The Next President is...

[busdriver]

7 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Well, sadly there are big government types on here who believe more government is better…

Yeah, and to be fair to them, the GOP hasn't been the party of small government in a long time.  They're like the party of different big government.

I mean we might get some wins amongst the poop sandwich that is the trump administration, but it ain't gonna be roses the whole way down.

[disgruntledemployee]

7 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Well, sadly there are big government types on here who believe more government is better…even after having been in the military and seeing how horrible and inefficient government can be.  But oh well.  I’m supporting Trump in wanting to reduce the overall size and scope of government and allow people to keep more of their money (yes, even those evil billionaires). 
 

Since we have a foundational difference in opinions and values, it’s silly to go back and forth with the progressives on here, at least on this issue.  Maybe you guys will get what you want in 2 or 4 years.

Well, sadly there are Trump can do no wrong types on here who believe he is honorable and will do what is in the best interests of the nation...even after seeing him do wrong things.  But oh well.  I'm not supporting the dishonorable Trump in his burn it to the ground effort to change government and continue to allow billionaires to skirt taxes because they hire awesome lawyers and create clever ways to get around taxes and allow Musk to keep more of your money via his tax breaks for EVs (I had to continue the para to keep it in theme with your post.  How am I doing?)

Since we have a foundational difference of opinions and values (like honor), it's silly for this non liberal, non progressive, independent to go back and forth with the thick-skulled MAGAs on here, on this and other issues.  Maybe you guys will get what you want.  Maybe you'll regret it.  Maybe you won't care.

PS (you like these), in 2 years?  Ha!  Dems ain't got shit in one bag, let alone a bag.  It will have to come from within the R party.  But whenever one tries to show a little spine, they are truly revealed as weak ass lemmings.

[arg]

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

..... billionaires to skirt taxes because they hire awesome lawyers and create clever ways to get around taxes and allow Musk to keep more of your money via his tax breaks for EVs......

 

Not on that level but I do the same thing so I can keep more of my money. I claim everything I possibly can. New tractor, yep, barn repair, yep, tools, yep, and more, all legal. I guess I'm skirting taxes, using loopholes.

I guess since your'e honorable, you don't use any so called loopholes? Don't claim anything? Pay as much as you can?

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

 allow Musk to keep more of your money

the irony is musk is trying to let you keep more of YOUR money...the amount of government waste and fraud they are uncovering is wild...why anyone thinks taxes should be higher after the BULLSHIT spending musk is highlighting is beyond retarded

but keep telling yourself that you're not the thick-skulled one around here...

[disgruntledemployee]

1 hour ago, arg said:

Not on that level but I do the same thing so I can keep more of my money. I claim everything I possibly can. New tractor, yep, barn repair, yep, tools, yep, and more, all legal. I guess I'm skirting taxes, using loopholes.

I guess since your'e honorable, you don't use any so called loopholes? Don't claim anything? Pay as much as you can?

You mean lobby for EV tax credits so people buy my cars and end up becoming the richest man?  You mean moving an HQ out of the US to create a tax haven?  Fine, I'd like to declare my new HQ, for the purposes of taxes, in Limnadia.  In Limnadia, the tax rate is 0% for all people that have planned military exercises regarding Limnadia.

[disgruntledemployee]

49 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

the irony is musk is trying to let you keep more of YOUR money...the amount of government waste and fraud they are uncovering is wild...why anyone thinks taxes should be higher after the BULLSHIT spending musk is highlighting is beyond retarded

but keep telling yourself that you're not the thick-skulled one around here...

"Trump loves me and will make sure I will pay less tax"

"Trump loves me and will make sure I will pay less tax"

"Trump loves me and will make sure I will pay less tax"

"Trump loves me and will make sure I will pay less tax"

Keep going, you're becoming convincing.

[busdriver]

[SocialD]

Let's not act like either side has the market cornered on "honor," both sides do bullshit that makes their cronies rich.  Why do you think one side is so petulant right now...their babies are in danger of being thrown out with the bath water.  There would likely be a similar reaction if the roles were reversed, though maybe not to the extent we saw in the Trumps speech this week.

The problem with spending cuts is that everyone thinks their program is the lynchpin holding the US together.  Cut deep and walk it back as needed.  I'm all for looking at cutting tax loopholes that making business owners ultrawealthy, but first lets trim the fat that we've all seen with our own eyes (so clearly there is MUCH more) and stop blowing taxpayer money on bullshit.  Also, figure out social security in a way that doesn't force us/future generations to be taxed even more.  If that means sunsetting it, so be it, just do it in a way that allows people to plan for it.  I'm already expecting to not get anything, or at the very least, a severely reduced benefit.  

 

 

Quote

One useful way to describe the effect of the change in the aged dependency ratio and the resulting effect on the ratio of beneficiaries to workers is to consider the implied number of workers per beneficiary. For the past 35 years, there have been about 3.3 workers per beneficiary (consistent with the ratio of 30 beneficiaries per 100 workers). After 2030, the ratio will be two workers per beneficiary (consistent with 50 beneficiaries per 100 workers).

With the average worker benefit currently at about $1,000 per month, 3.3 workers would need to contribute about $300 each per month to provide a $1,000 benefit. But after the population age distribution has shifted to have just two workers per beneficiary, each worker would need to contribute $500 to provide the same $1,000 benefit.

Thus, in order to meet increased Social Security costs, substantial change will be needed. The intermediate projections of the 2009 Trustees Report indicate that if we wait to take action until the combined OASDI trust fund becomes exhausted in 2037, benefit reductions of around 25 percent or payroll tax increases of around one-third (a 4 percent increase in addition to the current 12.4 percent rate) will be required. Past legislative changes for Social Security suggest that the next reform is likely to include a combination of benefit reductions and payroll tax increases.

Because the large shift in the cost of the OASDI program over the next 20 years is not due to increasing life expectancy, it is not clear that increasing the NRA should be the principal approach for restoring long-term solvency. Increasing the unreduced retirement age beyond 67 is one option that may be considered, given that the population may be healthier in the future and able to work to an older average age. However, this raises the question of the adequacy of monthly benefit levels. After the NRA reaches 67, those persons claiming benefits at age 62 will receive only 70 percent of the unreduced benefit level. Further increase in the NRA would decrease the adequacy of monthly benefits at age 62, and at all other ages, even further.

There is no one clear solution to the problem of increased cost for retirees because of fewer workers available to support the retirees, which in turn is caused by lower birth rates. This issue is not specific to Social Security, but also affects Medicare as well as many other private and public retirement income systems. The decline in birth rates has been far more dramatic in Japan and many European countries that are struggling with the effects of aging populations because of declines in birth rates even more severe than in the United States.¹⁰

A variety of possible changes to the provisions of the Social Security Act have been considered by policymakers and have been scored by the Office of the Chief Actuary. The reader is invited to look through these options, both as individual provisions and comprehensive proposals for improving solvency of the OASDI program.¹¹

 

Edited yesterday at 02:07 PM by SocialD

[Lord Ratner]

43 minutes ago, SocialD said:

Cut deep and walk it back as needed

This is the part that I find so funny. People act like these programs have existed for thousands of years and are the sole reason why humanity has survived. Who gives a shit if we over correct? If the alternative is fixing nothing, I would rather zero the budget out entirely and rebuild from scratch then guarantee my children and my grandchildren will live in a financially collapsing empire.

 

People all over the world are living in much worse conditions than we are. We can survive a reduction in government provided quality of life, for a decade or so.

[BuddhaSixFour]

It’s all just nihilism. 

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is the part that I find so funny. People act like these programs have existed for thousands of years and are the sole reason why humanity has survived. Who gives a shit if we over correct? If the alternative is fixing nothing, I would rather zero the budget out entirely and rebuild from scratch then guarantee my children and my grandchildren will live in a financially collapsing empire.

 

People all over the world are living in much worse conditions than we are. We can survive a reduction in government provided quality of life, for a decade or so.

"We," says the major airline pilot. Yes, I'm sure you can. Unfortunately, most middle- to lower-middle-class people cannot. 

[Lord Ratner]

30 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

"We," says the major airline pilot. Yes, I'm sure you can. Unfortunately, most middle- to lower-middle-class people cannot. 

Middle class people aren't getting shit from the government. Lower class people don't need 2 TVs and iPhones. And overwhelmingly our money is being spent on keeping old people alive for longer than we should, giving poor people the most inefficient healthcare possible, and rewarding retirees for not saving for their retirement. 

 

These things are not needed to live prosperous, dignified lives, and they are directly stealing from future generations who *will* suffer if we don't control our debt accumulation. 

 

The financial handicapping of the youngest generation has nothing to do with a lack of government support. It's the boomers using the printing press to inflate their assets and compensate for their failed retirement preparation, making everything too expensive for young people to afford. *More* spending is not the solution to problems created by too much spending. 

[disgruntledemployee]

I think I'm starting to understand Musk a little more.  He wants a rapid unscheduled disassembly of govt, like his space ships. 

I was reading that Tesla sales are taking a hit, stock is down (wouldn't be surprised if Wall St Bets is shorting it), vandals are causing many Xs of 100Ks in damage to dealers/chargers, and 2X explosions.  Maybe he should go back to his company.  Or maybe the board should replace him.  Either one probably makes the companies better off.

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Middle class people aren't getting shit from the government. Lower class people don't need 2 TVs and iPhones. And overwhelmingly our money is being spent on keeping old people alive for longer than we should, giving poor people the most inefficient healthcare possible, and rewarding retirees for not saving for their retirement. 

 

These things are not needed to live prosperous, dignified lives, and they are directly stealing from future generations who *will* suffer if we don't control our debt accumulation. 

 

The financial handicapping of the youngest generation has nothing to do with a lack of government support. It's the boomers using the printing press to inflate their assets and compensate for their failed retirement preparation, making everything too expensive for young people to afford. *More* spending is not the solution to problems created by too much spending. 

You've got everyone in the whole world figured out.

You want to spend less of your/our money on end of life care for others.  So no hospice?  Send em home and let em die like Gene Hackman?  Sir, please lay here and die.  Nobody will help.  TV is on soaps.  .45 is on the bedside table.  See ya.

What's your plan to make poor people health care more efficient, or rather, how is it inefficient today?

Rewarding retirees for not saving for retirement.  What is this reward you speak of?  I think its safe to say there are retirees today that had pension plans but got taken by events.  Many more thought the SS promise would take care of them.  While IRAs have been around for a long time, the limits are too low to replace SS.  Hell, there are plenty that thought their kids would take care of them because that's what they did when their parents got old.  Other did save, but assholes banks creating the housing crisis put a dent it the plan.  Or chiner/ruskie scammers stealing.  Ooooh.  For every $1 that chiner scammers have stolen, $10 in US debt is written off.

Please describe this suffering future gens *will* have.  I'm not saying the US should reduce debt, I'm asking what doomsday scenario you foretell. 

------

Have any of you worked with an elder care planner/attorney?  The rules and maneuvers around them play out so that assets are protected while the old gets care via govt.  With a surviving spouse, this makes sense to a point.  Without a surviving spouse, I am of the idea that your assets/savings are used to take care of you until you either die or run out of money.

[Lord Ratner]

21 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

You've got everyone in the whole world figured out.

Yeah Bud, compared to your non-stop emotional hyperventilating, I'm the love child of Gandhi and Buddha. I doubt I'd like you, but I am worried about you lately. 

 

23 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

You want to spend less of your/our money on end of life care for others.  So no hospice?  Send em home and let em die like Gene Hackman?  Sir, please lay here and die.  Nobody will help.  TV is on soaps.  .45 is on the bedside table.  See ya.

Hospice is great. Fully on board. Dialysis for a 95 year old who can barely move? Cancer treatments that cost hundreds of thousands for octogenarians? Pretty much everything you write indicates you have no practical experience, but I've watched loved ones rot away under the endless generosity of the American taxpayer. There's nothing dignified about an industry that revolves around collecting more government dollars if they can justify more "life prolonging" care. 

26 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

What's your plan to make poor people health care more efficient, or rather, how is it inefficient today?

Go sit in an emergency room for a day and watch. Or better yet, go to the emergency room next time you need some after hours care and watch how much your insurance charges you for the ridiculously expensive doctor's visit where you don't even see a real doctor. You might notice that everyone else in the emergency room is poor or homeless, and not even remotely in a life-threatening situation. Yet because Medicare indiscriminately pays for these emergency room visits, there's no incentive to seek more affordable, practical care. If people with insurance and jobs have to be discriminate about where they seek medical attention, it's not too much to expect the poor and unemployed to do the same. 

29 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Rewarding retirees for not saving for retirement.  What is this reward you speak of?  I think its safe to say there are retirees today that had pension plans but got taken by events.  Many more thought the SS promise would take care of them.  While IRAs have been around for a long time, the limits are too low to replace SS.  Hell, there are plenty that thought their kids would take care of them because that's what they did when their parents got old.  Other did save, but assholes banks creating the housing crisis put a dent it the plan.  Or chiner/ruskie scammers stealing.  Ooooh.  For every $1 that chiner scammers have stolen, $10 in US debt is written off.

This is cute. So the boomers thought their kids would take care of them, yet as a generation they didn't have enough kids to fund the social security system that they are relying on. That was part of the deal and they failed, so I don't have much sympathy for them expecting that we will continue to fund a program that they did not concern themselves with at all until it mattered to them. 

Once again, just seems like an area that you just don't have any practical experience with. I have multiple family members who haven't saved a dime their entire life specifically because they believed that social security would just take care of them. The ones who are still living have drawn so much more from the system that they ever put in it would make your head spin. But of course if you ask them, they believe they earned it. Hell my own father honestly believed that he paid in more in social security taxes than he's drawing, even though he literally didn't pay taxes for a decade and ended up settling with the IRS to never pay them. Behavior is influenced, and creating a retirement system that was mathematically impossible decades ago only prevented people from preparing for their own future. 

31 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Please describe this suffering future gens *will* have.  I'm not saying the US should reduce debt, I'm asking what doomsday scenario you foretell. 

Brother I don't have to help you Google what happens to countries when they're sovereign debt is no longer accepted by the rest of the world. If you don't understand that basic and repeated fundamental of history, it explains why so much of the drivel you post here makes no sense.

 

 

[disgruntledemployee]

18 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yeah Bud, compared to your non-stop emotional hyperventilating, I'm the love child of Gandhi and Buddha. I doubt I'd like you, but I am worried about you lately. 

Ad hominem.  You can be better than that.

Hospice is great. Fully on board. Dialysis for a 95 year old who can barely move? Cancer treatments that cost hundreds of thousands for octogenarians? Pretty much everything you write indicates you have no practical experience, but I've watched loved ones rot away under the endless generosity of the American taxpayer. There's nothing dignified about an industry that revolves around collecting more government dollars if they can justify more "life prolonging" care. 

So no dialysis if 95?  Buddy, we all have life examples of our old family member dying.  Who gets to chose who lives and who dies and how?  Are you proposing that if someone is poor they won't get care and to get in line for the Death Chamber?

Go sit in an emergency room for a day and watch. Or better yet, go to the emergency room next time you need some after hours care and watch how much your insurance charges you for the ridiculously expensive doctor's visit where you don't even see a real doctor. You might notice that everyone else in the emergency room is poor or homeless, and not even remotely in a life-threatening situation. Yet because Medicare indiscriminately pays for these emergency room visits, there's no incentive to seek more affordable, practical care. If people with insurance and jobs have to be discriminate about where they seek medical attention, it's not too much to expect the poor and unemployed to do the same.

So, what's your plan to change that?

This is cute. So the boomers thought their kids would take care of them, yet as a generation they didn't have enough kids to fund the social security system that they are relying on. That was part of the deal and they failed, so I don't have much sympathy for them expecting that we will continue to fund a program that they did not concern themselves with at all until it mattered to them. 

So your blaming your parents for not having more kids?  Maybe people try to have enough kids and still pay the rent.  This idea of yours is even cuter.  Do you have a baseball team of kids?

Once again, just seems like an area that you just don't have any practical experience with. I have multiple family members who haven't saved a dime their entire life specifically because they believed that social security would just take care of them. The ones who are still living have drawn so much more from the system that they ever put in it would make your head spin. But of course if you ask them, they believe they earned it. Hell my own father honestly believed that he paid in more in social security taxes than he's drawing, even though he literally didn't pay taxes for a decade and ended up settling with the IRS to never pay them. Behavior is influenced, and creating a retirement system that was mathematically impossible decades ago only prevented people from preparing for their own future. 

I think we all have family examples like you describe, and we even have ones like I describe, like someone that lost their pension, or got a huge setback that was tied to the housing crisis.  And I know more that you think regarding govt benefits as the Mrs's Co works with part of that world.

Retirement system that is mathematically impossible.  OK, what's the alternative?  Do I stop paying SS taxes, my SS/Medicare benefit paid to date is set, IRA/Roth limits get quadrupled, the SS bank gets drained by time, and we get to do this on our own?  Me and you will be fine.  Your dad may live long enough before funds run out, or you move him into your house, or let the govt decide he's too old for dialysis and you get to pay for it, or not.

Brother I don't have to help you Google what happens to countries when they're sovereign debt is no longer accepted by the rest of the world. If you don't understand that basic and repeated fundamental of history, it explains why so much of the drivel you post here makes no sense.

Well, apparently that fear hasn't bunted the debt issue, by either Ds or Rs, or they haven't googled it yet.  Your guy Trump is proposing more deficit spending.

Good chat Ralph, we can pick this back up next week.

 

 

[HeloDude]

19 hours ago, busdriver said:

Yeah, and to be fair to them, the GOP hasn't been the party of small government in a long time.  They're like the party of different big government.

I mean we might get some wins amongst the poop sandwich that is the trump administration, but it ain't gonna be roses the whole way down.

Couldn’t agree more.  I’m an issues guy, through and through.  Unfortunately when it comes down the realities of American politics, the Republicans are more aligned with my values than the Democrats.  But yes, the Republicans aren’t great either.

[Lord Ratner]

28 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

 

Death Chamber? Sorry amigo, your arguments simply aren't interesting/thoughtful enough to spend more time on. 

[arg]

20 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

You mean lobby for EV tax credits so people buy my cars and end up becoming the richest man?  You mean moving an HQ out of the US to create a tax haven?  Fine, I'd like to declare my new HQ, for the purposes of taxes, in Limnadia.  In Limnadia, the tax rate is 0% for all people that have planned military exercises regarding Limnadia.

I kinda asked a question about how you file your taxes.