[quote name='Msut77']I don't care if you disagree, especially since it seems like as with so many other things you have mentioned in the past your disagreement isn't based on much of anything.
Aside from that I am not really saying that SS should be directly offset by cuts in the military, I am just pointing out that there is no particular reason why SS should be self funded 100% even in times of fiscal crisis anymore than our military adventures should be.
See the above better yet tell it to the Republicans, they are the ones on a jihad against SS. Go ahead and check out that cartoon I posted, a lot of the scaremongering anyway is about trust fund going broke. Which means even if it were to happen then it can just go back to the way things were pre-trust fund.
I would agree with most saying the demographics suck, but here is the thing demographics can't sneak up on you (see the cartoon) hence the trust fund.
Now as for the relatively easy fix, just raise the top rate at which people pay into SS, mind you none of this is even a real problem until decades from now even with the numbers from the current crisis.[/QUOTE]
ss shouldnt have to go into the red during times of economic crisis. but govt spending has left ss with nothing but worthless ious instead of having money in the bank.
raising the top rate is a start, going up to 250k isnt entirely unreasonable, but that in and of itself its not going to be enough. wed still need to change other things (like raising the age) and even after doing that its just going to buy time.
[quote name='camoor']Yes, the collusion between government and business (or the just plain lazieness and ineffieciency of government agencies like the SEC) is a huge problem.
We can talk about pensions all day but it just seems like more picking on the small guy for ideological reasons. In comparison to the problems created by toxic assets, too big to fail, and guys like Madoff, pension problems amount to chump change. I'd like it if we could focus more attention on the bad behavior of the top, the real problem, and leave it there. Just because we don't have the displeasure of seeing a rich guy collecting his free money from the government doesn't mean it doesn't happen or it's less offensive. I mean, yes it's more complicated, the treasury doesn't exactly hand over a booklet of "yacht stamps" to Goldman Sachs CEO Larry "we do God's work" Blankfein, but in the end it amounts to free money he used to line his pockets and in the end it's intensely more offensive and immoral. If you don't believe me go out and try to get a loan in the billions while your company's rep is in the crapper.[/QUOTE]
i know it seems like picking on the small guy, and believe it sucks for the small guy. but the problem is that some pensions are HUGE (especially in this state), as i said, more than 10,000 people are getting pensions as high above $100,000 a year. hell the highest pension in california is over $400,000 a year. and we just dont have the money. i mean not even close. the study i posted said california would have to invest $300b+ just to keep pensions going less than 20 years, thats more than twice our annual budget (which is already far too high) and theres virtually no way that the state can pay that.
ing moron if you think I ever said anyone was entitled to children. I just don't understand the irrational hate towards people with alot of kids. Regardless if you think they deserve them, the children need support. Would you rather tell the family to 
