Social Security payments to shrink for senior...

Yes, yo're right, it is the individual's business. It stands to reason, then, that if an individual says "social security doesn't give me enough to live on, how am I going to survive?", the public should be allowed to say "that's your business".

 

If I were mean, I'd say, "Then what IS the reason?". :laugh:
Just kidding...

Anyway I didn't say you were dumb...so better pack that strawman up and save him for Halloween!

 

I went to the VA to check out my medical benefits for the time when I will be shuffled off to a hospice and drugged into oblivion under the new RamRod system (assuming the Lord doesn't return first) to evaluate my options (you know, by-pass surgery or the hospice and "death with dignity" - for instance).

Obviously, being a Christian, the contemplation of death does not have the trauma that it does for the lost soul.

I do want to know my options though.

To my surprise, at least the VA calls its health benefit for veterans what it is, a "prioritized" system which they openly admit in their publications. There are 8 priorities, it seems that I am a 4 or 5 priority.

The VA health care system is obviously a government run system.

Why would anyone think that if the government VA health care system "prioritized" veterans they wouldn't prioritize citizens as well under the new RamRod system coming to us in the near future (assuming it comes in as or progresses into a governement health care take-over)?


HankD

 

and to think christians are supose to care about people, no wonder so many support do away with seniors, hate filled hearts.

 

For once, we agree. And (although I know for everyone it isn't possible and for everyone it won't happen), we should all have the goal of being completely self-insured, and self-sufficient.

Oh, yes...isn't it wonderful to have entities that prohibit folks from reaping the consequences of their actions?

Only in your world does someone who believes in people taking responsibility for their own lives become "government haters." Good grief.

 

Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.

 

Who in this thread supports "doing away with" seniors? I can't find any threads supporting such a concept.

 

Those who support socialized medicine are just not smart enough to figure it out.

 

>Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

ANSWER: The money was ALWAYS spent for current budget needs because that's the way the SS law was written. EXACTLY HOW do you propose that the SS funds be saved? Write a check to "cash" and keep it in an office safe? Buy GM stock with the money?

The only change was purely an accounting change so that the national budget would more accurately reflect the actual process. As I understand it, the original process the SS Administration received the money and "bought" Treasury paper with it. Now the funds go directly to the Treasury and the Treasury issues Treasury paper to the SS Administration.

Under the original system the SS funds were used to buy national debt but this was not reflected in the budget. Now the SS funds are admitted to be a source of funds to pay for budget items.

 

Ummm....no.

And you're a first: I've never seen anyone defend the criminal actions of Congress...spending the next generation's money right now.

Hint for you: If the money is supposed to be used a generation from now...then spending it and writing an "IOU" is monumentally irresponsible, and stupid to boot.

Defending that behavior is crazy...

 

that's pretty Democratic of you, but simply not true. Democrats are known for claiming that failure to increase spending is a cut because it is less than what they intended to spend. That's simply bad politics and bad math. These checks will not be less. They cannot be, by law.

You seem to mean that they will have less disposable income. That's what you should have said. Hey, we all have less disposable income. That's life.