slaughtr said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

Wow

---

Yes, the truth can be a tough pill to swallow. I do not want to ever be a drain on anyone else. I just want to be gone. I am not afraid to die and if I can no longer be me, I want out.

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

How do you feel about your tri care for life medical benefits that you get for your military service and your Fed LEO service? Any monthly retirement benefits included? I would think you would be against those also?

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

How do you feel about your tri care for life medical benefits that you get for your military service and your Fed LEO service? Any monthly retirement benefits included? I would think you would be against those also?

---

Negative. Those are for service to the government. Retired vets (of which I am not one) should be taken care of for life. I also left before retirement in my fed Leo job so no healthcare even though I'm vested in the retirement. Career retired civil servants should get healthcare provided by the feds.

Service guarantees citizenship.

Tom Fox said:

---

Rattler12 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

slaughtr said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

If you are stating that SS is operating at a loss today you did not get the facts right.

An annual deficit this year does not mean the program is under water because there is still a surplus from when the program started. We are depleting that surplus every year, but it's still a surplus.

The surplus is expected to run out around 2033 at which point it would be correct to say it's operating at a loss. That is still 8 years away. There is time to make reasonable adjustments to shore up the program.

---

Anyone who thinks they are going to stop sending checks to granny because of a negative number in an account ledger doesn't know politicians very well. They will probably have a ceremony where they deposit a giant gold leaf IOU from the General Funds deficit spending and say job done.

---

Yes, it is hard doing the right thing even if it is unpopular. Politicians in particular hate it.

But robbing from the productive class to support people that have outlived their usefulness to everyone but their friends and family is idiotic. Their family should be the ones taking care of them. We should not be stealing from the younger generation to do so.

---

How do you feel about your tri care for life medical benefits that you get for your military service and your Fed LEO service? Any monthly retirement benefits included? I would think you would be against those also?

---

Negative. Those are for service to the government. Retired vets (of which I am not one) should be taken care of for life. I also left before retirement in my fed Leo job so no healthcare even though I'm vested in the retirement. Career retired civil servants should get healthcare provided by the feds.

Service guarantees citizenship.

---

Voters and politicians on both sides of the aisle spent the last 2 decades yapping about titlating social blah blah, liberal / conservative tears and other nonsense instead of serious issues like debt.

The spotlight was just recently put on debt with the US downgrade and a spooked bond market and people turned their attention away from the circus for a few months.


When the financial poop hits the fan all we're going to get is a voting populace thats more serious in the wake of self inflicted
catastrophe

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

That's not what he asserted. SS is good until the mid 2030s. At that point, it begins giving out more than it took in since inception.

Logos Stick said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

See my other post. The program is not yet operating at a loss since its inception.

That will begin to occur in a few years. It's important to get the facts right.

---

I did get the facts right. Ssa.gov itself shows more cost than income in 2024.

---

That's not what he asserted. SS is good until the mid 2030s. At that point, it begins giving out more than it took in since inception.

---

I mean that great and all but if you lose your job, do you keep spending at the same rate? Do the kids still go to that $30K a year private school?

Nope, you immediately cut expenses. Only a fool keeps spending and depleting the account before he adjust his spending only when forced.

That is financial illiteracy. But it shouldn't surprise me at this point.

Not sure whether to laugh or cry at the poster trying to sell that it's an honor and moral obligation to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year…especially when those funds go to such corruption, mismanagement, and detrimental systems.


Congrats on letting your superior empathy enslave and ruin so many lives of the people you claim you are helping.

Well - you aren't helping! You are just making demands on others!

Zobel said:

---

UntoldSpirit said:

---

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

UntoldSpirit said:

---

Haven't read all of this thread, so I apologize if this is repeated or already off target.

Why are social security and medicare being singled out here? We are tens of trillions in debt. We don't have the money for ANYTHING. No need to separate out SS & Med, and then use it for generational blame.

---

Because those two programs combined constitute 1/3 of all federal government spending. More than we spend on defense.

---

Budget can be balanced without major cuts to SS and Medi. Adjustments to program may of course be needed over the long term and are probably desirable, but no need to panic about these large programs in the way this thread does. We need to start with balancing the budget soon.

Example of how the budget can get balanced in the next 4 to 6 years:

Current Annual Budget
5.1 Trillion Revenues

4.1 Trillion Entitlements
1.0 Trillion Interest on debt
0.9 Trillion Defense
1.0 Trillion in Other spending

7 Trillion in Spending

1.9 Trillion deficit

Balance the budget through growth and holding the line on spending:

Annual numbers achieved in 4-6 years in 2025 dollars:

0.75 Trillion increased annual revenue due to 1.5% increase in GDP due to BBB
0.3 Trillion in additional revenue due to tarrifs
0.5 Trillion annual savings in fraud and efficiency cuts
0.3 Trillion annual savings due to reduced debt interest rates
0.15 Trillion annual savings in in additional cuts

=2.0 Trillion of deficit reduction in 2025 dollars

Maintain all spending levels at or below inflation.

This is not YET an impossible problem if we can keep Democrats out of power. The growth agenda is a start.

---

It's more productive to talk to people than ChatGPT or whatever LLM you used for this.

So, ask your AI this:
How do you reconcile holding below inflation when SS costs rise ~4-5% annually due to aging population and wage indexing, vs. ~2-3% inflation?

The SS trust fund depletes in less than ten years. Medicare
grows even faster, so your $4.1T increases to $5T+ by 2030.

And where does the magical debt interest rate relief come from?

Mandatory growth is baked into our budget. The CBO shows our deficit rising to $2.5T by 2035 without reforms. 90% of project budget growth comes from only interest, SS, and Medicare. You can't fix this problem by cutting away at the 10%.

---

Uh, didn't use AI. I did look up details of the budget though.

Keep in mind I was using 2025 dollars for everything. Spending increases, but so do Revenues.

Understand the argument about SS and Medi. growing faster. That needs to be addressed by adjustments to the programs, but that doesn't mean they must be cut off in the short run.

Debt interest is huge. Lower interest rates will allow some debt refinancing at better rates.

You can't fix the problem ONLY cutting away at non-entitlements, but the answer is higher growth rates.

The budget can be balanced (I gave just one hypothetical) without starving the elderly and needs to be ASAP.

sam callahan said:

---

Not sure whether to laugh or cry at the poster trying to sell that it's an honor and moral obligation to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year…especially when those funds go to such corruption, mismanagement, and detrimental systems.


Congrats on letting your superior empathy enslave and ruin so many lives of the people you claim you are helping.

Well - you aren't helping! You are just making demands on others!

---

Its not the fault of SS in itself

Go look at the topics on this forum going back years

I'd guess its a solid 80% R vs D cheerleading with rare topics on debt and government management of money. Thats a solid sample of the voting public. More concerned with R vs D narratives than the serious issues facing all of us.

i was talking about income tax, clearly. depending on the year somewhere north of half of SS recipients don't pay income tax. after the BBB that'll be almost 90% on SS. Which is great, because taxing SS is dumb.

sam callahan said:

---

Not sure whether to laugh or cry at the poster trying to sell that it's an honor and moral obligation to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year…especially when those funds go to such corruption, mismanagement, and detrimental systems.


Congrats on letting your superior empathy enslave and ruin so many lives of the people you claim you are helping.

Well - you aren't helping! You are just making demands on others!

---

you've badly misunderstood.

the obligation of the person who holds office in the republic - and suffrage is a office - is to exercise that office with civic virtue: the ability to do what is best for the republic, over and against their personal interest, if need be.

that may require you to vote in such a way that you don't get a benefit you would receive under the status quo.

we, collectively, have agency as citizens. we, collectively, bear the moral responsibility for the corruption, mismanagement, detrimental systems, and the force of law that taxes for them.

so - we, collectively, have a moral duty to act against our own individual self interest if necessary. social security and medicare are bankrupting this country, and that is objectively bad for the republic. we should do what is necessary to prevent that, even if that hurts our pocket books.

this isn't superior empathy, it has nothing to do with empathy. this is a basic understanding of how a republic works.

is that a demand on you? absolutely. but if you're unwilling to even engage with the idea of civic virtue in the abstract and recognize that it is a prerequisite for citizenship, you shouldn't be voting. if you would rather be a ward of the state and get your money, even if it bankrupts the future generations of citizens, you shouldn't be voting.

I don't know what the heck you are going on about. I was referring to this:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Rattler12 said:
I wish I had to pay $250K a year in federal income tax.......what a problem to have

---

Tom Fox said:


You had the same opportunity as me to have that problem. That is the beauty of our system.

I'm glad I was successful but it gets tiresome paying for my 20 Americans that pay nothing but yet still enjoy the exact same govt benefits, hell probably more than me.

---

Yeah I'm sure they all maintain the same lifestyle also........some on here might say it's your civic duty to do such and shouldn't complain about it and you are displaying a serious amount of civic virtue by contributing such amount.

---

Wow, another Boomer hating thread that ran 17 pages in 2 days.

Oh, that's just a guy similarly misrepresenting what I said. He doesn't understand civic virtue so he thinks I'm advocating that paying more taxes is more virtuous or somesuch nonsense.

Sorry

Zobel said:

---

i was talking about income tax, clearly. depending on the year somewhere north of half of SS recipients don't pay income tax. after the BBB that'll be almost 90% on SS. Which is great, because taxing SS is dumb.

---

If SS is one's exclusive or major source of retirement income, you may have a point. However, the SSA suggests only 12-15% of men and women (respectively) rely on SS for 90%+ of their income---keeping in mind that encouraging retirement savings in the form of IRA's and 401k's was not available to Boomers until the mid 80's and really did not catch on until the 90's. I think you guys understand time, money and resentment quite well, but demographics and its distribution of generational wealth, not so much.

Zobel said:

---

Oh, that's just a guy similarly misrepresenting what I said. He doesn't understand civic virtue so he thinks I'm advocating that paying more taxes is more virtuous or somesuch nonsense.

Sorry

---

You toss around that "civic virtue" thing quite frequently and to that extent I'm not sure you know what it means--which essentially citizens getting along in the interest of stability (Aristotle, Rosseau etc. )--- not admonishing fellow citizens because they are hesitant, won't or can't make the sacrifices that you claim you can and are willing to make.

it has nothing to do with "getting along".

for Aristotle you'll find a good treatment in Politics, book three. You can read it here
https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html

In book eight he says that citizens don't belong only to themselves, but belong to the state, because they are a part of it.

In the Nichomachean ethics he says "Therefore, the Good of man must be the end of the science of Politics. For even though it be the case that the Good is the same for the individual and for the state, nevertheless, the good of the state is manifestly a greater and more perfect good, both to attain and to preserve. To secure the good of one person only is better than nothing; but to secure the good of a nation or a state is a nobler and more divine achievement."

Aristotle's approach is that there is a kind of universal virtue for a man to be virtuous, but civic virtue depends on what the form of government you're in requires; for a republic it is the capacity to both rule and be ruled. Accordingly though, no matter what, the citizen prioritizes the regime's stability over their own individuality.

In other words, civic virtue is the capacity for putting the good of the state ahead of your own interest. Brutus, first consul of the Roman republic is the classic example.

I haven't read Rosseau, so i can't help you there, but i have read a whole mess of the founding fathers and public virtue was one of their favorite topics. and they absolutely said they were requirements.

Washington's farewell address has the great quote - "It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species
of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

Madison said "I have observed, that gentlemen suppose, that the general legislature will do every mischief they possibly can, and that they will omit to do every thing good which they are authorized to do...But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them."

Franklin said "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Patrick Henry - "Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

And of course, Adams notes: "Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society."

if you want to hear that as admonishment, ok - be admonished. I prefer to read that and be inspired to be a better citizen.

Zobel said:

---

it has nothing to do with "getting along".

for Aristotle you'll find a good treatment in Politics, book three. You can read it here
https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html

In book eight he says that citizens don't belong only to themselves, but belong to the state, because they are a part of it.

In the Nichomachean ethics he says "Therefore, the Good of man must be the end of the science of Politics. For even though it be the case that the Good is the same for the individual and for the state, nevertheless, the good of the state is manifestly a greater and more perfect good, both to attain and to preserve. To secure the good of one person only is better than nothing; but to secure the good of a nation or a state is a nobler and more divine achievement."

Aristotle's approach is that there is a kind of universal virtue for a man to be virtuous, but civic virtue depends on what the form of government you're in requires; for a republic it is the capacity to both rule and be ruled. Accordingly though, no matter what, the citizen prioritizes the regime's stability over their own individuality.

In other words, civic virtue is the capacity for putting the good of the state ahead of your own interest. Brutus, first consul of the Roman republic is the classic example.

I haven't read Rosseau, so i can't help you there, but i have read a whole mess of the founding fathers and public virtue was one of their favorite topics. and they absolutely said they were requirements.

Washington's farewell address has the great quote - "It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species
of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

Madison said "I have observed, that gentlemen suppose, that the general legislature will do every mischief they possibly can, and that they will omit to do every thing good which they are authorized to do...But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them."

Franklin said "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Patrick Henry - "Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

And of course, Adams notes: "Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honor, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superior to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society."

if you want to hear that as admonishment, ok - be admonished. I prefer to read that and be inspired to be a better citizen.

---

I'm a retired higher education academic (political science). You appear more emulative of Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams than John Adams. And thanks for the essay--however derived. I'd give it a grade if you had turned it in on time. And congratulations on the thread count!

I loved Adams but he was a bit much for my tastes. To be honest I prefer the classical era guys. Enlightenment was off in so many ways, and we're paying for their bad worldview problems today.

We're a million miles from virtue in politics. Its become entertainment, something people take no more seriously than the real life importance of a football game. Its the titilating news event of the week thats blown up as representation of the other side, whether its R or D. Score, liberal tears!

Its too late to fix now. Everyone gets to tell their kids or grand kids what dumb crap was posing as politics while we ran up the now 38 trillion in debt.

Whether we vote R or D, its a vote for financial disaster. The deal with the devil is in the rear view mirror and CNN, FoxNews, social media and the like made their money

backintexas2013 said:

---

Agreed let's get rid of it. Also get rid of Medicaid too because people should be responsible for themselves.

Social security is and has always been an income redistribution scheme. We need to eliminate it completely. Im down for it. Are you?

---

I've been paying in for almost 40 years now and am close to actually qualifying. Had it gone away back then and I could just invest that money I would be retired now and living quite well. That wasn't a choice though, closest we had was Bush II trying and failing at privatization. I voted for anyone that favored reform but they either lost or got nowhere.

I'm not down with Millennials and Z's suddenly saying "Hey, this is a bad deal and doesn't make sense. Let's just now pay that money to the Gen X'ers that paid for their entire careers now." Screw that. If you want to write me a check for everything I paid in with interest I'm cool with that though. It's a crappy deal but my Gen is the only one that consistently voted conservative and we always lost. We hated the Boomers from before Millennials were born.

I don't think Charlie Kirk thought about it like that. And in my line of work I am very fortunate to work with young engineers. You would be pleasantly surprised at the earnestness and sincerity of 20 something young men. They are extremely right wing, completely anti woke, and openly patriotic. It's even becoming vogue in tech and AI circles. The kids are alright - if it's cool to be sincere and talk about virtue, it will come back.

And those are the people staffing in DC these days too.

But, they also want to deport everyone, and they don't care about blowing up the entitlement state. Or being called Nazis. So, yknow. There's that.

Zobel said:

---

I loved Adams but he was a bit much for my tastes. To be honest I prefer the classical era guys. Enlightenment was off in so many ways, and we're paying for their bad worldview problems today.

---

The founders most likely emphasized the notion of civic virtue since their Enlightenment influences (Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke) argued the "social contract" which required the sacrifice of some "natural rights"---the existence of which had been articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Their British cousins found that quite hypocritical at the time.

SS is a Ponzi scheme since day one. They take from your paycheck on Friday and give it to someone else on Monday. Please plan accordingly.

Zobel said:

---

I don't think Charlie Kirk thought about it like that. And in my line of work I am very fortunate to work with young engineers. You would be pleasantly surprised at the earnestness and sincerity of 20 something young men. They are extremely right wing, completely anti woke, and openly patriotic. It's even becoming vogue in tech and AI circles. The kids are alright - if it's cool to be sincere and talk about virtue, it will come back.

And those are the people staffing in DC these days too.

But, they also want to deport everyone, and they don't care about blowing up the entitlement state. Or being called Nazis. So, yknow. There's that.

---

The social talk completely over ran talk of basics, like the now dead term of fiscal conservatism. That was once a pillar of conservatism and the R party.

I think it started a slow death some 20 years ago with the gay marriage debates. Personally I think the Ds saw how it took conservatives eye off the ball so they went deeper, woke, shamale story tellers at some kindergarten and whatever woke crap that sold that week. FoxNews and CNN made money talking it up. Basics like financial responsibility were not hot titlating topics and were largely non topics of interest

And now there is no fixing the debt. Our kids and grand kids will suffer a financial reckoning.

Change Detection said:

---

Ok, give the money back. Nobody will pay for younger generations and they in turn will not take from the generation preceding them. FOr those who have contributed into SS, pay them there money back at the average return rate for the years paid in and call it done, and never do something like that again. I would be perfectly fine with that. Sounds like some young persons just don't want to pay SS because someone is getting a check before they do.

Funny that there is a guilt trip being levied on boomer. News for ya, they didn't get a choice in the matter. It was their money and the gov took it. Now pay it back like like it was promised regardless of what some truly entitled younger generation says.

---

Exactly. Cut me a check for the last 34 years of "contributions" with reasonable interest and end it.

Yet another failed Democrat idea plaguing our country

I'm honestly not sure what "doing your civic duty" or "taking one for the team" is supposed to mean when it comes to Social Security. I started taking benefits at 62 because I was eligible. Am I supposed to call the SSA and ask them to stop sending checks? What would that accomplish?

The practical reality is this: voluntarily opting out only hurts me and does nothing to reform the system. It doesn't strengthen Social Security, it doesn't change policy, and it doesn't move Congress any closer to fixing anything.

Given the real possibility that benefits could be reduced, means-tested, or otherwise changed in the future, most people in my position are going to take what they're legally entitled to while they can. That's not selfish. It is rational behavior within the system as it exists today.

We often hear the phrase "old men yelling at clouds," but in this thread it feels like the yelling is coming from the OP and others directed at people who are simply responding logically to incentives they didn't create.

First, OP comes off pretty snarky and condescending and then there are the other boomer haters that chime in and stir the pot. But let's get past that. I think you are thinking about this all ass backwards. We are in a boat with leaks all over the place and you want to take 1/3 of the people and toss them off the boat with a couple of life preservers so it sinks slower?

I say start plugging the leaks as fast as possible and worry about the old passengers later on once you got the holes fixed. OP wants revolution, well we had it with DOGE, but over half the politicians fought tooth and nail against it and at least half of the other half gave it lip service while they wanted to see how it was going to affect their line of money coming in.

Very tail end Boomer coming here and going to collect my checks soon. I don't really need it much, but more on that later. If we could concentrate and get real commitment to DOGE type work, slash foreign add, get rid of illegals, get rid of most of the aid programs, and take a hard evaluation of what we can do to run at a very efficient budget, just like a lot of us would do in our own families if we were in the same situation.

I was a consultant for 19 years with mostly federal work and got laid off from that because of the insane push for HUB set asides that were glorified theft rings. The federal world is the source of leaks that would make a difference if we could rationally address it. We have millions on SNAP, we have billions of fraud, waste and abuse that should be easy to gut, but you want to go after the only govt implemented program where we have meticulous records of who paid what over their entire careers that we had no choice on to participate in.

Get all the leaks fixed first, know exactly where we stand and implement something like Untold Spirit presented so we can address the problem we have an actual handle on. I'd be happy to reduce my checks accordingly if I got a return on tax breaks or being able to leave any leftovers I have to my kids without it being gutted by taxes when I die so they can do the same. Both of mine are in early 30s and own their homes so it's possible despite the teeth gnashing and wailing we see from the Boomer haters.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

You're being very selective in your generational bashing.

When I was young with three young kids I benefitted from the transfer of wealth from the old to the young to pay for public schools. My kids all went to public school even though I essentially paid nothing for it because I was in rental property or a small first-time, low-value home.

As 20 years passed and my kids exited the public school system, my standard of living also improved to owning large homes and paying much more in property taxes, most of which goes to local school districts. From my mid 40's to mid 80's life expectancy, I will help fund a free public education for the younger segment of society. A transfer from older to younger.

And I'm ok with that because I benefitted from it when I was younger. It's now my turn to return the favor.

SS and Medicare are that situation in reverse, except recipients actually pay into it for their entire working life. It is true that it is financed by payments from current workers. That's how it was designed. When you're old you will also draw SS/MC benefits that are paid in the moment by younger workers.

SS/MC funding needs obvious fixes with the obvious shortfall in front of us. Let's have the debate on how to do that. But spare me the selective boomer hate while you ignore other public funding mechanisms that transfer from older to younger.

---

Not to mention that boomers hold half the wealth in this country. So they're already paying more than other generations in taxes today. And if they're not, it's because they're keeping their assets in real estate and investment accounts which will transfer down to their kids when they die someday, anyway. So either they paying it forward now or will in the future (assuming private equity healthcare doesn't take it all first).

aggie93 said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Agreed let's get rid of it. Also get rid of Medicaid too because people should be responsible for themselves.

Social security is and has always been an income redistribution scheme. We need to eliminate it completely. Im down for it. Are you?

---

I've been paying in for almost 40 years now and am close to actually qualifying. Had it gone away back then and I could just invest that money I would be retired now and living quite well. That wasn't a choice though, closest we had was Bush II trying and failing at privatization. I voted for anyone that favored reform but they either lost or got nowhere.

I'm not down with Millennials and Z's suddenly saying "Hey, this is a bad deal and doesn't make sense. Let's just now pay that money to the Gen X'ers that paid for their entire careers now." Screw that. If you want to write me a check for everything I paid in with interest I'm cool with that though. It's a crappy deal but my Gen is the only one that consistently voted conservative and we always lost. We hated the Boomers from before Millennials were born.

---

Why are you so immoral and hate the children?!

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

First, OP comes off pretty snarky and condescending and then there are the other boomer haters that chime in and stir the pot. But let's get past that. I think you are thinking about this all ass backwards. We are in a boat with leaks all over the place and you want to take 1/3 of the people and toss them off the boat with a couple of life preservers so it sinks slower?

I say start plugging the leaks as fast as possible and worry about the old passengers later on once you got the holes fixed. OP wants revolution, well we had it with DOGE, but over half the politicians fought tooth and nail against it and at least half of the other half gave it lip service while they wanted to see how it was going to affect their line of money coming in.

Very tail end Boomer coming here and going to collect my checks soon. I don't really need it much, but more on that later. If we could concentrate and get real commitment to DOGE type work, slash foreign add, get rid of illegals, get rid of most of the aid programs, and take a hard evaluation of what we can do to run at a very efficient budget, just like a lot of us would do in our own families if we were in the same situation.

I was a consultant for 19 years with mostly federal work and got laid off from that because of the insane push for HUB set asides that were glorified theft rings. The federal world is the source of leaks that would make a difference if we could rationally address it. We have millions on SNAP, we have billions of fraud, waste and abuse that should be easy to gut, but you want to go after the only govt implemented program where we have meticulous records of who paid what over their entire careers that we had no choice on to participate in.

Get all the leaks fixed first, know exactly where we stand and implement something like Untold Spirit presented so we can address the problem we have an actual handle on. I'd be happy to reduce my checks accordingly if I got a return on tax breaks or being able to leave any leftovers I have to my kids without it being gutted by taxes when I die so they can do the same. Both of mine are in early 30s and own their homes so it's possible despite the teeth gnashing and wailing we see from the Boomer haters.

---

The thing about the Boomer hate is that the people that are demanding their checks are also the ones that created the problems that led to all these leaks.

I am 100% in support of your plan, but I am also 100% supportive of holding Boomers SS checks hostage until they get the stones to vote for people that will actually implement your plan.

The problem isn't an economic one, that these people don't deserve their checks. The problem is that they want their checks without having to go through the trouble of facing the problems that they created that will make the system unsustainable just after they die. That is a major problem. There is a significant moral hazard to address here.

The problems fiscal problems that we face here were caused by the people demanding their checks. If they will stand up and vote for people that will fix those problems, give them their F'ing checks.

Jeeper79 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

You're being very selective in your generational bashing.

When I was young with three young kids I benefitted from the transfer of wealth from the old to the young to pay for public schools. My kids all went to public school even though I essentially paid nothing for it because I was in rental property or a small first-time, low-value home.

As 20 years passed and my kids exited the public school system, my standard of living also improved to owning large homes and paying much more in property taxes, most of which goes to local school districts. From my mid 40's to mid 80's life expectancy, I will help fund a free public education for the younger segment of society. A transfer from older to younger.

And I'm ok with that because I benefitted from it when I was younger. It's now my turn to return the favor.

SS and Medicare are that situation in reverse, except recipients actually pay into it for their entire working life. It is true that it is financed by payments from current workers. That's how it was designed. When you're old you will also draw SS/MC benefits that are paid in the moment by younger workers.

SS/MC funding needs obvious fixes with the obvious shortfall in front of us. Let's have the debate on how to do that. But spare me the selective boomer hate while you ignore other public funding mechanisms that transfer from older to younger.

---

Not to mention that boomers hold half the wealth in this country. So they're already paying more than other generations in taxes today. And if they're not, it's because they're keeping their assets in real estate and investment accounts which will transfer down to their kids when they die someday, anyway. So either they paying it forward now or will in the future (assuming private equity healthcare doesn't take it all first).

---

So, my solution for the SS fix is to end it, and pay for the current liabilities with a giant estate tax as the Boomers die off. When you die, prior to any other calculus of estate tax, you have to repay 100% of what you collected in SS, zero deductions. That would likely be enough to fill the gap.

Let the boomers pay for the problem they created with the assets that they accumulated. We can wait for you to die before we take it.

On a collective level, this is exactly what is happening anyways. The next few generations are going to pay for the mess that the Boomers created by liquidating the assets that the Boomer accumulated and passed on to their kids. They have passed on a collective liability, but want to retain their private assets. A massive estate tax just makes that collective fix more individualized, and something that can't really be ignored.

sam callahan said:

---

Not sure whether to laugh or cry at the poster trying to sell that it's an honor and moral obligation to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes each year…especially when those funds go to such corruption, mismanagement, and detrimental systems.


Congrats on letting your superior empathy enslave and ruin so many lives of the people you claim you are helping.

Well - you aren't helping! You are just making demands on others!

---

You should laugh .....it was sarcasm....... just tossing someone's ridiculous responses back at them in the same ridiculous fashion... if I should have to give my SS in the name of civic duty and civic virtue forthe good of the country and it's younger citizens, rich folks should give up more of their money in taxes .......it's our civic duty and civic virtue.....dad gummit