Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Mar 22, 2008.
Mat 6:30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?
They'll just have to tax the daylights out of my granchildren.
Politicians have been ignoring this. While there has been much rhetoric, there has been little action, save for President Bush, who had the courage to tackle this issue a few years ago that would've helped solve the problem. Congress, and this congress especially, refuses to do anything. It is shameful. Too late to have the discussion about Big Brother being everyone's retirement plan - we're already there. What will Big Brother's minions do to try to fix this? Nothing....which is what they're good at doing.
If all the Americans that were aborted since 1973 were in the workforce today, there would be enough money to support Social Security...
The liberals have destroyed our workforce by allowing abortion to be made legal.
The return on Social Security is terrible. For those afraid of the markets, (which is ridiculous for a long time horizon) then Treasury notes or bills are much better than the present system. Savings bonds would be better.
Exactly. The snowball effect...
Remember that idiot that ran for President in 2000 saying that we needed to put Social Security in a lockbox? Well, it turns out he wasn't so foolish after all.
I have been a supporter of the Diamond-Orszag Plan the past 2-3 years:
Yeah, President Bush would have taken the SS Trust and put in in the stock market to prop up his rich corportate buddies, and the people would have nothing left.
Actually, putting money in the market would be a far better solution. The market, over time, has always done well. The only people who get burned in the market at those who either are not diversified or those who try to time the market.
The best solution for Social Security is complete privatization. Let people take responsibility. Right now, settle the debts. Give people in a lump sum what is owed them, and then let them manage it. They will do better in the long run than being in social security.
I’m not disagreeing except to say the program would be self supporting if the politicians would stop using the money for other programs. It’s only failing because the future cash payments are from a worthless IOU.
>If all the Americans that were aborted since 1973 were in the workforce today, there would be enough money to support Social Security...
This is a stupid argument and would only put off the problem to the next generation
>If all the Americans that were aborted since 1973 had been born alive we would have 2% of the population in prison instead of 1%.
If all Americans born since 1973 smoked ciggybutts there would be enough money to support SS.
The "investment" argument doesn't compute. Would you have preferred the govt "invest" the SS revenue in Enron stock? Who would you have vote the stock? G.W. Bush?
Would you prefer that the govt own all the major US companies or would the govt be restricted to buying bonds i.e. loaning money to American companies? Or would you prefer that SS money be converted to cash and kept in a bank vault? What should the SS administration buy with the money?
Or maybe the SS Administration should sell savings bonds to American workers. Would you all buy savings bonds? Do any of you buy U.S. Savings Bonds?
The Money from the payroll tax offsets the national debt. Would you all prefer that the govt but gold with the SS money and double the national debt?
Would one of you please explain why the SS can go broke but the Army can't?
In fact, SS is and always was a universal welfare program and a flat, capped, income tax . . . the kind that Republicans like. That is how the SS program was sold to the Congress - an income tax on the working class for the Republicans and a welfare program for the Dems.
Total bromide. Actually, individuals could take ownership of their funds, place them in whatever vehicle they felt comfortable with, and then not have to wrestle Big Brother when it comes time to draw out the funds. Putting the money in a simple CD-type vehicle would yield a better ROI than what is available now and give people freedom and choice. Call me crazy, but freedom, responsibility and choices are good things.
Gore said he'd put the funds in a lockbox. Well, in a sense, they're already there. But not really. It's rather complicated. Bill is somewhat correct in that SS is not going to go broke as Big Brother...I mean, the govt is going to find a way to fund it one way or the other.
"The Myth of the SS Trust Fund"
Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program
The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.
The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
How do you dream up this nonsense?
That is basically true. Another reason to stay away or limit stocks is a short time horizon. It can take the market three years to turn around and many more than that to recover to previous levels.
Municiple bonds, CDs, Treasuries, all do better than Social Security, and are as safe.
You don't listen to your president's proposals very well, do you?
The SS cash funds not needed for immediate distribution always been replaced with U.S. government securities because that is the way the SS law was written.
Prior to SS the majority of all older Americans lived in hand to mouth poverty. Are Americans smarter than they were 100 years ago? The half of all American families who carry an average $8000 credit card balance, they smarter? Or the third of all new car buyers who are upside down?
If SS administration bought stocks who would vote the shares? Would the holdings be posted on the web for all to see? When the market crashed how would the retired people be paid?
Do all you who think SS should be eliminated have 3 months cash in the bank? Why not? Do you carry a credit card balance? Are you upside down in any loans? If you are not smart enough to maintain emergency funds why do you think you are smart enough to save for retirement?
Amen! Quite ironic isn't it. It is the same people who demands our women should be allowed to kill their unwanted children and now are reaping the rewards in a shrunkin work force. And these same folks are complaining we need to let illegals come in and work because we don't have enough americans to do all the jobs!
Good point brother!
God Bless! :thumbs: