flyboy0681 Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 This is like arguing with my wife, except better, because at the end of the night I still get to have sexy time! I guess you don't have, nor do you ever land up in, a dog house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJBrown Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 What I am saying is if there was NO safety net at all we would need no safety net. The existence of SS and medicare create the need for it. A big part of the "Problem" with the medical industry is caused by the intrusion of the government. If "unlimited" funds weren't available it would not take those same "unlimited" funds to do the job. Just as my wife's shoe collection expands to fill the void in the closet medical costs expand to fill the available funds. We have been trained by our society to NOT take care of ourselves. Families used to take care of each other. Parents took care of children and later children took care of parents. Now days we don't have to. There is no turning back the sheeple WANT their pork. Until the economy collapses completely there will be no real change. Until it hurts more to continue along the current path that it hurts to fix it we will see no fix. The more money the government pulls out of the economy to fix our social problems the more social problems we will have. Bleeding the economic engine dry will kill it. Every dollar pulled from the workers and given to non workers puts the economy closer to collapse. When first initiated SS had 20+ workers for each retiree. We are approaching a 1 to 1 ratio. The government has made promises that either can't be fulfilled or if fulfilled will crush the economy. We have passed the tipping point as a nation. We ARE sliding down the hill. We as a nation are to cowardly to face reality. The biggest cowards of all are in DC. It is time to close the candy store and save the union. Both sides are to blame. Democrats are leading us to oblivion and the Republicans have been forced to play the givaway game to remain viable. There is no braking system, just a brick wall straight ahead. The argument that Obama is ok because he is only a bit worse than Bush2 is stupidity magnified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJBrown Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 This post just makes one wonder at the electorate en mass. You don't realize that the SS percentage is 15.3% not 7%. A little shell game and you fell for it. If everyone was able to put this 15% into a retirement account every one would retire as a millionaire. Average annual income 2007 $50,000. Invest 15% or $7500 per year @5% (age 30-65) for 35 years the balance would be 711,000. buy a 5% annuity paid out over 20 years (65-85) and the income would be 50,000 per year. Social Security GIVES nothing It is just a way FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEAL YOUR MONEY. The "investment" put into SS should pay $4200 a month not the $700 That "saves" seniors from abject poverty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyboy0681 Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 What I am saying is if there was NO safety net at all we would need no safety net. The existence of SS and medicare create the need for it. A big part of the "Problem" with the medical industry is caused by the intrusion of the government. If "unlimited" funds weren't available it would not take those same "unlimited" funds to do the job. Just as my wife's shoe collection expands to fill the void in the closet medical costs expand to fill the available funds. I don't totally disagree with what you said here, especially about the old days when kids took care of their parents. However, that is not the same as providing healthcare for them. Prior to the signing of the Medicare Act in 1965, the health of the elderly in this country was atrocious. Even though premiums for health insurance were significantly lower back them in real dollars, most seniors still couldn't afford it and most went without. Those that did have it were pretty much limited to seniors on a company or government pension (remember those!). The success of Medicare is evidenced by one of it's byproducts, and to some - it's downfall: seniors are living at least 10 years longer than prior to its enactment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 I guess you don't have, nor do you ever land up in, a dog house. Did I mention I live with a liberal? Shower them with gifts and they keep calling your name! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.