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.

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.    

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.

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?

No your an idiot to compare US to other countries.  Are those other countries draining the US Medicare and SS?   NOPE.

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.

When, in fact, he's a relentlessly partisan hack. He really is dumber than a bag of hammers.

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.      

Insult when you lose out to DATA and FACTS.

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.

then starts throwing insults when CRSM points out Nicky’s facts are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

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.

Dearest Theon/ Reek,

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!!"

People are living longer and creating a greater strain on the system

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 literally just admitted people are living too long for the system that was set up.    THAT WAS MY POINT.

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.

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 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.      

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?    

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.

that the Democrats don't want to consider.   Lol

So his drool doesn’t turn to spittle and spray all over the place.

BINGO...

Look how Mamdani is already talking about he will have to go after the middle class.

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?

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.    

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.