What happens when the hand-outs stop? - Page 53

crimsonaudio · 07-14-2011, 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirgi08

CF,I'm with LM on this one.Most of those payers worked all their lives and are/were banking on that money in their golden years.Obama is just scaring the none "entitlement" folks,sad part it may work.I actually believe that we should go inta default,the faster we reach bottom = the faster we can start a REAL recovery.'08.

If that's the case then SS can never end until it inevitably crashes our economy, as current workers are paying for those who are retired, not sticking their cash into some mythical saving's account.

We can choose to make those changes now or wait until the choice is made for us. Guess which one will suck more...

**kirgi08** · 07-14-2011, 08:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by crimsonaudio

If that's the case then SS can never end until it inevitably crashes our economy, as current workers are paying for those who are retired, not sticking their cash into some mythical saving's account.

We can choose to make those changes now or wait until the choice is made for us. Guess which one will suck more...

Granted,what I'm saying is that the folks that paid for 50yrs +/- are being or gonna be screwed by a system that they relied on and that the massive .gub has pilfered and straight out stolen from.'08.

crimsonaudio · 07-14-2011, 09:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirgi08

Granted,what I'm saying is that the folks that paid for 50yrs +/- are being or gonna be screwed by a system that they relied on and that the massive .gub has pilfered and straight out stolen from.'08.

Yah, I know, it sucks. I've only paid in for about 25 years, but I've made a good living and am self-employed, so I've paid a sizable amount, so trust me, I understand.

But it has to happen to someone, some time...

Or we can just keep kicking the can down the road until SS takes up 100% of tax revenue. We either choose to address it and start cutting benefits slowly now or they WILL be cut off suddenly at some point in the future.

rwrjr · 07-14-2011, 10:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirgi08

Granted,what I'm saying is that the folks that paid for 50yrs +/- are being or gonna be screwed by a system that they relied on and that the massive .gub has pilfered and straight out stolen from.'08.

In reality folks have been paying a tax for 50yrs, nothing more, nothing less. There is not now, nor ever was, a Social Security Trust Fund. Even the SCOTUS has ruled that FICA is a tax. I'm amazed that some people, not you necessarily, think that "their" contributions have been collected and invested and that they are due to collect such money. Truthfully, many who live to a ripe old age pull much more than they ever contributed, even if their contributions had some sort of compounded return of inflation plus a little.

FICA is a tax we all pay into every paycheck and that money is converted to non-negotiable treasury IOUs and the money is spent as part of the general fund in the year collected. As long as you have an every expanding worker base, such a Ponzi scheme can succeed for a while, even decades. The combination of longer life spans on average, therefore longer retirement draws, increased coverage under SS and a shrinking worker to recipient ratio will expose the Ponzi scheme for exactly what it is.

certifiedfunds · 07-14-2011, 10:04

Kirgi - crimson and rwrjr took the words outta my mouth here.

**kirgi08** · 07-14-2011, 10:31

I understand the whole "concept" and the "angle" you all are looking at.My point is those folks that paid for all those years and are gonna get screwed because they bought inta a system that was flawed at the get go.They were naive ta start and TRUSTED their elected officials ta protect them.I don't remember who coined the phrase about .gub reps being able ta vote for a raise.It snowballed from there.The "producer" class vis a vis the entitlement class.I'd say it's a 60+ v 40-.There is no way ta win.I agree that SS/MC/C is doa without a bunch of REAL changes.

I don't wanta turn this inta a GTPI thread,I'll let it go.PM if youse wish ta discuss.J, I'm down ta 1 hand at the present,sorry for the slooooowwww response.'08.

bdcochran · 07-14-2011, 11:52

In reply to the original question - Whether the largess is characterized as a "handout" or not, here is what people do when they believe they aren't getting enough to live on.

Some rob. Some steal. Some just go into a corner, curl up into a ball and die. Other people use their brains to create survival groups or different survival strategies.

A person who is totally self sufficient is rare. A person who can be self sufficient for a couple of weeks is more common, but still very rare.

When the handouts stop for other people, you are definitely going to be affected. You will have to re-think your Rambo-type bug out with a pack scenarios. Not only does one size not fit all, you have to create multiple plans.

fmfdocglock · 07-14-2011, 12:55

The fight over the handouts is on.

The republicans will ultimately loose.

The bottom line is I am counting on me and only me for my retirement and long-term financial security.

bdcochran · 07-14-2011, 14:24

to: mfdocglock:

1. most people subscribe to the illusion that the government will take care of them and fail to understand that for their whole lifetime/working career, they had only themselves to rely upon.
2. long-term financial security is also an illusion. When you gear your investments, expenditures, life style to existing tax codes, zoning laws, building codes, regulations, and laws that are changed at the whim of the legislatures, politicians and the courts, there is no long-term financial security. I made 25 cents a hour when I started working and the current minimum wage pushes $10 an hour. There isn't any investment that would have yielded me a $10 piggy bank for having invested 25 cents when I started working.

**kirgi08** · 07-31-2011, 12:36

shooterinpa · 07-31-2011, 13:41

Civil war has already been declared by one half of the country...the other half simply has not acknowledged it yet.

emt1581 · 07-31-2011, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by shooterinpa

Civil war has already been declared by one half of the country...the other half simply has not acknowledged it yet.

Who's on which half?

I'm thinking if the entitlement class had a war against them it'd be anything but civil. And if the rest of us paying for all their handouts were fed up enough we'd stop electing officials who continue the process.

Again, keeping the ghetto dwellers happy seems to be an acceptable "tax" for most compared to arming themselves and shutting down ANY attempt at a violent backlash and they'd put people in office who would stop doling out free-everything for these scumbags.

-Emt1581

UneasyRider · 07-31-2011, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by emt1581

Who's on which half?

I'm thinking if the entitlement class had a war against them it'd be anything but civil. And if the rest of us paying for all their handouts were fed up enough we'd stop electing officials who continue the process.

Again, keeping the ghetto dwellers happy seems to be an acceptable "tax" for most compared to arming themselves and shutting down ANY attempt at a violent backlash and they'd put people in office who would stop doling out free-everything for these scumbags.

-Emt1581

I think we need to put every able bodied person to work and fire a few million government employees and things will be back to normal in no time.

**kirgi08** · 08-01-2011, 07:02

Not really,all it'd be was a role reversal.'08.

tc556guy · 08-01-2011, 08:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by UneasyRider

I think we need to put every able bodied person to work and fire a few million government employees and things will be back to normal in no time.

What job are you going to give the able bodied, and what job would you give to the millions of gov't employees you just fired? I realize that you're going to say "we aren't going to GIVE them a job", but you state you're going to put them to work, but doing WHAT?

certifiedfunds · 08-01-2011, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by tc556guy

What job are you going to give the able bodied, and what job would you give to the millions of gov't employees you just fired? I realize that you're going to say "we aren't going to GIVE them a job", but you state you're going to put them to work, but doing WHAT?

Well, it'll take on average 3-4 government employees to fill one private sector job so that reduces the number a bit.

Unless its a union gig then the ratio sticks at 1:1

quake · 08-01-2011, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by UneasyRider

I think we need to put every able bodied person to work and fire a few million government employees and things will be back to normal in no time.

I've probably said this before, possibly in this thread; but the best way I've heard it put is describing welfare (and now other "assistance" programs) as a safety net that's instead become a hammock.

Yes, bad things happen to good people; yes I'm for helping folks, and my suggestion for the non-physically-handicapped would be much simpler than what we have now. Make welfare (or whatever we want to call it) a good, livable income; and make all govt schools (college and voc-tech both) completely free for recipients. And put an absolute, non-negotiable time limit on it. Give someone whatever timeframe to get their certificate or even four-year degree, and then without exception, without appeal, you're cut off. Period. If you starve, sorry; you're able-bodied and we've already carried you for thirteen years of public school plus now for 10% of your working life as well, so find a charity or family member to take you in. We've done all we can, and if we spend more on you, that's money we can't use to help someone who really wants help instead of a handout.

Assistance has to be temporary, or else it becomes an addiction. Jmo, and I understand that it'll likely offend some folks.

tc556guy · 08-01-2011, 08:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Well, it'll take on average 3-4 government employees to fill one private sector job so that reduces the number a bit.

Unless its a union gig then the ratio sticks at 1:1

I've never believed that stat as being anything but an anti-public sector propaganda stat.

certifiedfunds · 08-01-2011, 08:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by tc556guy

I've never believed that stat as being anything but an anti-public sector propaganda stat.

I just made it up so its definitely anti-public sector propaganda.

You still pulling the socialist party line my friend?

tc556guy · 08-01-2011, 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I just made it up so its definitely anti-public sector propaganda.

You still pulling the socialist party line my friend?

So my question is a socialist question? Or is that the best answer you can come up with because you have no answer? So once again, what jobs do we give all of these 'able bodied" people?

cowboy1964 · 08-01-2011, 08:17

Some people should probably read up on how SS actually works:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...(United_States)

certifiedfunds · 08-01-2011, 08:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tc556guy

So my question is a socialist question? Or is that the best answer you can come up with because you have no answer? So once again, what jobs do we give all of these 'able bodied" people?

No. Just haven't talked to you in a while. Wondering if you've taken the time to read the COTUS or if you're still doing the socialist gig.

As to employing the able-bodied people....I have no idea. That's uneasy's plan. I was just chiming in that we wouldn't need but maybe 1/3 of the jobs to help him out with his plan.

tc556guy · 08-01-2011, 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

No. Just haven't talked to you in a while. Wondering if you've taken the time to read the COTUS or if you're still doing the socialist gig.

As to employing the able-bodied people....I have no idea. That's uneasy's plan. I was just chiming in that we wouldn't need but maybe 1/3 of the jobs to help him out with his plan.

I read the COTUS many times over the years, and my ideas are not *socialist* to anyone but those on the far right who label everything they don't agree with as "socialist".

I would label the fact that you have no plan as being typical. Throw all these people out of work because you object to gov't jobs, end programs because you think those using them *should* have jobs, but offer no plan for actually employing anyone affected by your plan.

certifiedfunds · 08-01-2011, 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by tc556guy

I read the COTUS many times over the years, and my ideas are not *socialist* to anyone but those on the far right who label everything they don't agree with as "socialist".

I would label the fact that you have no plan as being typical. Throw all these people out of work because you object to gov't jobs, end programs because you think those using them *should* have jobs, but offer no plan for actually employing anyone affected by your plan.

We've been through this before. Your positions make it obvious you haven't. Its no big deal. Just wondering if you had made any progress. The ideas you expressed early in the thread were most definitely socialist. I see nothing has changed.

Its not my plan. I'm just offering uneasy some help with his plan. As for throwing federal workers out of a job -- they're eventually gonna get thrown out anyway. This spending madness does have an endpoint. Besides, 90% or so are unneeded. It's not the job of taxpayers to employ people unnecessarily.

tc556guy · 08-01-2011, 09:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

We've been through this before. Your positions make it obvious you haven't. Its no big deal. Just wondering if you had made any progress. The ideas you expressed early in the thread were most definitely socialist. I see nothing has changed.

Its not my plan. I'm just offering uneasy some help with his plan. As for throwing federal workers out of a job -- they're eventually gonna get thrown out anyway. This spending madness does have an endpoint. Besides, 90% or so are unneeded. It's not the job of taxpayers to employ people unnecessarily.

I have, I simply refuse to toe your belief that we can somehow go back to an 1800 level of Federal gov't.
90% are not needed? That statement simply shows how out of touch you are.