It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Koch Bros are trying to destroy social security through misinformation, Must watch video!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:01 AM
The CBO also said this about his plan (it's sort of long) -

Both the level of expected federal spending on Medicare and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, but enrollees’ spending for health care and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase.

Under the Roadmap, the value of the voucher would be less than expected Medicare spending per enrollee in 2021, when the voucher program would begin. In addition, Medicare’s current payment rates for providers are lower than those paid by commercial insurers, and the program’s administrative costs are lower than those for individually purchased insurance. Beneficiaries would therefore face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare.

Moreover, the value of the voucher would grow significantly more slowly than CBO expects that Medicare spending per enrollee would grow under current law. Beneficiaries would therefore be likely to purchase less comprehensive health plans or plans more heavily managed than traditional Medicare, resulting in some combination of less use of health care services and less use of technologically advanced treatments than under current law. Beneficiaries would also bear the financial risk for the cost of buying insurance policies or the cost of obtaining health care services beyond what would be covered by their insurance.

Basically, he wants to privatize Medicare, which would make it more expensive for people. I don't see something this drastic needed and I seriously doubt this will ever get passed, regardless.

Another thing to consider and remember is social security wages are stopped at just over $100,000. In other words, if someone is making 500K in a year, they don't pay on social security past their first 100K. Why not change that to help out SS and be fair to people that are paying on the entirety of their paychecks?

There are a number of other things the government can do as well - Cut farm subsidies, cut defense spending, cut some other programs that are bloated or deemed unnecessary, etc.

And I know you guys don't like to hear about raising taxes, but seriously, why not at least revert the top tax rate back to where it should've been two years ago? What is the point in keeping it where it is? Just so the wealthy can have even more money? It was supposed to end (ie, temporary) two years ago. The fact that the Republicans are simply unwilling to even discuss this is beyond me. It was supposed to be temporary! It's costing over trillions of dollars to keep this tax cut for the wealthy.

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 09:49 AM
david, thanks for the post. the video about social security is irrelevant to me since i think it is more a free speech issue and i agree with neo that social security is a ponzi scheme which perpetually has a zero balance and is a straight transfer of wealth (young to old). anything that is left in the pot is treated like a congressional slush fund.

in other words social security has been broke and broken for decades.

i agree with mishigas as well with his rational of what privatization of retirement really is. i do like bernie sanders for his honesty about being a socialist and can't believe an 'out' socialist can get elected to any US government office. the reason i like him is that he is honest about his politics when most politicians won't even go that far. like more republicans aren't conservative and most democrats are socialist but use the word liberal to describe themselves.

since the topic seems to be more focused on SS instead of the koch bros i don't think i can add more to the conversation than mishigas and neo already have.

i can just tell you if you think the dissolution of SS means the old people won't get their money and republicans are going to steal from the elderly then you must really hate what bush did and then obama tripled with the bail out and TARP. in that situation the investments that were the retirement funds went bust and the banks got to fill their vaults with all that bailout money because of bush and the house and senate dems. or did you think the banks put the money back in those investment/retirement funds? notice that the banks are making a killing right now and immediately started investing in other countries (end of 2008) before they started falling apart. those retirement funds are all gone.

the money was transferred from the working class to the bankers in the matter of months. SS does the same thing but from young people to old because it is a ponzi scheme. if the congress wasn't so corrupt what would happen is that people would make a contribution from their pay check, the money would sit gaining interest, ideally the contributor would get regular statements about how the money was doing in the market and the contributor would collect up to their full contributions at the retirement age.

as mishigas and neo have been describing, that doesn't happen.

the most important point is when mishigas gives the example of what happens if you give the government your retirement and you die before you use it? does the retirement fund become a life insurance payment to your family or does the government just keep it for that bridge to nowhere? (rhetorical)

edit on 29-6-2011 by countupir because: corrections

posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by David9176

I got this email about a week ago:

It's official: There's now a bipartisan consensus on the Super Committee to cut Medicare and Social Security benefits. The Republicans have a longstanding desire to dismantle Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

But according to recent news reports, a majority of Democrats on the Super Committee just proposed their own plan to reduce the deficit that included slashing Medicare benefits by $200 billion and dramatically reducing future Social Security benefits.

It's hard to imagine how the Democrats on the Super Committee could be any more out-of-touch or wrongheaded.

In the face of massive unemployment, rampant foreclosures, a sputtering economy and widespread anger that the country is systematically prioritizing the needs of the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations over the needs of the other 99% of us, the Democrats who support this plan think the best thing to do is make it harder and more expensive for seniors and the less fortunate to get medical care or pay for their basic living expenses.

Tell Harry Reid and the Democratic senators on the Super Committee:

Absolutely no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security benefits.

edit on 7-11-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by David9176

Having Social Security or not having it is poltical. The people want it or they don't. There is no imperative that the age has to change or that it is going broke. The talk that we have to cut these things is politcal. You can have these programs and more if you stop the wars,and change the tax system so that it does not kill the economy the way it is now. If we do not start paying people enough to live it is not going to make much difference. Profits are way up, wages going nowhere. that should tell you alot. if these folks were seroius they would raise wages with the productivity that has gone up. right now the politcal power is in the hands of the rich which is why Obama comes out with these austerity statements. if the power shifts you will not much of that.

top topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in