I Could End the Deficit

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Although to be honest, the ideas I would have wouldn't be popular - one, eliminate the cap on Social Security - totally. You pay a percent, period. Another - a small VAT, with legal wording restricting its growth.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and I'd eliminate it entirely. Instead each American would get their own individual retirement account and SS deductions would be contributed and go into that account. They'd have to be at least (x age) to withdraw, but in the meantime it's growing and reinvesting. A mandatory IRA, so to speak.

The government isn't a good steward of our money, or anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and I'd eliminate it entirely. Instead each American would get their own individual retirement account and SS deductions would be contributed and go into that account. They'd have to be at least (x age) to withdraw, but in the meantime it's growing and reinvesting. A mandatory IRA, so to speak.

The government isn't a good steward of our money, or anything.
You'll get no argument from me on that - it would still need to be phased in, for the tens of millions who DO NOT have an individual retirement account - and social security is IT. E.g. both of my sisters.

EVERY FREAKING TIME it gets proposed though, the roar goes up from the left and it gets shot down, because they are somehow attached to the idea that government GUARANTEES it - whereas an account based on the market is subject to loss. But for the fact that the stock market has ALWAYS been a good long term investment - even during downturns.

Several have proposed a kind of Thrift Savings Plan for all -as government employees have - funds where they can move and adjust as they pay into it - very easily. I am not sure why it got scuttled. I think there's something about scaling it up for the whole country, where it just doesn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

somdwatch

Well-Known Member
So you're an expert in cyber security, seriously all I want is to make sure there are safeguards and apparently you are arguing against that.
DOGE has no interest in PII. They are looking at the 3 and 4 letter agencies on organizations that aren't even those.

My info has been exposed 3 times already by 3 different agencies.

It's on you to protect your PII with one of the monitoring offerings.
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and I'd eliminate it entirely. Instead each American would get their own individual retirement account and SS deductions would be contributed and go into that account. They'd have to be at least (x age) to withdraw, but in the meantime it's growing and reinvesting. A mandatory IRA, so to speak.

The government isn't a good steward of our money, or anything.
AARP hates me because I always answer their SS surveys the same way. It's a Ponzi scheme that needs completely overhauled to something sustainable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
AARP is number 1 for trash mails number 2 is the auto warranty folks.
But then there is the American Legion and the banks both trying to sell an 82 yo man life insurance.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BOP

ontheriver

Well-Known Member
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and I'd eliminate it entirely. Instead each American would get their own individual retirement account and SS deductions would be contributed and go into that account. They'd have to be at least (x age) to withdraw, but in the meantime it's growing and reinvesting. A mandatory IRA, so to speak.

The government isn't a good steward of our money, or anything.
This is a great idea, except for those who paid into SS for DECADES. I want my money back.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
EVERY FREAKING TIME it gets proposed though, the roar goes up from the left and it gets shot down, because they are somehow attached to the idea that government GUARANTEES it - whereas an account based on the market is subject to loss. But for the fact that the stock market has ALWAYS been a good long term investment - even during downturns.
No Sam. The Leadership of the Left are attached to the idea that it's just too damn easy to embezzle from that slush fund.
I don't know any SANE or SMART person that believes the Gov't guarantees it. Hell, every time there is talk about a Gov't shutdown, the first thing the Left's Leadership screams is that Social Security is NOT guaranteed at that point...

Now, that's not saying there aren't SOME who believe it's guaranteed...But again, none of them are SMART or SANE, so if you want to refer to anyone that you know that believes SS is guaranteed, it's a safe bet they fall into one, if not BOTH, of those 2 categories...
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
No Sam. The Leadership of the Left are attached to the idea that it's just too damn easy to embezzle from that slush fund.
I don't know any SANE or SMART person that believes the Gov't guarantees it. Hell, every time there is talk about a Gov't shutdown, the first thing the Left's Leadership screams is that Social Security is NOT guaranteed at that point...

Now, that's not saying there aren't SOME who believe it's guaranteed...But again, none of them are SMART or SANE, so if you want to refer to anyone that you know that believes SS is guaranteed, it's a safe bet they fall into one, if not BOTH, of those 2 categories...
I'm not saying that it's fated to always be there - I'm saying that they have promised to keep it.

When you buy stock - NO ONE guarantees or even promises you won't lose your shirt.

They don't - "embezzle" from it. But money is fungible - it all goes in one pile and they - to put it really simply - leave basically, an IOU with the idea they owe it. But the sad truth is, money cannot just sit around Washington. It's not that there's a bank or a lockbox or an account to leave it in. It all goes there and every dime gets spent. Until a few decades ago, there was a lot more going into Social Security than going out, and there were a lot more workers paying IN than retirees withdrawing. I think we're down to two to one - two people paying IN for every one person paying out.

Those little IOU's are going to go the other way unless they find a way to boost it up. I think they should end the salary cap - I was never really sure why they had it in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOP

BOP

Well-Known Member
:lol: You really want to be right, don't you?

This is like trying to explain to my mother what I do for a living. At some point I just give up and go, "You're right. I'm a secretary."
Should have told her you were a piano player in a whorehouse.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and I'd eliminate it entirely. Instead each American would get their own individual retirement account and SS deductions would be contributed and go into that account. They'd have to be at least (x age) to withdraw, but in the meantime it's growing and reinvesting. A mandatory IRA, so to speak.

The government isn't a good steward of our money, or anything.
I did well enough by going to an investment expert that if there were no social security, I'd still be okay. Certainly not flush; not traveling, but thanks to that investment, my 5-year old truck is paid for, my mortgage is $1,100 a month (half the rent of the house across the street), and with just my utilities, but I'm doing okay.

Having said that, if they eliminated SS, I'd be pissed. I've been paying into that since 1972, and I want at least that much out of it.
 

seekeroftruth

Well-Known Member
The problem with this is, we’re way past this. Mandatory spending - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security - plus Defense and interest on debt - already engulfs all of the revenue per year - we’d be over budget even if we cut EVERYTHING else.

OK... I've been asking about what the government is going to do about MEDICARE and MEDICAID and so far no one from the government [or Congressman Andy Biggs] will respond to me.

I think doctors are billing for more surgeries than they should be allowed. For instance, when the doctor told me he could do a little one time surgery and get rid of the floaters. Well, according to the doctor... he "did nothing wrong" but I would need more surgery and more surgery and more surgery to "correct" what he "didn't do wrong".

This caused MEDICARE to be billed for three more surgeries. If I had MEDICAID it would have been the same... they would have been billed for three more surgeries. He left me blind.

If he was REQUIRED TO CARRY LIABILITY INSURANCE, then the LIBILITY INSURANCE would be REQUIRED TO REPAY MEDICARE and MEDICAID for the THREE SURGERIES to "CORRECT" what he "DIDN'T DO WRONG".

Then... if the doctor's liability insurance had to pay out a lot of these "correction" surgeries, they would raise his rates and/or require him to get more schooling or quit. He would have to stop blinding people.

US CITIZENS should not have to pay for surgeries that did not produce the results sold to the patient. US CITIZENS should not have to pay for "SERVICES NOT RENDERED". And of course, Liability Insurance would have to repay my advantage insurance as well, which would lower my costs as well.

I hate to admit it... but I'm not totally against what muskythump is doing.

:coffee:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I hate to admit it... but I'm not totally against what muskythump is doing.

Why hate to admit it? If it's good for us, it's good and shouldn't matter where it comes from.

You just outlined pretty much everything I hate about the medical industrial complex. Doctors aren't out to make people well, they're out for a buck and whatever will line their pockets or give them a kickback from the pharma crooks is what they'll recommend. You cannot trust them.

Here's what I was thinking about last night:

There's this thing I keep seeing commercials for - (Something)Cure - that cures skin cancer. It's targeted radiation they concentrate on the cancer spot that kills it with no cutting or scarring. And they use the word "cure" several times. So if they can cure skin cancer, why can't this same technique cure other cancers? Or is it just another bullshit scammer trying to part cancer patients from their money? Or is the oncology industry the scammer? Because somebody is lying and unless you go to freaking med school you won't know who. And even if you DO go to med school, are activist professors telling you the truth or are they just indoctrinating you into the cult?

"Right to Try" - why in holy hell would anyone be against this? If you are terminally ill, how can the government prevent you from seeking potentially lifesaving treatment that's outside the accepted conventional practice? Why would the bureaucrats want to do that?

I could bitch about the medical mafia all day.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I’ve always wondered how it’s possible that pharmaceuticals CAN cost almost nothing - but medical TESTS and LAB WORK are astonishing. I GET how a doctor might bill insurance around 100 or so for a 15 minute visit - but we once were billed 500 for a similar consult with a specialist.

THIS is the reason we pay more for medical care than the rest of the world - AND we’re less healthy.
 

somdwatch

Well-Known Member
AARP hates me because I always answer their SS surveys the same way. It's a Ponzi scheme that needs completely overhauled to something sustainable.
Funny, AARP sent me their offering 15 years ago. This was at the time of ObamaCare rolling out and they were all on board.
I wrote on the back "Being AARP is aligned with socialism and supportive of ObamaCare please remove me from your mailing list"
Damn, they actually read it! Haven't heard from them since.

FYSA, there is a more conservative offering to replace AARP. AMAC.
 
Top