Please read this story.

[kapkomet]

Yeah, we couldn't possibly come up with a better system than Canada. I love GOPers confidence in America's abilities.  :puke

 

I'm glad you want the government to figure it out for us. God forbid that WE THE PEOPLE figure it out and think for ourselves. After all that's why we elect these assclowns, so they can think for us.

[sox4lifeinPA]

And PA, thank God none of those pictures happened in *YOUR* America.

 

I don't get it. I was just pointing out that John Ashcroft gets raked over the coals for ENFORCING law not MAKING law... yet friggin' Janet Reno SHAT on law in her 8 years in office.

 

 

And by the way....

 

Only a f***ing idiot would dismiss half the population.

 

 

 

 

 

You are absolutely right....

[Texsox]

I'm glad you want the government to figure it out for us.  God forbid that WE THE PEOPLE figure it out and think for ourselves.  After all that's why we elect these assclowns, so they can think for us.

 

God forbid GOPers realize WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. There isn't two Americas. Who the hell is the government? Aliens from space??

 

So we have Americans and we have the other group called government?? Wow. Is it really us versus them?

 

The government is all of us getting together. Dems think by all of us getting together we can solve problems and make life better. GOPers don't think we can do anything unless profit is involved.

 

I am damn proud and love of our country and our government.

 

We have been successful because we have taken all the best ideas from everyone. Dems and Gopers, gays and straights, blacks and whites, Christians and Jew, Muslim and Nation of Islam, atheists and agnostics. Watching the GOP systematically try and wage a civil war and disenfranchise half the population is maddening.

 

When all Americans come together we can cure disease, we can move mountains, clean up our air and water. There isn't anything Americans cannot do together. Saddly the right doesn't want that.

 

What was Ashcrofts roll in the Patriot act? Was that ever signed into law?

[sox4lifeinPA]

Watching the GOP systematically try and wage a civil war and disenfranchise half the population is maddening.

 

It could be worse, you could just have the Dems refusing to believe that the other have even exisits.....

[kapkomet]

There isn't two Americas.

 

According to John Edwards, there sure as hell is. So which is it?

 

So we have Americans and we have the other group called government?? Wow. Is it really us versus them?

 

I'd like to think it isn't, but when people that take the stance that the government has to do it all for us, from provide our retirement to provide our health care to provide us a place to live to protecting the environment, it sure gets to be a point it's us versus them, and frankly it's pathetic.

 

GOPers don't think we can do anything unless profit is involved.

 

This has nothing to do with profit. It has to do with keeping more and more money out of the government. Let me use lotteries as an example. I think lotteries suck, because it's the easiest form of a tax against the middle and lower class there is, you know why, because rich people don't play the lottery. And the government counts on it and preys on people. It's bull s***. Is profit involved in that? No. It's the government taking what they can in a legalized form of gambling.

 

 

Watching the GOP systematically try and wage a civil war and disenfranchise half the population is maddening.

 

Watching the Dems disenfranchise voters by scaring all the old people that the GOP will steal your money is maddening.

 

Saddly the right doesn't want that.

 

GMAFB. I am not even going to dignify that with an answer.

 

What was Ashcrofts roll in the Patriot act? Was that ever signed into law?

 

Just call him King John I. :rolly

 

I disagree with the patriot act, at least parts of it. But I'll leave that alone for right now.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Partisan hackery rules!

 

In fact, let us not mince words...the management is terrible! We've had a string of embezzlers, frauds, liars and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This is plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You who gave them the power to make decisions for you! While I'll admit that anyone can make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century seems to me to be nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged those malicious incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted without question their senseless orders. All you had to say was "No." You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company.

-Alan Moore

 

Just because the FBI cooked the first WTC bomb and Reno was a giant police statist moron that had the ATF start the fire at Waco doesn't give a cart blanche to the GOP to do whatever they want. They're all a bunch of softheaded incompetent tits that should have their heads sucked flat by a vacuum for the improvement of the country.

[sox4lifeinPA]

so I guess we should just elect know-it-all smart ass bong toting college students like yourself to solve all of the problems...

 

 

nope, Tom Delay is a much better choice, thank you very much....

[Queen Prawn]

I'd like to think it isn't, but when people that take the stance that the government has to do it all for us, from provide our retirement

 

At this point, as long as they reimburse every dollar they took from us in the name of social security, they can suspend/terminate the program as it is being run into the ground in any sense.

 

It'e people like my parents (who are both 55) who've been paying into social security their who life on the premise it would be there when they retire that I feel bad for. At least my mom has her 401K and profit sharing and my dad has his pension and lifetime healthcare for him and my mom through his work - not all people that age do.

[Rex Kickass]

Unless the program is killed, Social Security WILL be there when they retire. Or when you retire. If the program runs a deficit, it wouldn't go bankrupt and just shut down. Think about that in the terms of all government stuff. When they go over original budget, does that arm of the government just shut down until the next budget year? Of course not.

 

The government would run further in deficit. The Bush administration argues that there will be, over time, a 10 trillion dollar shortfall. However, if you look at the Bush administration numbers, you would see that the time frame is infinite. If you take a long term 75 year view, the total cost would be somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion dollars. That's if we do nothing and productivity stays flat each year between now and then.

 

SSI Privatization, would cost - by most estimates 2 to 3 trillion dollars in the first ten to twenty years of the program. More later as guaranteed benefits would be drawn from as little as 35% of the pool that it currently draws from under the most discussed plan.

 

So your option for saving social security is to run the deficit up front and address none of the "deficit issues" that the government foresees in the near future.

 

Of course, you could just raise the cap on earnings taxed for SSI from 90 some thousand a year to about 200 thousand a year. This hike would be nominal for most people affected and would affect less than 2% of the population. Yet it would eliminate deficit spending for SSI for another 50 to 60 years, keeping the surplus intact until 2080.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

so I guess we should just elect know-it-all smart ass bong toting college students like yourself to solve all of the problems...

nope, Tom Delay is a much better choice, thank you very much....

 

Yeah Tom "3 Ethics Violations in 1 Week" Delay is a great choice

[kapkomet]

winodj, you keep talking about what the program will cost.

 

Oh, but wait, isn't that money already there? NO! It's because it's been robbed, by Dems and Reps alike, for decades.

 

I have already determined that the money I put in for Social Security I will NEVER see, unless I'm 85, disabled, or dead, which ever comes first.

 

I simply view this as another 6.25% of taxes I have to pay, because it sure as hell is not going to be there when I retire (unless I retire when I'm 85, and s***, the way it's going that's how old I'll have to be).

 

So you keep pulling the stuff that says that social security is way ok, anad totally fine and will never ever go away for us twenty something or early 30 something people. Do you really believe that?

[Rex Kickass]

winodj, you keep talking about what the program will cost. 

 

Oh, but wait, isn't that money already there?  NO!  It's because it's been robbed, by Dems and Reps alike, for decades. 

 

I have already determined that the money I put in for Social Security I will NEVER see, unless I'm 85, disabled, or dead, which ever comes first.

 

I simply view this as another 6.25% of taxes I have to pay, because it sure as hell is not going to be there when I retire (unless I retire when  I'm 85, and s***, the way it's going that's how old I'll have to be).

 

So you keep pulling the stuff that says that social security is way ok, anad totally fine and will never ever go away for us twenty something or early 30 something people.  Do you really believe that?

 

Yes I do. The numbers I pull are the CBO's and the Social Security Trustees'. Social Security will never go "bankrupt." It just can't. The only way this program disappears is if Congress funds it. Talk of money "not being there" is foolish. Social Security would then be the only program in government that stops running when it runs out of money. And the money that Social Security does have in its surplus is in government bonds. So if an average citizens' investment in government bonds are real, so would Social Security's investment.

 

Do there need to be fixes for the super long term viability. Yes, but its more like a band-aid than a transplant. A modest increase in the payroll tax cap, raising the retirement age to 70, something along those lines. But to propose a scheme that would shift a projected deficit over from 50 years away to less than ten years away, makes no sense at all.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yes I do. The numbers I pull are the CBO's and the Social Security Trustees'. Social Security will never go "bankrupt." It just can't. The only way this program disappears is if Congress funds it. Talk of money "not being there" is foolish. Social Security would then be the only program in government that stops running when it runs out of money. And the money that Social Security does have in its surplus is in government bonds. So if an average citizens' investment in government bonds are real, so would Social Security's investment.

 

Do there need to be fixes for the super long term viability. Yes, but its more like a band-aid than a transplant. A modest increase in the payroll tax cap, raising the retirement age to 70, something along those lines. But to propose a scheme that would shift a projected deficit over from 50 years away to less than ten years away, makes no sense at all.

 

 

Since you didn't answer my question from the government thread I'll ask it again here. If SS is a "saftey net" program that is supposed to "put food on the table" of the poor then why is it that those totally dependent on it for income are all living in poverty?

[Rex Kickass]

If I had my druthers, I'd fix that too. But privatization and putting what was created as an "insurance policy" at any risk is not an option in my book.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If I had my druthers, I'd fix that too. But privatization and putting what was created as an "insurance policy" at any risk is not an option in my book.

 

 

What is your option then? Maintaining a status quo that consigns millions of elderly Americans to live out the remainder of their lives in poverty? Even if the current system wasn't on a path to insolvency how can you call such a program a success?

 

Private accounts allow people to build real wealth over the course of their working years while still maintaining a portion of their benefits under the current system. This is wealth that is the property of the individual and not the government and not only would provide a more secure and happy retirement to the indiviual but would allow them to hand over remaining monies to their children thusly making them more wealthy.

 

 

The benefit is multi-faceted too. If enacted then the wave of new money from private accounts would have the effect of making stock prices rise thusly providing an immediate boost to the investment portfolios of anyone who in invested in the market.

Edited February 27, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[kapkomet]

Since when is it the RESPONSIBILITY for the government to provide for our retirement?

 

People act like it's a God-given right to have money come in when they get old. It's NOT. The same thing goes for medical insurance. It's not a RIGHT.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think there should be safety nets. The problem is that people are dependant on it, and that's where I have the issue.

 

You have to want to do better. Most people don't when the safety net is there and handouts start flowing in. Where's the incentive? Is the "American Dream" to have government handle everything? That's where I have the disconnect.

[Rex Kickass]

Since when is it the RESPONSIBILITY for the government to provide for our retirement?

 

People act like it's a God-given right to have money come in when they get old.  It's NOT.  The same thing goes for medical insurance.  It's not a RIGHT.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think there should be safety nets.  The problem is that people are dependant on it, and that's where I have the issue.

 

You have to want to do better.  Most people don't when the safety net is there and handouts start flowing in.  Where's the incentive?  Is the "American Dream" to have government handle everything?  That's where I have the disconnect.

 

I don't view SSI as anything but a safety net, and people shouldn't view it as anything but. There are a number of pretax ways to save for retirement right now. What is one more option going to do? Especially if it reduces your safety net benefit by two-thirds?

Edited February 28, 2005 by winodj

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I don't view SSI as anything but a safety net, and people shouldn't view it as anything but. There are a number of pretax ways to save for retirement right now. What is one more option going to do? Especially if it reduces your safety net benefit by two-thirds?

 

 

Allow those who are barely making ends meet to be able to accumulate some substantial net worth. These are the very people who are going to be relying on SS when they retire and, if the current system is not changed, be the same ones struggling to keep their heads above water.

[Texsox]

According to John Edwards, there sure as hell is.  So which is it?

 

I'd like to think it isn't, but when people that take the stance that the government has to do it all for us, from provide our retirement to provide our health care to provide us a place to live to protecting the environment, it sure gets to be a point it's us versus them, and frankly it's pathetic.

This has nothing to do with profit.  It has to do with keeping more and more money out of the government.  Let me use lotteries as an example.  I think lotteries suck, because it's the easiest form of a tax against the middle and lower class there is, you know why, because rich people don't play the lottery.  And the government counts on it and preys on people.  It's bull s***.  Is profit involved in that?  No.  It's the government taking what they can in a legalized form of gambling.

Watching the Dems disenfranchise voters by scaring all the old people that the GOP will steal your money is maddening.

GMAFB.  I am not even going to dignify that with an answer. 

Just call him King John I.  :rolly

 

I disagree with the patriot act, at least parts of it.  But I'll leave that alone for right now.

 

 

There is not two Americans, John Edwards is wrong. Am I suppose to agree with every Dem thought? The only people I know like that, are the Ditto Heads who blindly mimic someone.

 

Since we we are bringing political quotes into this

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club

 

Pat is a charismatic, Pentecostal Christian and believes that you must be "born-again." This means that all Catholics and most Protestant denominations are not Christian.

So which is it?

 

See how silly the Edwards quote was?

 

There are things that only the government can and should do.

There are things that the government is the best at doing.

There are things the government has no business doing.

Knowing which is which, is the key.

 

I believe there is no limit to what Americans can achieve when we pool our resources and work together.

 

And I still believe it is a crock that we are telling our citizens that Social Security is in peril while we have unlimited money to rebuild Iraq. How about telling the Iraqi people that the Iraqi rebuilding fund will be bankrupt in 2006 unless they cut loose some $25 a barrel oil for Uncle Sam?

Edited March 1, 2005 by Texsox

[Texsox]

Since you didn't answer my question from the government thread I'll ask it again here.  If SS is a "saftey net" program that is supposed to "put food on the table" of the poor then why is it that those totally dependent on it for income are all living in poverty?

 

The same reason that a worker making minimum wage is also living below the poverty level and eligible for help.

 

We never promised you a rose garden.

 

Those that were able to invest in their government through social security *and* invested and saved elsewhere, are living better. But hasn't America always been about some people do better than others. I would rather have a system that millionaire Mike and Fast Food Frank both get about the same SS check each month. Mike could and probably did save and accumulated more assets.

 

Compounding interest is a beautiful thing.