For Californicators

Hide quoted text -

Stupid platitudes.

Clueless.

Therefor cut *all* welfare. No one gets a dime.

There are many things that can be done that aren't as draconian as you pretend.

I doubt it. You will never be happy.

ou.- Hide quoted text -

hey smart ass,

why don't you put some of those examples together and show the arithmetic?

i've asked you to do this once before ... you have never put anything of substance out.

keep in mind 75% of the budget is consumed by social programs ...

this your opportunity ... show your work!

Hide quoted text -

Hey, dumbass,

The Department of Education spent over $160B last year (normal budget of $64B

• upwards of 0B in "stimulus"). That's a good start.

Of course you're never serious.

Yes, and much of that is Social Security, which is funded by direct taxes and what is upside down is fairly easily fixed.

That really isn't what you're interested in. You just want to whine like the prototypical lefty.

zero sum

see a

fully

that

alone.

In which case i really doubt that it is fully funded. Every major corporate pension fund since the 1960s has been raided to the brink of complete insolvency. IBM was no exception. In case i was unclear = before, no more current contributions allowed to balance the books. ( in case of say, abrupt bankruptcy of the remitting (parent) company)

we=92re

time

Yep, that's why i plan on 'retiring' from the current job and going self-employed in order to have more than poverty line the total form all sources combined SS, this employer, and one previous employer.

sum

It doesn't care about your doubts.

of

You are wrong.

No more current contributions. They did add a few $B about ten years ago, to balance the books. The retirement fund is fully funded. The medical benefits (which are separate), such as they are, are funded at least partly by current payments. Note this is for US employees only.

zero sum

me

lso see a

re fully

that

alone.

e brink of

of

go, to

benefits

rent

Kr,

Exactly what do you mean by =93easily fixing what=92s upside down=94 in SS? I assume you do realize that for the first time in history revenues were below payouts for the program? How exactly do you fix that? Privatizing the system will do what?

Btw, Josephkk, I don=92t know if you realize it or not, but by becoming self-employed, you will have the option of tossing money into a sole proprietor 401K. What=92s unique about this is the cap, I believe this year=92s cap is 54K. Nice perk for us guys that get banged pretty good by the current tax code.

zero sum

see a

fully

brink of

It's just gone upside down. To extend it further, raise the retirement age. It doesn't have to be done overnight.

You have to slow the bleeding before you can stop it.

Only solve the problem, eventually. The less government has to do with it the better.

han zero sum

ter.

=A0Same

I also see a

t are fully

ions

s) that

an alone.

the brink of

ase of

s ago, to

cal benefits

current

SS?

age.

it the

The recession has already turned ss in to a cash flow deficit problem.

What your talking about is reducing the draw and hopefully the revenues will go up.

At best there won=92t be any realistic gains from this for another 7 years. The plan to increase recipient age applies to folks younger than 55.

Since all the excess revenue from previous years was dumped into the general fund there is no real money in the ss trust fund. I=92m assuming you understand the implications of this.

This is your plan? Wow!

zero sum

see a

fully

that

alone.

brink of

to

benefits

current

Easily fixed. Stop Hugo Obama and it will right itself soon enough.

Among other things, sure. It's a better idea that waiting around whining for someone else to help you, as you like to do.

Ok, that's better than whining for another seven before doing anything. Remember Bush wanting to change things, oh, about seven years ago?

You really are that stupid. Glad you just got off the starship. It must have been a long journey.

My plan and yours (whining) are certainly not the same.

s than zero sum

better.

Same

er

I also see a

t are fully

gations

ents) that

an alone.

to the brink of

ase of

s ago, to

benefits

by current

age.

it the

ng for

must have

kr, i have to agree with other posters, you really are dumb as a post.

you have no clue what it means to have a balanced budget or even how to get there ... i bet your wife takes care of that issue at your house!

you don't understand the history of ss and what events took place to exacerbate the problem.

This isn=92t a right/left issue =85

i guess you=92re just a product of AM radio =85 what an idiot!

btw, i am by no means liberal in my fiscal leanings .... my guess is you have comprehension problems as well.

than zero sum

better.

also see a

are fully

obligations

recipients) that

alone.

the brink of

of

ago, to

benefits

current

the

You agree with Slowman and DimBulb. That figures.

Talking about *STUPID*. You take the cake.

Certainly.

It certainly is. The left created the problem. Several on the right have solutions that you, on the left, don't want to hear.

Indeed you are.

Yes, it figures that you're a liar, like Slowman.

z"

less than zero sum

wn better.

it? Same

later

gh I also see a

eet.

that are fully

bligations

ipients) that

plan alone.

ded to the brink of

n case of

ears ago, to

cal benefits

ly by current

ent age.

ith it the

ing

le

is

od

ng for

t have

ext -

ve

Do the following immediately and the system will be solvent in the short term.

3) Reduce all benefits by 20%

Political suicide. But the only remedy if the system is to have a hope in hell of staying solvent for sometime into the future. If there is no political will to do the above then just repay all contributors their money and shut the damn system down. Ron Paul is probably the only politician that might come close to suggesting the above ... maybe his kid now that he's in the mix.

Btw, I don't lie ... kr, you're an idiot. You've demonstrated that you=92re void of original thought and incapable any critical thinking.

z"

zzz"

f less than zero sum

nown better.

s it? Same

f later

ough I also see a

treet.

d that are fully

obligations

ecipients) that

my plan alone.

aided to the brink of

in case of

years ago, to

dical benefits

rtly by current

t -

SS?

ement age.

ues

with it the

oming

sole

this

good

ning for

ng.

ust have

text -

have

And what marketable assets are safer than US Treasury bonds? Penny stocks? Maybe they can sell GM to the SS fund? It's on sale for 75 cents.

Reduce Medicare? How about reducing health care costs, and all the fraud that goes with it? Last I checked, it's about $10,000 a day for a hospital visit.

-Bill

Convert Medicare to VA style healthcare. That will eliminate the fraud.

Bill, Re TB: yeah you=92re right the comparatively speaking the US bond is traded more heavily than any other nation. But we went from creditor to debtor long ago =85 the value of those bonds in the long run is debatable.

Mike T, I=92m with you on this one. Recall the discussion on the break down of health care costs? Hospitals and health providers control the majority of the cost. It=92s not clear to me how you control them? Tort reform is such a small contributor. The argument that liability insurance is the fiscal driver only accounts for about 8%.

Obama=92s failing was in not dealing with the cost. He should have just dropped the whole issue once he realized he didn=92t have a clear path.

We all saw what happened during the national debate on single payer systems.

Your experience and those like you who have used these systems are valuable =85it was never clear to me why more folks didn=92t speak out. I personally have no reference.

I guess folks just get caught up in the right / left politics of these discussions. It's a shame.