The heck with the boomers

[ugonow]

Candidates are afraid to propose cuts to medicare and SS benies because of the boomers? The heck with them,save the country and end these socialist programs----www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/26/AR2010122601698.html

[Tennesseer]

Hey-if it wasn't for the boomers you just might not be around!

[Deleted]

As long as you agree to take 1 or 2 in and feed and provide for them lol

Look these promises were made and people expected SS and medicare to be there when they retire, and it seems they will be for the majority of boomers.

Now for anyone under 50 if you think you can get by solely on those 2 programs you just haven't paid attention.

[Value Buy]

Dec 27, 2010 19:07:53 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Candidates are afraid to propose cuts to medicare and SS benies because of the boomers? The heck with them,save the country and end these socialist programs----www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/26/AR2010122601698.html

This started long before the boomer generation. The same can be said about Tom Brokaw's "the greatest generation". Those are the ones who have put the pressure on Congress.

[ungenteel]

I'm 64 and have been paying into to SS since I was 13 years old and had a job working in my uncle's factory. How dare some clowns tell me that my money is not there because idiot politicians chose to fight wars without increasing taxes to pay for those wars, for fear of making those "wars of choice" unpopular

[warsaw (banned)]

The money's there. Don't listen to Pubs/Fox ffs. Smiley face.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 27, 2010 23:13:54 GMT -5 warsaw (banned) said:

The money's there. Don't listen to Pubs/Fox ffs. Smiley face.

Kind of reminds me of the people who say they aren't broke because they still have checks. I haven't seen anybody saying SS can continue to pay out the current benefits, or even continue without either raising taxes, raising age of eligibility, or decreasing benefits (most likely a combination of all 3).

[Bluerobin]

In any event, we Boomers aren't going anywhere soon. You young whippersnappers just get used to it!
Sage advice Dem! On top of all the BS, we do tend to vote. I think I missed once since I was 21 (voting age, way back when).

[magichat]

Dec 27, 2010 23:01:10 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

I'm 64 and have been paying into to SS since I was 13 years old and had a job working in my uncle's factory. How dare some clowns tell me that my money is not there because idiot politicians chose to fight wars without increasing taxes to pay for those wars, for fear of making those "wars of choice" unpopular

So why did you vote for all of those democrats?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 28, 2010 8:00:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The money for SSI will be there. The parameters of the program need to be tweaked, and it will be sustaining into the foreseeable future. However the sooner the politicians address this, the easier (or less painful) it will be.
Medicare does have some issues, but this to can be resolved. The best place to start would be to end the unfunded drug benefit that the Republicans passed as a sop to win re-election in 2004. However that would be exceedingly difficult now that it is in place.
In any event, we Boomers aren't going anywhere soon. You young whippersnappers just get used to it!

Especially since it was expanded under the new healthcare bill. I find it amazing that people are all for "tweaking" SS, but completely against privatizing any of it. When the government cuts benefits, that is seen as acceptable, but when the market does the same, that is used as "proof" that the market is too "unsafe."

[floridayankee]

Dec 28, 2010 8:50:27 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Especially since it was expanded under the new healthcare bill. I find it amazing that people are all for "tweaking" SS, but completely against privatizing any of it. When the government cuts benefits, that is seen as acceptable, but when the market does the same, that is used as "proof" that the market is too "unsafe."

Social Security that needs "tweaking" isn't very secure, is it?

[swamp]

Dec 27, 2010 19:44:15 GMT -5 @saver74 said:

As long as you agree to take 1 or 2 in and feed and provide for them lol

Look these promises were made and people expected SS and medicare to be there when they retire, and it seems they will be for the majority of boomers.

Now for anyone under 50 if you think you can get by solely on those 2 programs you just haven't paid attention.

Who ever said you were supposed to rely on SS alone in retirement? It was never intended to be someone's sole source of income in retirement. I'm 40, and I'm saving for retirement as if SS won't be there. If it is, fantastic, I'll have some cash for beer money and bingo.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 27, 2010 19:07:53 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Candidates are afraid to propose cuts to medicare and SS benies because of the boomers?

At some point, somebody will have to make the cuts and they will most likely get blasted for it during the following election.

[ugonow]

There has been talk among some of the gutsier realistic politicians of the constitutionality of SS and medicare. Just because it has been around a while does not make it constitutional. If it is unconstitutional,it is unconstitutional and must be stopped.

[floridayankee]

Dec 28, 2010 9:16:52 GMT -5 swamp said:

Who ever said you were supposed to rely on SS alone in retirement? It was never intended to be someone's sole source of income in retirement. I'm 40, and I'm saving for retirement as if SS won't be there. If it is, fantastic, I'll have some cash for beer money and bingo.

Most of us younger folks believe SS will not be there but yet we see the deductions out of our pay check every week.

Now...you'd think at some point we'd snap out of this "government is great" trance we all seem to be in and we would maybe start to think....Whoa. What the hell are we doing here? We're paying all this money for the "security" of a program that will not provide any security. We're paying all this money into a program that requires "tweaking" in the immediate future to provide even less "security" than it does now.

Personally, if I see a lousy fund in my retirement portfolio that is constantly under-performing, I'm going to it rather than double down on it.

[magichat]

If SS and Medicare were declared unconstitutional (which they should be), most likely amendments to the Constitution would be rushed through to keep them. Can't take the candy away from the baby (boomers).

[floridayankee]

Dec 28, 2010 10:00:13 GMT -5 @magichat said:

...most likely amendments to the Constitution would be rushed through to keep them.....

The 27th amendment took 203 years...74,003 days...to be ratified.

[magichat]

Dec 28, 2010 10:08:41 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Dec 28, 2010 10:00:13 GMT -5 @magichat said:

...most likely amendments to the Constitution would be rushed through to keep them.....

The 27th ammendment took 203 years...74,003 days...to be ratified.

I agree that in the past it has taken time. You stop the buyoffs of the seniors and poor in one fell swoop via a court and you better believe there will be screaming.

[ugonow]

The 27th ammendment took 203 years...74,003 days...to be ratified./quote]


Interesting.I never realized that...but on the other hand,the 26th only took 4 months.

[ugonow]

You stop the buyoffs of the seniors and poor in one fell swoop via a court and you better believe there will be screaming.

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=505&page=1#16405#ixzz19Q61yzFl

So basicly,it is constitutional to give it to those already seniors,but not those future seniors? IMO,either it is or isn't.

[floridayankee]

Dec 28, 2010 10:15:16 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Interesting.I never realized that...but on the other hand,the 26th only took 4 months.

I believe they would put a time limit or something on any proposed amendments. I believe the 21st and 22nd had either a 5 or 7 year ratification window. If not ratified within that time frame, the amendment died on the vine.

[magichat]

Dec 28, 2010 10:19:23 GMT -5 ugonow said:

You stop the buyoffs of the seniors and poor in one fell swoop via a court and you better believe there will be screaming.

Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=505&page=1#16405#ixzz19Q61yzFl

So basicly,it is constitutional to give it to those already seniors,but not those future seniors? IMO,either it is or isn't.

Where did I say it was Constitutional?

[jkapp]

Dec 27, 2010 23:01:10 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

I'm 64 and have been paying into to SS since I was 13 years old and had a job working in my uncle's factory. How dare some clowns tell me that my money is not there because idiot politicians chose to fight wars without increasing taxes to pay for those wars, for fear of making those "wars of choice" unpopular

The biggest borrowing from Social Security was during the Clinton administration (nearly a Trillion dollars was borrowed by Clinton to trick idiots into believing he "balanced the budget")...this was before any wars were being waged.

[verrip1]

Dec 27, 2010 19:07:53 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Candidates are afraid to propose cuts to medicare and SS benies because of the boomers? The heck with them,save the country and end these socialist programs----www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/26/AR2010122601698.html

Yeah, the libs sure love to use the old "fear" approach. Especially when they think they can work on older folks fear of dying in the streets. Nice guys, huh? Suits them well.

Fortunately, most everybody knows how full of crap they are. Except for the weak ones they prey on.

[ungenteel]

<<The biggest borrowing from Social Security was during the Clinton administration (nearly a Trillion dollars was borrowed by Clinton to trick idiots into believing he "balanced the budget")...this was before any wars were being waged.>>

HUH?? It started during the Vietnam War .. that's when SS funds were first dumped into the general fund so that war could be paid for without raising taxes .. it gone on since them .. trying to blame that approach on Clinton is a total red herring

how did Raygun bankrupt the Soviet Union without raising taxes???

[stayput]

As I stated on the MSN board, make people responsible for their own parents. Move in with them. Have them move in with you, or just take total financial responsibility of your own parents. The pennies that were taken out of their paychecks does not justify the checks that they receive until they finally die. Stop making me pay for your parents. I take care of my own mother w/out asking tax payers to foot the bill. Stop making me pay for you and/or your parents.

[joynerk]

Dec 28, 2010 8:00:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

In any event, we Boomers aren't going anywhere soon. You young whippersnappers just get used to it!

I think that's a major contributing factor! People's longevity is not what it used to be... When the program was implemented life expectancy was much shorter than it is today. Thereby causing even more strain on a program that is already under water.

Not saying that there's not a lot we can learn from you old timers

[deziloooooo]

Dec 27, 2010 23:01:10 GMT -5 ungenteel said:

I'm 64 and have been paying into to SS since I was 13 years old and had a job working in my uncle's factory. How dare some clowns tell me that my money is not there because idiot politicians chose to fight wars without increasing taxes to pay for those wars, for fear of making those "wars of choice" unpopular

Yes...

[deziloooooo]

Dec 28, 2010 8:00:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The money for SSI will be there. The parameters of the program need to be tweaked, and it will be sustaining into the foreseeable future. However the sooner the politicians address this, the easier (or less painful) it will be.
Medicare does have some issues, but this to can be resolved. The best place to start would be to end the unfunded drug benefit that the Republicans passed as a sop to win re-election in 2004. However that would be exceedingly difficult now that it is in place.
In any event, we Boomers aren't going anywhere soon. You young whippersnappers just get used to it!

Another yes...love that part D

[deziloooooo]

SS will be there..it may cost more, you may have to retire at a higher age if you want to collect full benefits...but you should live longer..and if your young now, invest properly, don't spend all your money on crap, and you should be ok..or then again ...less going out, rent more movies then seeing them on the big screen..when the concerts come to town, spend the money on the artices CD but don't see in person..to expensive..save your pennies , they turn into dollers