You are proving to be more COMMUNIST every day. so people who pay into the system can't use it. The $0.85 cents per dollar raised that is earmarked specifically for the payer cant be used by them?
What happens if a multimillionaire loses all their money?
OR if people are only multimillionaires on paper? You know that they own land or other assets. Why do you think people are fleeing CA. The new tax there takes all of your assets into consideration.
Also the $176K mark..... are people who make $200K the 1% or not? I thought only go after the nasty 1%..... Figures from 2023 state that in 3 different states if you make $190K you are still middle class. That is 3 years ago numbers... with inflation more states will be in that figure.
And both sides are to blame.
But Specifically Boomers; Boomers Inherited A Rich Country And Have Gradually Bankrupted It.
People are living too long. Yeah that is the elephant in the country. So you have to pay more out in pensions (gov), you have to pay more out in medical care (Medicaid/Medicare), you have to pay out more in SS benefits (SS/SSI), etc.
It is why SPENDING needs to be cut in government. The majority of the national debt is owed to its citizens. With every increase in benefits (SS Checks going out) increases the future debt owed to the people still working. Then add in how much longer people are living.
It also didn't help that Congress dipped into SS money to fund other things.
It is why the FRAUD being found out is huge deal. Fraud is being found in every state.
The US isn't even in the Top 20 in longevity. So "People...living too long" is not the problem. Many of the top counties have retirement systems that are fully funded. For example, "Top Ranked Systems: The 2023 Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index placed the Netherlands, Iceland, and Denmark in the top tier due to their high levels of funding and sustainability.
Examples of Funded Systems: Countries with fully funded pension pillars include Chile, Poland, and Sweden."
Please do a little homework before you come on here with simplistic and incorrect statements.
You are embarrassing yourself. DOESN"T FUCKING MATTER the life expectancy in other countries when talking about USA finances. Money spent on USA Citizens.
Compare the populations.... USA is in the top 3 in population. All those listed as living longer than the USA isn't even in the top 10 of population. So when a population of 100M has people draining a system for 5 extra years or even 2 years. Has less impact of 300M. that is a 3 to 1 difference on financial burden. It is like if a family makes $100K a year and has 1 kid compared to 3. Which one has harder financial burden... family with 1 kid or 3?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
So you are embarrassing yourself. Doesn't matter if someone in Japan lives longer. They are not draining the USA money. They are not getting Medicare. They are not getting US Social Security.
It is the fucking liberal way to bring up small population countries and thinking it will work in the USA. You can small scale model something and they try to make it work on a grand scale and if fails miserably.
So stop embarrassed yourself.
Life expectancy of US Citizens keeps increasing yearly.,... which is draining US coffers. (see attached life expectancy increases in the USA)
You have embarrassed yourself.
You claimed "People are living too long." I proved that in the US people are living LESS long than in many other countries that have fully-funded retirement systems.
End of story.
So you failed to comprehend my simple point.
Sadly, your stupidity is never ending.
There is no point in telling you to stop embarrassing yourself. You simply can't help it.
No your an idiot to compare US to other countries. Are those other countries draining the US Medicare and SS? NOPE.
You then want to say.... well the other countries models are better. AGAIN.... US has triple the population if not more that are draining Medicare and SS.
So again.... you are comparing APPLES TO ORANGES.
Your "simple" point has nothing to do with how US Citizens drain SS and Medicare. Other countries don't do shit to SS and Medicare inside the USA. Again.... liberal trying to act smarter and superior when it is moving the fucking goal posts. The OP thread was about USA.... not other countries deficit. So go sit down and let adults talk.
What is wrong with you? Never mind since you have no self-aweness so you'd answer that question wrong too. You make no sense. Now here comes your usual hackneyed insults about liberals. This is not about liberal vs conservative. This is about intelligence vs stupidity. This board has a new SPOAT. Long live the SPOAT.
I guess you dont understand that Comparing the drain on US system shouldn't include other countries. Then if you want to bring in other countries.... LOOK AT POPULATION. USA is over 3 times larger than any of those listed with longer life expectancies.
So yes... .you and nicky are ignoring HUGE FACTORS.
If it is over your head. Not my problem.
When, in fact, he's a relentlessly partisan hack. He really is dumber than a bag of hammers.
Insult when you lose out to DATA and FACTS.
Liberal TROLL. Keep it up. You try to bring "life expectancy" of other countries that have smaller population and compare it to the USA. APPLES TO ORANGES. Keep it up and move fucking goal posts.
You want to ignore that an aging population is the "ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM". With aging population it drains the US financially. They take more SS than they paid in, they need more medical care than what was estimated, they need more services than estimated, etc. Much of it paid for by the federal government..... Medicare and Social Security checks. This is something that is why our deficiet is so huge. Remember most of that money is OWED to the citizens and is based off of projections. The deficit is calculated by what is OWED to the citizens and is covering the short fall of the SS Trust fund. You know the one that has been depleted by Congress. So either the IOU's need to be paid, taxes raised, or CUT SPENDING. But yeah... again fucking facts. So every year someone lives longer in the USA.... it increase the deficit. Every time someone new enters the SS pool (boomers) it increase the deficit. The US population is 20% under age 18, 60% working age of 18-64 and 20% over the age of 64 and increasing daily. Which is more of a drain on the SS budget.
AGAIN.... that has nothing to do with OTHER COUNTRIES... .which you tried to compare it too. But yeah.... keep saying I have no idea or am ignorant. Keep up the liberal TROLL stereotype. Next I am sure you will start to call me RACIST.
People aren't living too long. But they are living longer than people were in 1935 when Social Security was enacted and in 1965 when Medicare was enacted. An aging population (baby boomers) with increased life expectancy (due largely to advances in medical science - although we still rank about 50th in the world in life expectancy), declining birth rates (that will only worsen as immigrants are deported and migration lessens), staggering year to year financial increases in the U.S. health care system, and lower worker to beneficiary ratios (that will only worsen with AI) requires new funding of both safety net programs. There are many options available to refund and shore up these programs but bipartisan congressional action is required now. Unfortunately, because of dysfunctional and partisan politics little has been done to fix the funding of these programs.
You literally just admitted people are living too long for the system that was set up. THAT WAS MY POINT.
Then I added in the fact that the system wouldn't be "failing" on a large scale IF Congress didn't pillage the funds. Then never put the money back. You bring up a great point how the idiots in Congress can't work together because they would rather point fingers at each other, not take any responsibility and leech money off of voters, donors, and lobbyists.
Then you added in the fact about low birth rates..... another issue. Less people putting into the fund once hit working age.
But you and others want to bring up WORLD or other countries life expectancies. APPLES TO ORANGES. Those people are not draining or taking from the US Social Security funds.
then starts throwing insults when CRSM points out Nicky’s facts are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The average life expectancy in 1935 was 60-64 years and the SS retirement age was 65. Now it’s 78. A financially solvent plan in 1935 is now far from it.
so you can watch my lips move. My facts are QUITE relevant to the topic at hand. I pointed out that "'People...living too long' is not the problem." And the chart I provided proved this, showing as it did that many countries with longer life expectancies have fully-funded national retirement plans. How is this "not germane?" Please try not to embarrass yourself like this.
I proved your "facts" didn't matter. Again 1/3 less population in all of those countries if not more. Those countries systems wouldn't work in the USA just merely because of population difference. But you and other libs ignore all of this when talking about socialized type programs.
Hell look at the fraud being found out right now in all the states. Imagine that with socialized medicine, a bigger retirement type thing, etc. But facts seem to escape you. Not sure of your occupation. But take some business classes that deal with production, operations, etc. type management and then you will learn small scale things dont always work on grand scale.
So his drool doesn’t turn to spittle and spray all over the place.
But back to the topic… The system was solvent as implemented under Roosevelt. But millions upon millions of people are living longer now than they were back then and we are now facing a crisis in the system. To say that people living longer isn’t a major part of the problem indicates to me you know little about the problem beyond the Democratic talking points.
BINGO...
Then added in the fact that BILLIONS has been sucked from the account by Congress. Let alone FRAUD that is being found out in all states. Dr Oz stated that they are investigating over $100B in fraud on the Medicare/SS system. That is what is just being investigated now. Think of how much is GONE already.
But Nicky will want to bring up other countries when that doesn't FUCKING MATTER. They are not draining our system. Those systems are based on different population densities (2/3 less people than the USA). But yeah.... he just pukes Dem talking points.
I remember on the Bourbon thread.... I proved him wrong. I also just read an article talking about how USA liquor/alcohol consumption is DOWN and been trending down for years. Might be because of pot laws, edibles, DUI laws, etc. But yeah.... he wanted to say "tariffs". Just like auto industry which again I proved him wrong.
Just like I know that other countries SS system won't work in the USA because of the population of the USA. It is too big to run like the countries they compare them too. It is why I bring up production/operations management things. But dem's don't understand or don't want too. They are ignoring that our system has been pillaged and the fraud. $100B is a shit ton of money that is GONE.
Dearest Theon/ Reek,
As life expectancy has increased, should we develop a new solution or let everyone fend for themselves? All you and CRSM have given are excuses and problems. It would be helpful if you suggested some action plans. Every other developed nation, regardless of size, has a plan to care for its elderly. Where's ours?
Regards,
Katie
Increase the amount of income subject to the Social Security tax from $176,100. As it is now, someone earning more than that pays no additional SS tax. Given that these people are easily able to afford paying a mere 6.2% tax on a six figure (or more) income, this would be a simple (and fair) fix.
Now watch the selfish righties bleat, "Tax the rich? WAAAAAHH!!"
That's exactly right. Also means test too so that multi-millionaires, who don't need financial help in retirement, are excluded from receiving benefits. Unfortunately, republicans would rather cut benefits on the poor or middle class than increase taxes on the rich.
You are proving to be more COMMUNIST every day. so people who pay into the system can't use it. The $0.85 cents per dollar raised that is earmarked specifically for the payer cant be used by them?
What happens if a multimillionaire loses all their money?
OR if people are only multimillionaires on paper? You know that they own land or other assets. Why do you think people are fleeing CA. The new tax there takes all of your assets into consideration.
Also the $176K mark..... are people who make $200K the 1% or not? I thought only go after the nasty 1%..... Figures from 2023 state that in 3 different states if you make $190K you are still middle class. That is 3 years ago numbers... with inflation more states will be in that figure.
These are the same multi-millionaires and billionaires who grossly under pay their fair share ercentage of taxes because the tax code has been written to favor them. Those guys? It's not communism to have within a capitalist system a social safety net program that excludes those who don't need the safety net. We should be looking for ways to keep Social Security retirement financially solvent and not manufacture ridiculous reasons to do nothing. Oh the poor multi-millionaires and billionaires. Boohoo.
like most of our resident righties he has no clue what Communism actually is.
NO.... you stated that "1%" people can't draw on SS or the "safety net". They pay into it. The system is set up for every $1 collected $0.85 is earmarked for the payee. DOESNT MATTER WEALTH STATUS.
You want a system that only people making less than $177K can draw on it. That isn't capitalist that is communism/socialism. Why would anyone want to make more than $177K? If you end up losing your wealth you are FUCKED.
Interesting.... But you do know that that income taxed is what the individual gets back. $0.85 of every earned tax dollar is earmarked for the individual. While $0.15 of every earn tax dollar goes to other programs. Increasing the tax won't do shit. It isn't about "taxing the rich". It is about taxing middle class to death.
It would make congress just pillage the fund even more.
Also I know that I would rather invest my money over that amount than let the government squander it.
You and other liberals don't understand that the US Government has a spending problem. They need to make cuts....yet they don't. Or when the do find spots to "cut".... one side or the other goes ape shit.
You can't tax your way out of anything unless you cut spending. It is where Trump fucked up his first term. He cut taxes without cutting spending. You can't cut "income" or incoming funds when you don't cut spending.
I am 70. So what should older people do? Just die? I don't even understand why u said what u said. And don't even say benefits should be cut. There are a ton of senior citizens that are barely making it now. However, if u want to talk to about mean testing, that might be an option. But only if the benefits received are proportionate to the state they are in and indexed to something other than inflation.
....that paid in?
that the Democrats don't want to consider. Lol
You don't get it either. I was saying that is the reality of it all. People are living longer. So when the system was set up life expectancy was below 70.. So when people live longer there is the obligation to keep paying them, keeping them on Medicare and SS.
I am not saying to die. I am saying that is the sad reality of it all. Each year someone is alive over age expectancy is roughly $24K needed to be paid to them in SS benefits to each person they figured would only live to be 70. Then add in any medical costs if they are on Medicare/Medicaid. So it is "draining" the system. Which is putting our country in a deficit.
Also you say.... about cuts. I didn't say shit about SS/Medicare. I was talking about government spending on other things. But yeah.... ignore what I am talking about.
here is something you are not talking about.... Why do some states tax SS income? That income you paid in already was TAXED. Why are states taxing it? Then add in you are completely ignoring the fact that Congress has pillaged SS funds to pay for other programs, projects, etc nothing to do with social security. Without putting that money back in. Again.... SPENDING PROBLEM.
People are living longer and creating a greater strain on the system
System probably needs a solid overhauling.
How is this even a controverisal take? Its the absolute truth.
It is because people like to bitch and think they are superior than others. They also don't want to admit the our government spends way too much. They don't want to admit you can't "tax' your way out of anything when you don't cut spending. They don't want to admit when you cut taxes you also need to cut spending. Which Trump didn't do in his first term, and it made the debt increase.
Why do you think the Dem's want the old tax brackets back..... it taxed the middle class more and would give them more "funding" to spend. They scream about the "rich" tax breaks but don't admit that middle class got huge tax breaks too. They don't want to talk about the percentages.... just dollar amounts. Because a 1% decrease on $1M in dollars is worse than a 3% decrease on $100K.....ie: But if you talk dollars.... they can say, Look the rich got a $10K tax break where middle class only got $3K... it isn't fair. Yet the middle class got the higher tax break.
They system was meant for people only living to be high 60's and low 70;s. Now that people are living into there 70's and 80's even more it strains the system. Then add in the fact that the average family size has dropped. So less working class to refill the fund it is draining on the system as well. YEAH... Biden's Covid policy allowing more able body people onto benefits is draining it even faster.
They system needs an overhaul but nobody will do it. If anything they need to find or work on another system and gradually incorporate or combine the two.
But like many don't understand or want to admit. The SS system has been pillaged by Congress and they haven't put any of the funds back in. They basically put in "IOU's". Until that money gets returned it is doomed to fail.
Look how Mamdani is already talking about he will have to go after the middle class.
You think he will stop at property taxes???
Again.... you can't tax your way out of things.
This is with NEWSOME in CA. He out spends what they take in..... and they keep raising taxes on things in CA.
Remember a few years back this clown said we had a surplus?
There isn't a government agency that likes to keep surplus money around. All of them want to use the max budget so they can ask for more money. Why keep a surplus for a rainy day....
used surpluses to actually pay down the national debt. And then Dubya came along and blew it all. And then some.
-- Modified on 2/18/2026 4:40:30 PM
I would agree with that actually. I wish he would have tapped Osama when he had the chance rather than Monica though.
OH GOD....
Clinton ran balanced budgets. So he didn't "increase spending".... even when surpluses came in. This is different than people using all the money and asking for more. Clinton said NO to them. Or increased slightly mainly for inflation. He has spending restraint. That isn't what I have been saying... agencies use all the budget and ask for more.... and get it. Clinton also raised taxes. Plus the fact that during the Clinton years was when dotcom took off, housing prices sky rocketed, wages increased, etc. Which helped with tax revenue. Again... not saying the stuff Clinton did was bad. He had some good policy. He didn't "tax and spend" like what liberals now are wanting to do.
Easy search comes up with this:
During the Clinton administration, the federal budget was balanced, with the federal deficit erased. This period saw a significant reduction in the national debt, with budget surpluses recorded in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was approximately $237 billion, and smaller surpluses were recorded in adjacent years. The surplus was a result of a mix of higher revenues from economic expansion, tax increases, and discretionary spending controls. The fiscal policy of the Clinton administration included a large tax increase on upper-income taxpayers and spending restraints, which contributed to the budget surpluses. Despite the surpluses, the debt held by the public decreased relative to GDP during the Clinton years, reflecting a successful fiscal policy.
Now why did Dubya get us into debt.... OH YEAH.... 9/11, going after Sadam, etc. It was all military expenses. You can debate the good and bad of all of this.
But again you are showing your stereotypical liberal. Trying to throw a "jab" at me when it isn't at all what I have been talking about. Clinton didn't increase spending. He ran balanced budgets. Which is what all presidents, governors, mayors, etc should do. BUT THEY DONT.
You basically agreed with me (as did snafool) but then ran off at the mouth with a bunch of stuff that bolster the point I made. Then you whine that I threw a "jab" at you. It was more like a love tap. When I hit you, you'll know it. And, no doubt, whine about it. Because it's what you do.
but your brand of weak-assed shit ain't it.
I agree Clinton did good things and had good policy.
BUT you moved the goal posts and tried to act smarter than you really are. You tried counter what I said about government agencies not staying with in budgets or never "leaving room". IE: using all of the budget even when they can come under budget for the year. You tried to sound intelligent with "Clinton". But you ignored what really happened. Tax increases which made him stay within budget. Then he didn't INCREASE SPENDING.
Yet all the libs now want to do is increase spending and tax. Which you can't do to solve the problem. Look at Newsome in CA.... 5+ years over budget and is also increasing taxes. Look at NYC..... wants to increase taxes and isn't looking to cut spending to meet the budget. MN had a budget surplus.... Walz and Dem trifecta made more programs, blew thru that budget and then needed to raise taxes to meet the requirements. Why not just budget for what the surplus each year was... NOPE they couldn't. But yeah.... You think you are so smart but miss the ball more than 75% of the time.
But go ahead and throw insults. I don't get upset and yes OH GOD was necessary because you just don't get it. You try to add in your two cents and it is off the mark. Just like when you felt the need to say you have a FL CCW permit. Had nothing to do with the conversation when that permit doesn't equal you can carry in RI. Then you try to act superior by saying "i brought it up".... when I didn't. But keep being a stereotypical liberal.... moving goal posts, doing a whataboutism (like this thread.... by saying but Clinton...yet failed with it), and then throwing insults when you are proven wrong. STEREOTYPICAL LIBERAL.
I made a very short post which did NOT include any of the so-called points The SPOAT is laboring to make.
But keep on inventing stupid shit to rebut things I did not say.
STEREOTYPICAL DUMBFUCK.
We can read the posts ickydik and to be honest, we don't need your interpretation of what the message was. We can all see that you love playing Matlock with your imaginary friends, LMAO.
....maybe give the keyboard a rest for a couple days. Snuggle up with your beanies over the weekend, watch some Barney and come back on Monday.
Looks like snafool is the one who needs to give his keyboard a rest.
Please seek help for dealing with your obsession with me.
NOPE.... again you tried to throw shade on what I stated and got spanked by me with FACTS.
Then you keep calling me names. So again showing how you are a troll and a stereotypical liberal.
Thanks for playing.
And keeps regurgitating the same tired whinings. Over and over and over.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Poor SPOAT...
With every post you sound dumber and dumber. SPOAT. Also as I mentioned at least once before, you may want to Google stereotypical vs typical. "Stereotypical liberal" is a phrase you use in almost every post, so you may want to educate yourself in what it actually means. SPOAT.
WOW.... again you try to insult me and yet prove me correct.
Stereotypical.....relating to a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
So yes you two are falling into the STEREOTYPE of what people think bad liberals are. You know acting superior in knowledge, moving goal posts, throwing insults when defeated, etc.
But yeah.... keep doing it. Also to NICKY.... I did claim victory because people can read what you posted. I have been proving you wrong in so many posts. Then you insult and try to act superior or MOVE GOAL POSTS... like this thread.....and fail.
2) When called out, claim victory.
3) Move goalposts by adding extraneous info his opponent never claimed.
4) Claim victory.
5) Move goalposts.
6) Sob that opponent is being mean and is a "typical liberal."
7) Repeat as many times as it takes to believe he won.
8) Remain defiantly stupid.
9) Claim victory anyway.
Again.... you are a STEREOTYPICAL LIBERAL... .not typical liberal. You keep proving that I am correct.
You tried to claim or insinuate that Clinton was a Dem that didn't do what I was saying. I put clarity into that with what actually happened under the Clinton time in office. WHICH is exactly the opposite of what you were trying to insinuate. So yeah.... again... VICTORY IS MINE.
Then you keep spouting off and keep showing how you are a TROLL.
How about this now in the news with NY..... Hochul is giving more money away without getting any more money in. So keeps up with SPEND SPEND SPEND. But yeah ignore the shit happening in your own state. I won't even bring up the whole per mile tax/fee CA wants to do instead of a gas tax. Reason.... too many EV's now on the road. Then won't add in the fact that CA has lost over 30+ refineries because of its tax laws, environmental laws, etc. Which is making gas prices even higher for the residents of that state. You know trying to TAX there way out of a debt. You know how liberals think is the way to go.
The above info isn't "goal post" moving like Inicky thinks it is. It is facts proving the point I was making. Are those budgets shrinking..... NOPE only expanding. Clinton BALANCED budgets and didn't cut budgets. He worked with in his means. BUT his means his budgets got bigger because of new TAXES. So again.... FACTS you want to ignore and the fact with Clinton that you tried to do a "showed you up" type thing. Which once given context of what happened proved I was correct. No "cuts" were made during Clinton he implemented controls. Like I keep saying the government has a SPENDING PROBLEM. So there is even more clarity on what Clinton did. Which was great implementing controls on spending and let taxes roll in to help with deficit. It would have even been better if he would have made CUTS. But he didn't. But yeah... keep thinking you are so fucking smart.
1) NO, you did NOT rebut ANYTHING I wrote. I made a simple statement that Clinton reduced the national debt. Which he did. Your additional info did NOT refute that, pinhead. So, in fact, it was YOU who moved the goalposts.
And, no, "VICTORY" is NOT yours.
2) I never said a word about Hochul or EVs. So stop putting words in my mouth, troll.
3) Yes, "government has a SPENDING PROBLEM." I never said it didn't. So stop putting words in my mouth, troll.
PS: I'm really not that smart. I'm just not as stupid as you are.
And now cue up The SPOAT's angry reply. Cuz he always needs that Last Word.
I never stated you brought up Hochul and EV's.
Again you are putting things in my mouth. I gave examples of Liberals/Dem's spending and not staying with in a budget.
So do you have a problem with reading???
With Clinton..... you tried to throw in 2 cents by saying Clinton took down the deficit. But he did so not by cutting spending. my comments have been about CUTTING SPENDING. You tried to insinuate that "Clinton" did want I was complaining about. You tried a "what about Clinton".... yet FAILED on it. SO again you try to act all smart about throwing in Clinton without knowing how he did it. Which didn't mean shit about cutting spending in which my post was about. So yeah.... you keep putting your fucking foot in your mouth. It shows you try to add in things that dont have nothing to do with the posts. Like the "i have a FL CCW" post. It added nothing.
Now if Clinton would have cut spending.... then HELL YEAH you would have showed me up. But he didn't... he put in controls to limit it and limit expansion to stay within certain means. Then with the added taxes it helped reduce the deficit. Clinton had a budget that he stayed within. Then when more money came in he didn't "blow it" (yes pun intended). He kept that money or some of it back to lower the national debt.
So yeah... keep trying to MEME your way around this board thinking you are all smart and superior. When again.... I laid it all out there showing how you fucked up. You try and make me and others look stupid when it just comes back at you. Thanks for playing.