or
nursing home or assisted living center and see the light for yourself.

I plan to walk into the desert to be with Shai-Hulud when I can no longer open a can of peanuts.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (uhAkr)

250 It's your generation that is the problem regarding those two programs, you didn't breed enough. There aren't enough people behind you to pay for your benifits. It has nothing to do with the current retirees, they were never going to be alive to pay for you benefits.
Now you can go ahead and blame someone else.
--------------
Let's not be dishonest here, the problem stems from the generation that decided these programs were good ideas in the first place. If you think social welfare programs are good, then this probably isn't the site for you.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (OX4OZ)

251 Interestingly, Jane, you made it through "her" sooper sekret comment filter. So you have that going for you.

Posted by: Y-not at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (5H6zj)

252 It's your generation that is the problem regarding those two programs,
you didn't breed enough. There aren't enough people behind you to pay
for your benifits. It has nothing to do with the current retirees, they
were never going to be alive to pay for you benefits.

Now this is truly fuckin' funny. Thanks.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (IhrXZ)

253 I'm sorry, did you say surplus? Ummm, last I heard there was no surplus. The "lockbox" money has been long spent and SS's has been in the red since a few months ago.
Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (k6J0r)
Well sorry but you heard wrong. Thereare $2.5 Trillion in US Treasury Bonds in the Social Security Surplus.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (MtwBb)

254 219: Yeah, it seems like Ive heard that this year FICA is not covering SS outlays so instead of FICA being raided for general fund expenditures to study the snail darters or whatever some general funds are now going to fund SS outlays and that "trust fund/ lock box" HA, its been spent and I don't even think they are counting it in the 14 T national debt.

Posted by: palerider at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (dkExz)

255 If you have children college age or younger, they haven't paid a dime into SS or MediCare (MC) yet. You've been working how long? That's how much skin you have in the game. The Boomers are the only generation that have been paying into SS MC from Day 1; and that's been a lot of days.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (ucq49)

256 Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:38 PM (MtwBb)

I'm 31. If it collapses in 2042, it will do so long before I'm eligible to retire.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (k6J0r)

257 I, for one, am grateful it has not bred.

Posted by: Y-not at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (5H6zj)

258 With a human, I should add.

Posted by: Y-not at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (5H6zj)

259 251
Interestingly, Jane, you made it through "her" sooper sekret comment filter. So you have that going for you.


Posted by: Y-not at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (5H6zj)
And to think my son is willing to fight and die for her idiot self. Stupid bitch.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (UOM48)

260 FDR lied? FDR lied?

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 07:43 PM (OhYCU)

261 Now this is truly fuckin' funny. Thanks.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (IhrXZ)
I get a kick out of it too. At least by then you will know why you don't have any benefits.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:43 PM (MtwBb)

262 However old people who think we owe them more than we can afford to pay when they insisted on repeatedly voting for the assholes who caused this but now act bewildered and blame Republicans are a huge part of the problem.
Posted by: minor correction at July 28, 2011 07:02 PM (B60j2)
Some fucking old people voted for the assholes that caused this shit. And some of you voted for the assholes that caused this shit. How many of the shitwipes that you voted for are in office today? Damn near everyone that's ever voted is partly responsible for this shit sandwich we're being forced to eat.
It's awful convenient to point fingers to try to absolve yourself from culpability, but that dog don't hunt. There are many drawing SS that didn't have a hand in voting for the shit, but didn't have a choice in their money being confiscated. I'm a few years from drawing, and don't really give a shit if I ever see a damn dime, if it will get the country back from the brink of the shitstorm we're ALL facing. Don't be a dick and lump all old people into the same crap you're spewing.

Posted by: Steph at July 28, 2011 07:44 PM (0tdlO)

263 Irony, the people bitching about a 1% hit are mad and disgusted at the fact that we have bad attitudes - well, to the seasoned citizens shaking your heads right now at our bad attitudes today regarding our debt - it reflects your fucking shitty ass leadership that got us here! you created this frankenstein now fucking deal with it!

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 07:44 PM (nVLlM)

264 Who knew there were so many New Deal Conservatives?

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:44 PM (IhrXZ)

265 The Boomers are the only generation that have been paying into SS MC from Day 1; and that's been a lot of days.

And twenty years ago, when it was clear this problem was looming, I remember them actually joking about how it wasn't their problem.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:44 PM (uhAkr)

266 It started with the old guy saying "fuck you" to someone who said they were worried about their children. Just fyi.

Bullshit. It started with someone claiming to 'not want to start a flame war' who then equated everyone over 65 with some affluent 'Village' in her area.

Yeah, she deserved the 'fuck you' because I know 100 times as many penniless seniors with issues that would make you retch who need every penny of the money they put into a system in good faith returned.

Nice try at re-writing history. You lose.

Fuck you, too.

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:44 PM (IhHdM)

267 Please excuse the young lady's unpleasant remarks. The soccer team spent most of practice on penalty shots and, what can I say?, she is not a very popular member of the team. She has a bad case of net rash.

Posted by: curious's dead soccer coach at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (5H6zj)

268 I'm 31. If it collapses in 2042, it will do so long before I'm eligible to retire.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (k6J0r)
Then we'll eat you first.

Posted by: The Long Pig Grill at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (LH6ir)

269
In terms of inflation...
The big reason I like the "Stop the spending now" side is that every $1 Trillion spent now on Democratic allies lining their pockets is money everyone's going to be soaked for over the next several years by the devaluing of the dollar and inflation.
Everyone will probably get their SS, but when bread's $100 a loaf.
It'd be nice to spend $10 Billion on accountants just to tell us where the hell the extra $1.3 Trillion a year per year has gone the last 2 years.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (GKQDR)

270 @Mandy P.

I've already stated up thread that although I only get enough to barely cover my meager bills (and if and emergency happens, I'm screwed) but I would be willing to take a 1% hit IF EVERYONE ELSE DOES!

But that's not what would really happen is it?

Means testing is okay with me. Ratchet back the SSI and set limits on assets and income.

What I disagree with is the blanket declaration that older people schemed and plotted to steal money from the young OR that those of us who saw THIS BUS coming miles away are responsible cause we couldn't get anyone in Congress or the Presidency to try to fix it. (although the Reps started about 10 years ago talking about privatization or setting up investment accounts and stuff. They also wanted health care vouchers but guess who stopped that DEMOCRATS.)

Of course some of the comments are just the overheated rhetoric of some poor shmoo who just got is paycheck and saw how much FICA and Medicare took out (believe me I can relate).

If I wasn't in bad shape physically (not enough for disability though) and the economy didn't suck, I'd rather be working. You have no idea how traumatic it is to realize you're dependent on others for your daily bread when you've supported yourself for 50 years. I hated having to get SS. I hated having to apply for food stamps. If I didn't though, I'd be worse off than I am.

P.S. I'M serious about the Senior Zombie Brigade coming to get you punks! //

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (zPb4d)

271 253 I'm sorry, did you say surplus? Ummm, last I heard there was no surplus. The "lockbox" money has been long spent and SS's has been in the red since a few months ago.
Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (k6J0r)

Well sorry but you heard wrong. There are $2.5 Trillion in US Treasury Bonds in the Social Security Surplus.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (MtwBb)

Treasury Bonds. You mean something that we will have to borrow more to repay. That's a joke, right?

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (k6J0r)

272 I get a kick out of it too. At least by then you will know why you don't have any benefits.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:43 PM (MtwBb)
No non-Boomer here is planning to get one dollar from Social Security. You do realize that, right?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (uhAkr)

273 @238,
"the boomers will be a problem regarding medicare not social security and will have to take a hit on their medicare."
The Old Timers now have nothing to worry about, but since they won't budge a god damn inch then we don't want to here them bitch!
The Baby Scammers on the other hand............

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (JMsOK)

274 I'm 31.
Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (k6J0r)
GET OFF MY LAWN!

Posted by: Truck Monkey at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (yQWNf)

275 I'm 31. If it collapses in 2042, it will do so long before I'm eligible to retire.
Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (k6J0r)
Yeah I know that but it has nothing to do with the current retirees or the baby boomers. They weren't going to be paying for your retirement. The way the system works is that the people behind pay for the people going into retirement.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (MtwBb)

276 And to think my son is willing to fight and die for her idiot self. Stupid bitch.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 28, 2011 07:42 PM (UOM4

Your son is fighting for you, himself, his country, the Corp, and His Marine Buddies ( not necessarily in that order). She's just along for the ride.

Posted by: nevergiveup at July 28, 2011 07:46 PM (7wmOW)

277 It will be interesting to look back on this time, when old folks still lived in their own homes or were pushed off on nursing care. In other words, that they maintained their own households into old age. I've been reading my daughter a series of books set in the 1800s. I had forgotten that back in theday, Aunties and Grannies were passed around from relative to relative for a few months here and a few months there. Or else they lived with one of their children full-time.Old folks got bywith no income,made slightly easier because theydidn't maintain a separate household with the attendant costs. Interesting how standards of living have changed.

Posted by: the other coyote at July 28, 2011 07:46 PM (yK44T)

278 Yeah I know that but it has nothing to do with the current retirees or the baby boomers. They weren't going to be paying for your retirement. The way the system works is that the people behind pay for the people going into retirement.
--------
See, as a conservative who is supposed to love the idea of individual freedom, you should see an inherent problem with a system set up like this.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 07:46 PM (OX4OZ)

279 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:44 PM (IhHdM)

I'm sorry but when I said the Villages that's exactly what I meant. The Villages. Hence, the qualifier.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:47 PM (k6J0r)

280 >>Well sorry but you heard wrong. There are $2.5 Trillion in US Treasury Bonds in the Social Security Surplus.

I think there is some confusion in terms here. Yes, there are $2.5 trillion in T-bills (no money though) in the SS trust fund but this year receipts into the trust fund are being outpaced by payouts. The system is collapsing now because, well because all Ponzi schemes eventually collapse.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 28, 2011 07:47 PM (TMB3S)

281
Its a slam to cut benefits that are more than were promised? This is why entitlements dont work. People feel that since they paid a miniscule - and if you look at the actual SS rates and the benefits promised in the 80's - anyone over 70 is getting several factors more than they are entitled to.
Everyone has a story but the current one is - 1% cut for everyone.
Once a group is considered uncutable then there wont be any



Posted by: EricPWJohnson at July 28, 2011 07:47 PM (FXiHS)

282 I get a kick out of it too. At least by then you will know why you don't have any benefits.
Now see, this is interesting. You just automatically read "we're looking for benefits" into our post.

The idea that we might not be is something the Entitlement Generations, even the self-described conservatives among them, can't seem to wrap their heads around.

We're not looking for benefits. We just don't feel any particular obligation to pay yours.

And when this all comes to head, sooner or later and one way or another, we're going to cut you off.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:48 PM (IhrXZ)

283 Lets not forget that the taxpayers in this country bailed out the SS system back in the eighties, in order to shore the system up in the face of an expected tidal wave of baby boomer retirees. SS 'contributions' went up, way up, and the 'lock-box' was born. The SS system, the dems assured us, would be fully funded well into the future. The only problem, and it's a small, eensy weensy little problem, was that the feds took every cent of SS surplus, spent it, and in return gave the SS administration IOU's for the cash...which totals over 2 trillion dollars now.

When the SS administration starts redeeming those IOU's, we get to pay for the bailout a second time, because those very special gov IOU's can only be redeemed by the Treasury Department...and in order to do so, they'll have to borrow more money, or taxes will have to increase to cover those obligations.

In other words, this country is screwed.

Posted by: DngrMse at July 28, 2011 07:48 PM (3WmKX)

284 @253
"Thereare $2.5 Trillion in US Treasury Bonds in the Social Security Surplus."
You have got to be kidding Me! You must think we are fools!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:48 PM (JMsOK)

285 No non-Boomer here is planning to get one dollar from Social Security. You do realize that, right?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (uhAkr)
If that's your plan fine. That still doesn't change the facts. The facts are that there isn't enough people behind you to pay the current benefits without a tax raise. If you choose not to do that it's your choice.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:49 PM (MtwBb)

286 @114: "Of course if said old people resist being discarded like an old pair of shoes then all bets are off. "
Nah, we just ban EZ-Open caps on medicine. Problem solves itself.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 28, 2011 07:49 PM (xy9wk)

287 Yeah, she deserved the 'fuck you' because I know 100
times as many penniless seniors with issues that would make you retch
who need every penny of the money they put into a system in good faith
returned.
Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:44 PM (IhHdM)

Sounds like your argument is with the concept of zero, unless you want to pay two million dollars for your rheumatoid arthritis meds.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:49 PM (uhAkr)

288 The Boomers are the only generation that have been paying into SS MC from Day 1; and that's been a lot of days.

The boomers...Who were so much larger than the preceding generation hence their name. Who were the major political players during the expansion of the entitleist state. But they have been paying a lot of days so it is all good? bzzzzzz. They should get the benefits our generation can *afford* to pay with what is left of the country they were given and passed on to us. Not necessarily what they would like, or what they could afford to pay their parents, who didn't live as long, whose medical care was much cheaper.

It shouldn't fall to just one generation to take on all the sacrifices.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 07:49 PM (0q2P7)

289 Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (MtwBb)

Yes, I understand that. But when we get to the point where we're paying out more than we can afford doesn't that signal we might need to change things up a bit?

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:49 PM (k6J0r)

290 Don't be a dick and lump all old people into the same crap you're spewing.

Believe me, I was not. I know better. But I can tell you I know many, many otherwise intelligent retired people who insist on playing dumb about the situation we're in and why we're in it, because (I suspect) they're deeply ashamed of what they allowed if not encouraged to happen.

I've also met a few oldsters who truly do not give a damn about the future; they're the true "greedy geezers." Coincidentally, most of them never had kids. Figure that for what it's worth.

Many more I've met, thankfully, are not as they are.

PS

And I'm not "curious," either

Posted by: minor correction at July 28, 2011 07:50 PM (B60j2)

291 You have got to be kidding Me! You must think we are fools!
Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:48 PM (JMsOK)
I'm begining to. Why don't you do yourself a favor and look it up. On your i phone.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:50 PM (MtwBb)

292 @283
BINGO!
And the Baby Scammers and expect what?

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:50 PM (JMsOK)

293 Old people are wrinkly

Posted by: cherry π at July 28, 2011 07:50 PM (OhYCU)

294 BTW, I'm sitting here watching CSPAN (don't judge me) and it seems that the donks understand Boehner's plan better than many on the right. The donks are pissed because the part of the plan very few are focusing on is the second part of the plan which in the words of many donks requires cuts so large they can only be realized by reforming entitlements.

Posted by: JackStraw at July 28, 2011 07:51 PM (TMB3S)

295 I will NOT be ignored!

Posted by: Math at July 28, 2011 07:51 PM (yQWNf)

296 Yes, I understand that. But when we get to the point where we're paying out more than we can afford doesn't that signal we might need to change things up a bit?
Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 07:49 PM (k6J0r)
absolutey, that is why boomers will have to take a hit on medicare. Like the Ryan plan.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:51 PM (MtwBb)

297 @291
I don't have to...I probably know more about it than you do..."Mr. Full Faith and Credit of the Bankrput U.S.A"

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:52 PM (JMsOK)

298 If that's your plan fine. That still doesn't change the facts. The facts are that there isn't enough people behind you to pay the current benefits without a tax raise. If you choose not to do that it's your choice.
----------
No, see there are those of us who honest-to-god just want the welfare state to end and stop taking money from people. As in, people who don't want government benefits. Does this thought process not compute with you? Do you think everyone is just trying to find a way to keep government benefits from now until enternity?

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 07:52 PM (OX4OZ)

299
Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (MtwBb)

Look. I'm never getting SS and I've known this fact for a very, very, very long time. Everyone has. Not a single FICA bill have I had ripped from my wallet that I ever expected to see back. Not a one. This is the last generation that is going to be able to suckle at the breast of Mama SS. The 2042 death date just means that the programs are going to be totally dysfunctional LONG before that.

You can blame everyone because they are all responsible. But anyone who bitches about the need to cut it is the person most responsible at that moment. SS will be cut or it will cut us. There is a whole world of difference between killing a program - picking the time, place and manner - and having that program grow to kill everything around it and have it need to be hunted down in the wild, without any rules.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 28, 2011 07:52 PM (G/MYk)

300 If that's your plan fine. That
still doesn't change the facts. The facts are that there isn't enough
people behind you to pay the current benefits without a tax raise. If
you choose not to do that it's your choice.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:49 PM (MtwBb)
No, that's what the math demands. The system won't exist because it's bankrupt. There aren't enough people behind >you<. The deficit is gigantic >right now< and entitlements are the major problem.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:52 PM (uhAkr)

301 Ok, so the boomers paid in the whole time. Also they knew the system was broken but did nothing to fix, instead deciding that their kids and grand kids could deal with that. Oh and their retirement bills.

They really are the worst generation.

Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 07:52 PM (3jLFu)

302 Ah the arrogance (and assumption they know it all) of youth.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 07:53 PM (zPb4d)

303 Let's start from the beginning. First off, theconcept of "retirement" is a socialist idea.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 07:54 PM (I6NSI)

304 Ah the arrogance (and assumption they know it all) of youth.
-----------
I can play this game.
Ah the stubbornness (and assumption math isn't real) of the old.
I don't even get where this shit came from. I've never advocated for throwing old people off of their social welfare programs. But the fact is they have to be changed, and sometime in the very near future. It's either that, or society goes bankrupt and they get thrown off en masse whether they were ready for it or not.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 07:55 PM (OX4OZ)

305 Let's start from the beginning. First off, theconcept of "retirement" is a socialist idea.
Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 07:54 PM (I6NSI)
The duece you say!

Posted by: The French at July 28, 2011 07:56 PM (yQWNf)

306 @302 really, will you be here in 35 years? I plan on it, except at this rate, I don't know what here will look like then do you.

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 07:56 PM (nVLlM)

307 When the SS administration starts redeeming those IOU's, we get to pay for the bailout a second time, because those very special gov IOU's can only be redeemed by the Treasury Department...and in order to do so, they'll have to borrow more money, or taxes will have to increase to cover those obligations. In other words, this country is screwed.
Posted by: DngrMse at July 28, 2011 07:48 PM (3WmKX)
Sorry but you are wrong about that. They are US Treasury Bonds. They could sell them all tomorrow on the open market. You are right in that the government spent the money on other things and eventually will have to redeem the bonds when they come due but there is nothing special about the bonds.
Actually the tax raise in the 80's did work. No one figured on medical care going up so much. Like I said, Social Security is good until 2042.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:56 PM (MtwBb)

308 I'm sorry but when I said the Villages that's exactly what I meant. The Villages.

Exactly some minuscule percentage of 1% of the elderly you wish to extrapolate onto the entire generation over 65. That's not just bad thinking, that's dangerous.

But I'm sure you're happy as a clam when you see some old woman greeting you at Walmart. Sometime, when you're buying your brats genius kids some clothes, ask that old woman some serious question. Maybe what day of the week it is. Then come back and tell me how you think you should cut seniors off. Then think of yourself three decades down the road greeting people at Walmart.

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:56 PM (IhHdM)

309 "I remember them actually joking about how it wasn't their problem."
Got any links? To polls maybe? Or whatever.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 07:56 PM (ucq49)

310 Ah the arrogance (and assumption they know it all) of youth.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 07:53 PM (zPb4d)
When you get older, do you learn how to transmute base metals into gold? Cause musings about how the world has changed ain't gonna fix this one.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 07:57 PM (uhAkr)

311 301
Ok, so the boomers paid in the whole time. Also they knew the system
was broken but did nothing to fix, instead deciding that their kids and
grand kids could deal with that. Oh and their retirement bills.

They really are the worst generation.


Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 07:52 PM (3jLFu)
And on top of that, their weed sucked.

Posted by: SFGoth at July 28, 2011 07:57 PM (dZ756)

312 @180: "Really? The entitled won't take even a 1% hit? God, I hope we're not that far gone."
Simple fix - use the same method I did for converting my army!
Brother! Are you a Christian? No? *kill*
Brother! Are you a Christian? No? *kill*
Brother! Are you a Christian? Yes? Excellent!

Posted by: Emperor Constantine at July 28, 2011 07:58 PM (xy9wk)

313 They really are the worst generation.

They always were. The Boomers came in with an entitlement mentality, and have every intention of going out the same way.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:58 PM (IhrXZ)

314 Ok, so the boomers paid in the whole time. Also they knew the system was broken but did nothing to fix, instead deciding that their kids and grand kids could deal with that. Oh and their retirement bills. They really are the worst generation.
Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 07:52 PM (3jLFu)
Yeah they did nothing except double their social security and medicare tax in the 80's. Are you ready to do that now or are you the worst generation.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:58 PM (MtwBb)

315 "They are US Treasury Bonds. They could sell them all tomorrow on the open market."
Uh...Hello? And that means a massive tax increase to pay off the buyer!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:59 PM (JMsOK)

316 Sorry but you are wrong about that. They are US Treasury Bonds. They
could sell them all tomorrow on the open market.

They could sell several trillion dollars worth of bonds? Where's that money come from?


Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 08:00 PM (uhAkr)

317 Government math= spend a dollar to save a penny.

Posted by: ziptie at July 28, 2011 08:00 PM (JOgKo)

318 Exactly some minuscule percentage of 1% of the elderly you wish to extrapolate onto the entire generation over 65. That's not just bad thinking, that's dangerous.But I'm sure you're happy as a clam when you see some old woman greeting you at Walmart. Sometime, when you're buying your brats genius kids some clothes, ask that old woman some serious question. Maybe what day of the week it is. Then come back and tell me how you think you should cut seniors off. Then think of yourself three decades down the road greeting people at Walmart.
------------
That's right ladies and gentlemen, because for 5,000 years society didn't make it without social fucking security.
I truly hope that when I'm an old man, I won't be sitting at my computer demanding someone else pay for my shit because I somehow deserve their money. That's a sad, sad thought.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:00 PM (OX4OZ)

319 curious just wants to put the SS back into Social Security.

Posted by: andycanuck at July 28, 2011 08:01 PM (oUG6f)

320 "...B to the H to the O..."

WTF does that "to the" horseshit mean anyways??

Posted by: FORGER - Racist Czar at July 28, 2011 08:01 PM (YGzTa)

321 They could sell several trillion dollars worth of bonds? Where's that money come from?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 08:00 PM (uhAkr)
Jeebus, do you know anything at all about the bond market? The money would come from whoever bought the bonds.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:01 PM (MtwBb)

322 Yeah, she deserved the 'fuck you' because I know 100
times as many penniless seniors with issues that would make you retch
who need every penny of the money they put into a system in good faith
returned.

Well first, if they are on medicare with a chronic condition, they will chew up the *ahem* good faith money they put in fairly rapidly. Then what? How much should we tax, when should we stop? What part of we can't afford don't you understand. You expect me to be the destitute senior with no benefits, but won't put any onus on previous generations is completely in bad faith.

They paid in. They paid for the previous generation. Now their isn't enough money for them. Their is no getting your money back, the system has always been taking from the next generation.

We don't have that much to give.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:01 PM (0q2P7)

323 Yeah they did nothing except double their social security and medicare tax in the 80's. Are you ready to do that now or are you the worst generation.
------------
Um, no. See a lot of the people here, at this blog, are preparing to live life w/o the social welfare state. Actually, many of us welcome it.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:01 PM (OX4OZ)

324 "They are US Treasury Bonds. They could sell them all tomorrow on the open market."
Backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at July 28, 2011 08:02 PM (yQWNf)

325 This just goes to show the power of compound interest and the rule of 72. If you grow the baseline by 7% every year, the baseline doubles in 10 years.
If not the penny plan, at least eliminate "baseline budgeting". It's working for Chris Christie in New Jersey.
By the way, Rush has been beating on baseline budgeting for years. Glad to see some more people coming to the party.

Posted by: Dogbert at July 28, 2011 08:02 PM (QzdXI)

326 "They really are the worst generation."
Yea, they’re only the core of the Tea Party.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 08:03 PM (ucq49)

327 And another prediction I remember from years ago is coming true: SS and Medicare will ulitmately provoke a generational war. It's come true and that war between the young and old is occuring right here, and amongst our own side.
It always was a Ponzi scheme, dependent on an ever growing population to work. Well, as anyone with any sense knows, exponential growth cannot go on forever. The comment above about the current generation not breeding enough illustrates this.
This "bug" in the system was known from the start, just so far off in the future they didn't care at the time. Well, the future is here.

Posted by: publius(NotBreitbartPublius) at July 28, 2011 08:03 PM (VVB18)

328 @314
"Are you ready to do that now or are you the worst generation."
No....the theory of a "Growth" economyis being shot out of the water by the Baby Scammers.....we will not have an economy of the future to support that. And if we do it. It means a massive change in the standard of living....how exactly sure are you what the younger generation looking up at the Baby Scammersthink about that?

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:03 PM (JMsOK)

329 Uh...Hello? And that means a massive tax increase to pay off the buyer!
Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 07:59 PM (JMsOK)
No genius, the bonds have already been issued. As they come due they will need to be payed off regardless of who owns them. Right now the Social Security Administration owns them.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:04 PM (MtwBb)

330 Sorry but you are wrong about
that. They are US Treasury Bonds. They could sell them all tomorrow on
the open market. You are right in that the government spent the money on
other things and eventually will have to redeem the bonds when they
come due but there is nothing special about the bonds.
Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:56 PM (MtwBb)
They couldn't sell them tomorrow in the open market. They aren't regular Treasuries. They're Special Treasuries (in Barky's sense of "Special") tailored specifically for the legal fiction of the SS lockbox.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 28, 2011 08:04 PM (G/MYk)

331 "Yea, they’re only the core of the Tea Party."

What is the size of the Tea Party? 10 Million strong? It is not enough and we are not impressed!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:04 PM (JMsOK)

332 I truly hope that when I'm an old man, I won't be sitting at my computer
demanding someone else pay for my shit because I somehow deserve their
money. That's a sad, sad thought.

Don't worry, we probably won't be able to afford computers.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 08:04 PM (IhrXZ)

333 robtr - cute idea. I can pay in double what I pay in now so you can continue to live a comfortable retirement without taking any kind of cuts. And in return, I still get nothing when it's my turn to retire. How are the boomers not the most selfish and useless assholes to ever pull a voting lever in the history of this country?

Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 08:05 PM (3jLFu)

334 No....the theory of a "Growth" economyis being shot out of the water by the Baby Scammers.....we will not have an economy of the future to support that. And if we do it. It means a massive change in the standard of living....how exactly sure are you what the younger generation looking up at the Baby Scammersthink about that?
Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:03 PM (JMsOK)
Ok, well then start saving because there just aren't enough people behind you to pay your benefits.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:06 PM (MtwBb)

335 Yeah, I already told my wife that when her father passes, her mother is moving in with us. I know what is coming. Economically, it'll be necessary. But, it's tradition. And it's the way it used to be.
When I was younger, my parents moved their surviving parent into our house.
But, we Americans, we got so sophisticated and educated, the magazines told us it was better to ship your old folks off to a nursing home or a retirement community. And we have spent a shit-load of money on a stupid idea.
Did I mention my grandmother cooked bread for us every day or so when she lived with us?

I read somewhere recently that postulated that the elderly keep different sleep hours and were light sleepers as an evolutionary benefit so they could remain a use to the tribe keeping watch since they couldn't hunt.

Posted by: Jimmuy at July 28, 2011 08:06 PM (W789i)

336 Jeebus, do you know anything at all about the bond market? The money would come from whoever bought the bonds.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:01 PM (MtwBb)
*blink* *blink*So you have no idea who would buy the bonds. But somebody would. Gotcha.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 08:06 PM (uhAkr)

337 I just don't comprehend how someone can call themselves a conservative and absolutely demand with complete moral conviction that some other, supposedly free individual, owes them a part of their wage from now until they die. That's simply not the thought process of someone who believes in freedom and liberty.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:07 PM (OX4OZ)

338 Don't worry, we probably won't be able to afford computers.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 08:04 PM (IhrXZ)
Meh. Computers will be widely available at dollar stores ... for a dollar! It's the 27,000 different federal fees and taxes to get online that will keep people away.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 28, 2011 08:07 PM (G/MYk)

339 you, the me generation put us here and now you demand your checks, you should be paying all of us back for putting up with you.
Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 07:35 PM (k1rwm)
Go fuck yourself you sanctimonius ignorant little twat. You are an insult to the intelligence of everyone under 30 that posts here. You are a brain dead vapid vile passive aggressive little shit and haven't a clue about anything going on outside of your ignorant friends you lying little troll.

Posted by: buzzion at July 28, 2011 08:08 PM (oVQFe)

340 @334

What does that mean? I take it as the tast of my ass will be some much dirtier when you don't get dick after paying in all your life. I could be wrong though because I might have missed something - if Idid I apologize.

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 08:08 PM (nVLlM)

341 robtr:
"The Department of the Treasury currently invests all program revenues in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government on which a market rate of interest is credited."
That sentence is taken directly from the 2011 Trustees report. Also, this year's report indicates that - assuming those securities are worth their stated value - the SS portion is good through 2035, not 2042. And the longer the economy stinks, the faster that end date is going to move closer to now.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 08:08 PM (7EV/g)

342 Ok, well then start saving because there just aren't enough people behind you to pay your benefits.
----------
Now there's an idea. Save your own money and pay for your own retirement. Who would've thought?

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:08 PM (OX4OZ)

343 Sorry but you are wrong about that. They are US Treasury Bonds. They could sell them all tomorrow on the open market. You are right in that the government spent the money on other things and eventually will have to redeem the bonds when they come due but there is nothing special about the bonds.
Jesus, such misinformation. The IOUs in the trust funds are **NON-MARKETABLE**. They can't be sold on the open market. They can only be redeemed by Treasury itself, which must either pay it with taxes or more borrowing from the public (which issues real marketable debt).
If those non-marketable GAS bonds suddenly became marketable, the T bond supply would increase by about 50%. And what happens to prices when supply increases? They go down, meaning yields go up.
Our real borrowing limit is determined by what the market will bear (or the Fed can print, which just devalues the currency while keeping nominal rates low)

Posted by: publius(NotBreitbartPublius) at July 28, 2011 08:09 PM (VVB18)

344 Then come back and tell me how you think you should cut seniors off.
Then think of yourself three decades down the road greeting people at
Walmart.

You know, I've actually worked with the elderly. I can look them in the eye and say, "we can't afford it" because those words are true. I can also look them in the eye and say "Because during your life you allowed benefits to grow beyond what we could reasonably support" because that would be true.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:09 PM (0q2P7)

345 "As they come due they will need to be payed off regardless of who owns them."
OMG.....And what does mean Brainiac?
1.) Massive Tax Increase or,
2.) Decrease in Benefit
3.) Required Massive Growth in the Economy, which no one belieives is on near horizon

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:09 PM (JMsOK)

346 Hey Other Coyote at #277
The only true security is family. I sacrificed for my five children, they all turned out OK or better, and I expect they will make sure I'm warm and cozy and well-feed when I'm old and useless.
Of course, I lived a responsible, safe,life of risk avoidance. When I do retire, I'm buying a motorcycle, doing some skydiving, trying out some hot Tijuana whores, and getting me some of thatheroin math crackstuff I hear so much about.
Wahoo!
SS is a scam, I could have done MUCH better if I had been able to keep the 14% of my earnings (7% mine and 7% employer) I've paid in since my first full-time job in 1969.

Posted by: Whitehall at July 28, 2011 08:09 PM (FmPSC)

347 @334,
"Ok, well then start saving because there just aren't enough people behind you to pay your benefits."
I'm way ahead of you!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:10 PM (JMsOK)

348 robtr - cute idea. I can pay in double what I pay in now so you can continue to live a comfortable retirement without taking any kind of cuts. And in return, I still get nothing when it's my turn to retire. How are the boomers not the most selfish and useless assholes to ever pull a voting lever in the history of this country?
Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 08:05 PM (3jLFu)
It has nothing to do with my retirement. I keep trying to point that out to you but you just can't seem to grasp the fact that I am perfectly willing to take a cut in medicare and like I said. We already paid into Social Security.
It's your retirement and the rest of your fellow geniuses that voted overwhelmingly for democrats and Obama that is going to have a problem.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:10 PM (MtwBb)

349 They always were. The Boomers came in with an entitlement mentality, and have every intention of going out the same way.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 07:58 PM (IhrXZ)

You're really a sad, bitter person. You can say that for some Boomers just like you could saythat for every generation. Most of the of the Boomers that I knowhave worked hard all their lives and are just as concerned about this economy as anyone else. We've never liked the throwing our money down the SS shithole. Most of us knew it was a losing proposition for everyone.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 08:11 PM (I6NSI)

350 No genius, the bonds have already
been issued. As they come due they will need to be payed off regardless
of who owns them. Right now the Social Security Administration owns
them.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:04 PM (MtwBb)
Prepare yourself for an unpleasant truth.
Social Security is pay as you go because there would be deflation if we pulled out all that money and put it away in a rainy day fund. So the government spent the money and gave SS IOU's.
Yes, those bonds will come due, but there's a whole heck of a lot of them and we don't have the money to make them worth anything.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 08:11 PM (uhAkr)

351 The only true security is family. I sacrificed for my five children, they all turned out OK or better, and I expect they will make sure I'm warm and cozy and well-feed when I'm old and useless.
-----------
What? Family taking care of family? Another odd and very dangerous idea.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:11 PM (OX4OZ)

352 "What is the size of the Tea Party? 10 Million strong? It is not enough and we are not impressed!"
Thank youSenator MCain. That's pathetic. The only strides being made are because of the Tea Party.
Yeah they did nothing except double their social security and medicare tax in the 80's. Are you ready to do that now or are you the worst generation.
Maybe they have a point. Worst “parenting” generation. Seems like we raised a lot of selfish whiny brats. Our bad.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 08:11 PM (ucq49)

353 I'm way ahead of you!
Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:10 PM (JMsOK)
good and buy some gold because this Obama character that your generation elected is causing some problems.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:12 PM (MtwBb)

354 It's your retirement and the rest of your fellow geniuses that voted overwhelmingly for democrats and Obama that is going to have a problem.
----------------
Are you currently alive or is this some sort of time-travel thing?
You lived through the Obama election. You own his presidency as much as we do.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:13 PM (OX4OZ)

355 @270: "P.S. I'M serious about the Senior Zombie Brigade coming to get you punks!"
Yeah, 'cause everyone knows that the Volkssturm were the baddest-ass force in the history of badasses. Because we hear all the time in the news about how gangs of "youth" are menaced by seniors.
Color me unconcerned.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 28, 2011 08:14 PM (xy9wk)

356 #307 Robtr

Sorry but you are wrong about that. They are US Treasury Bonds. They
could sell them all tomorrow on the open market. You are right in that
the government spent the money on other things and eventually will have
to redeem the bonds when they come due but there is nothing special
about the bonds.

Yeah...about that. It seems that you're talking out of the deepest, darkest recesses of your alimentary canal, dude.

"
The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget (In political jargon, it was proposed to be taken “off-budget.” Yet today Social Security is treated like all the other trust funds of the Unified Budget.
It is a political way of using a cash budget instead of the more
appropriate accrual budget (for all the budgets in the U.S. government),
and a way of disguising total debt. This provision also provided for the exemption of Social Security and
portions of the Medicare trust funds from any general budget cuts
beginning in 1993. This change was one way of trying to protect Social Security funds for the future.
As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the
Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of
funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby
boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series,
non-marketable U.S. Treasury Securities
held by the Social Security Trust Fund. In other words, Congress
borrowed the surpluses from the Social Security system; the Treasury
securities held by the S.S. Trust fund are U.S. government "I.O.U.s".

Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed
by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Because the
government had adopted the unified budget during the Johnson
administration, this surplus offsets the total fiscal debt, making it
look much smaller.
There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social
Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other
government programs and other tax cuts."http://tinyurl.com/gonuv



Posted by: DngrMse at July 28, 2011 08:14 PM (3WmKX)

357 Yes, those bonds will come due, but there's a whole heck of a lot of them and we don't have the money to make them worth anything.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 08:11 PM (uhAkr)
Well they are part of the $14 Trillion so if you are saying we're going to default then none of this matters anyways. We will just be another 3rd world shithole.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:14 PM (MtwBb)

358 No, like the math that you all bring up, retirement IS A FACT OF LIFE.

If you manage to live long enough (and that varies according to genetics and luck) you WILL get to a point where you can't DO the same things you used to.

That can include just sitting at a desk or standing at a machine.

Buy a pedometer and measure how much you walk all day at your work and at home. You'll be surprised.

Now imagine you can only do half or less of that distance. How do you get done what needs doing? You can't so you limit yourself to what you can do and when you can do it.

That doesn't count the physical exertion of performing any other job that doesn't entail just sitting at a desk.

It can happen gradually or it can happen relatively quickly and suddenly you find yourself unable to do the tasks you used to do without thinking about it.

So no, retirement isn't a socialist idea it's a recognition that at some point you will not be able to support yourself by your own labor.

In the past when families were closer and the work was a farm it was possible to take care of those in this condition. They could still be productive because allowances were made and activities they could perform were assigned so that they contributed something to their support.

Now with society and work structured as it is, along with the nuclear family, it's no longer feasible for those who live to old age to be found useful occupation or be cared for by family.

During the depression this became more obvious and SS was born. Yes it was a 'Ponzi' scheme from the beginning. But paying anything to the government is an investment in the future. You pay now for the things the government can do that will keep you safe in the future or help you if fortune turns against you. SS and medicare was a compassionate response to a problem caused by progress and technology.

The problem came about when the Democrats seized upon these programs as a way to 'pay' off certain constituencies and as they grew, more and more became Democrat sympathizers out of self-defense.

Even now the Republicans (and some here) come off as unfeeling and cruel because those who have need see only that their lives will be more miserable and painful. Those who cry 'Cut, Cut' don't bother to answer the question; "what do we do with those who have no other choices? No family. No retirement savings. No insurance.

Some here would say (monty, I'm talking to you) "tough. you didn't plan for your retirement. you didn't think ahead. you didn't FORESEE THE FUTURE!"

Believe me, if I'd had the money and/or had the foresight, I would've but I didn't and so did millions of others. Are we to be ignored, treated like an inconvenience and tossed away like yesterday's garbage? Then you are no better than the Democrats. For all their talk about the disenfranchised, it's them who believe in killing babies and it's them who believe in euthanasia.

Say what you will we're not going to be that easy to get rid of. And that's a fact of life just like Math.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 08:14 PM (zPb4d)

359 Maybe they have a point. Worst “parenting” generation. Seems like we raised a lot of selfish whiny brats. Our bad.
-------------
Wait, wait, hold up. So the generation who is preparing to live life w/o social welfare, THEY'RE the selfish ones? Got it. It's not the ones who are demanding other people pay for their stuff? Just want to be on the same page here.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:15 PM (OX4OZ)

360 I just don't comprehend how someone can call themselves a conservative
and absolutely demand with complete moral conviction that some other,
supposedly free individual, owes them a part of their wage from now
until they die. That's simply not the thought process of someone who
believes in freedom and liberty.

Nice little speech. Can you back that up with a quote from any comment?

I've said in the past I believe in means testing -- which means I may very well never receive a cent in SS. I ran a business for decades, faithfully withholding my own and employees SS 'contribution' and then doubling the check -- as employers are required. That hurt like a summabitch.

But I also realized that I couldn't afford a private retirement account for my employees. I assured them that SS was safe, actuarially sound. Because I read the reports every couple of years. I didn't vote myself extra SS benefits. I voted for fiscal conservatives whenever possible, which isn't often enough.

The very first baby boomers are collecting checks this year. Let me repeat -- this year. You're ready to lynch the wrong people for your own gain. I don't know how anyone can self-report as conservative and be so utterly stupid.

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 08:15 PM (IhHdM)

361 This country has been socialist since SS passed.Longer than that even.Time to get back to be a Democratic Republic.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 08:16 PM (fq7xf)

362 will I get blamed for everything from the time of conception until I die as "my generation"or just from the point of my birth until the day I died? Or, just from the age of 18 on???

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 08:16 PM (nVLlM)

363 @352,
"Worst “parenting” generation. Seems like we raised a lot of selfish whiny brats. Our bad"
Hey Dude....all we ask is that don;t whine about a problem you created. If you expecting us to pick up your tab when you left us a non growth over debted European economy....you are sorely mistaken!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:16 PM (JMsOK)

364 Factoids of Generational American Politics:

The Boomers gave us Obama ... intentionally.

A bunch of Jewish seniors in Florida saved America from Al Gore ... unintentionally.


That is all.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 28, 2011 08:17 PM (G/MYk)

365 Fix: also pass law that entitlement recipients forgo their federal voting rights while on the dole. Plan and simple, an entitlement is no different that a bribe, you take the bribe you lose the vote. it is the only way the Republic will continue and it is close to what the founders had in mind before the progressives and weak Conservatives gave away the vote to those with no skin in the game.

Posted by: Rob in Katy at July 28, 2011 08:17 PM (PiTBB)

366 Yea, they’re only the core of the Tea Party.
Millions of great people came out of the Boomer generation. Like every other, they've produced both good and bad.

But it's because the Boomers were and are so numerically huge, so much bigger than the generations that came before and after it (and they will live longer than any before it), that the bad they produced has had a proportionately massive influence over society and public policy, and will cast such a long shadow over the future.
We'll be paying for the Boomers for a long time to come.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 08:17 PM (IhrXZ)

367 Posted by: DngrMse at July 28, 2011 08:14 PM (3WmKX)
Really? Like they say. Read the whole thing. From your cut and paste.
Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:17 PM (MtwBb)

368 But paying anything to the government is an investment in the future. You pay now for the things the government can do that will keep you safe in the future or help you if fortune turns against you. SS and medicare was a compassionate response to a problem caused by progress and technology.
--------------
That whole statement right there is proof you're at the wrong place, friend.
A hard-core conservative website that is run by a guy who just said he probably leans more and more libertarian everyday is the opposite of what you're looking for.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:18 PM (OX4OZ)

369 You lived through the Obama election. You own his presidency as much as we do.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:13 PM (OX4OZ)

Don't be pushing that onus on me. I didn't vote for the POS. So I don't ownanything that has to do with this regime. I'm just trying tosurvive it.

Posted by: Soona at July 28, 2011 08:18 PM (I6NSI)

370 Hey fuckheads, we're doing our part!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: The Duggars at July 28, 2011 08:18 PM (/WZ6r)

371 Bullshit, you just suggested that I pay double so you can retire even though it won't do me any good.

Why don't we limit your payouts to what you paid in plus a yearly adjustment? How's that sound? You're so willing to take a cut, but demand double taxes for those of us supporting you. Do you not see what a shit stain you are?

Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 08:18 PM (3jLFu)

372 The very first baby boomers are collecting checks
this year. Let me repeat -- this year. You're ready to lynch the wrong
people for your own gain. I don't know how anyone can self-report as conservative and be so utterly stupid.


Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 08:15 PM (IhHdM)
No, they have already started collecting.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at July 28, 2011 08:19 PM (uhAkr)

373 @303: "Let's start from the beginning. First off, theconcept of "retirement" is a socialist idea."
Actually, we came up with the concept of "retirement". It came from ourword that means "moveyour ass to that tree over there, and wait for the lions to show up".

Posted by: Bushmen of the Olduvvai Gorge at July 28, 2011 08:20 PM (xy9wk)

374 We never knew we had so much support from the AOSHQ

Posted by: AARP at July 28, 2011 08:21 PM (nVLlM)

375 @371
That is the Funny! ROFLMAO!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:21 PM (JMsOK)

376 You're really a sad, bitter person.

You again, Soona? You always doth protest too much.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 08:21 PM (IhrXZ)

377 Why don't we limit your payouts to what you paid in plus a yearly adjustment? How's that sound? You're so willing to take a cut, but demand double taxes for those of us supporting you. Do you not see what a shit stain you are?
Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 08:18 PM (3jLFu)
Deal dumfuck. I already did the math on that. Between what I and my employers over the years paid in including a paltry 2% interest it comes to $1.5 Million.
I'll take my check now.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:22 PM (MtwBb)

378 The very first baby boomers are collecting checks this year. Let me repeat -- this year. You're ready to lynch the wrong people for your own gain. I don't know how anyone can self-report as conservative and be so utterly stupid.
------------
Wrong, this is about saving this entire society from being swallowed by a social welfare state. This is your first mistake. You assume the whole conversation is about me, me, me. No, it's about doing what's best for the country as a whole.
Second, I support a plan that gradually moves society away from these programs. I don't agree with tossing people off who are on them or about to be on them. But I will NEVER understand someone who has this mentality that someone else whom they never met somehow owes them and if they dare to question that logic, they are called selfish.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:22 PM (OX4OZ)

379 we already paid into Social Security.
It's your retirement and the rest of your fellow
geniuses that voted overwhelmingly for democrats and Obama that is going
to have a problem.
Um no..You paid for the preceeding generation. What should we do? Double the SS tax every generation until it is 100%
That's your plan, make every generation an indentured servant to the one prior? No this mess is squarely the boomers fault, but claim they have to take just a little bite of the responsibility apple and all the sudden they find their inner socialist that is entitled to their kids money.

Ok how about this. Since YOU paid into SS, and obviously fully funded YOUR retirement. We can just stop SS and MC programs *right now*, no contributions, end, fin, and when the money runs out, you are SOL. How about that?Hmm how about that. My generation forgoes 100% benefits to stop paying your shortfall for your benefits for your mismanaged program? And my kids never have to worry about paying for me?Or will you realize that you are asking your kids to pay a larger share than you payed in your lifetime because of decisions made in your lifetime and agree some cuts in benefits is appropriate.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:23 PM (0q2P7)

380 @378
O.K. Then....are you starting to see our point?

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:23 PM (JMsOK)

381 @326: "Yea, they’re only the core of the Tea Party."
Which was, of course, founded on the mantra of "Don't cut SS or Medicare!"

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 28, 2011 08:24 PM (xy9wk)

382 I'll take my check now.Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:22 PM (MtwBb)
Of course you will.

I wonder if any of the unselfish Boomers that I know are out there ever post on AoS.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 08:24 PM (IhrXZ)

383 Don't be pushing that onus on me. I didn't vote for the POS. So I don't ownanything that has to do with this regime. I'm just trying tosurvive it.
-------
I wish people would read the entire conversation. That was a response to the guy who was saying "you guys gave us Obama." Well, that logic just doesn't hold up when here he is living and voting through Obama. He owns just as much as anyone else alive right now...if that's his standard.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:25 PM (OX4OZ)

384 Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:15 PM (OX4OZ)
I'm not sure, maybe we got our wires twisted. The Boomers are the only generation that has paid in since Day1. The Boomers doubled SS taxes so therd's be a system w/ money when we retired. The Boomers are the core of the Tea Party, that has caused the largest shift (in perspective) in American history.
So I'm pooing pooing the "worst generation" meme. It seems though that the Boomers are the worst "parenting" generation because of all the selfish, whiny, brats we raised. You can also blame us the the brats the generation after us raised too.
Is that clearer?

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 08:25 PM (ucq49)

385 Well sorry but you heard wrong. Thereare $2.5 Trillion in US Treasury Bonds in the Social Security Surplus.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:41 PM (MtwBb)
You are shitting me right? You realize that those are IOUs the government issued to itself?

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:26 PM (LD21B)

386 Nice try at re-writing history. You lose.

Fuck you, too.


Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:44 PM (IhHdM)
A piece of work.

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:26 PM (LD21B)

387 So I'm pooing pooing the "worst generation" meme. It seems though that the Boomers are the worst "parenting" generation because of all the selfish, whiny, brats we raised. You can also blame us the the brats the generation after us raised too.
Is that clearer?
--------
It was clear the first time. Explain to me how someone who realizes the system can't continue and is preparing to live life w/o the same social security nets is "selfish." Please, enlighten.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:27 PM (OX4OZ)

388 So I'm pooing pooing the "worst generation" meme. It seems though that
the Boomers are the worst "parenting" generation because of all the
selfish, whiny, brats we raised. You can also blame us the the brats
the generation after us raised too.

Another hallmark of the Boomers is that they never did take responsibility for much.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at July 28, 2011 08:27 PM (IhrXZ)

389 I do wonder what retirement would be like for seniors if there never was SS. There is no real motivation for me to do something above and beyond for the issue when I consider that the government TAKES already for this issue. Thats is my problem - give more to a system that has proven it is broken and run by a bunch of fucks with the knowledge that it probably won't be there for me - the things I could have done with all that money I paid into SS.

Posted by: X11b at July 28, 2011 08:27 PM (nVLlM)

390 Yeah I know that but it has
nothing to do with the current retirees or the baby boomers. They
weren't going to be paying for your retirement. The way the system works
is that the people behind pay for the people going into retirement.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:45 PM (MtwBb)
Exactly, there is no surplus.

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:28 PM (LD21B)

391 #368 Robtr

"Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government"

So...in other words, we, the people paying for all this lovely shyte, get to be stuck with the bill for the full face value of those bonds, once they're redeemed with the Treasury Department, (which is the only way they can be redeemed), along with interest, after we've already payed for these surpluses once through increased 'contributions'? Is that what you're saying? And this is a good thing?

Posted by: DngrMse at July 28, 2011 08:28 PM (3WmKX)

392 >No, they have already started collecting.

I could make the same argument about the children of boomers (who died early) that have collected for decades. My own BIL paid into the system for two and a half decades and died in his early 50's. Leaving two children penniless.

Blame the current coming shortfall on the boomer who died after paying up the @ss for decades?

Exit ?: Do you think his children should receive any percentage of the money he paid in, or remain penniless?

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 08:29 PM (IhHdM)

393 Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government
Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:17 PM (MtwBb)
Do you know what that means? I don't want to be disrespectful, but since you're the one who was telling people they don't know what they were talking about I'm going to have to do the same to you. You asserted that the Treasuries held by SSA are marketable. They are not. They can only be redeemed by SSA from the Treasury. Several of us have given the relevant cites for that, but it doesn't seem to penetrate. You also asserted that the program is solvent through 2042. It is not, and I gave the cite for that.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 08:29 PM (7EV/g)

394 Sorry but you are wrong about
that. They are US Treasury Bonds. They could sell them all tomorrow on
the open market. You are right in that the government spent the money on
other things and eventually will have to redeem the bonds when they
come due but there is nothing special about the bonds.
Actually the tax raise in the 80's did work. No one
figured on medical care going up so much. Like I said, Social Security
is good until 2042.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 07:56 PM (MtwBb)
No, you are the mistaken one. Those bonds cannot be sold on the open market. Please inform yourself better by reading Monty's financial posts.

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:29 PM (LD21B)

395 "Which was, of course, founded on the mantra of "Don't cut SS or Medicare!"
Not even close, but I'm sure you'll provide something to backup that assertion. The Tea Party was actually birthed from the Porkbusters.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 08:30 PM (ucq49)

396 And there is the key to a boomer :"Between what I and my employers over the years paid in," nevermind that I didn't pay it in, give it to me anyway!

And let's do some simple math then. 1.5 million you say? Over the average 30 years you say? You put in 50k per year on average? I am sorry but there is no fucking way.

Over 40 years? 38k per year? Again, there is no fucking way.

I think you need a new calculator.

Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 08:30 PM (3jLFu)

397 Not even close, but I'm sure you'll provide something to backup that assertion. The Tea Party was actually birthed from the Porkbusters.
--------------
He was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:30 PM (OX4OZ)

398 Jeebus, do you know anything at all about the bond market? The money would come from whoever bought the bonds.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:01 PM (MtwBb)
Your ignorance is showing, just a tip.

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:30 PM (LD21B)

399 @385,
"selfish, whiny,"
Hey Listen Buddy! We are the one with the looming crisis in our Elder Years coming.You guys are the ones whinning because you expect us to screw ourselves all for your FishingFriday at the Cabin
Selfish? We don't have the opportunity you had to live a standard of living you enjoyed your entire life Asshole!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:31 PM (JMsOK)

400 Don't worry!The magic printing presses can just run night and day and there will be plenty of money for everyone!Right?

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 08:31 PM (fq7xf)

401 The Tea Party was actually birthed from the Porkbusters.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 08:30 PM (ucq49)
The Tea Party was the eventual emergence of the anti-amnesty coalition that got going in 2005 to stop Congress from ramming amnesty down our throats. I put that as the true beginning of the formation of the later Tea Party. It has been about various fundamental Constitutional issues, for the most part.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 28, 2011 08:32 PM (G/MYk)

402 My retirement's set, bitchez...

Posted by: Octomom at July 28, 2011 08:32 PM (/WZ6r)

403 SS ain't in the Constitution btw.

Posted by: steevy at July 28, 2011 08:33 PM (fq7xf)

404 Exactly, there is no surplus.
Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:28 PM (LD21B)
Read 357, there are $2.5 Trillion in Government Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:34 PM (MtwBb)

405 The way the system works
is that the people behind pay for the people going into retirement.

Yes exactly. So when your generation got all those sweeet sweeet benies put in you were knowingly committing us to pay a much bigger burden than you would have thanks to the generation sizes.

Now your all.."No backsies" and shit. Ahem pardon me. The program is broke, you broke it, and you should have some of the sacrifice in fixing it.

Ohhh. This is all moot anyway. We are going to collapse economically, and there will be no more money for you. Maybe you'll get what "unsustainable" means then.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:34 PM (0q2P7)

406 Exit ?: Do you think his children should receive any percentage of the money he paid in, or remain penniless?

Assuming that they're adults (and they most likely would be if their father was in his 50's), I expect them to get a job and support themselves. The money that your BIL paid in the form of the SS tax was spent on then-current recipients almost as fast as it came in.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 28, 2011 08:35 PM (SY2Kh)

407 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 07:56 PM (IhHdM)

Pardon my absence. I had to go put my "geniuses" down for the evening.

What about the saying the Villages don't you understand? I don't have a problem helping people who are poor. I don't have a problem helping old people who are poor. I do have a problem handing out tax dollars to people who live in 200 thousand dollar houses and sit on the golf course all day. Which is why I said the Villages instead of retirees. But I guess that would require a second's more thought than throwing out a "fuck you and your brats."

So, basically you've insulted me and my children for no good reason.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 08:35 PM (k6J0r)

408 Read 357, there are $2.5 Trillion in Government Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:34 PM (MtwBb)
No, those are bonds issued to the social security admin and can only be redeemed at the Treasury, they cannot be sold on the open market.Please do a search for Monty's financial posts, he lays it all out.

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:36 PM (LD21B)

409 SS ain't in the Constitution btw.
-------------
This is a different breed of conservative. Follow the Constitution, except when it involves social welfare, then give me because you owe it.
Again, I'm not for throwing people off of these programs who are on these programs, but this one guy, robtr, who is arguing like we should continue these programs into infinite needs to realize that is simply not in-line with conservative thinking.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:38 PM (OX4OZ)

410 "Please, enlighten."
I wasn't singling you out. I was talking to the general crowd that wants to dump on the old folks. If you're in that crowd, then so be it. Most Boomers aren't expecting to get the SS MC we were told would be waiting for us in the lock box. Most Boomers are more than willing to take cuts to save the system.
The greatest generation paid precious little into either SS or MC, but you didn't hear Boomers whining about. We've shouldered their cost w/o complaint. So its a little rankling to hear all the dump on the old folks.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 08:38 PM (ucq49)

411 Posted by: Old man with bad teeth

Just to clarify, I'm not looking to starve you, buddy. I'm cool with a 1% cut to EVERYTHING. And I'd be even better if we could root out all the loafers in the system. Get rid of the Adult Baby Guy's funding and anyone else like him. Please!

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 08:38 PM (k6J0r)

412 Yes exactly. So when your generation got all those sweeet sweeet benies put in you were knowingly committing us to pay a much bigger burden than you would have thanks to the generation sizes. Now your all.."No backsies" and shit. Ahem pardon me. The program is broke, you broke it, and you should have some of the sacrifice in fixing it.Ohhh. This is all moot anyway. We are going to collapse economically, and there will be no more money for you. Maybe you'll get what "unsustainable" means then.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:34 PM (0q2P7)
You kids these days don't know much, especially about history.
Social Security started in the 1930's quite a bit before my generation was born. Medicare started in 1965 I think, I was 13. The greatest generation was in charge then. All we did was raise taxes on ourselves to pay for it.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:39 PM (MtwBb)

413 @405
"Read 357, there are $2.5 Trillion in Government Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government."
You forgot to explain the "Full Faith and Credit" part there Pal!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:39 PM (JMsOK)

414 Read 357, there are $2.5 Trillion in Government Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:34 PM (MtwBb)
robtr, that's funny money that needs to be printed, borrowed, or stolen from future earners to be physically realized. It doesn't exist.New York real estate people used to do this as they were turning a building co-op. They would mortgage the bulding to the hilt, take the cash, and then sell the co-ops off, with the mortgage service just being tacked onto the maintenance fees. Maintenance fees were so outrageous in Manhattan that people just accepted them and ended up paying twice for their apartments. They didn't care as prices were skyrocketing, which hid the ... issue. It wasn't fraud since everyone knew exactly what they were buying - price and maintenance - so there was nothing being held back. Anyway, that's what was done with SS and the Treasuries they hold. We're buying the co-op at twice the price.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at July 28, 2011 08:39 PM (G/MYk)

415 So, Rich, you don't believe in any government?

If the answer is yes then at least you're consistent.

If the answer is no then who is going to pay for that government?

You put in taxes now while there's no war or storms or tornados and if, (in the future), you need the help of government then you have paid for the future from the past. That's all I meant.

Want to devolve the government's size and reach? I'm all for it. Problem is, it can't be done overnight. You can't build and edifice for150 years and expect to dissolve it over night. What we're really arguing about is WHO TAKES THE BIGGEST HIT.

Yeah, I know it's going to happen whether we want it to or not. (Unless some in DC and the country has a flash of sanity. ) However, examine what has happened to other governments when they went through the same thing we're going through now.

They reached a point of hyperinflation and had to restructure the monetary system and whatever largess was being handed out by the government but it still collected taxes and it still was there. And it mostly looked the same and functioned the same.

Some form of government will exist. The only real choice is how fast it grows and gets in trouble and how mean (read tyrannical) it is to it's citizens.

AND WHO TAKES THE HIT.

I know you don't want to take the hit. Well surprise, surprise, neither do I. But I'M being selfish about it according to YOU.

Well right back at you pal.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 08:39 PM (zPb4d)

416 "Exactly some minuscule percentage of 1% of the elderly you wish to extrapolate onto the entire generation over 65. That's not just bad thinking, that's dangerous."

Well then if that's the case and that's 1% of the elderly population we should have no trouble finding that 1% in cuts, should we?

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 08:39 PM (k6J0r)

417 "Please, enlighten."
I wasn't singling you out. I was talking to the general crowd that wants to dump on the old folks. If you're in that crowd, then so be it. Most Boomers aren't expecting to get the SS MC we were told would be waiting for us in the lock box. Most Boomers are more than willing to take cuts to save the system.
The greatest generation paid precious little into either SS or MC, but you didn't hear Boomers whining about. We've shouldered their cost w/o complaint. So its a little rankling to hear all the dump on the old folks.
------------------
Again, this whole thing started with an old guy who decided the way to respond to someone who was concerned about her kids future was with a "fuck you." It's not like I just up and decided to start dumping on the boomers.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:40 PM (OX4OZ)

418 It includes 1% cuts, per year, to SS and Medicare too, which is probably unworkable right now.

After 34% inflation the last three years, 1% doesn't sound like much.

Posted by: t-bird at July 28, 2011 08:40 PM (FcR7P)

419 When SS was created was there some formula for the next 70 years based on age and population to account for costs and payees? If so, did abortion have anything to do with affecting that equation when thinking about the number of people who are not around today who could be paying into the system????

Posted by: X11b at July 28, 2011 08:41 PM (nVLlM)

420 No, I believe in a government. The limits and scope of said government are laid out the consitution. Federal social welfare programs are not within those boundaries.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:42 PM (OX4OZ)

421 @421 - shouting from back of the room- the general welfare clause, the general welfare clause!

Posted by: cookie cutter liberal at July 28, 2011 08:43 PM (nVLlM)

422 You forgot to explain the "Full Faith and Credit" part there Pal!
Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:39 PM (JMsOK)
Yeah I know, looking at these examples of the younger generation I am losing the faith part.
Go ask your dad for some money so you can by an new i phone or i pod or i pad or whatever.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:43 PM (MtwBb)

423 @411
"So its a little rankling to hear all the dump on the old folks."
Hey Man...It's simple.....figure out a way we can have the rip raoring economies of the past with massive growth in the standard of living, and we will be more than happy to change your diapers andbuy your Metamucile.
Unitl then...you better brace yourself....and invest in K.Y. Jelly

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:43 PM (JMsOK)

424 See, it isn't even about me taking a hit. It's about this society surviving. That's in a very literal sense. I want this society to endure and unless this shit (see the entitlement programs) are seriously changed, it isn't going to happen.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:44 PM (OX4OZ)

425 I don't know I would think a good society takes care of their most vulnerable first that would be the old and the young.

i'm thinking epa
doe
state workers/miriad of choices
irs workers
senate and house pensions and assistants
fraud in medicare /medicaid
all groups like save the roach funded by gvt
funding of see how many times a lion will screw in her lifetime
that stuff.
than if we are still sinking ... well
we'll deal with the vulnerable then.
(not soylent green or death panels)


Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 08:45 PM (h+qn8)

426 Selfish? We don't have the opportunity you had to live a standard of living you enjoyed your entire life Asshole!

Because of a school system that evolved in the 60's and 70's to turn generations into socialists while the boomers did nothing.

While regulation and regulation again choked manufacturing in this country and the boomers did nothing.

While government was allowed to grow almost unchecked.

all the while the looming problem hung over their heads, the SS program could not be funded through their lifetime.

So now we, my generation of age now, inherits a country a mere shadow of the one passed to the boomers,

They now insist, we fix the socialism, roll back government regulation, re-vitalize manufacturing, restart a dead economy, become energy independent, pretty much all the stuff they failed to take care of on their watch. Oh and fully fund their government retirement bennies, because they are owed them dammit! Oh and quit whining you selfish brat!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:45 PM (0q2P7)

427 Between what I and my employers over the years paid in including a paltry 2% interest it comes to $1.5 Million.
So, robtr, is this just the sacrosanct social security portion, or does it include the Medicare that you're willing to take a cut on?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 08:45 PM (7EV/g)

428 @ 400
A Prog. What opportunities haven't you had? Were you "promised" a rose garden? Didn't expect to have to sratch for the good life? You want equal results rather than equal opportunity.
Ever camapigned for anyone? How about volunteered to poll watch? Maybe election clerk? What have you done to move the US politically toward what you desire?
Don't bother answering. I'm finished.

Posted by: tidbit at July 28, 2011 08:45 PM (ucq49)

429 @423
Uh-Huh...that's what I thought!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:46 PM (JMsOK)

430 getting regulations /permits/ licenses whatever off starting yoru own business also possible need a clean up
why shouldn't some kid be able to sell lemonaide.

Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 08:46 PM (h+qn8)

431 "That's the most hateful thing I've ever heard. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Harry Reid at July 28, 2011 07:24 PM (smvTK)"

Generally, yes. Somehow not for that, though.

Posted by: moviegique at July 28, 2011 08:47 PM (Cepxj)

432 @429
I've done alot buddy! But my future is laid out for me! And it's cleaning up your generations mess!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 08:48 PM (JMsOK)

433 Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 08:39 PM (zPb4d)

I can't speak for Rich but my concern, as I said up thread, is my children. I am genuinely terrified by what's coming for their sake. As I also said up thread, we're planning on taking in both sets of our parents in the next few years. And if I have to starve to be able to care of them and my kids, I will. What I object to is the attitude that the welfare of the future generations don't matter so long as the checks keep coming. I'm not accusing you of that. But I see that attitude all the time and it bothers me to no end.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 08:48 PM (k6J0r)

434 Yeah I know, looking at these examples of the younger generation I am losing the faith part.
Go ask your dad for some money so you can by an new i phone or i pod or i pad or whatever.
----------
I LOVE this. This contuing notion that those who are READY AND WILLING TO LIVE THEIR LIVES WITHOUT GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS are being selfish and whiny. The fuck kind of logic is this?
The people who are willing to stick it out on their own and take care of themselves and their families...that's not the selfish group, folks.
And I'm not blaming the older guys or saying they ARE whiny and selfish, but I'll not let it pass that the folks who arepaying into the system knowing full well they won't see a dime of it are somehow the selfish people.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:48 PM (OX4OZ)

435 No, I believe in a government. The limits and scope of said government are laid out the consitution. Federal social welfare programs are not within those boundaries.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:42 PM (OX4OZ)
That's an interesting take on the constitution, inacurate but interesting. The constitution gives the congress the power to make laws, it also gives the congress the power to levy taxes for those laws. Unless you know some part of the constitution that prohibits social welfare programs the constitution says your wrong.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:48 PM (MtwBb)

436 Read 357, there are $2.5 Trillion in Government Bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.
Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:34 PM (MtwBb)
Man you're dense. We won't make it to 2042 at this rate. Entitlement spending wouldequal 100% GDP long before then without serious reform. That includes YOUR benefits. Entitlement spending is becoming a larger percentage of the budget every year, were you not aware of that??

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 08:49 PM (q177U)

437
I don't know I would think a good society takes care of their most vulnerable first that would be the old and the young.

Sounds very..... progressive....of you. To put an emotional prerogative ahead of a survival imperative that we cannot continue as currently configured. Not long at least.

I would say that the hallmark of a responsible society is not under reasonable circumstances expecting entitlements from your children.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:49 PM (0q2P7)

438 @396: "Not even close, but I'm sure you'll provide something to backup that assertion. The Tea Party was actually birthed from the Porkbusters."
The Tea Party was/is a whole bunch of things - no one group can claim credit.
But if you ever went to any of the actual rallies (or Hell, followed any of the postings on them here),there was a big group (all of a certain demographic) that were primarilly motivated by Obamacare being a threat to *their* government payouts.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at July 28, 2011 08:50 PM (xy9wk)

439 So now we, my generation of age now, inherits a country a mere shadow of the one passed to the boomers,

They
now insist, we fix the socialism, roll back government regulation,
re-vitalize manufacturing, restart a dead economy, become energy
independent, pretty much all the stuff they failed to take care of on
their watch. Oh and fully fund their government retirement bennies,
because they are owed them dammit! Oh and quit whining you selfish brat!



Posted by: MikeTheMoose

Mike I hear ya I'm neither old or young just middle aged
But what generation voted for Obama? also ours and our children.
we all bear responsibilty for this.

(disclaimer there were always those that saw it coming and tried to stop the train)

Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 08:50 PM (h+qn8)

440 I don't know I would think a good society takes care of their most vulnerable first that would be the old and the young.i'm thinking epadoestate workers/miriad of choicesirs workerssenate and house pensions and assistantsfraud in medicare /medicaidall groups like save the roach funded by gvtfunding of see how many times a lion will screw in her lifetimethat stuff.than if we are still sinking ... well we'll deal with the vulnerable then.(not soylent green or death panels)
-----------
Go down and read one of Ace's posts earlier. The social welfare state is taking up almost the entire revenue stream. In about 10 years or so, just the big 3 + interest will exceed our revenue stream. There is no way around this fact.
Now, that doesn't mean all of those other things you mentioned don't need to be eliminated, they do. But these programs absolutely must be changed.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:51 PM (OX4OZ)

441 Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:44 PM (OX4OZ)

This.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 08:52 PM (k6J0r)

442 That's an interesting take on the
constitution, inacurate but interesting. The constitution gives the
congress the power to make laws, it also gives the congress the power to
levy taxes for those laws. Unless you know some part of the
constitution that prohibits social welfare programs the constitution
says your wrong.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:48 PM (MtwBb)
Yes, but Congress cannot just pass any laws, it does have limits on its power.

Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:52 PM (LD21B)

443 Well then if that's the case and that's 1% of the elderly population we
should have no trouble finding that 1% in cuts, should we?

And, as I already wrote, I'm part of that generation you hate with such a vengeance -- (not really, quite a few years to go but my work puts me in close contact with those who are). My house is worth many multiples more then those in the Village. If means tested in the future, I have no issue. But you don't talk about a 1% cut in your hatred toward those people (you consider wealthy) in the Villages. No, you generalized that all elderly must be just as wealthy. Now, you're trying to backtrack after starting an intergenerational feud.

One other thing. If anyone, for even one second, thinks that if SS was abolished that the employer 'contribution' of around 6 plus percent was going to magically appear in their paychecks -- get over it. Not going to happen. You might see some part of the 6 plus percent your employer withholds from your earnings. But you can kiss the employer (forced) 'contribution' good-bye. You're not going to see it.


Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 08:54 PM (IhHdM)

444 The way the discussion in the post has descended into a nasty flame war by otherwise rational and like-minded individuals, is a perfect illustration of the long term danger to free societies that entitlements possess.

Obamacare needs to be repealed as soon as possible.

Posted by: Johnny at July 28, 2011 08:54 PM (iT/Iy)

445 Rich, if we had regulations/ingenuity and gvt off of the backs of business and those that want to start up. in time could we bring enough revenue to fund this ?

then phase out those bennies for us younger folks?

Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 08:54 PM (h+qn8)

446 That's an interesting take on the constitution, inacurate but interesting. The constitution gives the congress the power to make laws, it also gives the congress the power to levy taxes for those laws. Unless you know some part of the constitution that prohibits social welfare programs the constitution says your wrong.
----------------
They call it the 10th ammendment.
Read it, then go read the enumerated powers again and show me where "social welfare programs" shows up under them.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:54 PM (OX4OZ)

447 Now, Tidbit has a valid point, the boomers did pay in. But given the realities of demographics, the fact that their are far fewer workers to support every boomer, and the boomers are living longer increasing their cost per retiree, it is not the same system they paid into. Not even close. It is difficult to say these things are their fault, beyond the above mentioned Roe Effect, but the fact remains that they are too many and too expensive. The money simply is not there and cannot be there to support them.

Posted by: gulfkraken at July 28, 2011 08:55 PM (3jLFu)

448 inacurate but interesting. The constitution gives the congress the power to make laws,

Unless you know some part of the constitution that prohibits social welfare programs the constitution says your wrong.

Wow talk about inaccurate. The Constitution is not a limitless warrant for lawmaking at the federal level. Refer to Amendment 10.
The Constitution is an enumeration of government power. It is not a limitless licence for congress to make law, but a permit for congress to make certain laws within said enumerated powers. Nowhere in the enumerated powers of congress, is the power to make a law for distribution of social welfare.

Please refer to article 1 section 8 for the powers of congress. They do not have power to make law beyond those boundaries. (Accept by amendment, none of which grant the power to constitute a social security program)

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:55 PM (0q2P7)

449 Yes, but Congress cannot just pass any laws, it does have limits on its power.
-------------
No, see, according to robtr apparently Congress CAN pass ANY law. Now, I wasn't aware of that, but I am now.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:56 PM (OX4OZ)

450 Go down and read one of Ace's posts earlier. The social welfare state is taking up almost the entire revenue stream. In about 10 years or so, just the big 3 + interest will exceed our revenue stream. There is no way around this fact.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:51 PM (OX4OZ)
WHY DOES NO ONE GET THIS????? People should be forced to read this 3 times every day before they log in.

Posted by: Max Power at July 28, 2011 08:57 PM (q177U)

451 Yeah! Tear the motherfucker down! Who cares if America goes into the shitter? At least we can call ourselves pure!

Posted by: packsoldier at July 28, 2011 08:57 PM (mPG7G)

452 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 08:54 PM (IhHdM)

Oh, I see. So when I said the Villages what I really meant was that I hate all old people and wish they'd all just fucking die. Did I miss anything? Glad you're here to interpret things for us.

Way to justify cursing my children.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 08:57 PM (k6J0r)

453 One other thing. If anyone, for even one second, thinks that if SS was
abolished that the employer 'contribution' of around 6 plus percent was
going to magically appear in their paychecks -- get over it.
Not going to happen. You might see some part of the 6 plus percent your
employer withholds from your earnings. But you can kiss the employer
(forced) 'contribution' good-bye. You're not going to see it.

Sure I will, cheaper food, cheaper services, cheaper this and cheaper that. And yes less in payroll taxes mean more available for payroll when you have to offer a competitive salary.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 08:57 PM (0q2P7)

454 This is good, though, because some of the regulars here are showing themselves. Here we have robtr saying the Constitution actually empowers the federal government to do whatever it wants unless specifically forbidden. Now, it happens to be the exact other way around, but at least we know he's on that progressive side when interpretting the constitution.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:58 PM (OX4OZ)

455 Yes, but Congress cannot just pass any laws, it does have limits on its power.
Posted by: KG at July 28, 2011 08:52 PM (LD21B)
Yeah it can't make laws that conflict with the constitution. Social welfare doesn't. At least now anyways. During the 30's FDR tried to pack the court because there were several people that thought it did.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 08:58 PM (MtwBb)

456 what's to bad that all those that promised the last couple few generations a safety net when they are old , and then spent the funds should actually be the ones in jail.
just liek gvt , buy your votes don't save money to follow through on their promise, but they live like kings Freely , with glory . no matter how shitty and what liars/thieves they were.

Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 09:00 PM (h+qn8)

457 I realize most of the snark is just morons blowing off steam or as an excuse to flame someone.

This stuff is serious though. If you threaten someone, you're not going to having a measured and reasonable conversation which puts any sort of serious discussion at risk. (see flame throwing Dems and Reps in congress right now.)

A measured approach is what's needed by someone we all can respect and trust to be looking out for us all by doing:

1) what's best for the country over all.
2) making sure (as much as feasible) that EVERYONE takes a hit
3) it all in the open
4) making sure everyone understands that they were at least thought of during the process.

Although I voted for Perry (cause I think he's the most electable that APPEARS to have similar ideals and perceptions to mine) the answer to the above is:

SARAH PALIN.

She's the only one with the philosphy, intelligence, compassion, integrity and openness to accomplish what needs to be done to correct the financial/economic system and the budgetary mess before 2020. (the approximate time most economists foresee the U.S. in hyperinflated freefall if nothing changes.)

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 09:00 PM (zPb4d)

458 Amazing, I really think that there are people here that will vote for Obama for an extra $15/month. (and then complain that the he is ruining the country)

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 09:00 PM (nVLlM)

459 This is good, though, because some of the regulars here are showing themselves. Here we have robtr saying the Constitution actually empowers the federal government to do whatever it wants unless specifically forbidden. Now, it happens to be the exact other way around, but at least we know he's on that progressive side when interpretting the constitution.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 08:58 PM (OX4OZ)
Yeah that's right Rich, I'm a big progressive. Or maybe I read a history book instead of playing video games.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:00 PM (MtwBb)

460 It is difficult to say these things are their fault, beyond the above mentioned Roe Effect

My mom and dad are (still alive) part of the boomers. They knew in the 80's (because I can remember then) that the system was on a trajectory for a crash during their retirement. They knew, they were not special or extra smart, I can only assume many others at least suspected, and did not act.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:00 PM (0q2P7)

461 Yea, read the enumerated powers again. Saw things about levying taxes to pay for a navy and defense. Saw things about coining money and and entering into treaties. Saw things about post offices. Saw things about establishing lower courts. What I didn't find was the ability to enact social welfare programs. And when coupled with the 10th ammendment, because it wasn't listed, they can't do it.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:01 PM (OX4OZ)

462 Or maybe I read a history book instead of playing video games.

Well considering you've never read (apparently) the federalist papers one assumes your knowledge of history is wanting.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:01 PM (0q2P7)

463 Between what I and my employers over the years paid in including a paltry 2% interest it comes to $1.5 Million.
So, robtr, is this just the sacrosanct social security portion, or does it include the Medicare that you're willing to take a cut on?
Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 08:45 PM (7EV/g)
robtr, I'm going to ask this again because I'm really curious. No, I don't mean I'm "curious" (blah), I'm interested. Is your $1.5M social security alone, or did you include Medicare?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 09:02 PM (7EV/g)

464 wow, just wow, how old is jason alexander....aha...born 1959

link

Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 09:03 PM (k1rwm)

465 Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 08:54 PM (IhHdM)

And, you know, since the whole post is about a 1% cut to all funding, I sorta thought that was an explicit part. Hence, the title of the post. But I guess we should really interpret that to mean we want to kick old people in the shins and force them to eat cat food, right?

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 09:03 PM (k6J0r)

466 wow

Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 09:03 PM (h+qn8)

467 Yeah that's right Rich, I'm a big progressive. Or maybe I read a history book instead of playing video games.
--------
So, tell me big guy, what are the limits on the Congress? Are there any outside of the ones listed in section 9?
And btw, I majored in history.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:03 PM (OX4OZ)

468 My mom and dad are (still alive) part of the boomers. They knew in the 80's (because I can remember then) that the system was on a trajectory for a crash during their retirement. They knew, they were not special or extra smart, I can only assume many others at least suspected, and did not act.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:00 PM (0q2P7)
Yeah, Jeebus you're right. They didn't do anything! Except double the social security and medicare tax in the 80'sand time after time raise the cap on the amount taxed.
Other than that they just said, Oh well. Kinda like you are doing.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:04 PM (MtwBb)

469 Oh, and I'm interested in what history you read. Because as Mike points out, at no point in reading the Federalist papersdo theymake the argument you're making now.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:04 PM (OX4OZ)

470 And, as I already wrote, I'm part of that generation you hate with such a vengeance

No, I do not hate old people. I get a little testy with them when I say, "well we're broke, you need to make do on less, like the rest of us, so we can climb out" and they throw a hissy fit telling me how selfish I am for absorbing the lion share of the problem because I don't want to absorb it ALL.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:04 PM (0q2P7)

471 And I'm sorry, but if you think Congress can make any law it pleases and that it actually says that in the Constitution, then you have a progressive view of the Constitution. That's just all there is to that.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:05 PM (OX4OZ)

472 One snag: It includes 1% cuts, per year, to SS and Medicare too, which is probably unworkable right now.

Uhm, those are the two programs that are bankrupting us.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 28, 2011 09:05 PM (9Uxl0)

473 Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 09:00 PM (zPb4d)

To me she's still a no go, especially since mccain has revealed his true colors and he did pick her for a running mate so now she is suspect.

michelle bachman is the better choice.

Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 09:06 PM (k1rwm)

474 Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 09:03 PM (h+qn

Willow, I said at the very start of the thread that I didn't appreciate my kids being bankrupted so that the goobers in the Villages could play golf all day. For that, I got a "fuck you and your kids." That's where we are.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 09:06 PM (k6J0r)

475 depressing.. most of us agree on most things political.
and look how harsh this is.

imagine tshtf and our ideological opponents.

Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 09:07 PM (h+qn8)

476 How about we just raise taxes on SS income?

*ducks*

Posted by: Johnny at July 28, 2011 09:08 PM (iT/Iy)

477 "Or maybe I read a history book instead of playing video games."
Oh Snap!....That's a Low Blow Old Timer!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 09:09 PM (JMsOK)

478 depressing.. most of us agree on most things political. and look how harsh this is.imagine tshtf and our ideological opponents.
----
What can I say, we have "conservatives" here arguing that because Congress can make laws, it can basically do whatever the hell it wants.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:09 PM (OX4OZ)

479 A big thank you to Rich and everyone else who defended my children. My four-year-old and eighteen-month-old would thank you if they understood what the debt was.

And with that, I am out for the evening. Gotta be up early for mass.

Posted by: Mandy P. at July 28, 2011 09:09 PM (k6J0r)

480 So, tell me big guy, what are the limits on the Congress? Are there any outside of the ones listed in section 9?
And btw, I majored in history.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:03 PM (OX4OZ)
Wait? You went to college? You know that's a social welfare program don't you? Unless you went to a private school it's all subsidised.
Sure, The bill of rights and anything else that conflicts with the constitution. The health care bill for example I believe is unconstitutional. I think Roe V. Wade is unconstitutional.
The way the constitution is written though as long as the government taxes you it can give you almost any program it wants to.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:09 PM (MtwBb)

481 Yeah, Jeebus you're right. They didn't do anything!
Except double the social security and medicare tax in the 80'sand time
after time raise the cap on the amount taxed.
Other than that they just said, Oh well. Kinda like you are doing.
Let's see, we've got older retirement on the table much older, privatization of SS on the table, (Boomers shot that one down with a flame of hate) we've got privatization of medicare on the table, we've got all the things you wouldn't and still won't accept.... Reduced benefits on the table for us. What did you do, raise taxes just enough to eek by till your retirement, not enough to cover your retirement mind you, then dump the program on us and claim we are immoral for even suggesting a change to it for current beneficiaries.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:09 PM (0q2P7)

482 Mandy, i really don't have much to add. i think many are hurt by this discussion, and i'm sorry.

Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 09:09 PM (h+qn8)

483 i wonder if liberals are arguing over whether or not we should cut 1% to save the country?

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 09:10 PM (nVLlM)

484 Instead of wasting time looking for true religion jeansand jeans true religionin stores, why not save yourself the trouble and get them from the cheap true religions Fashions website instead? true religion jeans are designer jeans that make great gift ideas for men. True Religion Womens Jeans make men stand out in a crowd.

Posted by: true religion at July 28, 2011 09:11 PM (0XcmF)

485 @477
Morons Mount Up! Get Him!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 09:11 PM (JMsOK)

486 And I'm sorry, but if you think Congress can make any law it pleases and that it actually says that in the Constitution, then you have a progressive view of the Constitution. That's just all there is to that.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:05 PM (OX4OZ)
Nope, to start with I didn't say that. I just read it is all. You have a lot of opinions on what you would like the constitution to say, you just can't point out where it says what you wish i says.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:12 PM (MtwBb)

487 Rich, looking at whats coming is pretty rough. we all will take hits.

my family already has we make 1/3 of what we've made in the last decade and that's when we are lucky.

Posted by: willow at July 28, 2011 09:12 PM (h+qn8)

488 Don't know who this Open Blogger guy is but I would pay handsomely for his newsletter.

Posted by: Bob Saget has not been banned yet at July 28, 2011 09:14 PM (NLWij)

489 The way the constitution is written though as long as the government taxes you it can give you almost any program it wants to.
-----------
That's simply a terrible reading of the document. Go read the federalist papers and come back with this same line of thinking.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:14 PM (OX4OZ)

490 484
i wonder if liberals are arguing over whether or not we should cut 1% to save the country?

Posted by: x11b1p at July 28, 2011 09:10 PM (nVLlM)
the ones I know do not think the country needs to be saved. They actually believe in their hearts that they need to keep spending money and everything will be alright. When you ask them for the economic justification behind this they simply tell you that this is what the president believes is the right course so they are not going to be unpatriotic like the tea party people, the republicans and the conservatives by not going along with the president. Despite losing jobs and houses and such they still believe that the president 'deserves a second term to fix what he started" and when you challenge them they go back to bush. I get so upset I've stopped discussing it with them, they can't be reasoned with.

Posted by: curious at July 28, 2011 09:15 PM (k1rwm)

491 The way the constitution is written though as long as the government taxes you it can give you almost any program it wants to.

Please enlighten me to the particular "how it was written" part that gives congress the power to do whatever it wants with our money?

James would like to take exception as well.

James Madison 1788 - "The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:15 PM (0q2P7)

492 Gotta be up early for mass.

While you're there, maybe you should ask your priest about the Jesuit contribution to the enactment of Social Security. Learn something, for once in your life.

Possibly you should confess your burning desire to rid the planet of those wealthy people down the road who *gasp* play golf.

Posted by: not the least bit curious at July 28, 2011 09:16 PM (IhHdM)

493 Nope, to start with I didn't say that. I just read it is all. You have a lot of opinions on what you would like the constitution to say, you just can't point out where it says what you wish i says.
----------
I already did. It's called the 10th ammendment. Let me quote it.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, unless you see that power listed/enumerated, it is reserved to the states. Now, go show me in the fucking enumerated powers list where congress can enact social security. Go for it.
And let me help you, it isn't where it says it can levy taxes, because get this, it actually lists out what it can levy taxes to do. Provide for the common defense, pay the debts, and provide for the General Welfare. Now, your only out here is quite simple: take the absolutely, no doubt it about, progressive reading of the general welfare clause, but understand that it is one of the places that divide us (the conservatives) from them (the progressives) on how the Constitution is interpreted.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:18 PM (OX4OZ)

494 "Gotta be up early for mass."
Don't forget to take your Metamucile!

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 09:18 PM (JMsOK)

495 You have a lot of opinions on what you would like the constitution to
say, you just can't point out where it says what you wish i says.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(emphasis added)

Your turn.
Where is the power specifically delegated?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:18 PM (0q2P7)

496 The way the constitution is written though as long as the government taxes you it can give you almost any program it wants to.
I can't quite figure out if robtr is a regular at Kos, or if he is the ghost of Ida May Fuller.
Still waiting on your answer robtr, is that cool mil and a half owed to you on social security or SS and Medicare?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 09:19 PM (7EV/g)

497 MikeTheMoose

what exactly were we supposed to do?

During the period you claim to be all our responsibility (ignoring all the greatest greediest generation voting no to all laws reforming SS and/or voting in Democrats who did the dirty work for them. Who btw controlled the House for 40 years until 1993. That was us baby putting the Reps back in power)

The Republicans (voted in by some from our generation) tried to restructure/reform SS, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid but were out voted.

How do you make this blanket claim that the boomers are solely responsible for the mess we're in now. What about generation X, Y or Z? I'm assuming by the polls that people UNDER 30 voted this current POS as POTUS.

I sucked it up and voted for McCain (spit) even though he was only a scintilla less bad a choice than the crypto-Muslim.

What, I'm supposed to throw rocks and get arrested because the people vote in a bunch of lying thieving panderers who've been anti-american since the civil war? (Democrats for those of you from Rio Linda)

You can lead a horse to water blah, blah.

First rule of walls; when your head hurts stop hitting the wall with it.

So let's stop the blame game and stop pointing fingers at everyone but yourself. How about some ideas?

I believe there may be some important and influential people who read this blog and the comments. How about we give them some ideas to kick around instead of trying to avoid responsibility.

I thought taking responsibility was a CONSERVATIVE value?

Pointing fingers at everyone else is a liberal/progressive way of doing things.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 09:20 PM (zPb4d)

498 What did you do, raise taxes just enough to eek by till your retirement, not enough to cover your retirement mind you, then dump the program on us and claim we are immoral for even suggesting a change to it for current beneficiaries.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:09 PM (0q2P7)
I've already said I'm for all those things. I've voted accordingly since I was 18. We acted though, so far you have done nothing. I've paid taxes when the top rate was 70%, 28%, 31%, 39% and now 35%.
I really don't know what else you want us to do. We put our kids through college when we had to pay our own way. Gave them more opportunities than were ever given us. I started working when I was 12, I became certified OMC mechanic when I was 14. I served in the Marines in Vietnam and have provided well for my family their entire lives.
If you have a problem with my fucking life fuck you.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:21 PM (MtwBb)

499 Here is your argument: if Congress can tax it, they can make any law they want to about it.
In other words, by passing a marraige tax, congress could then regulate marriage how they see fit.
Or, congress can just create a brand new tax, like the only healthy foods tax, and then decide that only healthy foods are allowed to made and eaten.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:21 PM (OX4OZ)

500 "Gotta be up early for mass."
Awwwwwwe.....Somebody got a Stinky Diaper? I think I saw a sale on Depends at Wally World

Posted by: Jimi at July 28, 2011 09:22 PM (JMsOK)

501 445 The way the discussion in the post has descended into a nasty flame war by otherwise rational and like-minded individuals, is a perfect illustration of the long term danger to free societies that entitlements possess.

Obamacare needs to be repealed as soon as possible.
Posted by: Johnny at July 28, 2011 08:54 PM (iT/Iy)

This^^^

And Christ wept.

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at July 28, 2011 09:23 PM (5fEiO)

502 I thought taking responsibility was a CONSERVATIVE value? Pointing fingers at everyone else is a liberal/progressive way of doing things.

Right so I say. My generation will take the brunt of the hit though the lion share of the problem was in place long before we could vote. BUT the older ones need to take some of it. Accept responsibility for your share of the problem. And realize that a 1% cut ain't near what that actual share is.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:24 PM (0q2P7)

503 So, go ahead robtr, you said I imagined the Constitution says things it doesn't, but I clearly pointed out to you exactly what it says.
So now show me where it says they can create any program they want. Your wishcasting that belief into the power to levy taxes, but no where in that clause can you find your line of thinking.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:25 PM (OX4OZ)

504 In other words, by passing a marraige tax, congress could then regulate marriage how they see fit.
Or, congress can just create a brand new tax, like the only healthy foods tax, and then decide that only healthy foods are allowed to made and eaten.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:21 PM (OX4OZ)
I got news for you champ, yes congress and the states have been regulating marriage for as long as I can remember. Do you have another understanding of history?
As to your point about foods, nope I don't think that exactly but they do put high high taxes on things they don't want you to consume, like cigarettes or alcohol.
If you believe they are violating the constitution in those things the Supreme Court awaits your lawsuit.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:29 PM (MtwBb)

505 Uh, Jimi, I think Mandy P. is younger and is on YOUR side of this generation gap. Maybe take a look back through the thread, you'll see what I mean.

If you're gonna hate on anybody, hate on me punk!

Now get off my manicured 6' by 50' lawn you little whippersnapper!

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 09:29 PM (zPb4d)

506 Some here are blaming the SS problem on the people who are receiving SS becausethey allowed it to happen.I've always voted R my whole life. I don't make the rules, I just play by them. FDR started the whole mess. I wasn't born in time to vote for him. Wouldn't have done so if I was able to. I think I'm older than baby boomer so I dodged one there. Those of you who don't expect to receive any SS bennies, I feel sorry for you and understand your situation. If you want to take my entire monthly check, I really don't care because it doesn't amount to shit.

Posted by: Ronster at July 28, 2011 09:31 PM (9h8nr)

507 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
I already did Rich, The constitution gives congress the power to make laws and tax. It puts limits on those laws in the bill of rights and anything that conflicts with the constitution.
I don't see where social welfare programs conflict with the constitution. Maybe you can show me.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:33 PM (MtwBb)

508 I've already said I'm for all those things. I've voted
accordingly since I was 18. We acted though, so far you have done
nothing. I've paid taxes when the top rate was 70%, 28%, 31%, 39% and
now 35%.
I really don't know what else you want us to do. We
put our kids through college when we had to pay our own way. Gave them
more opportunities than were ever given us. I started working when I was
12, I became certified OMC mechanic when I was 14. I served in the
Marines in Vietnam and have provided well for my family their entire
lives.
If you have a problem with my fucking life fuck you.
I don't have any problem with your life. What I want you to do is realize you are expecting us to reduce benefits for ourselves when you wouldn't, that you expect us to organize and be activists, when you didn't. If we play this how you played this, double SS tax and move on, The economy will collapse, SS will collapse, and we will all have nothing. On my side I just need to provide those opportunities to the next generation, and with inflation and costs out of control it is getting difficult to keep the actual engine that keeps this country going running. And just voting "the right way" is not the end to responsibility. If that's all we ever did, there would be no tea party, no conservatives left, and no glimmer of hope though now fading that we can get out of this. You expect us to do more than you did to solve this problem, and have less while we are doing so. The previous generations can absorb a 1% hit, my retirement is likely to be much, much bleaker than that. And just maybe, just maybe, we can get through this without the whole house of cards coming down.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:34 PM (0q2P7)

509 I have been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this website. Thanks , I will try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your web site?

Posted by: The Snowman on AudioBook at July 28, 2011 09:35 PM (mHQqy)

510 I got news for you champ, yes congress and the states have been regulating marriage for as long as I can remember. Do you have another understanding of history?
As to your point about foods, nope I don't think that exactly but they do put high high taxes on things they don't want you to consume, like cigarettes or alcohol.
If you believe they are violating the constitution in those things the Supreme Court awaits your lawsuit.
---------
STATES regulate marriage. That's right..STATES. Guess what? That is completely in line with the 10th ammendment. Just because a state can do it doesn't mean congress can.
And yes, they CAN tax. That's right. And now how to take that single power and somehow stretch it out into the ability to create an entire program from thin air that is not within their power to create? It actually says, right there in that clause, the exact reasons they are allowed to tax and what those taxes go towards.
And this is interesting, so Congress can't force you to eat certain types of foods, but they can force you to pay for programs that have nothing to do with specific things that are laid out in the Constitution (pay debts, provide for general welfare and common defense)? This is interesting. Not sure how you make the distinction.
Finally, your acting because Congress has done it or is doing it, it's constitutional. As if congress hasn't been walking all over the constitution for a long time now.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:36 PM (OX4OZ)

511 I've said up thread that even though I'm not among the 'rich' seniors, I'm willing to take a 1% hit IF EVERYONE TAKES A 1% HIT ALSO.

And I'm willing to accept some responsibility for things as they are. Maybe I could've done more. At the time it didn't seem as important (because at the time people I thought I could trust said it was okay. I've learned I was wrong and don't trust any of them now) so the urgency wasn't as great as trying to earn a living and stay off the street.

There's been quite a bit of displacement in my life and quite a few of others of my generation:

Vietnam and the aftermath
Jimmy Carter's recession and double digit inflation and interest rates
The upheavals caused by deregulation
Life and love's disruptions of abode and finances
Working for company 20 years that closes leaving me too old to get hired. (yes virginia, ageism exists)
Having to move as the COL was too high where I was
New County of residence turns out to be bereft of new jobs
Obama begins to flush the US down the toilet.

I suppose some of that was my fault. It definitely is my fault that I made bad decisions but then some of us are not as bright about some things as we should be.

Like the saying goes; walk a mile in my shoes. See how they pinch and blister at every step. Worrying about something 20 years away was a luxury for me when tomorrow was mostly in doubt.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 09:40 PM (zPb4d)

512 The constitution gives congress the power to make laws and tax. It
puts limits on those laws in the bill of rights and anything that
conflicts with the constitution.
I don't see where social welfare programs conflict with the constitution. Maybe you can show me.


What specific clause gives congress the power to "make laws"? Let me help.

It has this little nifty number. From art 2 section 8



"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
(emphasis added)

But note again. Their law making ability is specifically limited to the "Foregoing Powers" of Art 2 Section 8 OR "other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."


So specifically where, in the Constitution does it specifically vest the power to make welfare payments to individuals to any branch of government?


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:41 PM (0q2P7)

513 Among all the inaccuries that robtr has spouted in this thread there is one more that I want to correct. SS and MC tax rates were not doubled during the '80's. The self-employed saw their tax rates go up about 50%, while all others saw a much more modest set of increases. The self-employed took a bigger hit to bring their taxation in line with the total employer/employee contribution for all others.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 09:43 PM (7EV/g)

514 I already did Rich, The constitution gives congress the power to make laws and tax. It puts limits on those laws in the bill of rights and anything that conflicts with the constitution.
I don't see where social welfare programs conflict with the constitution. Maybe you can show me.
----------
Do you not know they have limits on making laws? And it isn't just in the Bill of Rights, its' right there in that very clause.Let me show you, because it says it right there in the text.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Now, this is pretty easy to understand. It means that congress can make laws that pertain to the rest of the enumerated powers. In other words, they can makes laws that deal with taxes, in order to pay for the military. Why? Because it plainly says that providing for the common defense and creating a navy is part of their job.
Now, what doesn't this clause say? It does not say thatthey can make laws that have to do with anything anywhere. You know what isn't in their enumerated powers? The ability to regulate marriage..or food...or healthcare...or retirement. That's right, those aren't enumerated, so therefore they aren't allowed to create laws that deal with those subjects.
You're reading the constitution the exact opposite way. You believe that if it doesn't absolutely prohibit in plain English that congress CANT do something..then it can do it. That's simply wrong.
That's the entire fucking reason for the 10th ammendment. There was a large group of people that believe that if the Constitution didn't prohibit something, then the Federal Government would just assume that they could do it. It wouldn't have passed had it not been for the 10th ammendment that made it clear that if it isn't absolutely listed as a power, then the federal can NOT do it.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:44 PM (OX4OZ)

515 You expect us to do more than you did to solve this problem, and have less while we are doing so. The previous generations can absorb a 1% hit, my retirement is likely to be much, much bleaker than that. And just maybe, just maybe, we can get through this without the whole house of cards coming down.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:34 PM (0q2P7)
Mike I don't expect your generation to do much of anything. Maybe you will prove me wrong but you haven't so far.
Ever look at the average age of the tea party activists? It isn't gen x or w or whatever you call yourselves. Ever look at who started all the businesses in America? It's the baby boomers that you hate so much and blame for your problems.
We fucked up and elected Bush, he spent like a crazy man. Your generation fucked up and electected Obama and he made Bush look sane.
I don't know what to tell you but if you want to start these intergenerational wars go for it. We'll see how it turns out.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:45 PM (MtwBb)

516 Like the saying goes; walk a mile in my shoes. See how they pinch and
blister at every step. Worrying about something 20 years away was a
luxury for me when tomorrow was mostly in doubt.

I'm not here to get all pissy at people who did work hard. And yes it wasn't easy times. And under normal circumstances I wouldn't ask it. But these are extrodinary circumstances. And so since they are extraordinary, if you are alive you are in the pot with the rest of us. And what we are asking is from your end is 1% less benefits. While we continue to support the balance, while severely slashing our own benefits.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 09:47 PM (0q2P7)

517 That's the entire fucking reason for the 10th ammendment. There was a large group of people that believe that if the Constitution didn't prohibit something, then the Federal Government would just assume that they could do it. It wouldn't have passed had it not been for the 10th ammendment that made it clear that if it isn't absolutely listed as a power, then the federal can NOT do it.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:44 PM (OX4OZ)
Ok fine, ignore history over the last 80 years and all the supreme court decisions and file your lawsuit. You must be right.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:48 PM (MtwBb)

518 Btw way all you who say us boomers 'allowed' SS and government to grow out of hand;

How's that reining in the government by voting in 2010 working out for you?

I haven't seen much of a difference. The Kabuki is better choreographed and the Dems and Reps do a good job of Ping Pong but has anything really happened?

Repeal of Obamacare? Cutting NPR? This budget ballocks? Tort Reform? Defunding of EPA? Stopping Obama's Czar usurpation and his Executive Order violation of separation of powers? (they can't even act in their own interest)

Tell me how effective your efforts (vis-a-vis your voting) have been.

That's how it was for us.

Now suck it up and go protest down in DC for me, I'm watching the golf open.

Posted by: Old man with bad teeth at July 28, 2011 09:49 PM (zPb4d)

519 I don't see where social welfare programs conflict with the constitution. Maybe you can show me.
----------
I just have to harp on this one more time. See, you have the idea, the progressive idea, that if the Constitution doesn't forbid Congress from doing something, that it can do it. That's completely and utterly wrong. It's the total other way around. If the Constitution doesn't empower Congress with an ability to do something, it can't do it. Period.
It's ability to make laws isn't limitless. It's limited to the rest of the enumerated powers. The constitution, because of the 10th ammendment, doesn't have to flat out say "Congress shall not create social welfare programs" because it says it the other, far shorter way. Congress isn't empowered with that ability, therefore it can't do it via the 10th ammendment.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:50 PM (OX4OZ)

520 Ok fine, ignore history over the last 80 years and all the supreme court decisions and file your lawsuit. You must be right.
----------
See, nowyou can't actually argue that the text is in your favor, so you resort to this. As if the last 80 years of history isn't filled with examples of the courts and the government completely walking all over the original intent of the Constitution.
I mean, you said you thought abortion was unconstitutional, but we have substantial court cases telling you otherwise. So, maybe time to re-think that position?

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:52 PM (OX4OZ)

521 Someone above accused Jane of being in the "me" generation or something like that. Well, I'm sure I'm older than Jane but I took that as a slam against me. I've always defered gratification. Lived in a trailer house for 15 years untill I saved enough money to build a small house, which I built myself. Didn't eat in restuarants more than2 times a year and saved for the future. Now most of the savings have gone to hell because of the economy.I will probably be OK, but who knows. If you want my SS you can have it.

Posted by: Ronster at July 28, 2011 09:54 PM (9h8nr)

522 It's ability to make laws isn't limitless. It's limited to the rest of the enumerated powers. The constitution, because of the 10th ammendment, doesn't have to flat out say "Congress shall not create social welfare programs" because it says it the other, far shorter way. Congress isn't empowered with that ability, therefore it can't do it via the 10th ammendment.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:50 PM (OX4OZ)
Yeah right, the constitution doesn't say congress can establish the FAA, or FDA or EPA or any number of other things it does. It says it can make laws, they have been doing it since the constitution was signed. I am glad your are the first one that pointed out that the last 237 years of this country has been a sham.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:55 PM (MtwBb)

523 Here's the thing, I think you can find 1% of any budget as waste, duplication, and fraud, even in holy entitlement programs. I mean, its the government, everyone knows they handle money like a fumbling drunk. It wouldn't even take much of an audit to find that much to cut.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 28, 2011 09:55 PM (r4wIV)

524 I mean, you said you thought abortion was unconstitutional, but we have substantial court cases telling you otherwise. So, maybe time to re-think that position?
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 09:52 PM (OX4OZ)
Nope, because unlike you the fact that I don't think it constitutional doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court told me I was wrong about that.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 09:58 PM (MtwBb)

525 Yeah right, the constitution doesn't say congress can establish the FAA, or FDA or EPA or any number of other things it does. It says it can make laws, they have been doing it since the constitution was signed. I am glad your are the first one that pointed out that the last 237 years of this country has been a sham.
---------------
Why don't you go look up when those agencies you just named were created and get back to me. It wasn't over the last 237 years.
Oh, and not mention, many of the agencies are created at the behest of the President, who has the power to create cabinet level positions, which almost all of the agencies operate under.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 10:01 PM (OX4OZ)

526 Nope, because unlike you the fact that I don't think it constitutional doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court told me I was wrong about that.
--------------
Just so long as we're clear. You believe theSupreme Courtinfallible and I believe they can be and are often wrong.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 10:03 PM (OX4OZ)

527 Rich, you're wasting your time on a moving set of goal posts. And it's not just because he's an idiot, though he is that. He's also a liar, as has been pointed out in this thread by several people.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 10:04 PM (7EV/g)

528 I'm done with this thread. You've made it clear that you believe things constitutional because of a Supreme Court ruling and not because of what the text acutally says. Because of that, there is no rectifying the differences here.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 10:05 PM (OX4OZ)

529 Reading these posts, I can see why Boehner can't get anything done. Too many people out there saying "I want my handouts" instead of talking about how much they can sacrifice. I got news for you older folks, the money ain't there, and I'll be damned if I let my children be sold into debt slavery to pay for your dream retirement. I have saved 20% of my income since I started working, planning for the day I retire, NOT factoring in any benefits from Uncle Fed, and you should have too. When the system was implemented in the 30's, it was clearly stated that the program was not a pension, it was a whole life insurance policy.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 28, 2011 10:06 PM (9Uxl0)

530 Rich, you're wasting your time on a moving set of goal posts. And it's not just because he's an idiot, though he is that. He's also a liar, as has been pointed out in this thread by several people.
-----------
I've noticed. First it was him telling me the Constitutional text was in his favor. Then it was federal agencies that have been created. Then it was Supreme Court cases and the last 80 years of history.
Not to mention, in-between, he did actually say he thought abortion was uncsontitutional, only to then reverse course and say the Supreme Court decision meant differently to him.

Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 10:07 PM (OX4OZ)

531 Just so long as we're clear. You believe theSupreme Courtinfallible and I believe they can be and are often wrong.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 10:03 PM (OX4OZ)
You seem to believe you possess some mad mind reading skilz. The supreme court gets it wrong alot but that's the last stop in our republic to air your greivences. You learn to live with it and try to get someone on the court that thinks more like you do. We have been successful in that until your generation voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Now it's in danger.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:08 PM (MtwBb)

532 Rich, you're wasting your time on a moving set of goal posts. And it's not just because he's an idiot, though he is that. He's also a liar, as has been pointed out in this thread by several people.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 10:04 PM (7EV/g)
I missed that, where was that exactly?

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:09 PM (MtwBb)

533 I've noticed. First it was him telling me the Constitutional text was in his favor. Then it was federal agencies that have been created. Then it was Supreme Court cases and the last 80 years of history.
Not to mention, in-between, he did actually say he thought abortion was uncsontitutional, only to then reverse course and say the Supreme Court decision meant differently to him.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 10:07 PM (OX4OZ)
Is there something you don't understand about laws? I already told you champ, if you are so sure you are right do something about it. File a lawsuit saying that Social Security is unconstitutional. I will be one of the ones laughing at you.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:12 PM (MtwBb)

534 Not to mention, in-between, he did actually say he thought abortion was uncsontitutional, only to then reverse course and say the Supreme Court decision meant differently to him.
Posted by: Rich at July 28, 2011 10:07 PM (OX4OZ)
That's the problem with you constitutional experts, you like to piss and moan and say your right. Well step up to the plate champ. Do something about it.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:14 PM (MtwBb)

535 Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 28, 2011 10:06 PM (9Uxl0)


Are you fucking kidding? Your going to come to THIS site to start the entitlements fight?

Posted by: Clueless at July 28, 2011 10:14 PM (piMMO)

536 This 1% plan is like many other plans--easy to do mathematically and impossible to do politically, if this thread is any indication. Boehner et al. would get an icy chill reading this.

I still say most people will suck it up and take the $10/mo hit on their $1,000 check if everyone else does too. Who knows, maybe the plan will help stop the runaway food inflation too, so it would hurt even less.

All I know is, when I was a public employee and we all took a 5% cut, it hurt for about a month and then everyone got used to it.

The alternative is complete bankruptcy or civil war, and that would be worse.

Posted by: PJ at July 28, 2011 10:17 PM (FlVA8)

537 Mike I don't expect your generation to do much of anything. Maybe you will prove me wrong but you haven't so far.
Sure you do. You expect me to double my SS taxes from what you already doubled it from. You already said so.

Ever look at who started all the businesses in America? It's the baby
boomers that you hate so much and blame for your problems.

Just like most of the business you worked in were started by the previous generations. Just like my kids will work (hopefully) at businesses started by mine. You aren't that special in that regard. Perhaps those coming of age in the 30's where all had collapsed, they were special. They survived after all had crumbled and provided opportunity for your rear.
We fucked up and elected Bush, he spent like a crazy man. Your
generation fucked up and electected Obama and he made Bush look sane.

Point taken. *ahem* LBJ, *ahem* carter.

But see what I mean. You want to run us down and say we suck. Then on the other hand you hand off huge challenges, far worse than any you faced, and then, have the nerve to suggest that we shouldn't pay one dime less into your little private entitlement. And just shut up and do it.

I've got a much better idea, we just let the thing ride on the trajectory you set it on and see where the chips fall.

I don't know what to tell you but if you want to start these intergenerational wars go for it. We'll see how it turns out.

I ain't here to start a war. I'm here to remind you boomers, you weren't your parents; you weren't the best thing that has happened to this country. You have responsibility at least in some part for our current predicament. And yet you insist on this path despite the fact it leads to the destruction of the benefit you covet, in short order, while it will still affect you. Even now, you are so blinded by a sense of entitlement you cannot even conceive of a reduction in benefits to keep the whole system viable, and return the nation to prosperity. Your selfish ways will be the downfall of us all as the laws of math take their toll on the nation in the coming couple of years. And even now, with DOOM looking you straight in the face, you will not act.

Tough times will be ahead, after the DOOM, for those of us left, your legacy of an addiction to entitlement will be the warning the generations after me will carry forward.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:17 PM (0q2P7)

538 Reading these posts, I can see why Boehner can't get anything done. Too many people out there saying "I want my handouts" instead of talking about how much they can sacrifice. I got news for you older folks, the money ain't there, and I'll be damned if I let my children be sold into debt slavery to pay for your dream retirement. I have saved 20% of my income since I started working, planning for the day I retire, NOT factoring in any benefits from Uncle Fed, and you should have too. When the system was implemented in the 30's, it was clearly stated that the program was not a pension, it was a whole life insurance policy.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 28, 2011 10:06 PM (9Uxl0)
Okay, you're on your own champ. I also set aside for my retirement. You can convice your friends your age group to vote with you although I doubt they will. I don't have a dog in this fight anymore.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:19 PM (MtwBb)

539 Tough times will be ahead, after the DOOM, for those of us left, your legacy of an addiction to entitlement will be the warning the generations after me will carry forward.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:17 PM (0q2P7)
Mike you keep wishcasting that I said a lot of things I didn't. I did say I am not depending on you for anything. I would be a fool to do that. I did suggest if you want to have social security and medicare for your generation you are going to have to change it.
I'm cool with leaving it on it's own tragectory though. Works for me.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:22 PM (MtwBb)

540 Well, let's see, so far you have been informed that you were wrong about:
- the marketability of the securities in the SS trust fund
- the year in which such funds run dry
- the level of the tax rate increases in the '80's
That's for starters. Normally, I would just write that off as the errors of someone who is mistaken about a somewhat complicated subject. But since at no point did anyone get so much as a "Oh, I'm mistaken. My bad." from you, and in fact you doubled down on your assertions, you have demonstrated a rather cavalier attitude toward facts. So, yes, I feel comfortable in calling you a liar.
BTW, still holding on to that $1.5M dream? Or has it finally dawned on you that there are several commenters on this site who actually do this stuff for a living and who could mathematically prove that you're full of shit on that one too?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at July 28, 2011 10:24 PM (7EV/g)

541 s there something you don't understand about laws? I already told you
champ, if you are so sure you are right do something about it. File a
lawsuit saying that Social Security is unconstitutional. I will be one
of the ones laughing at you.

Just because the 9 say it is so doesn't mean that is the way it was originally intended. Are you willing to stand 100% behind every ruling the 9 have made? Then don't use them as an absolute arbiter of the truth. It's called an appeal to authority, it occurs in argument when someone can't make a valid argument themselves for their position, so they say, "so and so agrees with me and they are an expert!!!"

In reality they did rule once that is was Unconstitutional. So where they right then or are they right now? How can we be sure if they are proven fallible by overruling themselves on the same issue?

robtr I never knew you were a troll. Good hiding all this time.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:25 PM (0q2P7)

542 I ain't here to start a war. I'm here to remind you boomers, you weren't your parents; you weren't the best thing that has happened to this country. You have responsibility at least in some part for our current predicament.
Our parents elected LBJ, I couldn't vote for president until 1972 but why let facts get in the way. We did elect Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and I already apologized for W

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:27 PM (MtwBb)

543 I'm cool with leaving it on it's own tragectory though. Works for me.

Great! Okay do you want 30% cuts, or do you want your benefits to run out in 3 years?


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:29 PM (0q2P7)

544 In reality they did rule once that is was Unconstitutional. So where they right then or are they right now? How can we be sure if they are proven fallible by overruling themselves on the same issue?robtr I never knew you were a troll. Good hiding all this time.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:25 PM (0q2P7)
Yup that's me a troll. When did they rule social security was unconstitutional? I didn't know that.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:30 PM (MtwBb)

545 Great! Okay do you want 30% cuts, or do you want your benefits to run out in 3 years?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:29 PM (0q2P7)
There you go again with the fantasies. Can you cite anything that says benefits will run out in 3 years, uhmm no because you make things up.
I'm 59 Mike. Call me in 2021 and ask what I think when I am old enought for benefits. Oh yeah we also increased the retirement age to 67

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:33 PM (MtwBb)

546 I'm 59 Mike. Call me in 2021 and ask what I think when I am old enought
for benefits. Oh yeah we also increased the retirement age to 67

You might not get SS then. In your shoes I would be extending your retirement age to 70. That would be your cut.

I was mistaken. Other parts of the new deal, but not SS were overturned.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:39 PM (0q2P7)

547 Your going to come to THIS site to start the entitlements fight?

Posted by: Clueless at July 28, 2011 10:14 PM (piMMO)
Entitlements are the reason we are spiraling into the debt hole. Just SS, Medicare, Medicaid and interest by themselves are catching up to total tax revenues, and will exceed them soon, and into the foreseeable future. If we don't cut back on them, there is no way out.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 28, 2011 10:40 PM (9Uxl0)

548 Yup that's me a troll.

You reject outright the concept of federalism in essentially it's entirety. You reject the founders very words on topic and entertain an idea of a government limitless except for specific exception. I can tell you frankly and honestly, those ideas about our Constitution are not conservative, are in fact, very progressive. To think you have commented here so long without revealing you do not support federalism. It amazes me as the concept is central to conservative philosophy.

Thomas Jefferson 1791 - "They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider… {Otherwise}, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power do to whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please…Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

James Madison 1792 - "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

Thomas Jefferson 1815 - "I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words 'general defence and public welfare.' These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specifications? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, 'all and some.' And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away."

Thomas Jefferson 1817 - "Our tenet ever was…that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."

Chief Justice John Marshall 1819 - "The federal government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it....is now universally admitted."

James Madison 1831 - "With respect to the words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by it creators."

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:44 PM (0q2P7)

549 You might not get SS then. In your shoes I would be extending your retirement age to 70. That would be your cut. I was mistaken. Other parts of the new deal, but not SS were overturned.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:39 PM (0q2P7)
Well thanks for your advice Mike. I already planned for my retirement though so I am good. Even thought I have paid the maximum since 1980 my SS check would only be $2052 a month. If I get it I get it if I don't I don't.
I never planed to retire on two grand a month.

Posted by: robtr at July 28, 2011 10:46 PM (MtwBb)

550 I never planed to retire on two grand a month.

So why are you bitching about a 1% cut in benefits then?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 28, 2011 10:49 PM (0q2P7)

551 The best pdf to flash for mac pdf converter Windows and Mac OSX pdf converter for mac | pdf converter pdf to swf
converter Powerful
evidence: using PDF to IMAGE Converter, U can convert pdf to all kinds of image
formats: JPEG, PNG, GIF, BMP, PCX, TGA, TIFF. U can also adjust the color,
quailty, resolution, page of the files converted!

Using pdf to word
converter, U pdf to flash for mac can convert pdf to all kinds of pdf
formats to Word. U can also adjust the color, quailty, resolution, page of the
files converted | .baby steps, I guess. pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to
word converter pdf to swf
convert pdf
files pdf file converter pdf
to flash converter














Optimal flv to dvd converter


preset formats
for iPad, Galaxy Tab, Dell Streak, iPhone, iPod, Gphone, Blackberry, PS3, Xbox,
PSP, Wii, DV, etc.






ipad converter iPad Video Converter is then designed for iPad
fans to convert videos to iPad. iPad converter This special
ipad video converter can convert all video formats to iPad compatible formats. DVD to ipad ipad to Mac
transfer ipad to
computer transfer ipad transfer epub to ipad |

Posted by: rennee at July 28, 2011 10:51 PM (FmsUa)

552 I'm gonna have to call BS on the $1.5M claim here. To accrue that sum over 45 years at 2% requires an annual payment of $20,864. Considering the maximum SS contribution from both employeee and employer is about $11K (you don't pay on anything above $106K, and receive no benefits on anything above either). At 2%, 45 years of paying the maximum (meaning you made a salary of $106K for 45 years) would get you $790K. It would take over 4% interest to get you to $1.5M. Only problem is maximum taxable earnings decrease as you go farther back in time. In 1990, they were only $51K. In 1980 they were $26K. Thus, the $1.5M figure at 2% is pure unadulterated BS.

Posted by: publius(NotBreitbartPublius) at July 28, 2011 11:02 PM (VVB18)

553 Pipe fitting
Pipe fittings
Carbon steel pipe fitting
Carbon steel pipe fittings
Butt weld pipe fitting
Butt welded pipe fitting
Butt welding pipe fitting
Seamless pipe fitting
Steel pipe fitting
Pipe elbow
Pipe tee
Pipe bend
90 degree elbow
180 degree elbow
Equal tee
Seamless elbow
A234 wpb pipe fitting
Butt welded elbow

Posted by: jason at July 29, 2011 12:23 AM (/evL7)

554 It is good to see you here with this post. your blog contains very informatics information which is helpful and useful. Thanks for it.
recovery data

Posted by: free data recovery softwares at July 29, 2011 04:00 AM (71Bdu)

555 One snag: It includes 1% cuts, per year, to SS and Medicare too, which is probably unworkable right now.

Posted by: wholesale soccer jerseys at July 29, 2011 06:01 AM (Hxe7I)

556 Factual error - this bill does NOT include across-the-board cuts. Cuts can be made wherever, so long as it totals to 1%. It'll only be across-the-board if Congress is unable to come to a consensus.

Posted by: KT at July 29, 2011 10:20 AM (fPDJL)

557 So what this is really suggesting is cutting spending by 3-5% per year for six years since you won't be increasing spending to compensate for inflation. Total real spending cuts over six years would equate to 18-30% (depending on CPI increase each year). That's a lot but probably what is needed to balance the budget.

Posted by: NKP at July 30, 2011 02:59 AM (bJpNN)

558 Can someone explain the math here? The Penny Plan doesn't seem to do
much. Yea, it cuts actual spending, and that's better than the rest of
the "plans" out there, but it doesn't do much in terms of deficits and
debt.





Here's the math. Assuming the 2011 budget is 3.7T, cutting 1% thereafter, till 2018, inclusive, will yield the following:





2011 3,700,000,000,000


2012 3,663,000,000,000


2013 3,626,370,000,000


2014 3,590,106,300,000


2015 3,554,205,237,000


2016 3,518,663,184,630


2017 3,483,476,552,784


2018 3,448,641,787,256





The reduction per year is this:





2012 37,000,000,000


2013 36,630,000,000


2014 36,263,700,000


2015 35,901,063,000


2016 35,542,052,370


2017 35,186,631,846


2018 34,834,765,528





Total reduction in spending: 251,358,212,744.





So the Penny Plan, will reduce 251B by the end of 2018. How does Mack get a 7.5T reduction???


Posted by: SomeOne at July 30, 2011 03:57 AM (lj6RO)

559 GHD Straighteners UK
in the world of 47 countries 2000 DuoGe museum of China's large, drain of
historical artifacts as many as 1.67 million pieces; Besides, GHD Straightener there
are also at least millions of a Chinese history to survive cultural relics in
the countries all over the world of folk. MBT Shoes Sale These went into the
precious cultural relics of China outside history, have a plenty of during the
war by national powers, and some were carried away force some foreign explorers
in the name of scientific investigation of theft, MBT

Posted by: GHD Straighteners at July 31, 2011 03:00 AM (aLmvz)

560 I like it because it commits to real spending cuts. I would save our credit rating which would save us money on the expense of the debt.

Posted by: June at August 01, 2011 05:06 PM (fwz7I)

561
M4V Converter for Mac,Convert M4V to WMV Mac

Posted by: mts converter at August 16, 2011 02:43 AM (GJs4p)






Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.1052 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0357 seconds, 570 records returned.
Page size 349 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat