When it involves those that are risking their lives to protect us and it is a government foul up? Yes, give those voters a break irregardless of who they voted for. Haven't they earned at least that much from us?
"thieves" in this case being people who insist that legitimate votes that got "forgotten" get counted.
Only counting "found" votes in a county with a lot of Democrats while ignoring the other counties tells me who the "thieves" are.
Group? 2 dorks protesting in the cold is worthy of the group designation and worthy of print in a major newspaper? These people remind me of the Japanese who they found in caves 10 years later who refused to believe the war was over. This picture was the best laugh I had all day. Â
"In a statement, a Kerry spokesman praised the tenacity of the group camped out on his doorstep yesterday.
''You meet a lot of inspirational people who took this campaign into their hearts," spokesman David Wade said. ''They keep their bumper stickers on their cars because they're proud of the fight they fought. John Kerry's campaign touched a chord with millions of Americans, and so many people want the fight to continue. . . . The campaign's ended, but the values we share are worth fighting for."'
"It had little to do with party affiliation, and more to do with the better candidate."
Reagan was a better candidate. He ran a great campaign.
So what. They forgot their roots and got sold on a glib demeanor and great smile. Nothing wrong with that, if you like the telegenic type who says all the right things.
"Smart people."
Intelligence or lack of it, isn't the point.
"Same thing that happened this election. "
Feel free to elaborate, baldy.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Jan 2, 2005 at 04:16pm.]
According to the Social Security Administration's worst-case estimate, Social Security is solvent through the year 2042. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it's solvent through 2052, and even then will have better than 80% of the needed funds. Those estimates are based on the current funding model and very conservative economic-growth figures. Anyone trying to tell you different is bullshitting you.
Raising or eliminating the cap on FICA deductions would push that critical date back by decades. Social Security is a lot healthier than the Bush administration would have you believe, and far healthier than a number of other programs.
One problem with your theory Pieter is that it includes repaying the money that the federal government is now borrowing. According to Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees:
...OASDI (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance) first needs to utilize interest in 2018 and to begin redeeming assets in 2028. OASDI assets are projected to be exhausted in 2042, when tax income would cover 73 percent of costs--and by 2078 only 68 percent. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html
I am sure that you know that all excess funds that the SSI receives has to be placed into special government bonds by law. This is how Clinton could claim a surplus while the debt was still increasing. Without SSI's excess funds, there never was a surplus.
So that means that in a little over a decade, SSI will need money from the federal government. Only problem is that money will have been spent a long time ago. At this point we will be left with few options-raise taxes and hurt the economy, lower the benefits being paid, start printing more money and have massive inflation or some combination of the above. Something needs to be done and right now!Â
For democrats and the AARP to continue to bash any plan simply because President Bush is involved will only waste 4 years of trying to solve the problem. If we elect another Republican after him, it will turn into another 4 or possibly 8 years. By then we will be just getting into the financial problems that we are now discussing and trying to plan for.
All politics aside, I honestly like the president's (or whoever's) idea of a 401k style of retirement account. Unlike SSI, the money is yours to use in retirement, or if you do not make it that long, it goes into your estate and passed on to your family or whoever you wish. You earned it, you keep it.
If we take your route and do nothing for the next 13 years, how do you plan to solve the problem? Remember, the federal government has promised to pay back the money at this point with interest. Is there any government program that you would be willing to give up in order to keep SSI afloat? How much are you willing to increase federal taxes in order to repay the money and what effect will that have on the economy? What is your suggestion?
Keep in mind that just the Disability Insurance will need some of it's money back in 2008 and Medicare needs it's money back now as their expenses already exceeds the income.Â
This is not some future generation's problem Pieter, it is ours.
Medicare is a) not Social Security and is b) in far worse shape -- so why fuck with Social Security and ignore Medicare? The borrowing from Social Scecurity started under Reagan, by the way. I'm sure you intended to mention it, but just forgot.
The Social Security shortfall amounts to about a quarter of the Bush tax cuts, assuming that they're made permanent, and the plan to "fix" SS involves even more long-term borrowing. You gotta love this paragraph from the New York Times:
In addition, he [Bush] is dispatching his Treasury secretary, John W. Snow, to New York to reassure Wall Street that his approach, which could involve trillions of dollars in new government borrowing, is consistent with efforts to reduce the budget deficitand improve the nation's financial condition. Â Â
He must think Snow's a really persuasive guy . . .
The SSA estimates are the most pessimistic; the CBO estimates push the trouble dates back another ten years, which I believe I mentioned. The administration is using an even more specious figure of a $10 trillion shortfall that was arrived at by making a projection to infinity.
Now then, about your straw men.
For democrats and the AARP to continue to bash any plan simply because President Bush is involved
No, it's opposed because it's a bad plan, based on false premises, and requires massive borrowing to cover the transition costs. It's not for nothing that the administration says it's going to put forth an effort to sell the plan that is like the effort to sell the war in Iraq.
If we take your route and do nothing for the next 13 years
Show me where I said that, or apologize. One of my suggestions was to raise the FICA cap. Another would be to scale back some of the tax cuts given to the wealthiest among us. There are a number of ways that the system can be kept solvent.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Jan 5, 2005 at 08:22pm.]
so why fuck with Social Security and ignore Medicare?
Hopefully this is just a first step in fixing the problems inherited by the president. It also makes a lot of sense.
The borrowing from Social Scecurity started under Reagan, by the way.
What does it matter when and by who it started? They have all done it and it is a scam. If there was no "trust fund", we would be paying more in 2018 when the troubles begin. With a "trust fund" our taxes will be going up in 2018Â in order to payback what was borrowed. Either way, we pay more than we are now.
The Social Security shortfall amounts to about a quarter of the Bush tax cuts, assuming that they're made permanent
There would be a lot more fiscal problems if we did not have the taxcuts to keep things afloat. With less jobs and less money going into the fund, the future of Social Security would be even dimmer than it is now.
the plan to "fix" SS involves even more long-term borrowing
Which is offset by not paying those who have an account. Explain to me the difference between paying on the debt or paying a benefit. The cost is the same, so why did you mention it?
You gotta love this paragraph from the New York Times
Only if you are a Bush basher. It conveniently leaves out that the cost will be offset by less beneficiaries.
He must think Snow's a really persuasive guy
Doesn't take much to prove the point that paying a one time fee to make people self-sufficient instead of paying countless recipients until the end of time will eventually reduce the deficit and improve the nation's financial condition. If you have a leaky faucet in your house, which is cheaper - buying parts to fix it or letting it get worse and paying ever increasing water bills until you move out? Which one improves your financial situation?
the CBO estimates push the trouble dates back another ten years
Wow, ten years. Guess we have nothing to worry about then.
</sarcasm>
The administration is using an even more specious figure of a $10 trillion shortfall that was arrived at by making a projection to infinity.
To use a short time table would only count incoming money and not figure in future benefits paid. IÂ am pretty rich on payday, but IÂ do not look as good after paying the bills with that money. I am glad to see that they are taking a long term look at things and getting a good overall picture of what really takes place.
No, it's opposed because it's a bad plan, based on false premises, and requires massive borrowing to cover the transition costs.
Making people self-sufficient is a bad plan how? What is false about saying that you get to keep your money and can even pass it on to your heirs if you wish? The massive borrowing is your straw man as it is offset by less people receiving SSI money.
It's not for nothing that the administration says it's going to put forth an effort to sell the plan that is like the effort to sell the war in Iraq.
Both will pay benefits for many, many years to come.
raise the FICA cap
Should you pay more for automobile insurance than I do if we have same car? If you raise the cap, then you must also raise the benefit paid. This will only make the problems worse than they already are.
scale back some of the tax cuts given to the wealthiest among us
Them darn high achievers, they just don't deserve to keep their money. They will probably fritter it away on building another business that employs people and makes them self-sufficient anyway. We wouldn't want that.
Why should we raise taxes on those that are smart enough to go through college, get a good job and acquire wealth? Why do you wish that on someone who took a chance on a business, worked 16 hours a day to build it and became successful? Why is that something you wish to punish and discourage? I will never understand that logic. Would it not be a better idea to encourage it? Would that not make more sense for the well being of the nation as a whole?
So you admit that the Social Security "crisis" is bullshit? I wouldn't have thought you had it in you. My apologies for underestimating you. The one thing that I admit is bullshit is you.
Just because Gdubbya is involved? That is Horse-Shit.
Hardly. I bet that you cannot show us one time that you agreed fully with this president. It is just bash, bash, bash and is quite sickening.
thanks to Ronnie Reagan being the FIRST PREZ to allow the Trust Fund to be raided.
The placement of excess funds into treasury bonds was in effect from the beginning. From a 1941 Social Security Trust Fund Report:
The amounts in the account not needed to finance current withdrawals were invested by the Secretary of the Treasury as prescribed in the Social Security Act of 1935. The investments of the account were exclusively in special issues of Treasury notesbearing the 3-percent interest. http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/trust/tf1941.html
How did Ronald Reagan accomplish this in 1935?
And by the way....there is NO "Trust Fund", except on Paper.
That was one of my original points.
That money was borrwoed and spent LONG ago
I am beginning to wonder if it was ever there at all. It appears to be just a book keeping trick. Since all the funds go into the treasury, how can the treasury borrow from the treasury? What would happen to a business that simply put IOU's into it's retirement fund and no real money?
and during a time when Conservatives for the most part, Controlled bothhouses of Congress andthe White House...? (GOP in the White House-1980-92...12 years, and the DEMS from 1992-2000...8 years).
What about the period from 1935-1980? That is how long the "borrowing" has been going on.
He's going to try to eliminate it, as we have known it, for 65 years.
Well, since you have claimed that it is already "broken and broke", why continue down that nasty slope? I prefer to see it changed for the better.
The truth about the system WILLnow come out
It is about time. It has sucked from the beginning.
Means-Testingit, is the only SURE way to give it much more steam.
Perhaps means-testing would be a good idea for the VA as well? Should we means-test your house insurance also? "Sorry mister Fold, but we means tested your burned down house and came to the conclusion that you do not deserve the money that we promised to you." Makes a lot of sense don't it? If someone knows that they are not going to get anything from such an insurance program, why put money into it?
I still say making people self-sufficient is a better way to go.
By the way, did you know that having a Social Security number is voluntary? Consider this from the SS-5 form you fill out to get one:
You do not have to give us these facts, however, without them we cannot issue you a Social Security number or a card. Without a number, you may not be able to get a job and could lose Social Security benefits in the future. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
Your children do not need one either:
Must my child have a Social Security number?
No. But it is a very good idea to apply for a number right after your baby is born. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. (Their emphasis, not mine)Â http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html
"It is about time. It has sucked from the beginning"
It's done nothing to reduce poverty among the elderly? It's been a godsend. One of the most successful social experiments in the history of this country.
Now they say trash it, it's "sucked from the beginning."
What did the other side offer "from the beginning" besides the same platitudes you hear today?
I swear wrack and ruin is our fate with these conservatives. Every man, woman and Rat for themselves.
[Edited 8 times. Most recently by on Jan 6, 2005 at 08:41pm.]
It's done nothing to reduce poverty among the elderly?
Actually, I think that it helped create poverty among the elderly. Those that have not saved for retirement because they believed there would be enough income from social security to live a good lifestyle have found out differently. We hear of elderly eating dog food because that is all that they can afford.
It's been a godsend. One of the most successful social experiments in the history of this country.
Most Ponzi schemes are, in the beginning. Original investors come out quite good, but once the demands of increasing new recipients outways the limited resources of decreasing new participants, the system collapses.
Now they say trash it, it's "sucked from the beginning."
Ponzi schemes generally do suck, that is why they are illegal. SSI has created the illusion of entitlement and people have come to expect a legally guaranteed payout when they retire. This is not true at all. Congress is free to reduce, increase, or eliminate it entirely on a whim and there is nothing that we can do about it.
I swear wrack and ruin is our fate with these conservatives.
LOL. I have been paying into SSI since I was 17. If I die at age 63, it is all gone. My heirs do not get one penny of it. In fact, I doubt I will live long enough to see a break even point on the investment. Compare that to me investing $160.00/month during that same time period into U.S. Treasury inflation-protected bonds yielding about 3.4%. If I die at 63, my heirs would have roughly $203,000 to live on. Which idea would cause "wrack and ruin"?
Every man, woman and rat for theselves.
Since there is already welfare programs to take care of those who made poor life decisions, I doubt that it would end up being such a doom and gloom situation. How can it be a bad thing if we get things set up so people can take care of themselves?
Really? Tell me, did we send enough troops, etc.? Did you truelly back him or just the idea?
since whenis political bashing of anything, other than a RIGHT?
It is a right. It is the motivation behind doing it that is sickening.Â
Get off your high horse...K?
Makes it hard to talk to someone like you is up on such a higher horse.
SSI will be "Solvent" when you retire,
But at what costs?
but you won't get a dime, at 63...?
My whole point. I know that you are getting to the point that I won't see anything until probably 70 or later, but what percentage of return on investment will my famiily realize if I die at 63?
At the start of the New Deal what was the Repbulicans offering in place of SS, Dan?
Anything?
"Most Ponzi schemes are, in the beginning."
This is how they are going to characterize the compact between one generation and another. Just another middle level marketing scheme. They'll whisper it in the young people's ears "you're paying so those baby boomer farts can snark Viagara and watch Oprah."
And they'll turn around and say the Demorcats try to divide one group against another. Not like that the don't.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 7, 2005 at 06:31am.]
I have an idea. Make the system voluntary. If you want to opt out of S.S you can. If you want to stay in you can. If it's such a great idea I'm sure most will stay in S.S right?
If given the option to pay in something or nothing to the government, what would you take? Especially the way it's being sold now. The conservatives are telling people it's essentailly a swindle.
Oh look, I just found 14,000 more votes.
But throw out those overseas military ballots.
Yawn
"But throw out those overseas military ballots. "
If you're referring to 2000, many of those ballots were ineligible. No postmark, no location, after deadlines, etc.
Are you in favor of that?
Are you in favor of that?
When it involves those that are risking their lives to protect us and it is a government foul up? Yes, give those voters a break irregardless of who they voted for. Haven't they earned at least that much from us?
"thieves" in this case being people who insist that legitimate votes that got "forgotten" get counted.
Only counting "found" votes in a county with a lot of Democrats while ignoring the other counties tells me who the "thieves" are.
Who are the thieves?
If you're referring to 2000, many of those ballots were ineligible.
LOL
Like the hanging chads?
No postmark, no location, after deadlines, etc.
From what I've read, military mail often doesn't get postmarked correctly.
"From what I've read, military mail often doesn't get postmarked correctly."
Then correct the problem.
Anyway, Gore himself said those ballots should be counted, to his disadvantage.
I wouldn't have... Not if my presidency was hanging in the balance.
LOL! thats why it takes 3 1/2 weeks for a package to arrive at a German APO from here. And no, not during this time of year.
This gave me a good laugh. Here's the headline............
Group holds fast to Kerry cause with Beacon Hill vigil
By Donovan Slack, Globe Staff  | December 29, 2004
Now here's the picture........................................................................................................................
Â
Â
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/12/29/group_holds_fast_to_kerry_cause_with_beacon_hill_vigil/
Group? 2 dorks protesting in the cold is worthy of the group designation and worthy of print in a major newspaper? These people remind me of the Japanese who they found in caves 10 years later who refused to believe the war was over. This picture was the best laugh I had all day. Â
Luv2Fly 12/29/04 8:26pm
Now THAT was funny.
Thanks for the laugh.
:-)))
I guess people can laugh at them if they want but it's hard for some people to get over this election.
I don't know what's so funny about it.
[Edited by on Dec 30, 2004 at 04:51am.]
The Rat wishes he was as sure about that.
I'll take that as a compliment. I like Bob Dole. He once called Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, Hear-no-evil, Speak-no-Evil and Evil.
[Edited by on Dec 30, 2004 at 05:10am.]
Since when is THAT the Government's business?
Since the government is the one that issues marriage certificates, and grants divorces.
As surely as the pendulum has swung right, it will swing back to the Left.
The pendulum hasn't swung that far right. It was a very close election and Kerry could easily have won.
"The pendulum hasn't swung that far right."
That's because it hasn't stopped yet.
You guys better do something about that.
I'm griping about it. That's something.
[Edited by on Dec 30, 2004 at 08:51am.]
I don't know what's so funny about it.
"In a statement, a Kerry spokesman praised the tenacity of the group camped out on his doorstep yesterday.
''You meet a lot of inspirational people who took this campaign into their hearts," spokesman David Wade said. ''They keep their bumper stickers on their cars because they're proud of the fight they fought. John Kerry's campaign touched a chord with millions of Americans, and so many people want the fight to continue. . . . The campaign's ended, but the values we share are worth fighting for."'
Don't know if tenacity is the word I'd use.
Idiocy is the word.
The Puritans must have elected Reagan.
Disloyal Democrats, too.
"You have NO choice in the matter"!!!!..."You MUST vote for a Democrat"!!!!
You don't seem to be an idiot...?
Thanks Bill. I wish I could say the same for you.
Disloyal Democrats, too.
Smart people.
It had little to do with party affiliation, and more to do with the better candidate.
Same thing that happened this election.
"It had little to do with party affiliation, and more to do with the better candidate."
Reagan was a better candidate. He ran a great campaign.
So what. They forgot their roots and got sold on a glib demeanor and great smile. Nothing wrong with that, if you like the telegenic type who says all the right things.
"Smart people."
Intelligence or lack of it, isn't the point.
"Same thing that happened this election. "
Feel free to elaborate, baldy.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Jan 2, 2005 at 04:16pm.]
Fold would rather see SS become insolvent.
According to the Social Security Administration's worst-case estimate, Social Security is solvent through the year 2042. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it's solvent through 2052, and even then will have better than 80% of the needed funds. Those estimates are based on the current funding model and very conservative economic-growth figures. Anyone trying to tell you different is bullshitting you.
Raising or eliminating the cap on FICA deductions would push that critical date back by decades. Social Security is a lot healthier than the Bush administration would have you believe, and far healthier than a number of other programs.
 Social Security is a lot healthier than the Bush administration would have you believe, and far healthier than a number of other programs.
So you admit that the Social Security "crisis" is bullshit? I wouldn't have thought you had it in you. My apologies for underestimating you.
One problem with your theory Pieter is that it includes repaying the money that the federal government is now borrowing. According to Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees:
I am sure that you know that all excess funds that the SSI receives has to be placed into special government bonds by law. This is how Clinton could claim a surplus while the debt was still increasing. Without SSI's excess funds, there never was a surplus.
So that means that in a little over a decade, SSI will need money from the federal government. Only problem is that money will have been spent a long time ago. At this point we will be left with few options-raise taxes and hurt the economy, lower the benefits being paid, start printing more money and have massive inflation or some combination of the above. Something needs to be done and right now!Â
For democrats and the AARP to continue to bash any plan simply because President Bush is involved will only waste 4 years of trying to solve the problem. If we elect another Republican after him, it will turn into another 4 or possibly 8 years. By then we will be just getting into the financial problems that we are now discussing and trying to plan for.
All politics aside, I honestly like the president's (or whoever's) idea of a 401k style of retirement account. Unlike SSI, the money is yours to use in retirement, or if you do not make it that long, it goes into your estate and passed on to your family or whoever you wish. You earned it, you keep it.
If we take your route and do nothing for the next 13 years, how do you plan to solve the problem? Remember, the federal government has promised to pay back the money at this point with interest. Is there any government program that you would be willing to give up in order to keep SSI afloat? How much are you willing to increase federal taxes in order to repay the money and what effect will that have on the economy? What is your suggestion?
Keep in mind that just the Disability Insurance will need some of it's money back in 2008 and Medicare needs it's money back
now
as their expenses already exceeds the income.Â
This is not some future generation's problem Pieter, it is ours.
pieter is always confused by the facts.
Medicare is a) not Social Security and is b) in far worse shape -- so why fuck with Social Security and ignore Medicare? The borrowing from Social Scecurity started under Reagan, by the way. I'm sure you intended to mention it, but just forgot.
The Social Security shortfall amounts to about a quarter of the Bush tax cuts, assuming that they're made permanent, and the plan to "fix" SS involves even more long-term borrowing. You gotta love this paragraph from the New York Times:
He must think Snow's a really persuasive guy . . .
The SSA estimates are the most pessimistic; the CBO estimates push the trouble dates back another ten years, which I believe I mentioned. The administration is using an even more specious figure of a $10 trillion shortfall that was arrived at by making a projection to infinity.
Now then, about your straw men.
No, it's opposed because it's a bad plan, based on false premises, and requires massive borrowing to cover the transition costs. It's not for nothing that the administration says it's going to put forth an effort to sell the plan that is like the effort to sell the war in Iraq.
Show me where I said that, or apologize. One of my suggestions was to raise the FICA cap. Another would be to scale back some of the tax cuts given to the wealthiest among us. There are a number of ways that the system can be kept solvent.
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Jan 5, 2005 at 08:22pm.]
so why fuck with Social Security and ignore Medicare?
Hopefully this is just a first step in fixing the problems inherited by the president. It also makes a lot of sense.
The borrowing from Social Scecurity started under Reagan, by the way.
What does it matter when and by who it started? They have all done it and it is a scam. If there was no "trust fund", we would be paying more in 2018 when the troubles begin. With a "trust fund" our taxes will be going up in 2018Â in order to payback what was borrowed. Either way, we pay more than we are now.
The Social Security shortfall amounts to about a quarter of the Bush tax cuts, assuming that they're made permanent
There would be a lot more fiscal problems if we did not have the taxcuts to keep things afloat. With less jobs and less money going into the fund, the future of Social Security would be even dimmer than it is now.
the plan to "fix" SS involves even more long-term borrowing
Which is offset by not paying those who have an account. Explain to me the difference between paying on the debt or paying a benefit. The cost is the same, so why did you mention it?
You gotta love this paragraph from the New York Times
Only if you are a Bush basher. It conveniently leaves out that the cost will be offset by less beneficiaries.
He must think Snow's a really persuasive guy
Doesn't take much to prove the point that paying a one time fee to make people self-sufficient instead of paying countless recipients until the end of time will eventually reduce the deficit and improve the nation's financial condition. If you have a leaky faucet in your house, which is cheaper - buying parts to fix it or letting it get worse and paying ever increasing water bills until you move out? Which one improves your financial situation?
the CBO estimates push the trouble dates back another ten years
Wow, ten years. Guess we have nothing to worry about then.
</sarcasm>
The administration is using an even more specious figure of a $10 trillion shortfall that was arrived at by making a projection to infinity.
To use a short time table would only count incoming money and not figure in future benefits paid. IÂ am pretty rich on payday, but IÂ do not look as good after paying the bills with that money. I am glad to see that they are taking a long term look at things and getting a good overall picture of what really takes place.
No, it's opposed because it's a bad plan, based on false premises, and requires massive borrowing to cover the transition costs.
Making people self-sufficient is a bad plan how? What is false about saying that you get to keep your money and can even pass it on to your heirs if you wish? The massive borrowing is your straw man as it is offset by less people receiving SSI money.
It's not for nothing that the administration says it's going to put forth an effort to sell the plan that is like the effort to sell the war in Iraq.
Both will pay benefits for many, many years to come.
raise the FICA cap
Should you pay more for automobile insurance than I do if we have same car? If you raise the cap, then you must also raise the benefit paid. This will only make the problems worse than they already are.
scale back some of the tax cuts given to the wealthiest among us
Them darn high achievers, they just don't deserve to keep their money. They will probably fritter it away on building another business that employs people and makes them self-sufficient anyway. We wouldn't want that.
Why should we raise taxes on those that are smart enough to go through college, get a good job and acquire wealth? Why do you wish that on someone who took a chance on a business, worked 16 hours a day to build it and became successful? Why is that something you wish to punish and discourage? I will never understand that logic. Would it not be a better idea to encourage it? Would that not make more sense for the well being of the nation as a whole?
[Edited by on Jan 5, 2005 at 10:33pm.]
So you admit that the Social Security "crisis" is bullshit? I wouldn't have thought you had it in you. My apologies for underestimating you. The one thing that I admit is bullshit is you.
Just because Gdubbya is involved? That is Horse-Shit.
Hardly. I bet that you cannot show us one time that you agreed fully with this president. It is just bash, bash, bash and is quite sickening.
thanks to Ronnie Reagan being the FIRST PREZ to allow the Trust Fund to be raided.
The placement of excess funds into treasury bonds was in effect from the beginning. From a 1941 Social Security Trust Fund Report:
How did Ronald Reagan accomplish this in 1935?
And by the way....there is NO "Trust Fund", except on Paper.
That was one of my original points.
That money was borrwoed and spent LONG ago
I am beginning to wonder if it was ever there at all. It appears to be just a book keeping trick. Since all the funds go into the treasury, how can the treasury borrow from the treasury? What would happen to a business that simply put IOU's into it's retirement fund and no real money?
and during a time when Conservatives for the most part, Controlled bothhouses of Congress andthe White House...? (GOP in the White House-1980-92...12 years, and the DEMS from 1992-2000...8 years).
What about the period from 1935-1980? That is how long the "borrowing" has been going on.
He's going to try to eliminate it, as we have known it, for 65 years.
Well, since you have claimed that it is already "broken and broke", why continue down that nasty slope? I prefer to see it changed for the better.
The truth about the system WILLnow come out
It is about time. It has sucked from the beginning.
Means-Testingit, is the only SURE way to give it much more steam.
Perhaps means-testing would be a good idea for the VA as well? Should we means-test your house insurance also? "Sorry mister Fold, but we means tested your burned down house and came to the conclusion that you do not deserve the money that we promised to you." Makes a lot of sense don't it? If someone knows that they are not going to get anything from such an insurance program, why put money into it?
I still say making people self-sufficient is a better way to go.
[Edited by on Jan 6, 2005 at 04:59pm.]
By the way, did you know that having a Social Security number is voluntary? Consider this from the SS-5 form you fill out to get one:
Your children do not need one either:
The invasion of Afghanistan.
Could you highlight a few more words there, Fold?
"It is about time. It has sucked from the beginning"
It's done nothing to reduce poverty among the elderly? It's been a godsend. One of the most successful social experiments in the history of this country.
Now they say trash it, it's "sucked from the beginning."
What did the other side offer "from the beginning" besides the same platitudes you hear today?
I swear wrack and ruin is our fate with these conservatives. Every man, woman and Rat for themselves.
[Edited 8 times. Most recently by on Jan 6, 2005 at 08:41pm.]
It's done nothing to reduce poverty among the elderly?
Actually, I think that it helped create poverty among the elderly. Those that have not saved for retirement because they believed there would be enough income from social security to live a good lifestyle have found out differently. We hear of elderly eating dog food because that is all that they can afford.
It's been a godsend. One of the most successful social experiments in the history of this country.
Most Ponzi schemes are, in the beginning. Original investors come out quite good, but once the demands of increasing new recipients outways the limited resources of decreasing new participants, the system collapses.
Now they say trash it, it's "sucked from the beginning."
Ponzi schemes generally do suck, that is why they are illegal. SSI has created the illusion of entitlement and people have come to expect a legally guaranteed payout when they retire. This is not true at all. Congress is free to reduce, increase, or eliminate it entirely on a whim and there is nothing that we can do about it.
I swear wrack and ruin is our fate with these conservatives.
LOL. I have been paying into SSI since I was 17. If I die at age 63, it is all gone. My heirs do not get one penny of it. In fact, I doubt I will live long enough to see a break even point on the investment. Compare that to me investing $160.00/month during that same time period into U.S. Treasury inflation-protected bonds yielding about 3.4%. If I die at 63, my heirs would have roughly $203,000 to live on. Which idea would cause "wrack and ruin"?
Every man, woman and rat for theselves.
Since there is already welfare programs to take care of those who made poor life decisions, I doubt that it would end up being such a doom and gloom situation. How can it be a bad thing if we get things set up so people can take care of themselves?
I
ALSObacked him when he went into
Afghanistan.
Really? Tell me, did we send enough troops, etc.? Did you truelly back him or just the idea?
since whenis political bashing of anything, other than a RIGHT?
It is a right. It is the motivation behind doing it that is sickening.Â
Get off your high horse...K?
Makes it hard to talk to someone like you is up on such a higher horse.
SSI will be "Solvent" when you retire,
But at what costs?
but you won't get a dime, at 63...?
My whole point. I know that you are getting to the point that I won't see anything until probably 70 or later, but what percentage of return on investment will my famiily realize if I die at 63?
At the start of the New Deal what was the Repbulicans offering in place of SS, Dan?
Anything?
"Most Ponzi schemes are, in the beginning."
This is how they are going to characterize the compact between one generation and another. Just another middle level marketing scheme. They'll whisper it in the young people's ears "you're paying so those baby boomer farts can snark Viagara and watch Oprah."
And they'll turn around and say the Demorcats try to divide one group against another. Not like that the don't.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 7, 2005 at 06:31am.]
"you're paying so those baby boomer farts can snark Viagara and watch Oprah."
there is some truth to that.
I have an idea. Make the system voluntary. If you want to opt out of S.S you can. If you want to stay in you can. If it's such a great idea I'm sure most will stay in S.S right?
It is a great idea but too many would opt out to sustain the great idea.
[Edited by on Jan 7, 2005 at 08:51am.]
It is a great idea but too many would opt out to sustain the great idea
Yea it's such a great idea too many would opt out. Think about that for a minute.
If given the option to pay in something or nothing to the government, what would you take? Especially the way it's being sold now. The conservatives are telling people it's essentailly a swindle.
The conservatives are telling people it's essentailly a swindle.