As terrifying as Paul Ryan is consider that both Obama and Biden mentioned last week accepting Simpson-Bowels as part of the "fix" for the economy.

That means if you are under 50 you will either work until you are just about dead (you will never have enough in Social Security to retire and unless you can play Wall Street really well your 401K will never be secure enough to build a nest egg) or inherit a few million dollars to live on.

I wish The Stranger would spend less time talking about the stupidity that is Mittens Rmoney and talk about the legistlation that will no doubt become law in the new congress come next year.

But Paul, this implies that people don't want to be in the safety net!

We all know that the ones getting help are all freeloading scum licking their chops at the idea of suckling at the government's teat . They don't want to be saved. This wasn't caused by some tragedy and it didn't destroy their pride to ask for help.

No, no. These are the ones that sit with their curly mustaches and goatees and scheme about getting another dime of my money without having to work for it. The lower class aren't successful because, apparently, they don't want to be successful.

Or so I've been told.

Who needs a safety net when you just signed up for Flying Lessons? This is the Reaganomics bait-and-switch.

We have the biggest prison system in the world as our safety net. If you want to retire, rob a bank.

Giving to charity is not more "meaningful," unless you're saying, "It allows the donor to feel their life has more meaning than the recipient."

The reason conservatives prefer charity over tax-funded government aid programs (please don't call them "entitlement programs," that implies someone is "entitled" to it, which is untrue) is because conservatives don't want their "charity" to be anonymous.

Conservatives demand that the recipients damn well know who is giving them aid. Conservatives demand that the needy know who's better than them. Conservatives demand that the needy "give back" for receiving "charity" by converting to the conservative's cause or religion.

Conservatives don't want their "charity" to go unrecognized. They want to be seen as the generous lords, who give drippings to the unwashed masses - IN RETURN, the masses must pledge their undying loyalty, or else the conservatives withhold their wealth.

Conservatives are vain and self-centered. Their "charity" is nothing of the sort, but they call it that in order to trick themselves into believing they're humans.

My plan for retirement comes down to this: when my employer decides on my 78th birthday I can no longer work (I know...super optimistic I don't get let go 20 years before that but I'm an American and WE ARE OPTIMISTIC even if it's delusional) is to go home. I will look at what my Social Security check will be (probably $45 by the time the GOP and the corporate Dems get done with it) and look at the $1000 in my 401K. (That number is probably high for the 401K balance since I don't know any insider trader types and without any regulation of the markets the crashes of 2008 are going to be regular events)

Then I will take my last few dollars, buy a bottle of Jack Daniels for $650 from Safeway (private booze is just still working it's kinks out!). Drink the entire bottle and then pop a cynide tablet.

Why? Because I live in the greatest nation on earth!

@6 I was with you until "pop a cyanide tablet." I'm all about "going down in a hail of gunfire." Haven't worked out the details of that part yet, but since I'll have to work until at least 80, I have 50+ years to figure it out! AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

@7..I'm just not a violent sorta guy.

Tavis Smiley and Cornel West are on Talk of the Nation today discussing poverty. Listen online or check back tomorrow for a transcript:

http://www.npr.org/2012/09/13/161091770/…

@6 & 7: It occurs to me that if healthcare reform is stymied and I were to subsequently receive a no-hope diagnosis or a denial of care for treatable illness, it might have some meaning to end my life on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. What if tens of thousands of people similarly fated were to do the same thing? Imagine a security perimeter stretching gradually westward across the country.

@8 It's more that I'm an attention whore.

@5,

I think you're giving conservatives way too much credit. They think charity is better because it's voluntary, and they choose not to give, especially if it's not tied to religious proselytizing. Charity has never been enough to attend to the needs of the poor. Conservatives know this, and they *like* it. They want to see poor people dying in the street.

@5
"Conservatives demand that the recipients damn well know who is giving them aid."

I think that that is about half of the issue.
The other half is about control. When the government sends out the money you don't have any real say in who gets how much or how often.
When it is "charity", you can make sure that only the right people get the money.

Most teabaggers are also scared, old, white people, who are by and large, racist.

So, forgive me for not giving a fuck what Paul Ryan or his cheerleaders think, unless it's their last regrets in a Ayn Rand-inspired workhouse.

@13

Not necessarily. It's just that they get to CHOOSE who the worthiest recipients are. It could be the poster disease of the moment, etc., etc.

Paul:

Looks like that bus ride really stripped from your eyes the vestigial haze of classic Stranger above it all ironic hipsterism.

The light is sometimes harsher but everything is clearer. I'm not sure its worth it, but its real.

Charity can never provide an adequate safety net, because people are not naturally generous enough. Back in the 19th century we relied on charity to help the poor and it didn't work. Indeed, people who ran charities were among the ones who spearheaded the movement for a government safety net, because they knew firsthand that charity is not enough.

Because having to beg for food isn't infuriating enough, you have to also be smugly told by some fat pig how it's your own fault for being poor. It's your own fault someone at your high school outed you and your parents threw you out to live on the street.

So we just have to keep finding people to borrow money from to continue living beyond our means. Right now our grandchildren are on the hook, but I'm sure their kids will be good for it.

That, which cannot go on forever, will not.

@21: If your "concern" for the deficit applied equally to Republican administrations (those who consistently produce the bulk of the debt) or to military spending (which Mitt, like every Republican before him, advocates increasing, in spite of the fact that it is already a far larger slice of the pie than the programs you are hand-wringing about), or to the revenue side of the equation (Mitt, like every Republican before him, supports massive tax cuts, without specifying how they will be paid for) then somebody might believe your professions of concern for our children and grandchildren and their fiscal future.

I wouldn't, though, because anybody who advocates throwing children off the food stamps program to shave a couple nickels off the deficit clearly isn't motivated by actual concern for children.

More hilariously impeccable timing by Paul Con-stant....

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/a…

Don't forget about the people who're on Disability (which is still a part of SSI), that cannot hold down a standard 9-5 for whatever reason, and need that safety net so they can handle their issues and still be as productive as possible. While many people on Disability find some ways to supplement their income, that core money is what covers the costs (to a degree) when, say, a Lupus patient spends 48+ hours bedridden because of their disease.