Social Security and Medicare are OFF THE TABLE!

Vice Lord wrote: Please Right Wing people...Please educate yoursevles. You keep repeating the same simple talking points over and over ("the system is broke, the country is Bankraupt")as if you really don't know where our money is going.

This is a fun tool- and it's very inlightening...Just pick what you want and don't want government to provide and see the tradeoffs...Its very educational
http://nationalpriorities.org/en/tools/ ... aid/10000/
http://nationalpriorities.org/en/tools/ ... tradeoff/0

And if you look at that where your taxes are going note that the Health care number would be cut in half with a single payer system with everybody involved..Here's a talking point friends:

Right now we are paying more for healthcare than any other modern industrilised nation, but we are getting less..One more time

Right now we are paying more for healthcare than any other modern industrilised nation, but we are getting less

Obama is trying to fix that..He's not working for insurance companies like republicans, he's trying to take out the greedy middlemen who are a MAJOR drain on the economy. What other reason would he do this? On the other hand thier are Billion$ of reasons to maintian the staus quo,


Think..Think people

There is nothing wrong with you getting back what you turned in. Have you ever calculated just how little that is compared to what is getting paid out?

Roc Doc -This is a good point. Most people underestimate what an annuity would cost. You would probably need 300-400K to buy an annuity equiv. to SS. Much more money that most avg. people pay in ss tax during their life.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/04/pf/expe ... .moneymag/

Running the numbers

Let's start with your $100,000. You don't say how old you are, but just so we can use specifics, I'll assume you're 65.

If you put that hundred grand into an immediate annuity today and select the lifetime income option, you would receive about $660 a month for the rest of your life.

Joe wrote:

There is nothing wrong with you getting back what you turned in. Have you ever calculated just how little that is compared to what is getting paid out?

This is a good point. Most people underestimate what an annuity would cost. You would probably need 300-400K to buy an annuity equiv. to SS. Much more money that most avg. people pay in ss tax.

You're full of s***...When you factor in everybody, including the people that die before collecting even one check...If you factor in eveybody the average is shocking 18 monthy checks...A lot of people don't live to 62 or 67, and a lot of people don't live long after that...

You pay all your life for 18 measley checks! Lets not act like every American is paid millions of dollars in benifits

Huh? I don't follow you VL. The point is you get alot in ss benefits compared to a cash annuity alternative. $660/mo for $100K

Maybe I misunderstood your point, my point was nobody collects that much..People here act like our old folks are living the high life for 50 years after they retire

Vice Lord wrote: Maybe I misunderstood your point, my point was nobody collects that much..People here act like our old folks are living the high life for 50 years after they retire

I think the point was people wanting to take out a lump sum of what they put in over the years. Not a good move, you would get less monthly income with an annuity purchased with that lump sum. Understand? LOL

Sweden has long been THE model for social programs and has one of the best social health care systems in the world. There are a couple of points that make this system interesting. Firstly, health policy in Sweden is a national-level responsibility. Over the past 20 years Sweden has an average reinvestment of some 9.2% of its GDP annually on healthcare. HOWEVER, around 70 percent of healthcare services are funded through local government taxes. In other words, control is local comparable to states in the US.

Taxation: Most of the public financing comes from county council taxes (proportional income tax). This accounts for just over 70% of the healthcare costs. Health services for the elderly and disabled provided at home or in special residential settings are financed mainly by municipal (local) taxes.

State subsidies:
National subsidies cover approximately 20% of the costs.

Tax rates in Sweden: With so many social services in effect, and a virtual absence of poverty, Sweden's personal income taxes are the highest in the world.

Read more: Taxation - Sweden - http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Euro ... z1MRGzQbX4

Bottom line: Everyone pays substantial taxes with top earners paying over 50%. Interestingly Corporations pay much lower tax rates than do individuals. They do not see corporations as evil, but as benefactors for employment.

With all the uproar about federal social programs and evil corporations, it seems many harbor significant misconceptions in terms of how to achieve the programs sought. Given existing models to chose from the centralized federally controlled Obama care model leads to the kind of economic chaos seen in Greece. Where as empowering the states to legislate health care and other social programs is more akin to the Swedish model of success. If you are going to do something, you might as well borrow the best models so you have a good chance of doing things right. And if you do it right, be prepared to start paying in the mid 30% tax bracket plus another 20 percent on top of that for most goods. In other words, be prepared to spend half of your time earning money for the programs you want supported. That is just the reality of the situation. Taxing the hell out of the evil corporations and the upper crust just is not going to get you there. All you have to do is look around for appropriate examples to see how your approach is likely to work out.

Dang... Now, here you have one of your own presidential candidates not buying into the regurgitation of the "system is broke--we have to fix it on the backs of seniors" drivel....

Newt Gingrich: Ryan Medicare Plan Is 'Too Big A Jump' (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich distanced himself on Sunday from a House GOP plan to make cuts to Medicare, calling it “too big a jump" for the American people.

“What you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose it,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I am against Obamacare imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.”

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said. “I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare solution for seniors."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 ... 62133.html

Of course, we've already presented evidence that Newt was more in support of full-blown individual mandates than Romney was...before he was against them, of course.

LadyJazzer wrote: Dang... Now, here you have one of your own presidential candidates not buying into the regurgitation of the "system is broke--we have to fix it on the backs of seniors" drivel....

Newt Gingrich: Ryan Medicare Plan Is 'Too Big A Jump' (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich distanced himself on Sunday from a House GOP plan to make cuts to Medicare, calling it “too big a jump" for the American people.

“What you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose it,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I am against Obamacare imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.”

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said. “I think we need a national conversation to get to a better Medicare solution for seniors."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 ... 62133.html

Of course, we've already presented evidence that Newt was more in support of full-blown individual mandates than Romney was...before he was against them, of course.

It would be in appropriate to lump me with the GOP or any presidential candidate at this juncture. I like to jump around to find the most suitable candidate no matter where he comes from.

I'm in Agreement on the inadequacy of left and right solutions. Real change and a commitment to get it done needs to come from the people. But that will require some very honest dialogue. Doubt that will happen.

The post was not directed at "you" specifically... "You", in this case, was meant to suggest anybody on the conservative side that would fall in behind Newt as any sort of rational candidate.

The GOP line-up is a joke... It's like a bad "Snow White and the 6 or 7 dwarfs." (BachMann, and the rest...) So, I hope you find what you're looking for.