GOP: Losers!

[Ben]

[roo_ster]

I figure the sooner it crashes, the better off I'll be. I pay into that system and I'm never going to see a dime of it.

The sooner it crashes, the better off the younger generations are going to be. Sorry too the old geezers, but life goes on.

This, plus eleventy.

"Oh, but I neither saved money nor raised kids so they could take care of me when I no longer could work(1).  Rather, I spent it on maximizing current comforts and desires.  I counted on Social Security and Medicare to turn younger generations into slaves for elderly people unrelated to them."

Enjoy your patch of sidewalk, grasshopper.





(1) Note, I did not write "retired."  Such a concept will not long be viable and we will all work until we can no longer work, like folk have done throughout 99% of history.

[brimic]

I emailed that one to a bunch of people.
One person correctly pointed out that the $38.50 budget cut is incorrect- it would actually be a $38.50 cut to the planned spending increases. This fact doesn't make the scenario any rosier in any way, shape, or form.

[Tallpine]

Math is wrong.  Budget cuts are actually only $3.85  

[AZRedhawk44]

Revenue: 2,170,000,000,000
Budget: 3,820,000,000,000
Deficit: 1,650,000,000,000
Debt: 14,271,000,000,000
Cuts: 38,500,000,000


Not sure math is right, doing it in smaller chunks of zeroes.

Divide by 1000 (get rid of 3 zeroes).

Revenue: 2,170,000,000
Budget: 3,820,000,000
Deficit: 1,650,000,000
Debt: 14,271,000,000
Cuts: 38,500,000

Another thousand (3 more zeroes).

Revenue: 2,170,000
Budget: 3,820,000
Deficit: 1,650,000
Debt: 14,271,000
Cuts: 38,500

By 100 (two zeroes).

Revenue: 21,700
Budget: 38,200
Deficit: 16,500
Debt: 142,710
Cuts: 385

Cuts are $385.

[Tallpine]

You are correct.  I saw that the number of zeroes dropped was not consistent, but didn't notice that they also had the decimal point wrong 

But still, saving $385 when you are spending $16,500 more than you make doesn't help much. 

[brimic]

Correct.
The difference in numbers 10^2 and 10^1  are an insignificant error when compared to 10^5

The REAL numbers are just too big of scale for the human mind to rationally comprehend.

[Ben]

Gah. I was too fixated on their transposing of numbers to look for other math mistakes. Somebody needs to make a corrected version of that and spread it around, as it really does make the numbers easier to understand. Even if it's $380 or $3800 in spending cuts, it's still ridiculous.

What I have found interesting is that the Dems now want not only no more talk of Obamacare reforms, but now want the Rs to fold on sequestration. They argued that Obamacare is "the law of the land". Well, so is sequestration. Dems, please justify your statements, two typed pages, double spaced, due tomorrow at end of class. This is 50% of your midterm grade.

[brimic]

Oh screw it. Let it default. We knew Social Security was gonna fail anyway.

...and it will wipe out a lot of retirement accounts and pensions of those at or near retirement age.
But....
When you consider how morally repugnant - http://www.libertyroundtable.com/2010/03/30/bonds-what-bonds/ - the creation of public debt is, its very hard to cheer for a different outcome.

[BlueStarLizzard]

...and it will wipe out a lot of retirement accounts and pensions of those at or near retirement age.
But....
When you consider how morally repugnant - http://www.libertyroundtable.com/2010/03/30/bonds-what-bonds/ - the creation of public debt is, its very hard to cheer for a different outcome.

Well, it's gonna crash at some point so no matter what you do somebodys gonna get screwed. Now or later? Now, well, baby boomers, so there are a lot of old farts. Later, well, lower population of old farts, but they have less money starting out between massive debt, ressesion and whatnot.

I don't see how this isn't gonna hurt one way or another, and I'm gonna take this time to be a selfish little brat and say "better you then me" to the lot of them. *shrug* At this rate, I doubt Dad is gonna see a penny of his anyway, so I get to pick up the tab there as well.
No way am I happy to help pay for the current crop of social security, and pay all for my Dad and not get anything when I get old and crotchty.

[lupinus]

This is why if they were smart they'd start tapering it and bumping the ages now. But they wont, they'll let it implode.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

This is why if they were smart they'd start tapering it and bumping the ages now. But they wont, they'll let it implode.

they aren't bumping the ages?

[Angel Eyes]

[Hutch]

The longer we put off the Day of Reckoning, the worse it will be.  This coming from a Boomer.  Let's start the party before I'm too old to dance.

[Boomhauer]

It can't go on forever.  All Ponzi scheme's eventually run out of new suckers.

Normal Ponzi schemes end when you run out of willing suckers. This one has the potential to go on for a while because the participants arent exactly willing...its pay into the scheme or the .gov penalizes you in various ways.

[lupinus]

they aren't bumping the ages?

not enough. Not by a long shot. Nor are they tapering it off to be rid of it, or at least massively reduce it.

[Gowen]

If you look at the ages when the ssi system started, it was just edge of life expectancy to collect.  Silly us, we started living longer and the system failed to keep up.  It is and always will be a tax for the general fund.

[Tallpine]

they aren't bumping the ages?

I dunno ... can you still start SS/MC at 62 

[Balog]

If you look at the ages when the ssi system started, it was just edge of life expectancy to collect.  Silly us, we started living longer and the system failed to keep up.  It is and always will be a tax for the general fund.

Ayup. If they'd kept to the original purpose the limit would be something like 85-90, and the taxes to support it would be minimal.

[lupinus]

Ayup. If they'd kept to the original purpose the limit would be something like 85-90, and the taxes to support it would be minimal.

barring perhaps a disability it should be indexed to 2-3 years of the average life expectancy IMO

Sent via tapatalk

[Tallpine]

barring perhaps a disability it should be indexed to 2-3 years of the average life expectancy IMO

Sent via tapatalk

Well, hell - why not just call it a general tax and eliminate benefits altogether ?   

[Gowen]

Well, hell - why not just call it a general tax and eliminate benefits altogether ?   

No, no, no, you have to have a voter block.  Gots ta keep the people divided.

[charby]

barring perhaps a disability it should be indexed to 2-3 years of the average life expectancy IMO

Sent via tapatalk

What about jobs/careers that require younger stronger people? Could you imagine a 80 year old police officer or a 80 year old electrical lineman?

[AZRedhawk44]

What about jobs/careers that require younger stronger people? Could you imagine a 80 year old police officer or a 80 year old electrical lineman?

Boo-hoo.  There weren't 80 year old sheriffs in the 19th century, either.  It wasn't a lifetime job, any more than NFL player is, or infantryman.

You didn't learn enough to be valuable for your creativity, intellect and wisdom in the last 60 years?  Tough cookies. 

[brimic]

What about jobs/careers that require younger stronger people? Could you imagine a 80 year old police officer or a 80 year old electrical lineman?

Let market forces sort that out.

Is a CEO worth 400x the pay of a lineman?
One job can be worked well into a persons 80s.
One job is a hell of a lot harder to replace if the top end of the working age is in the mid 50s or so.

In the current scenario, most places are top heavy with middle, upper management, regulatory, and legal supported by a relatively low number of skilled labor or 'knowledge workers.'