Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
The Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security has some advice for retirees who may whine about Republican proposals to gut Social Security: Instead of buying a Mercedes, buy an Audi. Yes, he actually said that. That's how in touch members of Congress are with average Americans.
Source:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/how-retirees-should-adapt-buy-audi-in
While the choice of brands is unfortunate, you can't escape the fact that most Americans, even retirees, live beyond their means. Look at all the people on welfare with 70 inch flat screens, a boat, a motorcycle and two cars, cable TV and yet they still complain that they aren't getting enough money from everyone else.
This even goes for people not on welfare. Some people have not learned any priorities in their life. Luxuries have become necessities in this day and age.
This even goes for people not on welfare. Some people have not learned any priorities in their life. Luxuries have become necessities in this day and age.
While I got 3 vehicles, two are for work, a Mercedes Sprinter Van decked out for Games2U, and a used F250.
My only new car is a 2008 Prius for the gas mileage.
I got a few bucks after selling my biz in 2005, and I don't worry about much of anything, but you know why that is? I am frugal.
I still use coupons, I shop for bargains, heck, i buy a lot of my video games for my biz, controllers, etc USED on e-bay, craigslist, etc.
I got the nicer things in life, I don't worry about going on a cruise with my lady in January, if she wants to go again this fall to Vegas, i'll get the tix, but its because I make sure to save my nickels and pennies, and then when i need something big ticket, i don't think even once before whipping out the charge card.
So yah, agreed with Sleken here, people live crazy these days. Back when i was doing background checks, one of the heads of the Hartford (CT) public housing authority spent a day outside taking down licence plates of the luxury cars people were driving onto a section 8 community, and after she tracked down who owned them, went back to them and RAISED THE RENTS of the people living in publicly subsidized housing for not claiming the income to afford that Mercedes. Several she filed for evictions after updating their credit report for defrauding the system.
~Paul
My only new car is a 2008 Prius for the gas mileage.
I got a few bucks after selling my biz in 2005, and I don't worry about much of anything, but you know why that is? I am frugal.
I still use coupons, I shop for bargains, heck, i buy a lot of my video games for my biz, controllers, etc USED on e-bay, craigslist, etc.
I got the nicer things in life, I don't worry about going on a cruise with my lady in January, if she wants to go again this fall to Vegas, i'll get the tix, but its because I make sure to save my nickels and pennies, and then when i need something big ticket, i don't think even once before whipping out the charge card.
So yah, agreed with Sleken here, people live crazy these days. Back when i was doing background checks, one of the heads of the Hartford (CT) public housing authority spent a day outside taking down licence plates of the luxury cars people were driving onto a section 8 community, and after she tracked down who owned them, went back to them and RAISED THE RENTS of the people living in publicly subsidized housing for not claiming the income to afford that Mercedes. Several she filed for evictions after updating their credit report for defrauding the system.
~Paul
>Look at all the people on welfare with 70 inch flat screens, a boat, a motorcycle and two cars, cable TV and yet they still complain that they aren't getting enough money from everyone else.
I'd be interested in any evidence of this (other than the cable part). People on welfare are typically much more restricted due to a lack of good credit. While I don't deny there's some wasteful spending by welfare recipients, it's usually in the form of cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food.
I'd also be interested in any studies looking at overspending by social-security-dependent retirees. That I just have no idea about.
>Luxuries have become necessities in this day and age.
That's the thing about advancing technology and a growing economy . . .
- Greminty
I'd be interested in any evidence of this (other than the cable part). People on welfare are typically much more restricted due to a lack of good credit. While I don't deny there's some wasteful spending by welfare recipients, it's usually in the form of cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food.
I'd also be interested in any studies looking at overspending by social-security-dependent retirees. That I just have no idea about.
>Luxuries have become necessities in this day and age.
That's the thing about advancing technology and a growing economy . . .
- Greminty
<<
I'd be interested in any evidence of this (other than the cable part). People on welfare are typically much more restricted due to a lack of good credit. While I don't deny there's some wasteful spending by welfare recipients, it's usually in the form of cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food.
>>
Now? Yes. Banks, loan companies, etc are paying a lot more attention, for obvious reasons.
<<That's the thing about advancing technology and a growing economy . . .>>
Why is a 70 inch TV a necessity? Why won't a 20 inch do? Why do you need a late model car and a motorcycle? If a person/family cannot live and by live I mean, eat and have shelter, on their own, they don't need to be on welfare and buying luxury items.
I'd love for everyone to be successful. Some people think they are owed it just for existing. My motivation for wishing this? My taxes would go down if everyone was working and paying taxes.
But here's the thing. There is no incentive for people to leave welfare. Why would they? A nice home paid for, extra free income that can go to luxury items...
I suppose you could say that this spending on luxury items bolsters the economy. Hmm. But if my taxes could go down, I could spend more...Hmm. Luxury items going to people working for them. Crazy thinking! ;)
I'd be interested in any evidence of this (other than the cable part). People on welfare are typically much more restricted due to a lack of good credit. While I don't deny there's some wasteful spending by welfare recipients, it's usually in the form of cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food.
>>
Now? Yes. Banks, loan companies, etc are paying a lot more attention, for obvious reasons.
<<That's the thing about advancing technology and a growing economy . . .>>
Why is a 70 inch TV a necessity? Why won't a 20 inch do? Why do you need a late model car and a motorcycle? If a person/family cannot live and by live I mean, eat and have shelter, on their own, they don't need to be on welfare and buying luxury items.
I'd love for everyone to be successful. Some people think they are owed it just for existing. My motivation for wishing this? My taxes would go down if everyone was working and paying taxes.
But here's the thing. There is no incentive for people to leave welfare. Why would they? A nice home paid for, extra free income that can go to luxury items...
I suppose you could say that this spending on luxury items bolsters the economy. Hmm. But if my taxes could go down, I could spend more...Hmm. Luxury items going to people working for them. Crazy thinking! ;)
>Why is a 70 inch TV a necessity? Why won't a 20 inch do?
Why is even a 20" TV a necessity? People got by just fine without any TV 100 years ago. But also, you never even attempted to show any real support for the idea that anyone on welfare is actually buying 70" TVs, so this is moot.
>There is no incentive for people to leave welfare. Why would they? A nice home paid for, extra free income that can go to luxury items...
Maybe the fact that it's limited to 2yrs of consecutive benefits? And 5yrs lifetime benefits? And even while they're on it, I'm pretty sure you're vastly overestimating the amount people can get to use for "luxury" items and "nice" homes. Perhaps you missed the whole welfare reform thing that happened in the mid 90's (amazing what you can do with a good compromise).
>But if my taxes could go down, I could spend more...
Unless you're making a couple million already . . . then, I'm pretty sure you're spending as much as you want, regardless. Saving another 20k or so isn't going to change your spending habits.
Though, one way I do think we need to further reform welfare is to enforce a no-new-children policy while on it. But, I'm pretty sure not very many people agree with me on that issue.
- Greminty
Why is even a 20" TV a necessity? People got by just fine without any TV 100 years ago. But also, you never even attempted to show any real support for the idea that anyone on welfare is actually buying 70" TVs, so this is moot.
>There is no incentive for people to leave welfare. Why would they? A nice home paid for, extra free income that can go to luxury items...
Maybe the fact that it's limited to 2yrs of consecutive benefits? And 5yrs lifetime benefits? And even while they're on it, I'm pretty sure you're vastly overestimating the amount people can get to use for "luxury" items and "nice" homes. Perhaps you missed the whole welfare reform thing that happened in the mid 90's (amazing what you can do with a good compromise).
>But if my taxes could go down, I could spend more...
Unless you're making a couple million already . . . then, I'm pretty sure you're spending as much as you want, regardless. Saving another 20k or so isn't going to change your spending habits.
Though, one way I do think we need to further reform welfare is to enforce a no-new-children policy while on it. But, I'm pretty sure not very many people agree with me on that issue.
- Greminty
<< Maybe the fact that it's limited to 2yrs of consecutive benefits? And 5yrs lifetime benefits? - Greminty >>
This isn't the main problem. The main problem is that children are entitled until they are 18. Poor couple pops out 2-5 kids with each kid collecting benefits that go to the parents and that's a loooong time of handing out money.
Josh
This isn't the main problem. The main problem is that children are entitled until they are 18. Poor couple pops out 2-5 kids with each kid collecting benefits that go to the parents and that's a loooong time of handing out money.
Josh
>The main problem is that children are entitled until they are 18. Poor couple pops out 2-5 kids with each kid collecting benefits that go to the parents and that's a loooong time of handing out money.
I agree that this is a problem, but I don't see all that many alternatives*. You really want to condemn those kids to an even worse existence?
* Other than my previously-stated rule of simply not allowing such people to have children (and simply taking them away if they do . . . only newborn kids, don't want to get into taking away older kids). But pretty sure that's not going to go over well.
- Greminty
I agree that this is a problem, but I don't see all that many alternatives*. You really want to condemn those kids to an even worse existence?
* Other than my previously-stated rule of simply not allowing such people to have children (and simply taking them away if they do . . . only newborn kids, don't want to get into taking away older kids). But pretty sure that's not going to go over well.
- Greminty
<<Why is even a 20" TV a necessity? People got by just fine without any TV 100 years ago. But also, you never even attempted to show any real support for the idea that anyone on welfare is actually buying 70" TVs, so this is moot.>>
I'm sorry, what was I supposed to do? Photographic evidence? I have a contract to do repair work on some of these units. I don't think they would take it nicely if I started photographing things not related to our work. Was I supposed to cite some study so that you could cite a contradicting study? We could probably do that for weeks.
<<Maybe the fact that it's limited to 2yrs of consecutive benefits? And 5yrs lifetime benefits? And even while they're on it, I'm pretty sure you're vastly overestimating the amount people can get to use for "luxury" items and "nice" homes. Perhaps you missed the whole welfare reform thing that happened in the mid 90's (amazing what you can do with a good compromise).>>
Yeah, I don't think thats working out like its supposed to. I think with some creative cheating these people are moving around enough to bypass that.
<<Unless you're making a couple million already . . . then, I'm pretty sure you're spending as much as you want, regardless. Saving another 20k or so isn't going to change your spending habits.>>
20k back from my taxes? Yep. New equipment, might even be enough to hire another employee. 20k back to all the small business owners in this country would create jobs. But at the same time, you couldn't have an unknown health care burden looming on the horizon. That just creates anxiety which doesn't promote re-investment. If any president would recognize this, we could fix the economy, but I have no hope of that from either party.
<<Though, one way I do think we need to further reform welfare is to enforce a no-new-children policy while on it. But, I'm pretty sure not very many people agree with me on that issue.
>>
I agree. Josh hit on the breeding issue. Its the big culprit of all of this.
I'm sorry, what was I supposed to do? Photographic evidence? I have a contract to do repair work on some of these units. I don't think they would take it nicely if I started photographing things not related to our work. Was I supposed to cite some study so that you could cite a contradicting study? We could probably do that for weeks.
<<Maybe the fact that it's limited to 2yrs of consecutive benefits? And 5yrs lifetime benefits? And even while they're on it, I'm pretty sure you're vastly overestimating the amount people can get to use for "luxury" items and "nice" homes. Perhaps you missed the whole welfare reform thing that happened in the mid 90's (amazing what you can do with a good compromise).>>
Yeah, I don't think thats working out like its supposed to. I think with some creative cheating these people are moving around enough to bypass that.
<<Unless you're making a couple million already . . . then, I'm pretty sure you're spending as much as you want, regardless. Saving another 20k or so isn't going to change your spending habits.>>
20k back from my taxes? Yep. New equipment, might even be enough to hire another employee. 20k back to all the small business owners in this country would create jobs. But at the same time, you couldn't have an unknown health care burden looming on the horizon. That just creates anxiety which doesn't promote re-investment. If any president would recognize this, we could fix the economy, but I have no hope of that from either party.
<<Though, one way I do think we need to further reform welfare is to enforce a no-new-children policy while on it. But, I'm pretty sure not very many people agree with me on that issue.
>>
I agree. Josh hit on the breeding issue. Its the big culprit of all of this.
>I'm sorry, what was I supposed to do? Photographic evidence? I have a contract to do repair work on some of these units.
Sorry, I'm not willing to accept a single anecdote as proof that the system has failed.
>Yeah, I don't think thats working out like its supposed to. I think with some creative cheating these people are moving around enough to bypass that.
That's an entirely different issue though. Welfare fraud surely exists, but it's not the majority of the system. I'm sure everyone agrees we should do more to fight it (as well as medicare/medicaid fraud). But that's totally separate from the question of the design and existence of the systems otherwise.
>20k back from my taxes? Yep. New equipment, might even be enough to hire another employee. 20k back to all the small business owners in this country would create jobs.
Technically, that's investment, not spending. And 30 years of history has shown that taxes are not the driver for it. I agree though, that our current highly-uncertain situation puts a big damper on jobs (however, it's not the healthcare bill itself, but rather the confusion over whether it'll stick that's the issue, mostly caused by Republicans' incessant call to repeal it). The bottom line is that if there's credit available, and the economy would support a business's expansion, then it will expand. (I'm all for plans that call to use excess TARP money to open more credit to small businesses who plan to hire new employees.)
And really, I'm mostly okay with keeping taxes on small businesses low. The problem is that our tax code doesn't differentiate between them and the wall-streeters/celebrities/athletes/some-politicians etc. who make way more than they can use and don't do anything significant with the excess money. A hedge fund manager who makes a couple 10's of million a year on "capital gains" and pays an effective tax rate of less than 20% on that is just not a good thing for the economy.
- Greminty
Sorry, I'm not willing to accept a single anecdote as proof that the system has failed.
>Yeah, I don't think thats working out like its supposed to. I think with some creative cheating these people are moving around enough to bypass that.
That's an entirely different issue though. Welfare fraud surely exists, but it's not the majority of the system. I'm sure everyone agrees we should do more to fight it (as well as medicare/medicaid fraud). But that's totally separate from the question of the design and existence of the systems otherwise.
>20k back from my taxes? Yep. New equipment, might even be enough to hire another employee. 20k back to all the small business owners in this country would create jobs.
Technically, that's investment, not spending. And 30 years of history has shown that taxes are not the driver for it. I agree though, that our current highly-uncertain situation puts a big damper on jobs (however, it's not the healthcare bill itself, but rather the confusion over whether it'll stick that's the issue, mostly caused by Republicans' incessant call to repeal it). The bottom line is that if there's credit available, and the economy would support a business's expansion, then it will expand. (I'm all for plans that call to use excess TARP money to open more credit to small businesses who plan to hire new employees.)
And really, I'm mostly okay with keeping taxes on small businesses low. The problem is that our tax code doesn't differentiate between them and the wall-streeters/celebrities/athletes/some-politicians etc. who make way more than they can use and don't do anything significant with the excess money. A hedge fund manager who makes a couple 10's of million a year on "capital gains" and pays an effective tax rate of less than 20% on that is just not a good thing for the economy.
- Greminty
>What if we round them in these special "camps"....? Forced sterilization, perhaps?
How about just forced adoption? Why should someone who's unable to take care of themselves be allowed to take care of another human being? There's plenty of demand for newborns to adopt.
>Nothing of the kind is necessary. Just stop paying them to have kids and force them to pay for their own kids. The birth rates will certainly settle down.
That's just naive. Very few poor people have kids just to milk the system. The vast vast majority have kids because they're too uneducated not to. Not paying won't put any serious dent in that, but will certainly make those kids grow up in even worse poverty, with less education and thus more likely to have their own brood of kids they can't pay for.
- Greminty
How about just forced adoption? Why should someone who's unable to take care of themselves be allowed to take care of another human being? There's plenty of demand for newborns to adopt.
>Nothing of the kind is necessary. Just stop paying them to have kids and force them to pay for their own kids. The birth rates will certainly settle down.
That's just naive. Very few poor people have kids just to milk the system. The vast vast majority have kids because they're too uneducated not to. Not paying won't put any serious dent in that, but will certainly make those kids grow up in even worse poverty, with less education and thus more likely to have their own brood of kids they can't pay for.
- Greminty
