Boehner to announce "GOP alternative to Obamacare" "soon"--

Yes, you believe in class warfare.

And for 30 years, we were able to keep more because we refused to pay for the increase spending. I stopped patting myself on the back a long time ago. For some, they try to use that as an excuse to blame others.

You are the one that started blaming the baby boomers, not me. Go back and read your post. Now you want to blame the other generations. You must be a Libertarian.

 

That is "degrading" people?

No... thats human nature.

If people can get what they need for life with little or no effort, of course they are going to go that route.

That isn't degrading people, thats point out a fact. A fact that people who hold your position conveniently like to ignore.

Your assumptions are telling of your terrible ability to debate.

I am not religious. I give to my community because its the moral thing to do. Not because Jesus told me I should, and most certainly not because you think that I should.

I do however like how you attempt to use religion when you think that it reinforces your argument. I don't do that, because I am not a hypocrite.

 

Yes, that is degrading "those" people because you lump every poor person into being a "leech".

I know what you reply would be when I said "Jesus" but you give back only to those that you want. You want no part in societal responsibilities.

 

I truly do not know what the hell you're talking about. We Baby Boomers, as I said, worked, paid taxes, etc., etc. But you say "we were able to keep more because we refused to pay for the increase (sic) spending". ??? We paid the taxes we were forced to pay, just like everyone else... you're not making sense. And what's this nonsense about me "blaming the baby boomers"? I AM a Baby Boomer! I have a lot of Libertarian leanings, but I fail to see how that puts me at odds with other Baby Boomers.

Hey, if you Gen-Xer's and Millennials actually still think your precious Obama is wonderful, even after the royal screwing he's given your generation -- FINE! You people are welcome to pay more, get less, and go on paying for medical services you probably won't need for another thirty years! If this ludicrous, laughable, pitiful situation pleases you then who am I to tell you to be angry about it?

 

The baby boomers (*)(*)(*)(*)ed this country up for everyone. You hate your elders and hate your children. Hurry up and croak.

 

You do bring up one good point! Social Security is financially viable until about the year 2034. And, by then, a great many of us Boomers will croak. Hey, we paid into it all our lives instead of sucking our thumbs, being "adult children", and living off of Mommy and Daddy, plus the government.

We paid a LOT (not that you care), because we were forced to pay by the threat of legal punishment, and now we will get our EARNED benefits. You Gen-X'ers and Millennials whine, cry, suck on the socialist welfare state, wait for Comrade Obama to give you something, and bleed your relatives dry. So, if there's no entitlement "goodie" left for you when you grow old -- TOO ****ING BAD! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!

 

I am a WW2 baby. I may have misunderstood what you were saying but I knew you blaming some other class. We, WW2 babies and baby boomers stop pay for what was spent in 1981. If we had paid for that spending, correcting the funding for SS and Medicare, the debt would not be so high and we could help other generations get the same help that we got.

You certainly like class warfare.

I wish that you would act your age when you post.

 

We, older people, use to demand corrections on the funding to keep SS and Medicare properly funded for everyone. Some baby boomers decided that only funding enough until they died was all that was needed. The greed of some baby boomers turned them into selfish "I got mine, screw you" people.

Some of paid for it because we cared about other people. Not everyone felt that they were "forced" to pay. I would have paid more if everyone else paid more and I would not have complain. To fix the system, we who do not need SS could get less return or no return but I will not do not by myself. I am disgusted that the greedy ones try to say "Well, if you feel that way, don't take it." I am not a sucker and know that my individual amount will not change the timeline.

We did not pay a "LOT" for a safety net for all. You look at everything as a return on investment. SS was never an investment plan. It was an insurance plan, mostly for those who were not lucky in their lives. We get some of it because greedy people would never go along with simply helping others.

Still trying to get this class warfare thing going.

 

The great socialist demi-god, Frankie Roosevelt, saddled the US with the Social Security system long before even the first Boomer was born. We had no say in the matter at all. Through the years, as the socialists sought to buy more votes from people who always have their hands out, the SS system was expanded to pour money into the pockets of people who were NOT "retirees". SS was intended to be a retirement system, and "luck" had nothing to do with it -- until a growing parasite class discovered it could be "lucky" enough to get teams of Libocrat social worker civil servants to let them suck on a system they had contributed little or nothing to. "Feelings" about it notwithstanding, Boomers have been FORCED to pay, and surely you won't try to deny that. Americans remain FORCED to pay into these socialist systems to this day, with no end in sight. Do you disagree that a person should then have the right to collect from the system he was FORCED to pay into, based on the amount he was FORCED to pay?

A last note on this: Gen-Xer's and Millennials should have the right to collect from these socialist government systems, too! They should have rights equal to Boomers or anybody else to collect based on what they have paid in! But if they make careers out of being "adult children", lolling around Mommy and Daddy's house endlessly, whining about how there are "no jobs" when every website and newspaper for every city and town in the country offer many of them, then how much are they contributing to the systems? Little or nothing? And, if so, then why in hell would they think they have the right to collect more than they are due?

They think it because the socialists tell them that if we'll only continue to elect more socialists, everybody will have high-paying government jobs, great retirements, lots of time off and ample vacations, free tuition to colleges and universities, free socialized medicine, free babysitting services, free this, free that -- on and on and on. And the RINO Republicans have a better idea? Ha! The only "good" idea is to scrap all this socialist horse**** and return to the principles of free citizens working to accomplish whatever they set as goals in their own lives! But that won't get a nation of parasites to vote for Republicans....

Yes, the socialist version of Shangra-La sounds much better to someone who has never done much work, if any at all. Fine. So who the hell is going to pay for this Socialist Paradise? Oh, I know! Let's screw the Baby Boomers out of what they have EARNED so that we can pay others to lay around on their asses all day, doing nothing!

 

The single payer system works fine.

 

There was a problem with older people having no income and many living on the streets. Society wanted to do something about this social problem and decided to set up an insurance system so that seniors would be guaranteed to get some income when they retired. Social programs come about to fix social problems. You might not like how these programs are set up but the social problem was there before the program was implemented.

Good god. We had no say in the Constitution but we still want it.

Your history, not mine. Oh, and those "NOT retirees" are those disabled and unabled to work or spousal survivors of retirees.

I already said that the selfish ones had to be forced. As far as "luck", you were lucky that some serious accident or some serious illness did not get in the way of you being successful. Also it is "luck" that you got proper education, training on the job and help financing your education. All I can say to those pompous asses who say that they did it on their own is "you didn't build it".

He/she has the right but he/she shouldn't let greed interfere with helping others. If we don't need it, why should we get it?

They would have had it if we had started to correct it instead of avoiding to pay more. We can still correct it today but we have to give up a lot more because we put off the problem for far too long.

I still will not help you in trying to create class warfare.

 

If single payer health care "destroys an economy"?

Then the United States would be the ONLY industrialized nation in the world that has recovered from the Recession.

Is that true?

 

We can agree to disagree then. You have admitted (as far as I can see) that, yes, Social Security was set up as a retirement system, but you think it was perfectly fine to mangle it to allow huge payouts to people who were, in fact, NOT RETIREES. We will disagree on that point eternally. I know what a "retiree" is, but you, evidently, do not....

But no, I'm not interested in anybody's guerrilla-theater idea of "class warfare". How utterly tiresome! I'm a very simple, uncomplicated person. I worked, I was taxed, I paid, and, now I expect to COLLECT. No "class warfare" intended. Everyone, young and old, should receive according to what he/she has contributed. Everything else is rationalized, parasitic socialist bull****....

 

>>>Insult Removed<<< I said that it was set up as an insurance program to insure that people have some income when they no long work. FICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Most insurance plans pay you if you need help. To get the greedy on board with this program, even those who did not need it would get money back. Because of today's circumstances, those of us who do not need it should get less back or nothing back. We should never scrapped it because many people still need it but we should treat it like every other insurance plan.

The original act stated: An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health.

There were other people beside elderly included in the act.

You continue to belittle other generations, saying that they only want things. That is class warfare. It is a "us against them" attitude. For some reason, you think that any money put into SS and Medicare should come back to you. Do you expect to get your money back from your home insurance plan?

 

Darn! I wish I could have seen the insult. Oh, well. Whatever semantics applied to Social Security's interpretation ("insurance"), the fact remains that the system sends out information to everyone who pays into it that, at age X, you will receive Y per month... at age A, you will receive B per month... etc., etc. My interpretation of "insurance" in this context is that the Federal Government has insured the reality that if I paid into the system for "X"-number of years, then I will get the correct amount of money back out of the system. If I die, then too bad, so sad. No more payout. Fair enough? Everybody who is forced to pay into this system must be allowed to get payback from this system under the conditions that applied during the time period he was forced to pay... or do you advocate government confiscation?! Do you advocate robbing one man to give the money to a man who paid little or nothing into the system? There it is, so now if you want to add further insults against me because of saying that, well, have a ball!

In a situation where there is a host, and there a parasite attached to the host, it is always easy to identify which one is the parasite....