Thread: $2 trillion raided from Social Security since 1980

Originally Posted by dudeman

Congress should not play the role of Robin Hood and there should be criminal charges for spending money allocated for one program and spent on another program.

Robin Hood returned the excessive tax back to the poor it was taken from.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Robin Hood returned the excessive tax back to the poor it was taken from.

Jon Stewart said he wants reimbursed for the Iraq/Afghan wars. I think the republicans should pay back the $3 trillion they gave to millionaires. The republicans were demanding that the one year payroll tax cut extension for the middle class be payed for, so hey. Then there's the first gulf war. Before that Raygun gave a half billion dollars worth of war machine to the Taliban, and all the cold war nukes he spent trillions on. Man you got nothin.

Great stuff! Its really interesting to know about all this kind of stuff, thanks for sharing and keep sharing more!

Originally Posted by dudeman

Demand repayment to the government from all of the subsidy receivers since 1980 to fund social security:
Public housing, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, energy assistance, EITC, etc.

Why should I have to pay for rent/mortgage and food when someone else doesn't have to pay those bills at my expense? Congress should not play the role of Robin Hood and there should be criminal charges for spending money allocated for one program and spent on another program.

Demand repayment of all government subsidies and special tax exemptions to farmers, oil companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and all other corporations.

Why should I have to subsidize these private corporations so they can be assured of making a profit?
Congress should not play the role of robber baron and there should be criminal charges for allocating monies and tax exemptions to private corporations.

I want my taxes to go to those who are most in need, which is not the shareholders of corporations or the owners of businesses that require special treatment to stay in business. If all that was eliminated my taxes would be reduced significantly and the poor and bereft not neglected.

Many baby boomers looking at a rough retirement...

Few U.S. cities are ready for aging baby boomer population
25 Mar.`12 – Few communities have started to think long term about how to plan and redesign services for aging baby boomers as they move out of the workforce and into retirement.

Even more troubling, dwindling budgets in a tight economy have pushed communities to cut spending on delivering meals to the homebound and shuttling folks who can no longer drive to grocery stores and doctor's offices. These cuts, advocates for older Americans say, are coming when the services are needed more than ever. And those needs will grow tremendously over the next two decades.

The nation's population of those 65 and older will double between 2000 and 2030, according to the federal Administration on Aging. That adds up to one out of every five Americans — 72.1 million people. Just eight years from now, researchers say, a quarter of all Ohio's residents in half of the state's counties will be 60 or older. Arizona and Pennsylvania project that one in four of its residents will be over the age of 60 by 2020. "The bottom line is, the baby boomers are hitting," Chuck Gehring of LifeCare Alliance, an agency serving seniors in central Ohio, told The Columbus Dispatch. "Are communities prepared for this? No."

Six years ago, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging said less than half of cities it surveyed at the time were preparing to deal with the needs of older folks. It said the results "should serve as a wake-up call for communities to begin planning now." Five years later, the Washington, D.C.-based group revisited the survey and found little had changed. There was still a great need for transportation and housing for aging boomers, it said. "There are a lot of communities that recognize they need to do something but haven't done it yet," Sandy Markwood, the group's chief executive officer, told the Associated Press.

Some of the changes cities can make include offering training to help older people drive more safely, installing road signs that are easier to read or creating ride-share programs, said Jo Reed, who oversaw the latest survey. The biggest reason why cities have made little progress is the economy.

MORE

Originally Posted by gophangover

Jon Stewart said he wants reimbursed for the Iraq/Afghan wars. I think the republicans should pay back the $3 trillion they gave to millionaires.

Drinking the koolaid are we?

Pelosi voted to extend the tax cuts in Dec 2010 (or lose her benifactors), and the Democrats did nothing about those tax cuts when they had full control of the House and Senate.

Originally Posted by waltky

Many baby boomers looking at a rough retirement...

Few U.S. cities are ready for aging baby boomer population
25 Mar.`12 – Few communities have started to think long term about how to plan and redesign services for aging baby boomers as they move out of the workforce and into retirement.

On average, people join the workforce at 20, they retire 45 years late at 65, and on average die 16 years later at 81.

The ratio of worker to retiree will stabilize at less than 3:1.

That is unsustainable.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

Drinking the koolaid are we?

Pelosi voted to extend the tax cuts in Dec 2010 (or lose her benifactors), and the Democrats did nothing about those tax cuts when they had full control of the House and Senate.

I'd say you are wasted on GOP koolaid. The cons have been whining about taxes since the rates for millionaires was 90% when Eisenhower was POTUS. Those tax rates are now 35% and cons still have bleeding hearts for the filthy rich. And all those tax cuts for the rich during Shrub's eight years only doubled the national debt and destroyed the economy. Tax cuts were supposed to create jobs, remember? Well, looks like cons just scammed America for the rich pukes.

Originally Posted by gophangover

I'd say you are wasted on GOP koolaid. The cons have been whining about taxes since the rates for millionaires was 90% when Eisenhower was POTUS. Those tax rates are now 35% and cons still have bleeding hearts for the filthy rich. And all those tax cuts for the rich during Shrub's eight years only doubled the national debt and destroyed the economy. Tax cuts were supposed to create jobs, remember? Well, looks like cons just scammed America for the rich pukes.

The Democrats had almost 2 years to increase taxes, yet they didn't. Why not?

Why did Pelosi vote to extend the tax cuts, even for the rich?

Originally Posted by Not Amused

The Democrats had almost 2 years to increase taxes, yet they didn't. Why not?

Why did Pelosi vote to extend the tax cuts, even for the rich?

Don't play dumb. You know as well as I that it takes 60 votes in the senate to pass anything. And that's how the cons have been obstructing everything for the past two years.