Pentagon cuts aircraft carrier presence in the Gulf due to budget

[Spekkio]

We need to stop calling social security a free handout. It's not. People pay into it all their working lives, and it's capped at a point where wealthy Americans don't contribute appreciably more. Talking about a 67 year old retired American as if he's leaching the system is insulting to their life work. Also, it's real easy for a bunch of 20 somethings in good health whose toughest day to day labor involves moving a joystick to advocate raising the retirement age. Not so easy for the guy who does construction or similar manual labor and has a body breaking down from it.

You want to talk the benefits of government vs privately managed retirement accounts? Great. But let's drop the insinuation that social security collectors are lazy leeches on society. It's not true and makes the libertarian/privatized crowd look like dingbats.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

We need to stop calling social security a free handout. It's not. People pay into it all their working lives, and it's capped at a point where wealthy Americans don't contribute appreciably more. Talking about a 67 year old retired American as if he's leaching the system is insulting to their life work. Also, it's real easy for a bunch of 20 somethings in good health whose toughest day to day labor involves moving a joystick to advocate raising the retirement age. Not so easy for the guy who does construction or similar manual labor and has a body breaking down from it.

You want to talk the benefits of government vs privately managed retirement accounts? Great. But let's drop the insinuation that social security collectors are lazy leeches on society. It's not true and makes the libertarian/privatized crowd look like dingbats.

It looks a lot more like a free handout to young people who are paying into the system knowing that they won't receive the same benefits they are paying for.

 

[Fog]

It looks a lot more like a free handout to young people who are paying into the system knowing that they won't receive the same benefits they are paying for.

If they know "they won't receive the same benefits they are paying for" then why don't "young people" do something about it? Deficit spending at the rate of $1.2Trillion/yr is NOT a solution for long. Just sayin'. My employers & I paid 12.4%/yr of my income [up to annual caps] into the SSN system for 35+ years. Excuse me if I think myself owed whatever the system now pays me.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

If they know "they won't receive the same benefits they are paying for" then why don't "young people" do something about it?

Sage advice. I'll take care of it.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

If they know "they won't receive the same benefits they are paying for" then why don't "young people" do something about it? Deficit spending at the rate of $1.2Trillion/yr is NOT a solution for long. Just sayin'. My employers & I paid 12.4%/yr of my income [up to annual caps] into the SSN system for 35+ years. Excuse me if I think myself owed whatever the system now pays me.

Sarcasm aside, this is what we should all get used to seeing. People realize there is a problem and that cuts must be made, but they better not come at their expense. Is it fair to cut social security for those who have paid in for their entire life? Of course not. Younger generations should be able to see that they are already guaranteed to get screwed on social security, fair or not.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

If they know "they won't receive the same benefits they are paying for" then why don't "young people" do something about it?

It's not that simple, the problem is that it's got so much momentum behind it right now. With so many baby boomers expecting the benefits to help them in retirement, and politicians "borrowing" the funds to cover other things, they SHOULD grandfather in a certain amount of people while they shut it down, like people within 20 years of retirement, but since the money was used for other things, current workers would still have to pay into the system to cover the difference, knowing they won't get anything in return. Who would vote for the politician who suggests that, even though it's probably the best thing to do in the long run?

 

[SkywardET]

I am surprised that anyone would think Social Security is a free handout. Obviously any system you pay into should pay you back in some regard. Social Security, however, is a horrible way to run a railroad, and that's why no entity that is concerned with long-term sustainability utilizes a model that is anything similar to Social Security. Ponzi schemes are the closest thing you will find in the (illegitimate side of the) private sector, and yet somehow we currently do and always have accepted that "Social Security is different, special."

We are to the point now that even if the military budget was reduced to exactly $0, and in fact if all the assets were liquidated on top of that, we would not even be able to balance the budget. Social Security isn't a freebie handed out, but all entitlements are the fundamental source of our budgetary woes.

 

[Fog]

It's not that simple, the problem is that it's got so much momentum behind it right now . . . Who would vote for the politician who suggests that, even though it's probably the best thing to do in the long run?

[/quote]

Didn't work out too well for Paul Ryan & the Republicans in the House when they brought it up a few years ago, did it? Yet, grandfathering those over a certain age and transferring those younger into a different system does seem the only possible alternative to financial armageddon for the Social Security Administration - doesn't it? Don't hold your breath until those on Capitol Hill pull that one off.

 

[Fog]

I am surprised that anyone would think . . . Social Security isn't a freebie handed out, but all entitlements are the fundamental source of our budgetary woes.

Welfare, food stamps, cell-phones, Section 8 housing [among others] are legal "entitlements" - you can google it, it's a long list. Social Security and Medicare are NOT "entitlements" as they are ostensibly paid for through employee/employer contributions. That, of course, doesn't mean they won't go bankrupt in our lifetimes. Just sayin' . . .

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

Don't hold your breath until those on Capitol Hill pull that one off.

No kidding. I'm learning quickly not to expect the government to act reasonably or predictably. The only thing I can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst - in this case, I'm expecting they'll keep taking FICA out of my checks, and assuming there won't be any left for me when I retire.

 

[phrogdriver]

This thread has really gone too far afield. Let's steer it back towards the military budget/national security side. We can all agree that clearly, the reason the deployment was cancelled was poor people.

 

[Fog]

Roger that, But OMG, you're saying that poor people caused the Truman's deployment to be CNX'ed? You're now on a list somewhere!

 

[707guy]

Common theme between the entitlements/deployment cancelled sides of this thread is that the folks in DC need to do SOMETHING. This BS politicking on both sides is wearing thin - "the system" is broken and needs to be fixed. Do I have any faith that it will be anytime soon - NOPE. In the not so long ago past both sides were willing to find middle ground. Now it seems there is no middle ground. At least if you buy into the Executive branch's version of the story.

 

[e6bflyer]

Common theme between the entitlements/deployment cancelled sides of this thread is that the folks in DC need to do SOMETHING. This BS politicking on both sides is wearing thin - "the system" is broken and needs to be fixed. Do I have any faith that it will be anytime soon - NOPE. In the not so long ago past both sides were willing to find middle ground. Now it seems there is no middle ground. At least if you buy into the Executive branch's version of the story.

I think the blame can be equally spread among both parties, not just the dems. I agree, it is approaching ridiculous.

 

[Renegade One]

This thread has really gone too far afield. Let's steer it back towards the military budget/national security side. We can all agree that clearly, the reason the deployment was cancelled was poor people.

I gotta admit, the services, in general, and the Navy, in particular, are playing some weird games. Really? The VERY FIRST THING you would do to save some bucks is to cut a "fully trained and ready... and long-scheduled….carrier strike group deployment"? Really? Nowhere else to save a few bucks in the near term? And THEN…send those poor folks on IKE back out again?

I now admit to all…I don't get it. But I've been staying close to the phone in case SECDEF or the CNO calls…nothing heard yet...

Gotta go…phone's ringing...