In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.


Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.

That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.

We need to stop turning food into fuel.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.

I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.

Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Quite a few pensions stipulate the the retiree start collecting SS as
soon as they can and their retirement is reduced by the amount of SS
that they collect. This is how my FIL retired at 56.

In article ,
says...


Medicare is 15-20 % fraud. That is the flaw in having the tax payers
shoveling money at private providers The idea of government providers
will simply not fly here.

Nobody mentioned government providers except you.
Harder keeping you on track than deplume.
Fraud is ended by honest government with the right tools to address it.
If that isn't happening it's because the politicians are bought off by
the private medical industry, who benefit from the fraud.
See who proposes funding for Medicare fraud investigations and who
votes against it.

Until you address the lawyer tax you also are not going to be cutting
medical costs any time soon.

They should do it just to shut you up.
It's mostly a red herring and adds little to the cost.
"Defensive medicine" will still prevail, because it's a professional
means of treatment - and it makes more money for the medical profession.


The other issue is end of life care.
Any effort to limit care to dead people is seen as rationing, another
problem those other countries don't seem to mind. If they are rich
enough they come here for the care they want.

That's the hardest nut to crack. Best that can be done is end-of-life
counseling and hope people are responsible.
If they're not, "death panels" could be real for public money.
If sensible parameters were proposed by the medical community there
wouldn't be much resistance, except from the politically inspired.
And that part of medicine getting rich from it.


Most of those countries are broke too so they are going to be making a
lot of hard decisions about their socialism.


Riiight. I'll wait for them to kill their health care and old age
pension systems.
But I won't hold my breath.


If we don't get a handle on this debt problem you will be worried
about food for your kids. Health care will be a distant dream.


Riiight. Fix debt by replacing Medicare with death vouchers and make it
an impossible dream.
There are plenty of approaches to fixing the debt.


Of course. My opinion is a society should provide health care to all at
an affordable cost, and that old folks should get their SS checks, which
are already low enough for the vast majority to qualify as "poverty"
income.

That was all SS was ever intended to be, a safety net, not a hammock


And that's all it is for most collecting it. I just said that.
The average SS check is about $1150 a month.
Here's a solution for cutting benefits.
Cap benefits at $1400 a month.
For a single that's enough above poverty level so you don't qualify for
unpaid government handouts.
I'll take a good hit.



The WWII generation had the foresight to have lots of kids so there
were plenty of workers to fund their retirement. (roughly 16:1)

Now those kids are coming for theirs and the money is all gone.
There are only 3 workers per boomer today. SS worked because it was
pay as you go and there were plenty of payers.
There are simply not enough payers now.

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.
We've been down this road.
Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial
drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits.
At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone.
THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them?
Or means test out those who don't need them?
Tell me about it.
I'm sick of you whining and not offering solutions.
This is a simple accounting issue to me, tinged with my human instincts.
I offered one solution above on the benefit side that probably fixes it
forever.
Now you put up or shut up.
Let's see what you're made of.
I suspect it's ham only from the right side of the hog.
But I might be surprised.

wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:10:13 -0400, wrote:

In ,
says...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.

Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.
Keeping the boomers armed, manned, maintained and replaced over time is
the problem. When we finally got to see the Soviet fleet at their berths
in their home ports we found out the sad state they were in.

Our intel and pentagon people have consistently overestimated Soviet
capability for the last 50 years. It was certainly good for the people
who built our weapons systems tho.

I remember all the hype about the MIG25 until we finally got one and
found out it was pretty mediocre. I know the Soviets had a lot of subs
but they were so loud and so slow we could chase them in a Coast Guard
cutter.
I was always nervous because we were outfitted with a doomsday weapon,
autonomous torpedoes that would go get a sub after it sunk us.


The military always overestimates the "enemy" in peacetime, so as to
keep more of them in uniform and create more billets.

BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Quite a few pensions stipulate the the retiree start collecting SS as
soon as they can and their retirement is reduced by the amount of SS
that they collect. This is how my FIL retired at 56.


A. I'm not retired.

B. I have a defined benefit pension plan to which I contributed for decades.

C. Was your FIL disabled? How did he start collected SS at 56?

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:12:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:36 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union
is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.



Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.


It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

Reply:
There is an upper limit on SS but not Medicare contributions.


True and it has still been upside down for several years.

This is a black hole that could consume all of all government revenue
in 2 decades. SS/Medicare is already well over a third.

Still the same nonsense... come on. It's pretty old and totally bs.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:21:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:20:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:06:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.



Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.


It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

It's not a question of him presenting a "reasonable" plan. If his aim
was to present something worthy of discussion, to "open" the debate,
perhaps he should have presented a reasonable plan.

Also, nobody is claiming that restoring the Clinton-era tax rates
would bring us back to 2000 prosperity. What is being claimed is that
tax breaks for the upper class did NOTHING to help the economy. Those
tax rates would certainly help. A good place to start is to reinstate
the 3 or 4% the upper category.

That is not what the prominent democrats are saying on the sunday
talking head shows. There are a lot of people who should know better,
saying all we need to do is to raise taxes on the $250k and above
people to make us whole. That is total bull****.
If we removed all of the Bush tax cuts on everyone, it would only be a
third of the problem.

You really believe that they're saying "all we need to do"?? Please
cite something.

If we removed all of the tax cuts on those who make more than $250K,
that would go a long way toward solving the problem. Or, we could just
throw people out on the street.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:50:35 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.

I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.

Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Quite a few pensions stipulate the the retiree start collecting SS as
soon as they can and their retirement is reduced by the amount of SS
that they collect. This is how my FIL retired at 56.

I would imagine that they can't dictate how much SS is reduced, since
this is a Federal tax issue. A pension could require someone to start
collecting SS benefits, although I've not heard of it, but that would
not have anything to do with how someone is taxed or not taxed with
respect to their over all income. If you get $100 from your pension
and you get $100 from SS and the limit before you're taxed is $150,
you still get the extra $50, but you're taxed on it.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:34:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:45:04 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , payer3389
says...

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:38:16 -0400, John
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:41:51 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:36:48 -0400, wrote:

Are you saying that military budget is a waste?

Most of it. We spend more than the whole rest of the planet put
together.
I think the Chinese would like to see us cut it by about 90%.


Keeping China, the Russians and any real "state" at bay is pretty
cheap. A few "boomers" can provide a credible deterrent to a nuclear
attack. We spend most of our money building things we will never use
like the F22 and having counter insurgent wars with guys in sandals.

DoD is a big jobs program, enriching the districts of powerful
congressmen and building products that they do not need to have a
market to sell. We build them, we maintain them for 20-30 years and
we throw them away, virtually unused.

Eisenhower tried to warn us ... but we ignored him.

That's pretty much it. We need to find ways to convert those defense
factories into plowshare factories. It doesn't matter what those
factories make, so long as they provide good jobs and the products are
needed and useful.

We need to stop turning food into fuel.

What and stop the corporate welfare to ADM?
Not as long as we have corn belt politicians in congress.

No more subsidies for big business? I'll sign up for that! Let's
include big oil too please?

Or, we could just deny poor people affordable insurance. You pick.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:59:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You keep beating that drum but I don't hear it.

You must be deaf then.
Every dime in that trust fund is debt, not an asset.
We will have to borrow all of the money we "pay back" since the
government is already spending all they take in, actually 166% of what
they take in. Where does the money come from to redeem the SS bonds?

Talk about deaf. Cutting this out in your reply won't make it go away.

"Paying off the trust fund over the next the next 26 years is a trivial
drain on government revenues. Maintains 100% of current benefits.
At that point 75% of current benefits can be paid on SS revenues alone.
THAT'S IF NOTHING IS DONE TO INCREASE SS REVENUES OR MEANS TEST.
What is so hard to understand about that?"

I note you also cut out this,

"Do you have a plan to reduce benefits to those who need them?
Or means test out those who don't need them?
Tell me about it.
I'm sick of you whining and not offering solutions.
This is a simple accounting issue to me, tinged with my human instincts.
I offered one solution above on the benefit side that probably fixes it
forever.
Now you put up or shut up.
Let's see what you're made of.
I suspect it's ham only from the right side of the hog.
But I might be surprised."

You disappointed me. Thought you could do more than whine and play
Chicken Little.
So ham from the right side of the hog it is.
But really more like all squeal, and no other parts of the hog at all.