When does the debt become important to you? - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #31 02-06-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I agree, we need to kill it before it gets any worse; unfortunately, we are the generation that will get hosed when it goes away. Oh well, it's only money.

Like heroine, we have become so dependent on govt intervention for everything. Things were bad at the last election and people were thinking that Obama could solve all the problems. Well, he can't but people don't stop thinking that he can. Yes, you can tell me it is unrealistic but that is life. When the nursing home the wife was stationed at was closing, they had a resident's meeting to tell them. The FIRST question was "Why isn't the govt doing something about it?". That is the mentality that people have these days.

aklim · #32 02-06-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thayer

Right now the Feds are sticking their authority in
everything. Since when is the economy the government's job to fix?

Since the people started deligating everything to the govt to fix. Something goes wrong, they want govt intervention. They don't think that it comes with a price.

Chas H · #33 02-06-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

That's part of the problem, the SS system was originally intended to get the geezers out of the job market an open up jobs for others (including returning veterans). I'm not sure that model makes sense anymore, the "retirement" ages for SS are much too young; the system is supporting many people for 20-30 years after they stop working. It makes more sense for the economy to support geezers by keeping them in the job market, than to pay them to sit home and watch the home shopping network for 30 years.
.

I'm guessing you have a desk job. There are many professions requiring physical labor and it's hardly fair to extend the retirement age for them.

aklim · #34 02-06-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveuz

Well feel free to define it anyway you want then see if you can answer the question.

Well, the way I define "aid" is that it is help, money, etc, etc, given to someone who cannot be of service to us in the near future. IOW, me giving money to United Way or the Susan G Kommen Foundation is basically aid. If I am getting something back in return, it is no longer aid. It is a sale. You owe me money and I wipe off the interest, it is aid. You owe me money and I wipe off the interest and maybe some principal and you give me your wife for a night (Indecent proposal, sorta) is not aid.

If you want to cut off what I define as aid, go for it. If you want to cut off the barter, trade or whatever you want to call the exchange, you need to be really careful about that.

#35 02-06-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Like heroine, we have become so dependent on govt intervention for everything. Things were bad at the last election and people were thinking that Obama could solve all the problems. Well, he can't but people don't stop thinking that he can. Yes, you can tell me it is unrealistic but that is life. When the nursing home the wife was stationed at was closing, they had a resident's meeting to tell them. The FIRST question was "Why isn't the govt doing something about it?". That is the mentality that people have these days.

That's the mentality people have had for about 50-60 years now. We can't solve everything by redistributing domestic wealth, we can't afford to support a military that was designed to fight WW3, and we can't support people who choose to retire in their 60s just because they think they are entitled.

#36 02-06-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

I'm guessing you have a desk job. There are many professions requiring physical labor and it's hardly fair to extend the retirement age for them.

Sorry, life's not fair. If you plan on retiring at 65, save some money for your retirement. It's not my job to support someone for 30 years because they were unwilling to plan for their future.

I do think that we should have some type of disability insurance to cover people who are actually unable to work, regardless of age (not people who just don't feel like working anymore).

MS Fowler · #37 02-06-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I would be willing to walk away today and call it even, I will never see any money anyway. SS payments are just another tax.

You likely have more years to earn than do I, probably.

daveuz · #38 02-06-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Well, the way I define "aid" is that it is help, money, etc, etc, given to someone who cannot be of service to us in the near future.

Now you have your definition see if you can now come up with who you think gets the most US "aid" as per your defination.

#39 02-06-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You likely have more years to earn than do I, probably.

I have as many years as I have left, I have no plans to retire. I don't understand why anyone would want to outlive their usefulness.

MS Fowler · #40 02-06-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

That's the mentality people have had for about 50-60 years now. We can't solve everything by redistributing domestic wealth, we can't afford to support a military that was designed to fight WW3, and we can't support people who choose to retire in their 60s just because they think they are entitled.

And yet, the democrat party wants a health care system that we can't afford.
Sorry, don't mean to be partisan, but if we are borrowing money to meet today's expenses, why are we even considering adding trillions more to what the government spends?
Sometimes "no" is the responsible answer.
And to be fair, Lets cut the military budget. I don't want to harm our security, but we can bring home the troops stationed around the world, and moth-ball a lot of equipment.

daveuz · #41 02-06-2010, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

And yet, the democrat party wants a health care system that we can't afford.
Sorry, don't mean to be partisan, but if we are borrowing money to meet today's expenses, why are we even considering adding trillions more to what the government spends?

How much MORE does the proposed Healthcare plan add to what we spend now?

#42 02-06-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

And yet, the democrat party wants a health care system that we can't afford.
Sorry, don't mean to be partisan, but if we are borrowing money to meet today's expenses, why are we even considering adding trillions more to what the government spends?
Sometimes "no" is the responsible answer.
And to be fair, Lets cut the military budget. I don't want to harm our security, but we can bring home the troops stationed around the world, and moth-ball a lot of equipment.

Regarding health care, we all know that everyone who needs health care in the US is currently receiving at least minimum care and the US economy is currently paying for it (one way or another). We do not have people dying in the streets for lack of healthcare. We also know that we are not going to stop providing basic care for everyone. The only question is how we want to pay for it in the future, and will it be more or less efficient that the current system.

Healthcare is not a new expenditure; what the democrats proposed was a transfer of a private expense to a public expense; I don't know if that's the best answer or not. I agree that the democrat's plan would put this expense "on the books" so it would show up as part of the debt. Now it's hidden in our insurance payments and doctor's bills, but we are still paying for it. I am also concerned that a government run program could have very high overhead costs.

The military and the civilian leadership need to figure out what their current/future missions are and design an appropriate force. They cannot afford to do everything at once. Also, we (both parties) need to stop engaging in military operations that are outside the budget. If it needs to be done, figure out how to pay for it. If a tax increase will be required, tell the public up front.

Chas H · #43 02-06-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

Sorry, life's not fair. If you plan on retiring at 65, save some money for your retirement. It's not my job to support someone for 30 years because they were unwilling to plan for their future.

I do think that we should have some type of disability insurance to cover people who are actually unable to work, regardless of age (not people who just don't feel like working anymore).

We're not discussing life here. We are talking about g'ment policy. As long as you and others have an elitist attitude, nothing will be reformed.
SS already provides disabilty payments along with medicare or medicaid for those qualifying for disability.

Chas H · #44 02-06-2010, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

And yet, the democrat party wants a health care system that we can't afford.

We can afford the present healthcare system even less. The Republicans don't want reform because they get paid by corporate interests to oppose it.

#45 02-06-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

SS already provides disabilty payments along with medicare or medicaid for those qualifying for disability.

I understand that, so what's the problem with raising the retirement age to 70 or 75? If someone digs ditches for a living and is unable to obtain another job, wouldn't they be eligible to collect disability if/when they were unable to perform that job? Why do we pay everyone to retire when many (most) could be productive for many more years?

I know lots of pencil pushers who will take their pensions and SS payments and use them to finance a 30 year vacation. That's fine with me, but I don't really want to subsidize their lifestyle choices.