Economic Impact of DHS shutdown
#21
Codeshare the pain away
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 285
Likes: 105
From: one DUI away from running the airline
I'll never understand how our government can just "shut down" and choose to not pay people except for our elected officials that make these dumb decisions.
Our country is cooked bro.
Our country is cooked bro.
#22
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 433
Likes: 71
I’m happy to get rid of SS, just give me my money back with interest.
If the gov really cared they’d just say X amount of your income has to be invested or else
Getting the gov out of medicine would lower the costs enough we wouldn’t need the goverment in medicine
stopping playing world police would also be a good idea
Absolutely agree. I’m all for smaller governments and less intervention, not continually expanding all departments and filling them with unnecessary bloat.
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,304
Likes: 249
I’m happy to get rid of SS, just give me my money back with interest.
If the gov really cared they’d just say X amount of your income has to be invested or else
Getting the gov out of medicine would lower the costs enough we wouldn’t need the goverment in medicine
stopping playing world police would also be a good idea
I’d go one step further. They can keep all my SS deductions from age 21 to 42 this year. Keep it all. But starting now at 42 until retirement age of 67, no more SS deductions and I’d happily sign a paper saying I will not take or count on any government SS program when I retire.
I could do a lot more better on my own money saved from the SS deductions for the next 25 yrs than rely on a government capped benefit. Not to mention dying at 65-70 would be the worst possible outcome for the SS game. Money saved now worth a lot at age 65.
#24
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 477
Likes: 52
I’d go one step further. They can keep all my SS deductions from age 21 to 42 this year. Keep it all. But starting now at 42 until retirement age of 67, no more SS deductions and I’d happily sign a paper saying I will not take or count on any government SS program when I retire.
I could do a lot more better on my own money saved from the SS deductions for the next 25 yrs than rely on a government capped benefit. Not to mention dying at 65-70 would be the worst possible outcome for the SS game. Money saved now worth a lot at age 65.
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,304
Likes: 249
SS was supposed to be a backup. A safety net.
Instead, it ended up being a case where today 39% rely completely on SS as their sole retirement income, and over 70% rely on it as half their retirement income. That was not intended to be the goal or the purpose of the program. We let it get like this.
#26
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,363
Likes: 904
SS was supposed to be a backup. A safety net.
Instead, it ended up being a case where today 39% rely completely on SS as their sole retirement income, and over 70% rely on it as half their retirement income. That was not intended to be the goal or the purpose of the program. We let it get like this.
Instead, it ended up being a case where today 39% rely completely on SS as their sole retirement income, and over 70% rely on it as half their retirement income. That was not intended to be the goal or the purpose of the program. We let it get like this.
#28
[img alt=""]
[/img]
Way back when - mid 70s IIRC - the federal fiscal year ran July 1 to June 30. But, because Congress could never get the damn budget finished on time, they changed the start day. October 1, “to give Congress more time to complete the budget” which they still don’t do on time. And now here we are, sneaking up on April, with important parts of the budget being held hostage.
If I ruled the world and there were two things I could change, the first would be to provide state or federal funded housing for members of the House in DC or nearby, because their pay really doesn’t justify them buying a house in DC for what may be only a two year job.
The second thing would be to make it so the last item that was finished on the budget was funding the pay for Congress. If they can’t get that done in time, THEY should be the ones to suffer longest.
[/img]Way back when - mid 70s IIRC - the federal fiscal year ran July 1 to June 30. But, because Congress could never get the damn budget finished on time, they changed the start day. October 1, “to give Congress more time to complete the budget” which they still don’t do on time. And now here we are, sneaking up on April, with important parts of the budget being held hostage.
If I ruled the world and there were two things I could change, the first would be to provide state or federal funded housing for members of the House in DC or nearby, because their pay really doesn’t justify them buying a house in DC for what may be only a two year job.
The second thing would be to make it so the last item that was finished on the budget was funding the pay for Congress. If they can’t get that done in time, THEY should be the ones to suffer longest.
Last edited by Excargodog; 03-19-2026 at 06:53 AM.
#29
If you ruled the world, the Ukrainian SSR would be brought back into the fold. But I agree, compelling Congress to actually do their job might force some compromise and getting something done rather than screeching on the socials.
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,539
Likes: 144
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




