Guilt by association ..

zzzzzz


http://www.politico.com/arena/archiv...andidates.html

GOP talking points....

the republican congress voted for the ryan budget

now they have an election to deal with, and SS is the main interest these days ... either they side with their vote to make SS private via the Ryan plan, or they step off the party line and play to their voters

tough spot

That's how the system was designed. Get more and voters dependent on government, through programs like SS and Medicare, and you have an instant campaign argument. "The other guy wants to take away your benefits!" So any attempt at meaningful reform will always be met with "The other guy wants to take away your benefits!" If one party wants to broaden or increase the benefits, and the other side does not, they are met with "The other guy wants to take away your benefits!"

The end result, no meaningful reform, and eventually bankruptcy. But we do have a growing class of dependable voters who will always vote for whoever will give them the most. That is, until the well runs dry for everyone. Then it will be "fair".

Social Security isn't going anywhere. We've seen how little the American people, and especially Baby Boomers, have prepared for their future. Allowing people, that are not qualified inverters, to invest - and all this is just hypothetical, because we all know an extremely small percentage of the people would actually invest - their investments would have been devastated more so than they already were. The housing bubble, house-flipping accompanied by mortgage fraud, the stock market realignments and corporate criminals would have wiped them out.

What does need to happen is to make it against the law to raid the SS Trust, but that'll never happen.

Medicare/aid should be single payer with a sliding scale of government aid and benefits for heroic end of life and premie care need to be limited. Period.

This guy was a bad choice.

I think the main interest is getting Obama out of office.
Secondary to that is allowing businesses to get back to doing what they do best.
third is cutting the government and the spending.

That's how the system was designed. Get more and voters dependent on government, through programs like SS and Medicare, and you have an instant campaign argument. "The other guy wants to take away your benefits!" So any attempt at meaningful reform will always be met with "The other guy wants to take away your benefits!" If one party wants to broaden or increase the benefits, and the other side does not, they are met with "The other guy wants to take away your benefits!"

The end result, no meaningful reform, and eventually bankruptcy. But we do have a growing class of dependable voters who will always vote for whoever will give them the most. That is, until the well runs dry for everyone. Then it will be "fair". Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Horseshit. These systems were designed as a social safety net to help the old, the poor, and the sick. And they do exactly that. The changes you and the rest of the schmucks advocate, and have always advocated, are based on your greedy, self-interested notion that you have no social obligation to society or your fellow man. You're a douchebag.

I believe in a social obligation to society, Timmy. I just don't want the government telling me that obligation is, and taking my property from me by force to satisfy it.

Why do you think that if there is something good to be done, only government can do it? That's your problem right there, Timmy. You won't do the right thing on your own, so you have to have government force you to do it. Others of us are self motivated to give, care for and assist, and don't need government to force us.

Feel bad for you Timmy. You're the heartless one, not me. You have no idea what I do in my spare time, and don't assume, it will only make you look stupider.

That's right. Before all the social safety net programs, there were no poor, no suffering, no hungry. People of there own free will and good hearts made sure of that.

Sure, and now because of the social safety net provided by government, we have plenty of poor, plenty of suffering, plenty of hungry people. Bureaucrats wanting to get home early from their job made sure of that. How's that net holding there, dude?

You believe government is the only force that can cure social ills. You have drank too much kool aid, I'm afraid. You've become self-Obatamized.

Social Security isn't going anywhere. We've seen how little the American people, and especially Baby Boomers, have prepared for their future. Allowing people, that are not qualified inverters, to invest - and all this is just hypothetical, because we all know an extremely small percentage of the people would actually invest - their investments would have been devastated more so than they already were. The housing bubble, house-flipping accompanied by mortgage fraud, the stock market realignments and corporate criminals would have wiped them out.
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

It used to be that corporations and unions held pension monies in savings trusts.

When individual retirement plans were invented they should have limited where monies could be placed to savings and credit accounts ONLY.

But Wall Street lobbied congress into allowing people to place their retirement savings in speculative places such as equity and real estate funds, all market determined. And of course financial geniuses like George W. Bush agreed with Wall Street that people should take their SS monies out and put it in the stock exchange.

Giving your retirement savings to a stock broker is like handing over your kid's college fund to a bookie.

Faith-based organizations have tried to expand services to the poor and needy, but some nut always gets afraid they might have to hear the name "Jesus" and we just cannot allow that. So we filter our money through government, where 50% of the funds are wasted before they get to the target, and I'm sure I estimated low.

Faith-based organizations have tried to expand services to the poor and needy, but some nut always gets afraid they might have to hear the name "Jesus" and we just cannot allow that. So we filter our money through government, where 50% of the funds are wasted before they get to the target, and I'm sure I estimated low. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I wonder how popular Robin Hood would have been if he had robbed from the rich and kept half for administrative costs. If his merry band of men retired at fifty with fat pensions, it might have made them seem less heroic.

Are you thinking Robin Hood may have been a bureaucrat or a tort lawyer?