CheapyD on U.S.' debt ceiling

I think a big part of this problem is the baby boomer generation. If you look at the Tea Party its largely made up of their generation and even those that are not a part of the Tea Party are often boomers if they are against progressive policy. I truly believe that this problem is largely because the boomers grew up at a time of unheard of prosperity in America and there are just so many of them. The spoiled way they grew up combined with the fact that because of their massive numbers they have always been catered to means they have a strong sense of entitlement. Now they see the decline that policies catering to them over the last 40 years has caused, but they cant face the truth. They see(or in many cases perceive) some of their luxuries going away and hear people proposing policies that threaten their entitlement so they have exploded.

The boomers have been catered to from birth and now we as a nation must continue catering to them or they will blow up the country. I think 40 years from now when they are dead and the rest of us can finally breath a sigh of relief that the baby boomer generation will go down as the generation that drove America off a cliff.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I think a big part of this problem is the baby boomer generation. If you look at the Tea Party its largely made up of their generation and even those that are not a part of the Tea Party are often boomers if they are against progressive policy. I truly believe that this problem is largely because the boomers grew up at a time of unheard of prosperity in America and there are just so many of them. The spoiled way they grew up combined with the fact that because of their massive numbers they have always been catered to means they have a strong sense of entitlement. Now they see the decline that policies catering to them over the last 40 years has caused, but they cant face the truth. They see(or in many cases perceive) some of their luxuries going away and hear people proposing policies that threaten their entitlement so they have exploded.

The boomers have been catered to from birth and now we as a nation must continue catering to them or they will blow up the country. I think 40 years from now when they are dead and the rest of us can finally breath a sigh of relief that the baby boomer generation will go down as the generation that drove America off a cliff.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't make alot of sense to me. Why would an entitlement culture want to cut spending?

I think the teapartiers are simply angry and ignorant. They also have a "proud to be ignorant" attitude which is a really sad development in a country like America.
 
Yeah, I don't think many tea partiers are people living on wel-fare or social security.

They mostly seem to be middle class people in the 30-50 age group mostly (with some younger and some older) who are solidly middle class and think everyone should just work hard and get by like they do.

That said I'm sure there are some on welfare and living off social security who are stupidly part of that movement as there's no shortage of morons who lobby against their own interests in this country.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I don't think many tea partiers are people living on wel-fare or social security.

They mostly seem to be middle class people in the 30-50 age group mostly (with some younger and some older) who are solidly middle class and think everyone should just work hard and get by like they do.

That said I'm sure there are some on welfare and living off social security who are stupidly part of that movement as there's no shortage of morons who lobby against their own interests in this country.[/QUOTE]

I know the mag is biased, but when RS did an article on Rand Paul they made sure to point out how many people got their free hover rounds. They all thought that it was great to get them for free and that everyone else was the reason that we had budgetary problems.

People tend to not look at things objectively, and complain at any slight injustice they feel they have received.
 
[quote name='camoor']That doesn't make alot of sense to me. Why would an entitlement culture want to cut spending?

I think the teapartiers are simply angry and ignorant. They also have a "proud to be ignorant" attitude which is a really sad development in a country like America.[/QUOTE]

Just because your an entitlement culture does not mean you understand how your entitlements work. As you said the teapartiers are ignorant, which just so happens to be a trait of the boomers. If you inherit such a great amount of power and if for your whole life you are given everything...do you really think most people would work and study hard? The boomers are the equivalent of the average rich kid who is content to live off daddies money.

If you spend your whole life entitled you do not feel the need to educate yourself and thus you perceive imaginary threats to your entitlements. We have seen this throughout history

@dmaul whenever I see tea party rallies I see more 40+ year olds with a lot of that being grey. Again these are the boomers and the kids of boomers(if you dont realize the boomer generation is considered a 20ish year period so it encompass a lot of people). They both lived their whole life with everything handed to them. They did not need to worry about carbon emissions, employment numbers, putting food on the table or many other things. Even when our economy was in recession it was strong. They have lived their entire life as I said both being catered to and without too many true threats to their status. This is the first time they have faced what is perceived to be a real threat..so they freak the fuck out.

Edit- Just to make it clear entitlements does not refer to SSI, medicare, welfare or any other goverment program. When I am using it above I am talking about the feeling we humans get where we feel that we deserve something even if we truely do not. This is what I am reffering to when I say the boomers have a strong sense of entitlement, that they feel they DESERVE whatever they want be it a government program, a cut to a program or a ban on gay marriage. What they want they should get. That is how their mind works and since they make up the tea party its how the tea party works, we want it so we are entitled to get it.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I know the mag is biased, but when RS did an article on Rand Paul they made sure to point out how many people got their free hover rounds. They all thought that it was great to get them for free and that everyone else was the reason that we had budgetary problems.

People tend to not look at things objectively, and complain at any slight injustice they feel they have received.[/QUOTE]

Yes in other words a sense of entitlement, a sense that is incredibly strong in boomers and has been passed down to a lesser but still strong sense to their kids and again lesser still but still strong to some grand kids.
 
Tea Partiers don't like entitlement unless they're getting them.

They didn't mind higher property taxes when they were putting their kids through good public schools. Now, they have grandchildren two states away and could give a damn about the local schools.

They blame the President for high gas prices (and the taxes on them) because they have humongous friggin RVs that they drive to each Sarah Palin appearance. Never mind that already bad roads and bridges would look like the surface of the moon with lower gas taxes.

They'll deride welfare queens while the vote down any politician that talks about cutting Social Security.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Tea Partiers don't like entitlement unless they're getting them.

They didn't mind higher property taxes when they were putting their kids through good public schools. Now, they have grandchildren two states away and could give a damn about the local schools.

They blame the President for high gas prices (and the taxes on them) because they have humongous friggin RVs that they drive to each Sarah Palin appearance. Never mind that already bad roads and bridges would look like the surface of the moon with lower gas taxes.

They'll deride welfare queens while the vote down any politician that talks about cutting Social Security.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. A generation that feels they are entitled to every last damn thing but gets their panties in a bunch over other people being given anything because they perceive it as less for themselves. Our entire society has been built around 1 generation for the last 50-60 years because of the demographics and power that goes a long with their giant ass generation.
 
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at. Most of them are at ages where they aren't benefiting from any entitlements currently other than maybe SS/Medicare among the older ones, so they want to cut taxes and other spending as it doesn't help them. So they aren't lobbying against their interests. They're selfishly lobbying against things that don't help them--though some do support cuts to SS and Medicare and think it's people's own responsibility to save up for retirement etc. While others hypocritical oppose cuts to those, while wanting to cut everything that doesn't help them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='MSI Magus']Exactly. A generation that feels they are entitled to every last damn thing but gets their panties in a bunch over other people being given anything because they perceive it as less for themselves. Our entire society has been built around 1 generation for the last 50-60 years because of the demographics and power that goes a long with their giant ass generation.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't disagree with that, it's just that entitlement is a loaded word. Boomers are definately the "me" generation.

[quote name='dmaul']Yeah, I don't think many tea partiers are people living on wel-fare or social security.

They mostly seem to be middle class people in the 30-50 age group mostly (with some younger and some older) who are solidly middle class and think everyone should just work hard and get by like they do.

That said I'm sure there are some on welfare and living off social security who are stupidly part of that movement as there's no shortage of morons who lobby against their own interests in this country.[/QUOTE]

Too true. IMHO the Tea Party is one of the most ignorant political movements in all of recorded history. I predict that future generations will look back and ask 'exactly what were they so angry about again?'
 
From reading a bit about the deal....

I like that there are some big cuts to security/defense right away, and major cuts in defense spending in the trigger that goes into affect if a deal is not reached in the committee before the trigger deadline. Defense spending needs to come way down, and republicans are opposed to such cuts. Hopefully the trigger will thus put more pressure on republicans to actually compromise in debating the second round of cuts. I won't hold my breath on that though.

I don't like the cuts to student loans. Pell grants are going up some, which is a good thing. But major cuts to subsidized stafford loans, which will be a big blow for graduate students.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']I know the mag is biased, but when RS did an article on Rand Paul they made sure to point out how many people got their free hover rounds. They all thought that it was great to get them for free and that everyone else was the reason that we had budgetary problems.

People tend to not look at things objectively, and complain at any slight injustice they feel they have received.[/QUOTE]

I learned about a decade ago that a lot of anger in politics is often fueled by the idea that someone is getting something that you're not. Be it a tax break, or a welfare benefit, or an education package or a job program.
 
One of the best quotes iv heard in a long time that if everyone could learn would make politics 10,000x better.

You should never look in your neighbors bowl to see if they got a better serving then you, you should look in their bowl to make sure they got enough.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']One of the best quotes iv heard in a long time that if everyone could learn would make politics 10,000x better.

You should never look in your neighbors bowl to see if they got a better serving then you, you should look in their bowl to make sure they got enough.[/QUOTE]

I don't know. I wish someone had looked into Enron's bowl sooner...
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't know. I wish someone had looked into Enron's bowl sooner...[/QUOTE]

Well the thing is that while the quote says you only look in to your neighbors bowl to make sure they have enough its talking about a situation where you have plenty and they do not. If you looked in to 10 neighbors bowls and saw 9 were almost empty and 1 was overflowing then yes even if your bowl was full as well you should concern yourself. This is what too many people do not seem to get. They seem to think if they are fine and they do not take from others or at least not feel like they take from others that its acceptable. It does not change the fact though that there are still a lot of people with empty bowls out there while a select few have stockpiled enough porridge for a million life times.
 
The more I think about it the more that clip does a good job summing up a debate with the Tea Party. Louis CK represents the Liberal side of the debate and his daughter the Tea Party. She simply can not understand reason so even though he is trying to teach her a very important lesson, he relents and gives her her way.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']The more I think about it the more that clip does a good job summing up a debate with the Tea Party. Louis CK represents the Liberal side of the debate and his daughter the Tea Party. She simply can not understand reason so even though he is trying to teach her a very important lesson, he relents and gives her her way.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree. While the tea party is certainly as ignorant as the little girl, they are not simply gimmee gimmee.

The tea party is more like a chronic crash dieter. They want to lose weight but they don't want to give up the sweets.
 
The bill passed the house vote easily, with a vote of 269 for to 161 against.

Party breakdown: Republicans 174-66; Democrats 95-95
 
Anyone love how awesome it is that the Democratic president, the pinko commie socialist kenyan anti colonialist, is the one who is agreeing to historic cuts in social security and medicare?

Any CAG liberals interested in defending this? And no blaming the tea party either!
 
[quote name='IRHari']Anyone love how awesome it is that the Democratic president, the pinko commie socialist kenyan anti colonialist, is the one who is agreeing to historic cuts in social security and medicare?

Any CAG liberals interested in defending this? And no blaming the tea party either![/QUOTE]

I dont agree with it, but I have read a few liberal journalists comment on how its a huge win for liberals. The way they explain it is that the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in 2013 and that while tax revenues are off the table that tax reform is not. So reform the tax system and then let the Bush tax cuts expire naturally and its a win win. They also commented on how most of these cuts come from Defense and none of them really kick in till 2013 which gives the economy another 2 years to "recover".

I do not agree with any of this, but its how some are painting it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The bill passed the house vote easily, with a vote of 269 for to 161 against.

Party breakdown: Republicans 174-66; Democrats 95-95[/QUOTE]

That's eerie split for the Democrats.

Also, some people are getting bitchy about the deal including something about Graduate loans in 2012 being added at the last moment. My brother said he's known it'd be in the deal for a month, so I dunno why they're bitching now.

And tax reform isn't a guaranteed thing. In fact, I'd say it's the least likely thing to happen at this point. And reforming the tax code at this point wouldn't take place until 2013, probably 2014. But that's if they rushed it, which would cause an even bigger mess.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The bill passed the house vote easily, with a vote of 269 for to 161 against.

Party breakdown: Republicans 174-66; Democrats 95-95[/QUOTE]

That 95-95 was on purpose. Mos Def.
 
Well at least they solved it but the dropping of subsidized loans makes law school an even bigger losing venture. Why didn't I pick med school instead?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Anyone love how awesome it is that the Democratic president, the pinko commie socialist kenyan anti colonialist, is the one who is agreeing to historic cuts in social security and medicare?

Any CAG liberals interested in defending this? And no blaming the tea party either![/QUOTE]

Can't defend a lot of the cut. But I thought I heard (or read) that ss and medicare was protected from cuts in this round of cuts and the next round?

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Well at least they solved it but the dropping of subsidized loans makes law school an even bigger losing venture. Why didn't I pick med school instead?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I really dislike that part of it. Getting a graduate degree is getting to be a necessity to get a lot of decent paying jobs these days with a bachelor's degree becoming the new high school diploma (since damn near everyone on the white collar job market has one).

I took around a decent amount of subsidized loans getting my master's and Ph D., and it sucks that people now won't have that option.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Can't defend a lot of the cut. But I thought I heard (or read) that ss and medicare was protected from cuts in this round of cuts and the next round?[/QUOTE]

Medicare isn't if they don't reach an agreement of where to cut things by Thanksgiving.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Can't defend a lot of the cut. But I thought I heard (or read) that ss and medicare was protected from cuts in this round of cuts and the next round?



Yeah, I really dislike that part of it. Getting a graduate degree is getting to be a necessity to get a lot of decent paying jobs these days with a bachelor's degree becoming the new high school diploma (since damn near everyone on the white collar job market has one).

I took around a decent amount of subsidized loans getting my master's and Ph D., and it sucks that people now won't have that option.[/QUOTE]

Unless that graduate degree is a JD, in which case be prepared to enter one of the worst job markets of any industry...
 
There aren't any cuts at all. Merely adding less than either side wants to. It's all a fuss over nothing. The only people profiting are the representatives that are "fighting so hard for the American people."
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Well at least they solved it but the dropping of subsidized loans makes law school an even bigger losing venture. Why didn't I pick med school instead?[/QUOTE]

Blood makes you more queasy than assholes?

What was the original debate about anyways? Too much debt right? That's why the ceiling needed a raise so that's why there's too much right? I know! Let the tax bracket change from a few years back expire like it's supposed to and increase spending in all programs corallary to the new revenue leaving enough room for increases debt service.

American politics, more like pro wrestling every day. At least we know which one is fake, unfortunately the consequences of the other actually reach into our lives.

wune makes an interesting point, one that is often lost in budget related debates. Program Y isn't gonig to suddenly operate at 95% of funding next fiscal year. It will merely get a 4% increase as opposed to a 7% increase. It's called baseline budgeting. It's effective and it works. Though it is only those things when when growth happens at roughly the same percentage. If these two were more closely tied we'd still have defecit spending but debt wouldn't be as much of an issue.

Unfortunately, growth is quite low right now. Why is a very good question. One which will yield a lot of different responses from the pundit types. Mostly skirting around the fact that corporations and people that can are hoarding cash, doing little investing, and little extra spending. I have my opinions on the reasons for those, but nobody seems to want to hear them.

Good luck! And remember, just blame it on a white guy and it's ok.
 
Well, the bill is law now having been approved by the senate and signed by Obama.

Senate vote was 74-26.

By party:

Republicans: 28-19
Democrats: 45-6
--plus one Independent no vote.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, the bill is law now having been approved by the senate and signed by Obama.

Senate vote was 74-26.

By party:

Republicans: 28-19
Democrats: 45-6
--plus one Independent no vote.[/QUOTE]

That's not the type of breakdown I expected.
 
An interesting thought. The only reason any of this has even happened is because Obama has actually respected the political system and reduced presidential powers. Bush got so much done because he just wrote presidential mandates for everything and twisted the constitution and our other laws to fit his needs. Obama has not really done this even though he has had numerous chances.

Do not get me wrong Obama has abused his power at times(mainly war stuff like ordering American citizens killed for being terrorists)but overall he has largely respected the office and left congress to handle their job. Just an interesting thought that if he acted like Bush things would be totally different. Odd that Republicans complain about government overreach and the fed....yet here is a president giving up huge amounts of power and yet he is painted as overreaching.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']An interesting thought. The only reason any of this has even happened is because Obama has actually respected the political system and reduced presidential powers.[/QUOTE]

lol
 
[quote name='camoor']lol[/QUOTE]

Mind elaborating? As I said I dont like the guy, but the truth is that he has not pushed his will around through presidential mandates the whole time he is in office the way Bush did.
 
A few days ago I talked about how I thought that much of this was fueled by the Baby Boomers and how they are an entitlement generation. That they are a generation of whiners who have because of their massive demographics gotten their way their whole lives and ruined society for the rest of us. A few of you disagreed and said that you thought the Tea Party was made up of mostly 40 somethings(which technically some of them are still boomers since the boomers encompass about 20 years).

http://www.good.is/post/reminder-44-percent-of-tea-partiers-are-on-medicare/

This again shows that the Tea party is made up very largely of older people. 44% of them receive medicare and 48% receive SSI. That is damn near half, so again its a bunch of old people and people approaching retirement for the most part. In other words, spoiled boomers.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']A few days ago I talked about how I thought that much of this was fueled by the Baby Boomers and how they are an entitlement generation. That they are a generation of whiners who have because of their massive demographics gotten their way their whole lives and ruined society for the rest of us. A few of you disagreed and said that you thought the Tea Party was made up of mostly 40 somethings(which technically some of them are still boomers since the boomers encompass about 20 years).

http://www.good.is/post/reminder-44-percent-of-tea-partiers-are-on-medicare/

This again shows that the Tea party is made up very largely of older people. 44% of them receive medicare and 48% receive SSI. That is damn near half, so again its a bunch of old people and people approaching retirement for the most part. In other words, spoiled boomers.[/QUOTE]

If you're in the tea party and you're receiving Medicare you have immediately lost all credibility. To a lesser extent social security as well but there's an argument that at least with social security you're getting paid back for payments already made. In either case it certainly damages the credibility of the libertarian, government independence mindset
 
It's never been about government or it's size, it's about reducing or cutting things which don't benefit them. Obviously that 44% would be pissed to lose their medicare, lets just tell them it's part of government cutbacks, see how well they stick to their tea then.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']If you're in the tea party and you're receiving Medicare you have immediately lost all credibility. To a lesser extent social security as well but there's an argument that at least with social security you're getting paid back for payments already made. In either case it certainly damages the credibility of the libertarian, government independence mindset[/QUOTE]

For a counter argument of sorts, the government has made it impossible to plan your own retirement unless you're very well off. While I would endorse a gradual phasing out of pretty much everything government does (if I had my druthers, we'd spend $100 billion a year on defense, with the number dropping with deflation), I have priorities, and demonizing those dependent on government as being immoral is perplexing at best.

That's about as close as I'm going to get in defending tea party members, though. It was aped from libertarian circles in early 2009 by Republican derps pissed at Obama. In all honesty, there isn't much difference between tea partiers and liberals; they both support the banks/empire to varying degrees.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']For a counter argument of sorts, the government has made it impossible to plan your own retirement unless you're very well off. While I would endorse a gradual phasing out of pretty much everything government does (if I had my druthers, we'd spend $100 billion a year on defense, with the number dropping with deflation), I have priorities, and demonizing those dependent on government as being immoral is perplexing at best.

That's about as close as I'm going to get in defending tea party members, though. It was aped from libertarian circles in early 2009 by Republican derps pissed at Obama. In all honesty, there isn't much difference between tea partiers and liberals; they both support the banks/empire to varying degrees.[/QUOTE]

Just one question, how is it the govt. makes it impossible to save for retirement? I truly want to know how one can lay the lack of retirement savings solely on the feet of government.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']A few days ago I talked about how I thought that much of this was fueled by the Baby Boomers and how they are an entitlement generation. That they are a generation of whiners who have because of their massive demographics gotten their way their whole lives and ruined society for the rest of us. A few of you disagreed and said that you thought the Tea Party was made up of mostly 40 somethings(which technically some of them are still boomers since the boomers encompass about 20 years).

http://www.good.is/post/reminder-44-percent-of-tea-partiers-are-on-medicare/

This again shows that the Tea party is made up very largely of older people. 44% of them receive medicare and 48% receive SSI. That is damn near half, so again its a bunch of old people and people approaching retirement for the most part. In other words, spoiled boomers.[/QUOTE]
I've been saying for years I'm going to write a book about the Boomers called "The Worst Generation". They're like fucking locust.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I've been saying for years I'm going to write a book about the Boomers called "The Worst Generation". They're like fucking locust.[/QUOTE]

/nod writing is not a talent I have. If I did though id love to write a similar book though I think id call mine - Baby Boom....and Bust! How one Generation ran America in to the ground.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Just one question, how is it the govt. makes it impossible to save for retirement? I truly want to know how one can lay the lack of retirement savings solely on the feet of government.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't get that either. Pretty much anyone middle class or above can save up for retirement by living below their means and putting the extra money in their retirement accounts. One doesn't have to be "very well off" to do that on their own, nor to have a job that has a 401k with match etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah I don't get that either. Pretty much anyone middle class or above can save up for retirement by living below their means and putting the extra money in their retirement accounts. One doesn't have to be "very well off" to do that on their own, nor to have a job that has a 401k with match etc.[/QUOTE]

Not sure if you are being serious or sarcastic but either way /nod if you just make a little sacrifice every month you can create a nice little nest egg. My wife and I get by one 1 salary and yet we still manage to pay almost double our mortgage every month(we will own our house just 6 years after buying it)and 20% of her check to our 401k.

I do think people should be able to count on their government though for a very basic retirement. First off because if we do not have a system in place then people will not plan anyways and then we will have a major problem taking care of our elderly. It will cost us more in the long run to try and take care of all those poverty stricken old people that were too stupid to save a dime. It is also just the humane thing for a society to do.

Second off though its not like they make a hell of a lot of money in comparison to what we will make. My wife and I if we continue on the track we are on will retire with around $40,000 a year to live off of just from our 401k(meaning not adding in SSI or money we save). I believe that the average SSI recipient meanwhile receives around $1,100 or so a year. Meaning a SSI couple is retiring on about half of what we will. I think this is perfectly appropriate. If you were stupid enough(or in rare cases unfortunate enough)to rely just on SSI, then I do want to help you to get by, but just get by.
 
I was being serious, as it's absurd to say that the government makes it so only "very well off" people can save for retirement.

Pretty much everyone outside of the lower class can save for retirement if they live below their means and are smart with their money. It's not the government's fault that most people can't do that and go into debt for things they don't need, buy more house than they can afford, have more kids than they can afford etc.

And agreed that it's good to have social security as a safety net for both the lower class and the middle class and up idiots who squander their money and don't save enough for retirement. As you note, it would cost more to take care of the elderly who can't work and have no savings than to have social security.

The system just needs tweaked. The well off who have saved a lot of retirement probably shouldn't get SSI, or at least full benefits for instance.
 
You dont even have to live below your means, you just have to priotize your life. You cant have kids, a giant home, a giant TV, 2 really nice cars, yearly vacations(sometimes multiple of them), eat out all the time etc etc. You have to pick and chose what you want. As I said we get by on one income and pay double or mortgage and 20% to retirement. In return we have given up kids, only vacation every few years and we only have 1 car. We still have a giant 58" TV, we go out for Sushi, Korean and other nice meals at least once or twice a month and we enjoy other creature comforts like our Ipad and games.

You do not have to live below your means, you just have to look at like 10 things and choose a few that make you most happy and then sacrifice the rest. A little hint too, giving up kids means giving up far less of the other things. Seriously giving up kids is like giving up 3 or 4 other options ;)
 
By living below your means I just mean not living paycheck to paycheck or close to it.

Living below your means doesn't mean not spending any money on luxuries. It just means prioritizing savings first and being smart about not buying a house with a mortgage that eats up too much of your paycheck etc.

So pretty much what you said. It means passing on things you may want and can technically afford to buy with cash, so you can put away more money toward retirement etc.
 
The debt ceiling legislation passing sure hasn't stabilized the stock market short term.

The Dow fell a couple hundred points on Tuesday, was up slightly yesterday, and is down 300 some points currently.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was being serious, as it's absurd to say that the government makes it so only "very well off" people can save for retirement.

Pretty much everyone outside of the lower class can save for retirement if they live below their means and are smart with their money. It's not the government's fault that most people can't do that and go into debt for things they don't need, buy more house than they can afford, have more kids than they can afford etc.

And agreed that it's good to have social security as a safety net for both the lower class and the middle class and up idiots who squander their money and don't save enough for retirement. As you note, it would cost more to take care of the elderly who can't work and have no savings than to have social security.

The system just needs tweaked. The well off who have saved a lot of retirement probably shouldn't get SSI, or at least full benefits for instance.[/QUOTE]

So, you think that the people who saved for retirement when they were younger, but still made contributions to Social Security throughout their working life, shouldn't receive full benefits? Wouldn't this essentially mean that responsible people who saved for their retirement are being taxed at a higher rate?
 
Sure. It's income redistribution for sure, and it is essentially a tax. I have no problem with it. If I save enough that I have plenty to live well in retirement, I have no problem not getting my social security and having that money help people who are worse off.

The better off should be taxed more to help those who are worse off. Bentham's notion of utilitarianism wasn't just that individuals maximize their pleasure and minimize pain, but also that government and society should be set up to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. The latter point has largely fallen by the wayside and people only care about their own well being these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top