2% pay cut thanks to the government

[Snodog]

And the bottom line is that we can't keep spending as if there is no tomorrow. Every single one of us who is working, or has worked, our way through personal debt knows that sooner or later you have to pay for it. And while you can earn more to try and pay it off, to be truly effective, you have to cut your costs and rework your budget to make a dent in your debt to keep it from happening again. The federal budget is no different.

This is highly debatable IMO. The government runs deficits 90-95% of the time and when they don't a recession or depression follows. This has been going on for over 200 years all the while people yell "unsustainable!" Show me a family who can do this? Clearly there is a different dynamic going on here and you can't compare a monetarily sovereign government and family finances.

[disneysteve]

The bulk of Medicare dollars are spent in the last 2 weeks of a person's life.

Huge problem in this country.

medications at an affordable rate

Also a huge problem but this one is much easier to fix. Change the rules and allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Every private insurance company already does this.

If you haven't read the recent cover story of TIME magazine on health care costs, I highly recommend that everyone get to their library and read it. It is very enlightening even to us doctors. I learned a ton of stuff from that article about how incredibly screwed up our system really is.

[Gailete]

Well I know for me the bulk of my Medicare dollars is helping to keep me alive and functioning as a member of society that makes a contribution to the lives of others. When I became disabled in my 40's, I was so glad that I had Medicare to back me up yet even so I pay dearly for the privilege. Medicare, contrary to what many think and assume, is NOT free to the participant. They take my premium directly out of my SS check, and when we do get a COLA raise, they raise the MC premium usually the exact amount, so when the numbers are done, we get less 'take home' than the year before and we all know that nothing is getting cheaper. Then we have to pay for supplements to cover what the MC doesn't and our prescription program that we aren't required to have but if you have to take $100's of dollars worth of drugs a month, you need that supplement to help pay for things. Even with a drug supplement, I paid out close to $1000 in drug costs alone in 2012 on top of the close to $3000 in MC supplement premiums.

I certainly hope that my last two weeks of life will not be when I use the bulk of my MC dollars as my husband already knows I want to die at home in my own bed and no extraordinary measures to be taken. As an RN I have wanted DNR tattooed to my chest for many years now!

I worked and supported myself since I was 17 years old. Even know, many days in great pain, I still help bring in some of the resources that we need to live on. I feel like many would like to just chop off all people who need MC to survive from such a program and let us die. I was never a lazy couch potato; I worked and worked hard and can point to actual people and say I saved their lives by my actions as a nurse. My life meant something and still does but it isn’t over yet. I’d like to think that I can help others still. Those MC dollars help keep me functioning. I thank God for them!

[Baby_nurse]

Well I know for me the bulk of my Medicare dollars is helping to keep me alive and functioning as a member of society that makes a contribution to the lives of others.

Which is, IMO, exactly WHERE it should be spent.

As an RN I have wanted DNR tattooed to my chest for many years now!

Ha! I've said exactly the same thing. Thankfully, I have a living will and my entire family knows what my wishes are. I'm not shy about sharing my views.

[Baby_nurse]

This is highly debatable IMO. The government runs deficits 90-95% of the time and when they don't a recession or depression follows. This has been going on for over 200 years all the while people yell "unsustainable!" Show me a family who can do this? Clearly there is a different dynamic going on here and you can't compare a monetarily sovereign government and family finances.

I think your opinion on whether or not a government should run a deficit based economy depends on whether you subscribe to a Keynesian or Post-Keynesian view of economics. A moderate spell of deficit spending can stimulate an economy out of recession, but the flip side is that it can trigger inflation.

You also have to take in to account what the deficit spending was used for. When used for defense, improving infrastructure or something like that, then you could argue that a deficit spending is a good thing (the same way there are "good" vs "bad" debts in consumer spending). But when the spending is wasteful, you can't make the same arguments. What's wasteful and what's useful depends on the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'd argue that studies on snail sexual behavior and free cell phones is wasteful.

[~bs]

the problem with social security and medicare is simple - medicare: medical costs skyrocketing, therefore, the rate should be increased and the coverage provided decreased. for medicare and social security: there are too many people eligible to collect that never contributed very much or at all since the program functions like a huge safety net, which I doubt was the original intent of the program. Below is a list of broken social security promises.

I love how the media and politicians lable these programs as "entitlements". They're entitlement only for those who didn't put in their "fair share" and is eligible to collect anyways. To everyone else that contributed, calling it an entitlement is a slap in the face.

Social security is essentially a government run pension plan for everyone. People slam pensions and social security as programs that are inherently broken. But that's not true. It is simple to run a pension plan in a way that is completely self sustaining. The problem is that the government and potential beneficiaries all have their hands out grabbing for more. The payout should be a reasonable amount, and only for the worker (no spousal medical, etc). The government shouldn't be allowed to undercontribute or raid pension funds. And the fund should be managed in a prudent way. If those things are done from the start, the program is self sustaining.

Broken Social Security Promises (Author Unknown)

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program.

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program.

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

[Snodog]

I think your opinion on whether or not a government should run a deficit based economy depends on whether you subscribe to a Keynesian or Post-Keynesian view of economics. A moderate spell of deficit spending can stimulate an economy out of recession, but the flip side is that it can trigger inflation.

You also have to take in to account what the deficit spending was used for. When used for defense, improving infrastructure or something like that, then you could argue that a deficit spending is a good thing (the same way there are "good" vs "bad" debts in consumer spending). But when the spending is wasteful, you can't make the same arguments. What's wasteful and what's useful depends on the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'd argue that studies on snail sexual behavior and free cell phones is wasteful.

Actually I am Pre-Keynesian.

[bUU]

for medicare and social security: there are too many people eligible to collect that never contributed very much or at all since the program functions like a huge safety net, which I doubt was the original intent of the program.

And people of color are counted as full citizens, with full voting rights, which I doubt was the original intent of the US Constitution, yet the current intention of equality is right and the original intention of inequality and oppression was wrong.

If those things are done from the start, the program is self sustaining.

The program serving human decency is more important than fulfilling one side's opinion about what is the only way they're willing to allow it to be self-sustaining.

[Baby_nurse]

Actually I am Pre-Keynesian.

Then you should agree that running a continuous deficit is detrimental.

[Baby_nurse]

And people of color are counted as full citizens, with full voting rights, which I doubt was the original intent of the US Constitution, yet the current intention of equality is right and the original intention of inequality and oppression was wrong.

The program serving human decency is more important than fulfilling one side's opinion about what is the only way they're willing to allow it to be self-sustaining.

Human decency, as long as someone else pays for it. Because, heaven forbid, we ever take the concept of personal responsibility seriously.

[disneysteve]

the problem with social security

I don't want to turn the thread into a SS debate, but since it's my thread...

The problem with SS is that when it was created, they designated the retirement age to be 65. At the time, the average lifespan was 63. The expectation was that the vast majority of Americans would never live to collect benefits, and if they did, it wouldn't be for very long. It was intended as a safety net for the most elderly and infirm members of society.

Obviously today, things have changed dramatically. 65 year olds hardly represent the most elderly and infirm among us. The average lifespan now stretches well into the 80s and many are routinely reaching their 90s and beyond. I have several patients in their 90s. My oldest patient was 103 when she passed a few years ago. It is very possible for someone to start collecting SS at 62, the earliest age at which one can collect, and continue to collect for 40 years. That simply isn't what the system was designed to provide.

[Gailete]

Human decency, as long as someone else pays for it. Because, heaven forbid, we ever take the concept of personal responsibility seriously

Actually the thing that is going to bring down the USA is the failure of people to take responsibility for their own actions. Example: we run a store to sell sewing patterns on line. We get an order paid through PayPal with the person's address (mind you we don't know this person that bought from us at all), so we package up the order promptly and ship it within 24 hours. All is well till the package pops back in our mailbox as wrong address or unknown. So we email the person and tell them that their package came back to us and we need a correct address and an additional shipping fee to reship it to them, remember we have paid for shipping already once with the S&H fee, so to ship for free would come out of our pockets. At least once a year we have people that complain that WE sent it to the wrong address as they had moved away years before and they demand that we reship the package to them for free since the wrong address was OUR fault. Here is the personal responsibility. They won't take responsibility for double checking the address they are shown when checking out, and because of that the package is returned and they don't want to fork out $3 because of their error. They can't seem to understand that we have no idea where they used to live, so how could we send the package to anything other than and address that they approved. In all these years, I have had only one customer, once she realized what had happened, promptly sent the additional shipping fee what no squabbling.

If people can't take responsibility for checking their own address and paying for their mistake when they don't when buying on line, how can we expect them to take responsibility for any of the big things in life. Like making sure they don't have kids that they can't afford to feed and cloth and expect our society to pick up the tab. It used to be a shameful thing for women to bear children when they weren't married and it was as equally shameful if a man didn't care for and provide for his family. Now things have changed and we have so many safety nets that people who know how to game the system can go through their lives without taking any personal responsibility for paying for their living expenses. They just get handouts.

This whole thread is obviously off topic at this point, but I know that there is much waste in government programs. I used to be contracted to work in a state office. Some days I literally had NOTHING to do for 8 hours and neither did the administrative assistant who happened to also be my son. We would sit and play card games all day. This doesn't mean that my work was ever undone nor was his, it was done, but my boss (like many state employees/supervisors) didn't want to loose any employees assigned to her so she always made it sound when talking to higher ups that we were absolutely swamped with work. I wouldn't have wanted to have been sent home on days there was nothing to do, but paying a nurse $19/hour to play card games was ridiculous and I'm sure things like that still go on. No wonder the costs for everything are so bad as there is so much deadwood in government that needs chopped out with a sharp ax. So to fix it, rather than looking for the deadwood, they chop down 2 trees out of every 100 in the forest whether they are dead trees or not. Obviously that will never solve the deadwood problem and will leave the forest free to burn down completely in the event of a forest fire.

[bUU]

Human decency, as long as someone else pays for it.

Utter poppycock. Let's not get into a pissing contest about who paid more in taxes this year.

Because, heaven forbid, we ever take the concept of personal responsibility seriously.

Personal accountability includes the responsibility to each other. Personal accountability doesn't mean being the savages from Lord of the Flies.

[Baby_nurse]

I personally don't care who paid more in taxes. Personal accountability means realizing that no one but your self is responsible, nor should be responsible for paying your way through life. That includes your retirement. It's not "Lord of The Flies" to expect people to carry their own weight.

Please show me where it is my responsibility to make sure that you have food and a cell phone, while you are spending your money on cigarettes and fake nails. Come work in my world for a while. Your vision of the "Nobel poor" is a myth.

[bUU]

Personal accountability means realizing that no one but your self is responsible, nor should be responsible for paying your way through life.

Wrong. Personal accountability is taking full ownership for the decisions you make and how they affect yourself and others. Big difference, and if you don't understand why that's significantly different from what you wrote, that's part of the problem.

It's not "Lord of The Flies" to expect people to carry their own weight.

It is "Lord of the Flies" to expect everyone to either achieve the objectives you personally set for them or otherwise die in the streets.

Please show me where it is my responsibility to make sure that you have food and a cell phone, while you are spending your money on cigarettes and fake nails.

If you're going to resort to nonsense, then there's no sense in even having a discussion. The vast majority of government expenditures do NOT go for such things. Try coming back to the reality of what the real-life experiences of the less fortunate on public assistance is.

Come work in my world for a while. Your vision of the "Nobel poor" is a myth.

Sorry, but your vision is utterly corrupted and erroneous. You simply don't know what the typical case is. Perhaps you want to see nothing but the random outliers because that rationalizes the political perspective that placates your other desires.