 sj |
||
|
||
BS: *Strengthening* Social Security...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 05 Mar 05 - 06:31 AM "As far as personal accounts are concerned, we already have them. IRAs and 401Ks. If you want a personal account, have at it!" Not reasonably. Not if you make less than $90,000 and most of the income that would be ear-marked for such an account (12% of it) is being sucked up by Social Security which, no matter how many times, or how dogmatically you keep repeating it, not everyone (Not even economists, not Greenspan, not Clinton, not Moynahan...) agrees will be there for those of us younger than you. But thanks for ignoring! The proposal for private accounts is merely to suggest gradually building the kind of accounts that most people mistakenly believe that Social Security now is. Why do you think you get an annual report of your "Social Security account", if not to maintain the illusion that it is your money (not merely redistributed taxes) that you are retiring on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Don Firth Date: 04 Mar 05 - 11:24 PM As far as personal accounts are concerned, we already have them. IRAs and 401Ks. If you want a personal account, have at it! But if your personal account tanks, you'll at least have your monthly Social Security check to keep you from having to sleep in parks and eat out of Dumpsters. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Ron Davies Date: 04 Mar 05 - 11:02 PM Hubby-- Nice try, again. You think it's real slick to be so "reasonable" and let anybody who makes over $90,000 off the hook for income over that level as long as they don't want to participate in Social Security. And how many, pray tell, would likely participate in Social Security, given that loophole? You are being disingenuous, to say the least. The point, as John Hardly noted, is that all income should be subject to the deduction--there should not be an upper cut-off point. As he stated, there are a host of priorities, which US citizens may or may not agree with, but which we are all supporting through our taxes. If you don't like this approach, ask your buddy Doug R, who's always suggesting that anybody who doesn't like one US government policy or the other should leave the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 05 - 08:48 PM Call the cops... Someone has poor ol' John kidnapped and duct taped to a chair and is using his computer... Sniff, they sure nuff do... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 04 Mar 05 - 08:26 PM "If they wish to participate in the SS program upon retirement?: This seems to miss my point. They already participate in the Social Security System. Just the same as everyone in the country, they reap the benefit of a program set up to make sure that nobody who grows too old to work is left without means. They already participate just as I (as I said above) participate in, and reap the benfits of public education -- even though I have no children. They already participate just as the majority of American mudcatters participate in and reap the benefits from the US military even though they either don't believe in it or the current conflict. They already participate just as all Americans participate in, and reap the benefits of a National Park system even though some of us may never once visit A National Park. "They" chose to participate when they were born into a country that voted Social Security as a National priority. They didn't have to wait 'til retirement. Now I'm just asking that they pay in a measure commensurate with all those other things that the country collectively decided priority enough to make public policy. I am absolutely against progressive tax rates. I am damn sure equally against regressive tax rates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 05 - 07:34 PM Fine, hubby, invest all you want in 401... You'll allready get a tax break for doing so as long as you don't go sneaking in there an' shaking the piggy bank at night... Like what's your objection to elliminating the cap? And as fir yer idea about opting out, ain't that really what yer guy has been trying to do ever since the Supreme Court slected him? I mean, George "Frat Boy" Bush would like all taxes to optional for the wealthy... Yeah, let the working class folks pay 'um... Yeah, he would like all of his rich bussies to be able to opt out... Problem with opting out is that its gonna run the US government into bankruptcy when the Chinese call in the notes... Isn't this something. China is funding the US governemnt while Bush gives big tax breaks to his fat cat donors? Like what's wrong with this piccure? Oh yeah... Waht it means that in 2010 when a lot of Bush's baloon payments kick in, the US government will be broke... But hubby won't care 'cause he apparently doesn't care now about fiscal wrecklessness of his hero... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 04 Mar 05 - 07:15 PM Instead of totally abolishing the cap for everybody what about only abolishing the cap for those who make above 90 grand/yr IF they wish to participate in the SS program upon retirement? If not, then they will be responsible for setting up their own retirement accounts and not on the dime of their neighbor....and certainly not on the dime of anybody they don't know and aren't related to. Whether or not cap issues are brought about and put into place, I still think that we should be able to have individual accounts that each person would be able to arrange in order to achieve something greater than the current rate of return on the money that is currently being paid in.....and please.....can we agree that the $250 death benefit needs to go away and a true amount (perhaps a percentage of what has been paid in by the deceased?) can be established that would be paid to a beneficiary that would do more for them instead of only covering the electricity bill for the prior month? For those who have no beneficiary or last wishes for the money, then it should go back into the general revenue fund or distributed among those who are still participating in the SS fund. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:57 PM Hot danged! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:50 PM ok. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Don Firth Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:38 PM Abolish the cap entirely. Go for it! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 04 Mar 05 - 06:28 PM Well, gol danged, Part 2!!! Stop the presses... John, unless someone has made off with his computer, and I are in complete agreement on abolishing the cap... Complete agreement... What could happen if the cap were abolished is this. The actual percentage taken out ofr Joe Sixpack's check could be reduced from 6.2% to around 5% and the program would still be healthier than it is now. Not only that but the employers share could also be reduced to 5%. This would make the empolyer better able to keep up with ever rising health insurance costs or maybe allow him to hire another worker... And self employed people would love it. I've been self employed since 1985 when I left social work and that "self employemnt" tax is a burden, especially since about the time you struggle to pay up, in 90 days it's coming back around... I can certainly remember times of having to borrow money to pay my taxes and, with the interest, that ain't no fun at all... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 04 Mar 05 - 01:01 PM Oh, and you forgot to tell me what you're hoping the $140,000ers don't buy with their -$6,000 each year! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 04 Mar 05 - 11:50 AM I'm not arguing against the notion of forced saving -- you probably rightly suspect that most would not save 12% per annum if left to their own devices. What I am saying (again) is that, for all their supposed sensitivity to our plight -- Democrats telling me that I should (have been) putting aside for my own retirement because (by their own declaration "Social security was never meant to be a retirement" ignores the plight of those who make the least income but ironically pay the greatest percentage of their income in Social Security - like me. What am I supposed to be saving? And, to be clear, I am not for raising the cap. I am for removing the cap. The same inequity that has gotten us where we are may be lessened by raising the cap, but it will still be in place -- the citizenry that voted ourselves this plan are not paying for it equally. Everyone benefits from Social Security. Everyone should pay for it. I have no children but I still pay taxes for public schools. Public schools are in the best interest of society and so all of society pays for it. Social Security should not be handled differently. And, if it weren't, I'll bet that it wouldn't cost me 12% and I MIGHT have something left over to save. And, just by the way, though I shouldn't resent your trying to make a rhetorical poiint at my expense -- I do save what I can. I do have a retirement account. I do have a medical savings account so, yes, I probably would save my own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 05 - 09:18 PM And lets consider the fact that that the current and solvent system is holding adminisrattive costs at a mere 0.6% as opposed to the 15 to 20% siphones off by the Wall Street *Fat Cats* and Bush's ideas are lookin' more and more like his excuses to invade Iraq... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Don Firth Date: 03 Mar 05 - 09:02 PM I think you missed it someplace, John. The influx of baby-boomers was taken into consideration by the economists who say that raising the cap to $140,000 would solve the problem. In addition to raising the cap, there are several other ways of solving the problem relatively painlessly without undercutting the system the way Bush wants to do. Remember, his real goal is not what he says it is. If you actually did have that 12% in hand, would you really invest it? Or would you (like most people) spend it paying those pesky monthly bills? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 03 Mar 05 - 08:41 PM ...and, by the way, what're you pullin' for that $140,000 incomed family to not be buying with the -$6,000 we decided they didn't need? I'm personally hoping it will be computer stuff or cosmetics or something. I hope it's not pottery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 Mar 05 - 08:32 PM Can she string a coherent sentence together? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 03 Mar 05 - 06:46 PM "He (Bush) predicted Social Sercurity would go broke in 10 years and said the system should give people "the chanche to inverst money the way they feel' is best." (USA Today) But when did Bush make this statement? Wanta guess? Okay, I'll tell ya.... 1978!!!!!!! Is this amazing, er what? Yup, over 25 years ago Chickhawk Little was predicting that Social Security had obly 10 years left... Hmmmmmm? I reckon the last 17 years have proved him wrong... Seems the guy has a history of predicting stuff that, ahhhhh, doesn't come to pass... Maybe we'd be better off with Jean Dixon as president. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 03 Mar 05 - 06:41 PM Well, from one for whom there is little promise of seeing a "return" on my "investment" of 12% for the past 25 years, to one who has no risk of losing their monthly check, I say, well stated. Not much wiggle room there. Of course you will still get yours. There is still me and 13 other mudcatters paying your monthly check. When I get to be your age, not only will I lack your wisdom (as I do now), I will lack 12 of those mudcatters joining in to pay for my check. You needn't worry though, unless age-expectancy really skyrockets -- I mean, even more than it has since the inception of Social Security -- you won't be around to worry after me (as I'm sure you would) :^) I'm actually for removing the cap. It is one of the biggest frauds government has foisted upon the middle class. Ever. I don't think that employment will then remain constant -- but I think we would survive (especially after the reflected adjustment DOWN was made in a FICA)... ...but I SO resent the Democratic response that currently ignores my plight. They tell me that I should be putting aside for my own retirement. They tell me that SOcial Security was never meant to be a retirement. How do I put anything aside after 12% of my paltry potter's income has already gone toward what is not meant to be my retirement (it's yours apparently). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Don Firth Date: 03 Mar 05 - 06:27 PM And before anyone says that Bush's "reforms" would allow the folks with "too much month left at the end of the money" to invest part of their FICA in a private account, that percentage is so minuscule that even compound interest (a simple savings account would be the most secure kind of investment, but the best savings accounts usually do is manage to keep pace with raises in the cost of living, and little more, if even that much) wouldn't raise it much beyond a pretty piddling amount. With that small an amount to invest in anything, if they have to pay brokers' fees to handle their investment, then it would be a whole lot easier to just flush it down the toilet. Do the arithmetic. The idea of the large percentage of low income folks in this country being able to handle the kind of investing that might yield a reasonable amount to retire on is totally unrealistic. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Don Firth Date: 03 Mar 05 - 06:13 PM First of all, Social Security is not in as bad shape as Bush says it is. Second, Bush's plan to "salvage" the Social Security system will only weaken it further. Third, every economist who has taken an unbiased look at the problems that Social Security actually does have all agree that if the cap were raised from the current $90,000 (+/-) to $140,000 (and those who earn salaries like that can well afford that kind of an increase), that would cure the shortfall for the forseeable future. The truth of the matter is that Ronald Reagan set about trying to reverse the regulatory laws and social legislation that FDR got passed during the Thirties. I'm not making that up. He said so. Many businesses chafe against these regulations because they require a certain measure of ethical behavior or a government regulatory agency steps in and makes them behave (such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, who didn't do their legally mandated job a few years ago, looked the other way, and allowed Enron to happen). And some Americans seem to think that the social safety net that FDR put in place that keeps people from having to live in abject poverty if life deals them a lousy hand somehow lessens a sense of "personal responsibility" and want to allow them to be thrown to the wolves for not having the good sense to get rich. As if anyone would chose to live on only their monthly Social Security check if they had a choice. Lots of low-income folks would love to be able to set some money aside for a rainy day, or, hopefully, for their retirement, but for all too many people, "too much month left at the end of the money" is a chronic problem they can do little about. The monthly Social Security check merely assures them that they won't live in abject poverty. George W. Bush is continuing the efforts started by Reagan to decimate these regulatory and social programs. Make no mistake about it:a this "compassionate conservative's" intention is not to salvage Social Security. His intention is to eliminate it. He's using what's known as the "baloney slicer" method. He slices off a thin piece, and you complain, but not all that loudly because it's only a thin piece. A little later, he slices off another thin piece, but once again, you don't protest very loudly because it's not all that much. And so on. Then before you know it, it's all gone! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 03 Mar 05 - 01:33 PM "Nor are people whose circumstances are such that, although they have worked hard all their lives, they've never been able to make enough to put some aside for their old age personally responsible for the fact that when they become too old to work, the only income they have is their monthly Social Security check. They have been diligently personally responsible all their lives, and still wind up with nothing" Which is precisely why there is the current public discussion of how we might salvage the Social Security system. It sounds to me as though the proposal (whether or not it goes through) of "personal" or "private" accounts is merely trying to set up Social Security in the manner that most Americans think the current one already is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Don Firth Date: 03 Mar 05 - 01:02 PM Nobody is against personal responsibility. But there are a lot of folks out there who are not personally responsible for suddenly finding themselves out of a job because the company they work for has "downsized" and moved its jobs overseas. Nor are they personally responsible for finding themselves homeless because, due to the loss of their job, they no longer have the money to pay the rent or make mortgage payments. Nor are people whose circumstances are such that, although they have worked hard all their lives, they've never been able to make enough to put some aside for their old age personally responsible for the fact that when they become too old to work, the only income they have is their monthly Social Security check. They have been diligently personally responsible all their lives, and still wind up with nothing. You can be personally responsible 'til hell freezes over and still find yourself standing naked and hungry in the middle of an open field. When it comes to personal responsibility, if we want to claim that this is a civilized country, we have the responsibility to see to it that the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society are cared for. Also, when it comes to the "moral values" that certain Bible-thumping politicians keep yammering on about, any examination of the range of moral values beyond just how people conduct their sex lives demands that we take care of "the least of these my brothers." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Greg F. Date: 03 Mar 05 - 09:37 AM Boy, and some people say that Dumbya is a moron........ Wonder where they get that idea, Tia?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: John Hardly Date: 03 Mar 05 - 07:54 AM Being against personal responsibility is a strange drum to beat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 03 Mar 05 - 07:32 AM Okay, so here's what Bush himself said about social security. This is a quote from the Bush SS roadshow in Tampa Florida on February 4, 2005. An elderly woman asked him how privatization was going to strengthen soical security, he gave this answer (extracted from the official White House transcript...don't believe me? Go look it up).: BEGIN QUOTE "Because the all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how the benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. "There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? "It's kind of muddled. Look there's a series of things that cause the like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. "Some have suggested that we calculate the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those if that growth is affected, it will help on the red." END QUOTE Got that? We're in good hands then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 05 - 06:47 PM Yeah, Dougie, PERSSONAL RESPOSIBILITY, the Republican empty battle cry, ain't real popular in Wes Ginny as Wes Ginny has the highest poverty rate in the United States.... Unfotunately, when you have a lot of people living in poverty you also have fewere and fewer people who get eductated and these are the very same folks who vote for yer guy??? Why??? Simple: *You ain't gonna make me marry up with no queer... *Them Demercrats is nuthin' but a bunch of baby killers... *You want the government in yer pocket?... *You wanta speak Iraqi?... *John Kerry gonna take yer gun away... *Democrats is jus' a bunch of tree huggers... *Liberals is communists... I mean, pick any of these and this is just hopw under-educated the poor folks are in Wes Ginny. They don't have a clue... And I might add that when you take folks who say these kinds of things outta the electorate, Bush and folks like him are done... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Feb 05 - 06:20 PM Sorry, Larry, that won't wash. (Sorry, Charlie, you're not Starkist.) I merely pointed out that your quote was gobbledegook. I made no assumptions about source, even though you assume and wish I had. I'm fully aware that Clinton was capable of claptrap, as is any politician. Nice try, though. My comment, since your short-term memory is even poorer than that of most Bushites, and your vision is evidently going fast, was "Have you ever heard of political gobbledegook? Congratulations, you have just quoted a sterling example." Precisely where in that post do I say that Bush, or indeed any other specific individual said it? I then started a new paragraph, signalled in this case by the word "again", meaning I was still trying to get a straight answer out of you on an earlier topic. Are you aware that might possibly be a new thought? Have you ever had any English courses? You are a Bushite, right?--why don't you wear the title with pride? ( Jim Tailor is a thinking individual,-- (you're welcome, Jim)--- thus no Bushite.) Anybody who does not want the label "Bushite" is welcome to shed it by criticizing Bush's half-baked ideas--- ( it's what in the military is called a "target -rich area")---as I criticize what I see as fuzzy thinking and conspiracy theories on the Left. (Ask Dianavan, Ake, or Little Hawk) The Left has no monopoly on truth. But any similarity between facts and what Bush says is purely coincidental. I certainly do appreciate that you were honest and direct enough to say "I would prefer to keep my own money"--you refuse to consider removing totally the salary cap on Social Security deductions. Interesting that you are rejecting out of hand the one solution which all sides agree would eliminate the Social Security shortfall. And obviously it doesn't bother you that you are skating perilously close to the Bushite stereotype of heartless and selfish capititalist. What happened to "compassionate conservative"?---oh, I get it--you're compasssionate as long as your wallet is not touched. In future, please be so good as to refrain from pious protestations of how important it is to solve the Social Security crisis---since you have now rejected the one solution all sides agree will work. On top of that, in typical Bushite fashion, you have also suggested something (personal accounts)‚ which all sides agree will not solve the problem. Well done, good job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: DougR Date: 22 Feb 05 - 06:19 PM EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT ...PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ARE BAD WORDS IN WEST VIRGINIA! Larry: Clinton didn't attempt to "fix" SS during his term. Too controversial for ole' Bill to champion a plan of his, or the Democrat's own. As a matter of fact, the Democrats still haven't come up with a plan, though Bush has made it plain that he will welcome any ideas for fixing the problem. Larry: I, too, join Susu's husband in doffing my hat to you! Great sandbag. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 05 - 04:59 PM No deer in the headlights here, hub-ster. Clinton was a terrible president and I disagreed with jus' about everything he did, which most of the time capitulate to the Republicans... The only thing I give him credit for was listening to yet another Republican, Alan Greenspan and in doing so at least ran a tight fiscal ship. Bush, on the other hand has had to ruff up poor ol' Greenspan and make him agree with fiscal policies that Greenspan would have been livid about if Clinton had tried them. But Greenspan has turned into a cooperative little foot souldier in the march toward bankrupting the federal governemnt as we all have known it. And there ain't nuthin' particularly conservative about this. Beyond liberal into wreckless radicalism... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 22 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM Larry.... That was a classic setup! I love it. Can't you just see all the libs in here with their "deer in the headlights look?" Good job. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Greg F. Date: 22 Feb 05 - 12:04 PM Here is what's wrong with raising the cap. are you ready? It raises taxes. One minor problem. Are you ready? Actually it doesn't "raise taxes". What it does is makes those who have been paying NO taxes pay their fair share. Of course, I wouldn't expect a BushSycophant to be able to make that distinction. ...that we are merely a "Bushite"... They [we] are not, for the most part, represented by Bush... That distinction might be drawn a bit more clearly if y'all stopped mechanically parroting the BuShite mantra, stopped swallowing and defending the BuShite lies and misinformation- however outrageous- at every opportunity, stopped branding as "terrorists" and "haters of America" anyone who dares disagree with the BuShite agenda, and distanced yourselves a bit from the..........well..... never mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 22 Feb 05 - 09:08 AM Ron- you said the ball is in my court so here is my response. You accused me of being a Bushite for the State of the Union quotes. The problem is those words weren't spoken by Bush. They were from Bill Clinton. The first paragraph from Clintons 1997 SOTU. The second from his 1998 SOTU. So explain how I am a Bushite for quoting Bill Clinton. Yes- I know you thought I was quoting Bush. It just shows that your hatred of Bush does not allow you to have logical thought and analysis on what is actually being said. You all prooved my point very well. When Amos, Bobert, and Ron all thought the Bill Clinton statement was phoney, it might have been the first time in history we all agreed on a subject. I am curious, were there Mudcat threads in 1997 and 1998 following Clintons proposals on saving Social Security? Did the people who oppose Bush also opposed Clintons plans? I did the math. I would prefer to keep my own money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Jim Tailor Date: 22 Feb 05 - 09:05 AM ...and that goes double for your comfortable left wing perspective of "every-conservative-listens-to-rush-limbaugh". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Jim Tailor Date: 22 Feb 05 - 09:03 AM From my perspective, when I discuss something here, I believe that I am discussing it with brucie, or Don, or Bobert, or Ebbie, or Nicole, or... But what anyone from the right gets here is that you all perceive any of us who might dare to discuss an issue from that perspective, is that we are merely a "Bushite" -- a proxy for someone with whom you'd like to have the discussion (or take out your fight and frustration), and not an individual. There are, indeed, exceptions. MofH rarely, if ever, resorts to arguementation by association. But I would imagine that teribus, as Strick, as others, just got worn down. They would not be treated as a Bush that you could buffet in effigy -- especially when... 1. They are not, for the most part, represented by Bush, and 2. They are definitely NOT represented by the cartoon you have drawn of Bush. G'day mates! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Jim Tailor Date: 22 Feb 05 - 08:48 AM You gotta get a new mantra. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 05 - 08:21 AM Bush gave him another assignment... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Jim Tailor Date: 22 Feb 05 - 05:56 AM What did happen to terribus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 21 Feb 05 - 08:36 PM Good points, Ron... Don't expect too much from hubby, tho.... Hubby is a tad slow on the trigger finger.... Where's Teribus when we need him? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Feb 05 - 05:10 PM Also, since you're obviously no more careful a reader than the other brilliant Bushites we are honored to have, repeat what I said a few posts ago. All...sides... agree... that... personal... accounts... will.. not... solve... the... Social... Security... shortfall. Eliminating.... the... salary...cap.. will.. do... so. Is that slow enough for you to understand? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Feb 05 - 05:03 PM OK Hubby-- Just how much a Libertarian are you?. Do you believe in taxes for defense? My guess is yes. How about for road construction? Do you think the wealthy should be taxed for anything? If not, why not? Do they have a God-given- or Hubby-given right to dress their kids in Osh-Kosh stuff, to live in McMansions (or the real thing)? Do you realize that gap between rich and poor in the US is getting wider? Does that bother you? Are you looking forward, as a would-be member of the wealthy, to living in a gated community, with the riff-raff comfortably out of sight, out of mind? Do you realize why a good number of us are not looking forward to such a future? Looking forward to a direct answer, preferably free from Bushite clap-trap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 21 Feb 05 - 03:28 PM Here is what's wrong with raising the cap. are you ready? It raises taxes. Now who does it raise taxes on? Of course it raises taxes on individuals who make $90,000 per year or above. Now there are really only two reasons why this makes sense to those who are continually screaming "raise the cap". 1. They are angry that they don't make that much. It's a case of "If I don't make that much then why should anybody else." (or) "If I can't make as much as them then I will penalize them for making that much." ---OR--- 2. "We can't let Bush be the one who takes FDR's legacy and actually makes a system that will do more to help rather than keep them in a constant state of counting pennies." (or) "We can't let people be in charge of their own retirement because that will let them know that they can actually make their own financial decisions without the help of the government." Now a new idea....let's also change the idea of forced retirement. Let's make it to where the retired can actually continue to work if they so choose and supplement their social security rather than only being able to make so much per year before their benefits start to scale down because they are making too much money. (Only the liberals can determine who is making too much.) In a market driven economy it seems as if the MARKET determines what each job is worth. Let's let the market make the decisions and not the fat cats in D.C. whether they be Republicans or Democrats. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Amos Date: 21 Feb 05 - 02:22 PM The high-flown generalizations are never the problem, Larry. Like any politician he can mouth rhetorical plum-like sounds as well as anyone, once someone has written them for him. Doing the math, however, has always been his weak point. He didn't gauge the cost of his war-mongering correctly, he didn't plan it correctly, and he didn't do the math correctly on his education initiative. He hasn't done it correctly on the SS issue either. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Ron Davies Date: 21 Feb 05 - 02:11 PM Dear Larry-- Have you ever heard of political gobbledegook? Congratulations ,you have just quoted a sterling example. Again, since you are a Bushite in good standing, I ask you: exactly what is wrong with totally eliminating the salary cap on Social Security deductions?--you want a specific proposal which all sides agree would completely avoid a shortfall--there's the obvious choice. The ball is in your court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 21 Feb 05 - 01:19 PM This is what the President said about Social Security in his State of the Union Address: "For the long-term health of the society, we must agree to a bipartisan process to preserve Social Security and reform Medicare for the long run, so that these fundamental programs will be as strong for our children as they are for our parents" And Later "We'll hold a White House conference on Social Security in December. And one year from now, I will convene the leaders of Congress to craft historic bipartisan legislation to ahcieve a landmark for our generation, a Social Security system that is strong in the 21st century" What part of that do you disagree with? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 21 Feb 05 - 08:17 AM Hmmmmmm? Either some folks is way *over* paid or a lot of folks are way *under* paid... Maybe one of the Bushites here would like to comment on this without explaining it in the generalized Bushite PR terms... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Feb 05 - 07:10 PM Isn't it about $5.25/hr? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 20 Feb 05 - 06:03 PM Ron, The Wsahington, D.C. area is the the McMansion Mecca... There are areas McLean and Great Falls where a starter house is like $3M... What do you have to earn a month to afford a $3M house? Hmmmmm? Martgage payment= $30,000 a month so figurin' the old 25% rule of thumb, ahhhhh, like $120,000 a month which comes out to be around $6000 a day if you work 5 days a week... Even if yer working 10 hours a day that equates ot $600 an hour which equates to $10 a minute... What is you say the minimum wage is, Ron? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Feb 05 - 11:44 AM "Hubby"-- There is no crisis, for the obvious reason that any shortfall can be easily addressed by the simple expedient of eliminating the salary cap on Social Security deductions. Precisely why is this unacceptable to you? Please don't give me the garbage of how rich people create all the jobs. You and I both know they hang on to the vast majority of what they make and/or indulge in conspicuous consumption. Ever been to an area full of "McMansions"? I suspect they are all over the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: *Strengthening* Social Security... From: Bobert Date: 20 Feb 05 - 09:38 AM I have no blind hatred of George Bush but can honestly say that I have *sighted* hatred for just about all of his policies. Everywhere I look I see policies that serve only the wealthy. Poverty is on the rise in every state in the union. The poverty rate in my state is up 2 pervcentage points to 16.5% over 14.7% when Bush hyjacked the 2000 election. "No Child Left Behind" is a good example. On the surface it sounds good but when you strip off the sugar coating what you find underneath is a badly *underfunded* program that is shifting funding back on the local governments as schoool are having to bail out of the program. Bush said it would take $27B for the program to work and then wrote checks like a man with no arms to fund it. Yeah, you pick a policy, hub-ster and I'll show you what lies not too far beneath the Bush PR crap. Okay, take energy. Who wrote that policy? Do you know? Probably not. Why? Because the White House is invoking "Executive Priveledge" tp ptotect Dick Cheney from having to make public just who it was who wrote the policy but if you look at the profits the oil companies are making now verses 5 years ago I think you'll get some idea of who was involved. I mean, we could go program by program, policy by policy, hubby and we'll find that it's the corporate fat cats who are not only writting most of the legislation but the ones who are benefiting. I don't like thieves and thats why I have "sighted hatred" of Bush's policies. SocialSecurity being just the next robbery. And Clinton wasn't much better. Less radical than Bush but still probably the *purist Repuiblican* since Richard Nixon... Bobert |
