8th I'm calling you out for your insulting fact challenged PM.
You compounded your non-comprehension of the SS article I posted with typical righty conclusion jumping, capped off with a gratuitous insult.
The article clearly states how SS, Medicare and Medicaid were first identified by the benign meaning of entitlement, benefit programs that were paid into through deductions from paychecks. That is EARNED benefits. That is clearly stated in the article.
Also clearly stated was the connotation that righties like you fall back on because you're either burdened by too many false grievances and resentments to think clearly, or your just not too bright.
Little a both, I suspect, That connotation is a 'sense of entitlement', a belief by benefit recipients that they have something coming that other people view as undeserved.
Now one can debate, as the author does, whether or not some people living long enough to take out more than they paid in is sustainable.
Short term a tax hike, or a lifting of the ceiling of taxes for FICA will make the system solvent.
Longer term, the deaths of boomers and the generation behind them will mean that there will be a better ratio of workers to beneficiaries.
Call between now an then a 'donut hole' where hard choices need to be made.
Lastly, your bat shit crazy assertion that I 'approve' of public pensions that were negotiated during more prosperous times is bullshit.
Many of them need to be re-negotiated. I do not support politicians who blindly defend those pensions. And neither am I a one issue voter.
A politician could be mistaken on that issue and right on a host of others that I support. That's no different than what you do.
I call you a liar if you claim otherwise.
And let me be crystal clear, I do not fall for the 'shiny objects' that seem to mesmerize conservative voters into voting against heir financial interests; God, guns and gays, flags, fags and fetuses.
https://protectpensions.org/2015/09/21/myths-...-pensions/
You compounded your non-comprehension of the SS article I posted with typical righty conclusion jumping, capped off with a gratuitous insult.
The article clearly states how SS, Medicare and Medicaid were first identified by the benign meaning of entitlement, benefit programs that were paid into through deductions from paychecks. That is EARNED benefits. That is clearly stated in the article.
Also clearly stated was the connotation that righties like you fall back on because you're either burdened by too many false grievances and resentments to think clearly, or your just not too bright.
Little a both, I suspect, That connotation is a 'sense of entitlement', a belief by benefit recipients that they have something coming that other people view as undeserved.
Now one can debate, as the author does, whether or not some people living long enough to take out more than they paid in is sustainable.
Short term a tax hike, or a lifting of the ceiling of taxes for FICA will make the system solvent.
Longer term, the deaths of boomers and the generation behind them will mean that there will be a better ratio of workers to beneficiaries.
Call between now an then a 'donut hole' where hard choices need to be made.
Lastly, your bat shit crazy assertion that I 'approve' of public pensions that were negotiated during more prosperous times is bullshit.
Many of them need to be re-negotiated. I do not support politicians who blindly defend those pensions. And neither am I a one issue voter.
A politician could be mistaken on that issue and right on a host of others that I support. That's no different than what you do.
I call you a liar if you claim otherwise.
And let me be crystal clear, I do not fall for the 'shiny objects' that seem to mesmerize conservative voters into voting against heir financial interests; God, guns and gays, flags, fags and fetuses.
https://protectpensions.org/2015/09/21/myths-...-pensions/
