General Discussion

dkf

(37,305 posts)

34. Lol. Well SS, Medicare and the deficit will never need to be addressed right?

Reply to girl gone mad (Reply #30)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:38 PM

May 2012

We are so screwed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Social Security Disability Seen Insolvent Unless Congress Votes [View all] Purveyor May 2012 OP

Well, pretty much the whole damn country will be insolvent as long as the HOUSE annabanana May 2012 #1

And this is most likely what will happen to SS after its trust fund is gone. dkf May 2012 #2

Many will not be able to save anything for retirement. For many just surviving RKP5637 May 2012 #4

Well look at the denial that there is even a problem with SS. dkf May 2012 #6

At one time retirement was part of being employed and SS was some RKP5637 May 2012 #7

There isn't a problem with Social Security. Zalatix May 2012 #8

Well then no big deal right? I guess the insolvency of the disability fund is of no consequence? dkf May 2012 #10

If there is a thief robbing the bank the problem isn't with the bank, it's with the thief. Zalatix May 2012 #18

The "plutocrats" to whom you refer are the US Congress. Now what? nt Romulox May 2012 #24

Those aren't Plutocrats, those are minions doing the Plutocrats' bidding. Zalatix May 2012 #35

Plutocrat -- A person whose power derives from their wealth. Romulox May 2012 #36

As long as Nancy Pelosi keeps fighting the interests of Plutocrats, yes. Zalatix May 2012 #37

"keeps fighting"??? Her own interests? Do you have any specific examples of her ever doing this? Romulox May 2012 #38

Let's see..... I could waste all day citing examples or I could do cite this... Zalatix May 2012 #39

You said *against* her own interests, and yet her wealth has grown substantially while in office... Romulox May 2012 #40

Yes, and? You're just trying to make up some outrage now. Zalatix May 2012 #46

You need to define your terms. A person of great wealth in power, who grows that wealth while in Romulox May 2012 #47

Then you don't know what a Plutocrat is. Zalatix May 2012 #48

Those are definitions that YOU have crafted from whole cloth. Nancy is worth $35 million, 14 or so Romulox May 2012 #49

I've provided CITES to back up my opinion, and my definitions are 100% NOT made up. Zalatix May 2012 #50

You didn't "cite" anything. You regurgitated "the LIST". Worthless. nt Romulox May 2012 #65

The list is only WORTHLESS because it contradicts your delusions about Nancy Pelosi. Zalatix May 2012 #71

I'm done talking to you. Take it to meta, where we can complain to third parties!!! Romulox May 2012 #72

You're done because you have NO FACTS to back up your arguments. See ya! Zalatix May 2012 #74

What nonsense. The "99%" frame was constructed by OWS last Summer--it is not part of any classical Romulox May 2012 #66

So? The 99% have always been here, throughout history. And Nancy Pelosi fights for them. Zalatix May 2012 #73

How many things has she taken "off the table"? Mairead May 2012 #45

It's not up to me to show what she's "taken off the table". Why don't you show us? Zalatix May 2012 #51

It's up to you if you have integrity. Mairead May 2012 #52

You made an accusation, the burden of proof is on you. Zalatix May 2012 #53

You *must* be joking. Mairead May 2012 #56

You'll get absolutely nowhere with me with your Pelosi-bashing. Nowhere. Period. Dot. Stop. Zalatix May 2012 #63

And we are now in the "But she is OUR plutocrat!" zone. Zalatix, I hardly knew ye... nt Romulox May 2012 #67

And now you are lying about what I said. Nancy Pelosi is NOT a Plutocrat by any credible definition. Zalatix May 2012 #68

"You have yet to come up with any proof except "it's common knowledge"" Mairead May 2012 #77

What? No cites to back up your accusations against Pelosi? I'm shocked, I tells ya! Zalatix May 2012 #79

I have no intention of continuing Mairead May 2012 #80

And this argument will end with you showing that you have no facts to support your case. Zalatix May 2012 #81

I'm not sure what to make of this poster's new direction. I honestly don't believe it's sincere. nt Romulox May 2012 #64

I know what your direction is. It's in the direction of bashing Democrats who fight for the 99%. Zalatix May 2012 #69

LOL. Sure you do. Why not complain about this in meta? nt Romulox May 2012 #70

Yes, and when you do suggest it and I do it, you call for me to be banned. Zalatix May 2012 #76

This is priceless. *I* started a thread in meta complaining about *you*. nt Romulox May 2012 #82

You intentionally mis-represent what a Plutocrat is AND you also intentionally mis-represent posts. Zalatix May 2012 #83

It's silly because you are accusing me of doing what you yourself just did. "Projection" Romulox May 2012 #84

You're getting all confused and tangled up with your web there! Zalatix May 2012 #85

It was heartening to find some support in meta. I'm done with the strange, combative behavior. nt Romulox May 2012 #86

Republicans appreciate all this irrational Pelosi-bashing. Zalatix May 2012 #89

Nor do I. (nt) Mairead May 2012 #78

Oh but I am quite sure of your "direction" here. Zalatix Jun 2012 #90

not this again CreekDog May 2012 #75

You are ill informed about how social security works Harmony Blue May 2012 #9

Then again nothing to fix for social security disability. The article is a bunch of hooey. dkf May 2012 #13

You've only been given the correct information 1,000 or so times. girl gone mad May 2012 #30

Lol. Well SS, Medicare and the deficit will never need to be addressed right? dkf May 2012 #34

What would be your solution? Kingofalldems May 2012 #61

I believe you're wrong about that Mairead May 2012 #42

the trust fund is not the program, and the program isn't financed from the TF, i believe is what HiPointDem May 2012 #54

If indeed that's what was meant, it is indeed wrong Mairead May 2012 #57

Uh, no, they're not. SS was set up as a pay-go program. Money to pay retirees doesn't come from HiPointDem May 2012 #58

Thanks, then. Mairead May 2012 #59

Maybe this is a better one than you read HiPointDem May 2012 #60

That looks written by weasels too Mairead May 2012 #62

I agree. They were set up as a cushion for the unexpected, same as a cushion in one's HiPointDem May 2012 #87

Most people don't expect to be disabled loyalsister May 2012 #28

People need to talk to their representatives - now. freshwest May 2012 #3

I live in just about a 100% teabagger state. Our representatives could RKP5637 May 2012 #5

You don't by chance live in Kansas? KansDem May 2012 #11

Yep! n/t RKP5637 May 2012 #14

I live in a blue area and talk to my representatives and they do all they can. freshwest May 2012 #16

Thank you, freshwest, for the pep talk. Eventually it just gets RKP5637 May 2012 #31

There is no problem with social security Harmony Blue May 2012 #12

The Social Security Trustees disagree with you. former9thward May 2012 #15

Another misinformed poster Harmony Blue May 2012 #17

I am not posting my opinions. former9thward May 2012 #23

Look, you clearly don't understand Harmony Blue May 2012 #29

Don't bother with the condescending 'cutting of slack'. former9thward May 2012 #32

"The trustees are projecting what they think is most likely" Mairead May 2012 #44

Pro-austerity scare tactics. marmar May 2012 #19

Yup Harmony Blue May 2012 #20

Get used to it. Marr May 2012 #22

Mitt told us they can just borrow from their parents. closeupready May 2012 #21

Well then. let's go find Mitt's parents. RC May 2012 #25

Yep, this'll work well for me. My parents are now about 113! n/t RKP5637 May 2012 #33

Journalism FAIL. KamaAina May 2012 #26

SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT INSOLVENT!!!!! forgive the yelling rustydog May 2012 #27

One of two legal definitions of "insolvency" is "not able to pay ones bills as they become due." Romulox May 2012 #41

Bernie Sanders has a solution LongTomH May 2012 #43

What a bullshit article. What they don't tell you is that the fix is very easy and has been done HiPointDem May 2012 #55

If true, there is another reason - the number of unemployed people who are under 62 and applying jwirr May 2012 #88