Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
cal50

Social Security running out of $$$ again......

Recommended Posts

Listening to some news on the radio and supposedly social security is going broke again with a projected year attached.

 

Why is it you never hear of foreign aid running out?

Welfare?

Government spending?

 

The thing that pisses me off is social security was paid into by the working and spent away past & present by all politicians.

Not only do they spend our personal funds they are worse with tax dollars which many do not pay into.

 

We need smaller government and / or one that spends less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cal, it is an old trick that politicians use--------------> if they told you that some non descript program was running out of money, most people would shrug and so, "sayanara!" And so, they have to tell everyone it is something they care about to allow our dear friends in Washington to raise taxes.

 

It is also why when there is a problem in a state, the 1st things they say are going is------->police, firefighters, and school funding. We should all kind of laugh at them because everything is put into the general fund, is it not? So when they say these things, what they are actually saying is---------------> they choose to cut funding to these programs to scare the heck out of you, so you will agree to allow them to take MORE of your money.

 

Consider---------> If the SS fund was not spent on everything else but SS by politicians, it would be in much better shape than it is. Politicians, instead of taking BACK the money where they invested it, now demand that we resupply the fund so they can spend it again......and again......and again, and it seems to work, doesn't it. It scares everyone, because most people have a stake in it, so they surrender.

 

Sadly, the only solution is to put honest politicians in power, and we all know that isn't going to happen. Isn't it funny as an example.......that the current administration (or even the last administration) can create such deficits while increasing the national debt exponentially on give-aways and transfer of wealth schemes; but when it is time to pay a person who worked all their life, and that person was FORCED to pay into a system on a promise, the 1st thing they want to do is screw them. The people who did as they were told for the good of the country and system, pay the price. The people who scammed the system, never paid anything in, or just arrived from God knows where.........why they get everything, and want more; and will probably get it.

 

How can many people on here say, "that America has not changed for the worse," or that "everything is getting better?"

 

We see what they did to the veterans, we seen what they did to American kids by restricting school choice; so why should we not expect them to screw the older people too. We aren't the last to get screwed though, we are just the last of the 1st few.

Edited by Imawhosure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Locally, they always call for higher taxes.......because firefighters, police, and EMT services are going to be cut.

 

But the community art director and housekeeping for the City Hall and Mayor's office will never be threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly most of the sacks of crap in the house & senate from both parties are part of the problem and not any solution.

 

I truly dislike all politicians and basic math (spending) is not debatable and has no compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo. It's not Republicans or Democrats. They're all to blame. Get them out and start over and hope the new bunch get the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same story here in Maryland. They fooled the stupid voter base into approving casinos since all of the proceeds were legally tied to going to the education fund. All it ended up doing is taking education money that was originally coming from the general fund and replacing it with casino taxes. Then they just funded new programs with the "freed up" general fund money and all the sudden we need more taxes because they schools still aren't getting enough. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same story here in Maryland. They fooled the stupid voter base into approving casinos since all of the proceeds were legally tied to going to the education fund. All it ended up doing is taking education money that was originally coming from the general fund and replacing it with casino taxes. Then they just funded new programs with the "freed up" general fund money and all the sudden we need more taxes because they schools still aren't getting enough. :doh:

Such is to be expected when any warm body (or possibly someone posing as a warm body) can show up at the polls and vote for the "giveument" to hand them all they need...without having to earn it.

 

Recent story line said free pot is now being offered to those who sign a particular partition. Geesh, can there be anyone who doesn't see where THAT will end up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever wonder when municipalities float sin taxes for new stadiums and they claim it brings millions of dollars and jobs into the community then why do they slap taxes on consumers and businesses ?

Where are those millions of supposed dollars going ?

 

Billionaire owners paying millionaire players and the consumer and tax payer providing a free place of business for both.

The NFL being a non-profit is one of the biggest jokes going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same story here in Maryland. They fooled the stupid voter base into approving casinos since all of the proceeds were legally tied to going to the education fund. All it ended up doing is taking education money that was originally coming from the general fund and replacing it with casino taxes. Then they just funded new programs with the "freed up" general fund money and all the sudden we need more taxes because they schools still aren't getting enough. :doh:

 

Just like the Gas tax that went into effect a few years ago? SMH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same story here in Maryland. They fooled the stupid voter base into approving casinos since all of the proceeds were legally tied to going to the education fund. All it ended up doing is taking education money that was originally coming from the general fund and replacing it with casino taxes. Then they just funded new programs with the "freed up" general fund money and all the sudden we need more taxes because they schools still aren't getting enough. :doh:

It's a similar story with the lotteries.

 

The difference being the government now has a more blatant interest in enticing people to part with their money on a fruitless endeavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....but its for the children

,,,,but its for the roads & bridges.

....but its investing in the community.

....but its for education.

....but its for jobs.

 

Lots of direct and indirect tax dollars gone without a trace.......someone should have their but kicked and be voted out of a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (real) Solution to much of America`s problems is our Constitution and the fact that we chose (not) to adopt the Parliamentary form of Governance that virtually every other Democracy in the Free World uses today. We needed to be (different ) then Britain when we broke away and we are now unfortunately stuck with lame Politicians that remain in Office for 2-4-or 6 years. Lets simply Elect Lobbyists and cut out the Middleman? The other easy fix would be to eliminate Primary Elections. All Elections, local, county/parish,state, and national would be General Elections. A massive free for all with endless Candidates. If no (1) Candidate gets 51% of the popular Vote, a run-off Election is held between the (2) top Vote getters, simple. This will eliminate 99% of the wacko fringe Candidates that can Win Primaries by throwing tons of Red Meat to their (base) but can never Win in the General Elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (real) Solution to much of America`s problems is our Constitution and the fact that we chose (not) to adopt the Parliamentary form of Governance that virtually every other Democracy in the Free World uses today. We needed to be (different ) then Britain when we broke away and we are now unfortunately stuck with lame Politicians that remain in Office for 2-4-or 6 years. Lets simply Elect Lobbyists and cut out the Middleman? The other easy fix would be to eliminate Primary Elections. All Elections, local, county/parish,state, and national would be General Elections. A massive free for all with endless Candidates. If no (1) Candidate gets 51% of the popular Vote, a run-off Election is held between the (2) top Vote getters, simple. This will eliminate 99% of the wacko fringe Candidates that can Win Primaries by throwing tons of Red Meat to their (base) but can never Win in the General Elections.

 

You won't believe this but I agree with you 100% and have said the same thing many times. Primaries simply ensure that the 2 party system stays in control. Republicans and Democrats fight each other tooth and nail in the primary and then they do a 180 and provide full support for whichever candidate wins. And we definitely need term limits. When it's a career they'll do whatever is necessary to keep their jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeal the 17th Amendment.

You really think that would improve the "quality" of those selected to serve in the Senate if we let individual State Legislatures do the picking? States such as TX and FL have by "popular" Vote sent the likes of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to the Senate. Hows that working out for you? For Congress, what about All-Stars like Louie Gohmert and Blake Farenthold or Ted Yoho and John Mica. Returning to pre-17th Amendment days, the situation would only get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think that would improve the "quality" of those selected to serve in the Senate if we let individual State Legislatures do the picking?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really think that would improve the "quality" of those selected to serve in the Senate if we let individual State Legislatures do the picking? States such as TX and FL have by "popular" Vote sent the likes of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to the Senate. Hows that working out for you? For Congress, what about All-Stars like Louie Gohmert and Blake Farenthold or Ted Yoho and John Mica. Returning to pre-17th Amendment days, the situation would only get worse.

Yes, absolutely, no doubt about it. The senators would have to do the states bidding instead of their own, or lose their jobs. It would also create 3rd party input into the selection, because if the vote is close, the 3rd party would have the say on who was chosen.

 

Remember that the senates job is to REPRESENT the states that they are from. The house is to represent the people.

 

And I too agree 100% that we need term limits for congress. That is NOT going to happen unless we have a meeting of the states though. To believe for 1 second that congress is going to put forth an amendment to limit themselves is ridiculous.

 

As far as leaving the two party system for what you suggested looks good on paper, but will not work. Why? Because if I am a multi billionaire, all I have to do is finance 20 candidates under the table who will tell different groups everything they want to hear, and have all my business buddies vote for me. All of the my financed candidates carry 3% of the vote for a total of 60%, and I carry 30%, and there you have it, my money put me in the run-off.

 

And you also know what! The media is part of the problem, a large part of the problem. Let me extrapolate--------------> regardless if you are a conservative or progressive; during the last Presidential debate, or any state debate for that matter, were any of the questions posed to the candidates questions that were important to you for the current political situation at the time? And if they were, did the moderator hold the respondents feet to the fire when the question asked had nothing to do with the response given?

 

I mean seriously-----------> if I ask you what color the sky is, and you come back with "the grass is green," how is that a debate?

 

So back on topic-----------> how many of you (from both partys) believe it would be a great idea to ask our candidates when they debate in 2016, what they are going to do about social security? IF they give a cogent answer instead of side step it, we have an opportunity to let professionals run the numbers to see if it is viable. But, the truth we all know is------------> somebody(s) is going to get the shaft if they are honest. Either the older people, the younger people, or the total base of the taxpayer. So, will you vote for someone who tells you the truth? Or rather, will you vote for someone who lies to all of us again, and claims if we just follow their plan, nobody is going to feel pain, and we will wake up the morning after we elect them, and be in Shang-ri-La!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of campaign commercials attacking the other candidates how about each candidate responds to a list of real issues with how they would address it and where they stand on specific issues. In writing. Free. No need for huge campaign warchests and financing. State your position and let the people vote. In one general election without primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good start but lots of party line voters on both sides of the political spectrum to have real impact IMHO.

Way too many people simply vote "D" or "R"'. and that is a huge part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good start but lots of party line voters on both sides of the political spectrum to have real impact IMHO.

Way too many people simply vote "D" or "R"'. and that is a huge part of the problem.

 

Exactly. Without a primary they wouldn't be able to do that and it would give an independent or other party candidate a fighting chance in the general election. Take the top 3 in the general election and have a runoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is more than "D" vs "R".

It's falling for the same lying tactics election year after election year.

Re-electing the same people reproduces the same results.

 

Don't vote on promises, because it's obvious their promises are excusable and deniable, for them.

 

Vote based on what they do between elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, absolutely, no doubt about it. The senators would have to do the states bidding instead of their own, or lose their jobs. It would also create 3rd party input into the selection, because if the vote is close, the 3rd party would have the say on who was chosen.

 

Remember that the senates job is to REPRESENT the states that they are from. The house is to represent the people.

 

And I too agree 100% that we need term limits for congress. That is NOT going to happen unless we have a meeting of the states though. To believe for 1 second that congress is going to put forth an amendment to limit themselves is ridiculous.

 

As far as leaving the two party system for what you suggested looks good on paper, but will not work. Why? Because if I am a multi billionaire, all I have to do is finance 20 candidates under the table who will tell different groups everything they want to hear, and have all my business buddies vote for me. All of the my financed candidates carry 3% of the vote for a total of 60%, and I carry 30%, and there you have it, my money put me in the run-off.

 

And you also know what! The media is part of the problem, a large part of the problem. Let me extrapolate--------------> regardless if you are a conservative or progressive; during the last Presidential debate, or any state debate for that matter, were any of the questions posed to the candidates questions that were important to you for the current political situation at the time? And if they were, did the moderator hold the respondents feet to the fire when the question asked had nothing to do with the response given?

 

I mean seriously-----------> if I ask you what color the sky is, and you come back with "the grass is green," how is that a debate?

 

So back on topic-----------> how many of you (from both partys) believe it would be a great idea to ask our candidates when they debate in 2016, what they are going to do about social security? IF they give a cogent answer instead of side step it, we have an opportunity to let professionals run the numbers to see if it is viable. But, the truth we all know is------------> somebody(s) is going to get the shaft if they are honest. Either the older people, the younger people, or the total base of the taxpayer. So, will you vote for someone who tells you the truth? Or rather, will you vote for someone who lies to all of us again, and claims if we just follow their plan, nobody is going to feel pain, and we will wake up the morning after we elect them, and be in Shang-ri-La!

Despite the fact that you and I in the Past and probably, in the future, will be unable to agree on virtually anything, I agree with your Post 100%. It`s true, regardless if your a Lap Dog Liberal Progressive such as myself or a Conservative Teabagger, the fact that the Senate is supposed to represent their respective States and the House is supposed to represent the People from their respective Districts, they merely act as Lobbyists for the Corporate interests that helped get them elected to office. The system is hopelessly broken and thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling on the People`s United decision that Corporations are people too and have the same rights, our Republic will (never) be the same. The billionaire Koch brothers with their Super Pac, "Americans For Prosperity", I`m curious, is Membership open to anyone other then the top 2%ers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as of right now I can't think of any incumbents who deserve to be re-elected. At least the Republicans tried to force a balanced budget and not raise the debt ceiling but they failed miserably 3 times so it's time to get a new team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as of right now I can't think of any incumbents who deserve to be re-elected. At least the Republicans tried to force a balanced budget and not raise the debt ceiling but they failed miserably 3 times so it's time to get a new team.

You forgot to mention that led by one of the Republican Super Stars, Senator Ted Cruz, they caused the Federal Government shut down that simply (added) to our National Debt, proved and accomplished (Zero), other then doing some idiotic grandstanding, the equivalent to an Adult food fight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×