Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Deficits Don't Matter... again
Comments
-
Great fucking argument. If a Department is created by the Federal Government it was obviously created for a "reason" and thus can never be eliminated or altered. Gosh I wish I could make smart posts like that.UWhuskytskeet said:
It's almost like these departments and programs were created for a reason. Seriously one of the dumbest posts I've seen.SFGbob said:I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.
Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response? -
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.AZDuck said:
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:SFGbob said:
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.UWhuskytskeet said:Bob loves old poor people.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
(2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
(3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy. -
That's not what Social Security is for. SS is to ensure that all old people can at least have a roof over their head and food on the table, so we don't have to deal with poor old folks living under bridges and shit, like the way it used to be.SFGbob said:
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.AZDuck said:
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:SFGbob said:
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.UWhuskytskeet said:Bob loves old poor people.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
(2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
(3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
It's redistribution, which is why you hate it. -
@SFGbob where's your support for whitewashing history books???
-
But of coarse you wouldn't touch defense even though it's one of the biggest line items. Entitlements should be on the table but you're not going to balance the budget without reducing military spending.SFGbob said:I'd completely eliminate the welfare state. I get rid of the departments of Education, Commerce and Labor. I'd drastically reduce the EPA and then I'd break for lunch.
Paying for the certainties of life, that you will get old, that you will get sick and that you will die, was never the reason why we constituted a Federal Government. We've been through this before Hondo, who you like me to predict your Kunt act response? -
Dude. Fucking read. Seriously. Go back and fucking read my posts.SFGbob said: -
I hate it for many reasons, that's just one. Are we to assume that the poor people living under bridges and shit never worked a day in their lives?AZDuck said:
That's not what Social Security is for. SS is to ensure that all old people can at least have a roof over their head and food on the table, so we don't have to deal with poor old folks living under bridges and shit, like the way it used to be.SFGbob said:
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.AZDuck said:
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:SFGbob said:
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.UWhuskytskeet said:Bob loves old poor people.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
(2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
(3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
It's redistribution, which is why you hate it. -
I think it's safe to assume that most of them worked for their entire productive lives. As you note, social welfare was, ahem, rather limited in the pre-1933 USA.SFGbob said:
I hate it for many reasons, that's just one. Are we to assume that the poor people living under bridges and shit never worked a day in their lives?AZDuck said:
That's not what Social Security is for. SS is to ensure that all old people can at least have a roof over their head and food on the table, so we don't have to deal with poor old folks living under bridges and shit, like the way it used to be.SFGbob said:
That's fine, if that's their choice. Personally, if i would have been allowed to take every dollar that I and my employers have paid into the Social Security system since the early 1980s and invested that money in a simply index fund I'd be much better off than what I'd receive from Social Security at the time of my retirement. But I didn't get that choice.AZDuck said:
You know what's funny? The military is in the process of converting from a post-20 year "defined benefits" program for retirees to one very much like the one you just described. There are three cohorts:SFGbob said:
No, what I would do rather than creating an unsustainable system that you're compelled to pay into your entire working life, I would have workers pay into a private system, with pre-tax money that allowed the person to invest and save that money as a personal asset. As of is now, if you're hit by a bus at 50, everything you paid into that system is gone. Yes, your wife might get a small benefit or your kids might get a few years of benefits until they reach a certain age.UWhuskytskeet said:Bob loves old poor people.
My system would look much more like what a 401K plan looks like. Borrowing for a first time home purchase would be allowed, and transferring that asset to your heirs at the time of your death would also be allowed.
(1) People who are vested in the old program (like me, thank God)
(2) People who can choose to go to the new "blended" system or stay in the old system
(3) Newfish, who have no choice but to go with the new system.
This is gonna sound crazy, but the people who have a choice are choosing the old system by 97 to 1.
Market choices, huh? Crazy.
It's redistribution, which is why you hate it.
There wasn't worker's comp either, so industrial accidents (much more common in a pre-OSHA world) could be a death sentence, or send a family spiraling into poverty.
