Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
The gov't shouldn't be in the business of providing people a retirement fund. People should invest their own money, their own way for retirement. We're already too far down that road for many folks, so obviously current and near retirees need to be protected at status quo. However adjustments to SS need to be made for those further out. BTW those adjustments will hurt folks like me who have paid into SS for many years yet face an age increase, benefit reduction, or means testing. Younger folks who haven't paid in as long are less invested, hence affected less.
|
That's easier said than done. When the average family income hasn't gone up much over the past 20 years, but inflation has, how do you expect people to put money into retirement when they are trying to tread water or completely submerged? It's easy for guys like yourself to sit back and think that everything is ok, because it is in your little world. It's not. Try being dirt poor. Try being from a broken home. Try getting a opportunity where there are no opportunities. It's not as easy as we make it out to be. Hey guys, it worked for me so it must work for everybody else. I agree with you that something must be done with SS. Whether the government invests in bonds or some other low risk investment, it needs to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
I'm sure you understand the SS fund has been raided for years by the fed and is essentially a big, fat IOU. If a private corporation had managed its retirement fund the way SS has been managed they would be prosecuted and jailed.
|
I know and I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
During the Great Recession, most private-sector employees have seen their wages frozen, and some have even watched wages decline,” the chairmen of the deficit panel wrote. “In contrast, federal workers have seen their wages increase.” This option would be a one-time 5 percent cut in federal civilian workers’ pay; the chairmen called for a three-year freeze on pay, which would have a similar effect.
The part about private sector pay being frozen or reduced through forced unpaid leave is true, why shouldn't the federal workers feel some pain as well.
|
Different time, different era. You can't cut people's pay when inflation is constantly rising. I work for the state (I know you said federal), and I can assure you that we haven't seen a raise in 3-4 years due to budget issues. However, during that time, inflation has continued to rise. Now you want to cut pay? I think you are a tad misguided about government employees. I have no issue with freezing pay but a big "No" to pay reduction. Hey, if you want to reduce some federal pay, lets start with Congress. I'm all for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
Again, from the survey:
Would change health-care plan for veterans who had not been wounded in battle. Premiums, which have not risen in a decade, would rise. More veterans would receive health insurance from employer. This option would also take some benefits, like housing allowances, into account when tying military raises to civilian pay raises. Currently, increases in those benefits come on top of pay raises.
|
Doesn't change a thing. I could care less if their premiums haven't increased in 100 years, it should stay that way. Call it a benefit for having to deal with the crap they do. I'm 100% against messing with any veterans health care plans. (combat or non)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
No one is "screwing" veterans, just having them pay slightly more for their health care premiums.....just like everyone else. This also states; non- wounded veterans.
|
My guess is the veterans would disagree with you, and so do I. Who cares if it's wounded or non-wounded. They still served our country and to disrespect them this way is horrible. Thanks guys for serving our country!! I'll continuing waving my little American flag around while handing you a bill for increase premiums! GO AMERICA!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
So the whole "cut military spending" argument is baseless unless you can bring specific programs or systems that you believe should be cut.
You do realize the majority of military spending is on personnel (soldier/sailors/airmen pay) and operations & maintenance. Should we cut O&M and not maintain our facilities and equipment???? How about cut soldiers pay????
|
I have no problem with the number of troops we have, I just think we don't need to keep beefing our military up with more and more war machines. China is about to get their first air craft carrier, and yet they are one of the biggest military forces in the world. You don't need all the over priced equipment to maintain superiority. A bit of this military spending is coming from sponsoring wars (Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghan, Pakistan) we have no business being involved in. The more missiles we keep firing the higher the costs keep rising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
I'm sure you also realize these weapons systems and gov't contractors that are so evil and terrible provide thousands of well-paid tech jobs across the country.
|
Most of that money is going to line people's pockets at the top. Sure the tech jobs are well paid for Lockheed Martin, but it all goes back to continuing to finance wars we have no business in. Guys like LM are making bank. They love it when we go to war (so do oil companies) because they profit big time.