Its an oldy but a goodie in the democrat party. Tell seniors that republicans are going to take your social security.

All that is left is to tell blacks that republicans are bringing back lychings.

Barack Obama is a shameless fucktard.


Bee Swell

The only thing to be scared about with social security is that the democratic party has raided it for the last 60 years and still continues to do so today.

Where is Al Gore's lock Box?

How does Obama plan to pay the escalating benefits of the retiring baby boomers? A box of hope?

Same old bullshit rhetoric that always works on dumbass democrat monkey fucks!


SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!


Bee Swell

Dude, I love you Crackpipejunkie, your smart beyong your years.

Social Security. LOL So Obama is saying "leave it all under the governments control, so we can rape it to the general fund like we have for so many decades"

McCain is going to eat him alive on this one. If its privatized, then the government can't rape it like they have.

So in reality, privatizing it is better for all seniors no matter what.

Obama forgot to mention, in his lies, that the Bush plan had 0 effect on seniors whatsoever.

LOL Obama playing on lies. Democrats lie to people alot, because thats a STAPLE of their party.

A democrat believes the Government is the "father" who knows all, and solves all problems, and that that have to do this, because all people are stupid, except them.

Elitism at its best. OSucka 08!

SEE YOU IN DENVER YOU FUCKHEAD DEMOCRATS!

Kuma

Its not just about controlling people they can also steal from the general fund which is what democrats have been doing for decades.

The whole idea of wasting the money in the first place is to leave one choice and that take more from the people and make them less self sustaining and more dependent on government.

SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!

Bee Swell

Obama is right on this one. Bush did his "Social Security sell-a-thon" two different times as he went around like some traveling clown show around the country trying to sell his "privatization" of SS scam but nobody was buying it

Finally it got so bad with the majority of Americans not wanting it, the GOP elite had to tell Bush to please STFU before they lost every election. McCain also wants to privatize SS and that will be the kiss of death for McCain.

The Seniors on SS defintely get out as one of the biggest voting blocks and they didn't get to their age without learning a thing or two -- especially knowing when some jerk in the White House is trying to scam them into turning over their monthly SS checks to his Wall Street buddies so they could make millions in brokers' fees investing that SS money in the stock market.

Wall Street donated heavily to Bush on the promise he would do all he could to privatize SS when he got into office.

Once SS was privatized, then groups like AARP and other groups trusted by Seniors (and which groups would get a cut of the brokerage bucks) would then push Seniors into "trusting" them to invest Seniors' SS checks in the stock market.

As if when you're 83 years old you really want -- or need -- the hassle of worrying about whether or not you're able to ride out any downturns in the stock market and live long enough to build back up what you had lost. Being able to wait for the stock market to bounce back up again to regain any lost money is a lot different at age 35 then it is at age 85.

Bush and the Republicans HATE any kind of government program that helps out the people of this country. FEMA, consumer safety programs, Social Security, Medicare, ANYTHING that might help those who are not in the Republicans' millionaire plus class are considered to them as useless and needless programs to be gotten rid of in any way possible.

I've been a member of both the Republican and Democrat parties (and now am a registered independent) but I have to say without a doubt that for pure greed and being self-centered and not wanting to do anything to help other Americans perhaps not as financially well off as they are, nothing surpasses the Republican party in pure selfishness.

I'm not talking about welfare, I'm talking about wanting to destroy any and all government programs to help U.S. citizens such as SS for the elderly, inspection of our food and product safety -- even toys that babies put in their mouths being inspected for lead or food for our pets, or FEMA to help out after a disaster hit. Anything that might is a program not designed solely for corporate profit is deemed to be a worthless enterprise to Republicans.

Califchris, what we hate is giving the government $10 and getting back $4. Thats the problem with social security and other government social programs.

Privatizion would keep the government from spending it without any certainty of repaying it. It would also allow the money to be invested and grow at market rates.

Look at it this way between you and your employer your contribution to social security is 12.2% of your annual salary yet when people retire there is not enough money there to afford the basic necessities to live on. Where did the money go? The government spent it and can't pay it back with interest. Why, because they rely upon current payess money to pay current retirees benefits. This is a pyramid scheme. Anyone else besides the government would go to jail for doing this.

To the ignorant its easy to scare them and make them believe they will be hurt by privatizion. Of course doing this also keeps them under the thumb of the govenment and continually voting for those that enslave them the democrats.


SEE YOU IN DENVER!!!

Bee Swell

when we privatize we will give 10 and get back 0. Republicans can never be trusted with your money. They are too greedy to not steal it.

Mess,


when we privatize we will give 10 and get back 0. Republicans can never be trusted with your money. They are too greedy to not steal it.


By privatizing we'd be taking the money out of the hands of the politicians and putting it into the hands of the private sector.

Other than a knee-jerk desire to bash Republicans, your comment doesn't make sense.

Give the people an opt out option. You put 15% of your income in a money-market account and you would be better off than with SS. It's a SCAM! It was in the beginning and it will continue to be a SCAM! Someone needs to do damage control now instead of just blindly going down the road to ruin.

what guarantee do we have that the pvt sector won't embezzle the money or the market will tank?

Well a cozy jail cell for those that steal in the private sector but when politicians steal they get promoted from within.

Bee Swell

There are no guaruntees, Mess.


However, even with certain pitfalls I CAN guaruntee a better rate of return in the private sector than what SS currently affords.


All of that said, privatization of SS is a bad idea simply because it takes money out of the trust right when the biggest demand on the trust will occur - boomers drawing benies en masse.


We had a real window of opportunity for partial privatization which would have been truly beneficial. However, that window closed about 20 years ago.

You take ANY money away from Social Security You are hastening it's destruction. How can You fund Social Security if one has the option to Opt Out?? What needs to be done is raise the amount that is taken for Social Security. Instead of NintyOne Thousand raise it to two hundred thousand. Social Security and Medicare are VITAL for the Elderly and the Disabled. We have to take care of Our elderly somehow. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have America. They sacrificed their lives to make America a better place. It is in their golden years that they should reap those benefits.

Larry Mohr

ts an oldy but a goodie in the democrat party. Tell seniors that republicans are going to take your social security.

All that is left is to tell blacks that republicans are bringing back lychings.

Barack Obama is a shameless fucktard.


Bee Swell

Posted by Crackpipejunkie


Yeah, let's remember this when we start hearing about how the democrats want to raise our taxes and surrender to terrorists. It's about time that the dems started to throw your type of shit right back in your faces. Seems that you're not really likin' it so far. lol

"Where is Al Gore's lock Box?"

I think Algore put it in the closet but Tipper moved it to the garage ... or the attic. She can't remember, so now we're all screwed.

Health care is still privatized, how's that working out for y'all????
So let's put the same crooks in charge of SS.
Brilliant.
We know the private sector cares about our well being, as an oil company executive who profits from pumping oil out of Federal lands, paying about $10.00 per barrel for it and then selling it back to the federal government for $120 per barre.

The headline should not be McCain wants to privatize Social Security
It should be McBush wants to cronyize Social Security.

Bush and the Republicans HATE any kind of government program that helps out the people of this country.

Posted by CalifChris



Chris, I have to correct you on this.

They HATE any program that helps out anyone other their priveledged base.

Welfare to corporations and millionaires is fine.

BTW, This is all that privitazation will ever be... welfare to Wall Street. Check out how well the central America social insurance privitization programs have fared and you will see who is the real beneficiaries.

After McSame's complicit involvement with the Keating five America should run screaming from any financial plan that he has cooked up in little brain.

However, even with certain pitfalls I CAN guaruntee a better rate of return in the private sector than what SS currently affords

Spoken like a true snakeoil salesman.

Anyone that can "guarantee" a rate of return is either lying or foolish. Take your pick.

"I'm talking about wanting to destroy any and all government programs to help U.S. citizens such as SS for the elderly, inspection of our food and product safety -- even toys that babies put in their mouths being inspected for lead or food for our pets, or FEMA to help out after a disaster hit."

Well, Republicans wanting to stop inspections of products and FEMA is a new one. Use some common sense. Privatizing SS means the money would be invested instead of spent like it is now. You sound as if there would be no Federal over site. If congress had not spent the money over the last 60 years then SS would not be in trouble now. You are naive if you think SS will be hunky-dory when todays young reach retirement age.

As a test start a savings account with 1000 dollars for the purpose of let's say a new roof with your own money and put in 250 a month. Now start spending it until the account depleted. Now make sure you spend the 250 every month that you should be saving and put in an IOU to remind you you need to repay it some day. Do this for 5 years and see how much you owe the account. Now it's time to buy that new roof. Darn, you don't have the 16,000 plus interest for that roof. All you have is a jar full of IOU's and good intentions. Now you only screwed yourself. It's the Democrats in congress that screw you and everybody else in the US. I'm not saying Republicans don't also. At least they want to try and fix it. Oh, and they do promise to pay it back with your money in the future even though you already paid for it.

Its an oldy but a goodie in the democrat party. Tell seniors that republicans are going to take your social security.

An oldie that's also true. Bush spent a year trying to privatize parts of Social Security, which would've removed billions in funds necessary to support seniors who are recipients of the program.

He failed for the same reason that McCain will fail if he touches the third rail of politics. Seniors are extremely dubious of plans by the government to mess with Social Security.

"What needs to be done is raise the amount that is taken for Social Security. Instead of NintyOne Thousand raise it to two hundred thousand."

You're sounding like that Muslim Barrack Obama.....and that's a good thing.

Dude, I love you Crackpipejunkie, your smart beyong your years.


I think I threw up a little at that comment.

Hey brainiacs, how is Washington going to pay for the privitization?

And that is where the privitization scheme falls apart. Privitize the trust fund liability and the government has to borrow trillions or hike taxes massively. Privitize future withholdings and the government has to borrow trillions or hike taxes massively.

He failed for the same reason that McCain will fail if he touches the third rail of politics. Seniors are extremely dubious of plans by the government to mess with Social Security.


So, the problem continues to loom until it reaches a boiling point and the Democrats all-the-while play politics for personal gain and will then throw their hands up in the air when the program becomes insolvent?

"your(sic) smart beyong(sic) your years."

And those years are very, very, ... very few.

Spoken like a true snakeoil salesman.

Anyone that can "guarantee" a rate of return is either lying or foolish. Take your pick.

Posted by 726


Jesus H. Christ on a popsickle stick!


Read my comments in their entirety and quit playing stupid games of 'Gotcha'.

"So in reality, privatizing it is better for all seniors no matter what."

No, privatizing SS is no good for anybody at any age.

If the market takes a dump, it doesn't matter where your money is. You think Unca Sam is gonna make up the difference? Or if the market is really good that you will receive a fatter payout? I got this here bridge for sale...

The deal with SS, whether the monies are held in the general fund or "privatized" and reinvested in the market "for the betterment of the contributer," the bottom line is this money is still being removed from your paycheck via federal mandate and there ain't a damn thing you or I can do about it.

If SS is privatized, fine, send me a check for all the monies I have "contributed" (that is, extorted from me) over the decades and I'll handle my money as I see fit.

All you have is a jar full of IOU's and good intentions

Except for one thing you forgot... those IOU's are treasury bonds. US Government treasury bonds. The same bonds that W has in his portfolio. The same bonds that banks and credit unions buy with their deposits. The same bonds that investors around the world put their money and faith in.

Stop peddling the bullshit the right wants to promote.

The forecast for social security that spells out doom and gloom uses a growth rate of the economy LESS than the government uses to forecast the annual budget. That is how they make it appear to be running out of money. If the government used the same growth rate of GDP as they used for the annual budget forecast the SS trust fund would be solvent into infinity. They manipulate the numbers and you righties just drink up the koolaid.

Clean yourselves up.

Okay....

There are no guaruntees, Mess.


However, even with certain pitfalls I CAN guaruntee a better rate of return in the private sector than what SS currently affords.


So what is it? No guarantee or guarantee a better rate of return?

The forecast for social security that spells out doom and gloom uses a growth rate of the economy LESS than the government uses to forecast the annual budget. That is how they make it appear to be running out of money. If the government used the same growth rate of GDP as they used for the annual budget forecast the SS trust fund would be solvent into infinity. They manipulate the numbers and you righties just drink up the koolaid.

Clean yourselves up.

Posted by 726


Go clean yourself up.


Assuming the current structure, around 2016 benefits payouts will exceed SS revenues. In fairness, the program has been running at a surplus for a couple of decades which would offset the impending deficit until 2040-2052, depending upon which actuarial table is used. After that, unchanged, the program will be drawing less in revenues than it's paying out.

726,


Ultimately, there are no guaruntees.

A certain degree of risk is assumed in any investment.


My 'guaruntee' stems from history. Just about any investment imaginable has historically performed better than the interest earned on SS investments.

I recognize that I souned a bit contradictory earlier - I hope this clarification makes sense.

McCAIN/RON JEREMY FOR 08
McCAIN privatize SOCIAL SECURITY
RON JEREMY privatizes McCAIN`s beautiful wife...

I am all for privitization of SS. What a waste of my money.

I have seen the same thing in my retirement fund at work. We converted from a "pension" to 401k, now it is my money, I do not have to purchase a life insurance policy to be sure that my wife is covered and if I change jobs there is no retirement penalty. Also, the company cannot somewhere down the road declare bankrupcy (sp?) and leave me high and dry.

It seems hypocritical for the dems to accuse the repubs of fear mongering on Iraq when the resort to things like this and global warming.

Zot et al,


The fact is SS isn't going away.

It will forever be part of our political landscape.


A couple years ago I gave up any hope that the program would be liquidated alogether.

As such, my approach to this issue is purely pragmatic - Since it will be with us for eternity, how do we minimize its drag on our economy and simultaneously maximize its potential?

You take ANY money away from Social Security You are hastening it's destruction. How can You fund Social Security if one has the option to Opt Out?? What needs to be done is raise the amount that is taken for Social Security. Instead of NintyOne Thousand raise it to two hundred thousand. Social Security and Medicare are VITAL for the Elderly and the Disabled. We have to take care of Our elderly somehow. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have America. They sacrificed their lives to make America a better place. It is in their golden years that they should reap those benefits.

Larry Mohr

Larry,

Ultimately, that is my biggest dilemma. As a young person, who's currently dumping a ton of money into my 401k/IRA (as well as 529 and HSA), I wish there was a way to put all of my (and my employers match) FICA and Medicare money towards my own retirement. I hate the idea of getting such little return for all of the money I've put into the system. My spouse and I also have pretty decent health insurance and our own life and disability policies. Our AFLAC disability (short & long term) policies also far surpass anything we could get with SS Disability.

In all honesty, I'm very frustrated with the "boomers" who are getting ready to retire. I feel like they lived through the hey day of American economic prosperity; an era that will probably never return yet don't have their own retirement accounts. I find it remarkable that the modern IRA has been around for such a long time, yet there are so many who don't have one.

As someone who has spent my entire entire adult life in the post-industrial era of stagnant wages and skyrocketing insurance & energy costs, I'm a bit frustrated that so many boomers have nothing to show for their working lives besides a pile of debt. Somehow my spouse and I have managed to put away a decent amount of money (and are well protected with insurance) on very meager salaries, yet there are many out there who lived through much more lucrative times and have nothing to show for it.

On the other hand, I understand the need for programs like Social Security for those who are less fortunate or suffer from unforeseen economic or health issues. Having high levels of poverty for the elderly and disabled is not somewhere I'd like to see our country go either.

There must be a way to strike a balance between the quality and payout of private retirement and insurance with the backing of the US Government to stabilize the ups and downs of the market. The problem is, there is so much political rhetoric on both sides, I don't think we'll find a solution until we have a major crisis. It's hard to strike a balance between the democrats who want a nanny state and the republicans with their f*ck the poor/elderly/disabled attitude.

Assuming the current structure, around 2016 benefits payouts will exceed SS revenues. In fairness, the program has been running at a surplus for a couple of decades which would offset the impending deficit until 2040-2052, depending upon which actuarial table is used. After that, unchanged, the program will be drawing less in revenues than it's paying out.

Bull shit, for a econ major you sure don't know how to run numbers, just listen to the rightie media croan hacks is all YOU need.

What is the birth rate in this country? What is the death rate? We are growing faster than dying, go figure!

Republicans and some of congress is worried because they have the numbers of what free trade is costing us in jobs, lowering our income rate which lowers the SS numbers. They know where they want to take us and by doing so it will ruin their economic financials.

SS is saving this nation from all out free trade making us 3rd world.

Assuming the current structure, around 2016 benefits payouts will exceed SS revenues. In fairness, the program has been running at a surplus for a couple of decades which would offset the impending deficit until 2040-2052, depending upon which actuarial table is used. After that, unchanged, the program will be drawing less in revenues than it's paying out.

Posted by JeffJ


In 2000, the system's actuaries thought the assets of this fund would be exhausted by 2032. Two years later it was 2037. Now the projected exhaustion date is 2041.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office, which makes these projections as well, recently thought the system will remain solvent until at least 2052.



Jeez, to me it seems the doom and gloom forecasts are just plain wrong. By the time 2052 rolls around the forecast will probably be the system will run out of money in 2107.

To take a system that has successfully lifted a great number of seniors out of poverty based on manipulated forecasts by an administration whose intelligence gathering and penchant for manipulation of data to support an agenda is wreckless.

"...those IOU's are treasury bonds. US Government treasury bonds."

Posted by 726

Let's see here...

The US has a yearly deficit approaching 10 trillion (!!!) a year. (Actual debt may put this at somewhere around 70 trillion.)

The US is borrowing 2 to 5 billion a day to stay afloat.

China holds around a trillion dollars in loans.

The US has expended almost a trillion dollars on two fronts of a war that is providing zero return.

Much of the once formidable US manufacturing base has moved off to foreign lands.

The dollar against the young Euro has lost almost half its value compared to what it was a mere 5 years ago.

The Petro-Dollar is gasping its last gasps and is being supplanted by the Petro-Euro.

Yep, US Treasury bonds seem like a great investment to me!

I hate the idea of getting such little return for all of the money I've put into the system.
Posted by katieberry

That's a major misunderstanding of what Social Security is.

Your SS taxes are not an investment like a 401K... They go to pay TODAY's retirees. The actual hours you work are the only investment that you get a return on in SS. And they will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

Not that I don't agree with you about the effects of unbridled greed coming from the largest demographic group in the nation.

Guess what? Under the actuaries' low cost projection, the Social Security system never runs out of money.

It is so basic and simple, just look at population growth and SS will not run out ever.

No need to look at financials.

The US has a yearly deficit approaching 10 trillion (!!!) a year. (Actual debt may put this at somewhere around 70 trillion.)


Perhaps you could post a link to that claim.

726,


I never claimed the program would run out of money.

What I claimed was that it would pay out more than it would take in - 75% or so of benies can be expected once the surplus dries up. Considering that many claim that current benies are like choosing between bread and dog food, I'd say it's a serious problem.


MW,


Bull shit, for a econ major you sure don't know how to run numbers, just listen to the rightie media croan hacks is all YOU need.

What is the birth rate in this country? What is the death rate? We are growing faster than dying, go figure!


You clearly have no idea as to what you are talking about. One of the biggest problems facing SS is prolonged mortality - people are drawing benies longer because they are living longer. Death rates vs. birth rates are largely irrelevant when talking about SS. This was debated extensively on DR a couple of years ago and my numbers are sound. Maybe you want to bury your head in some Marxist sand, but I prefer reality. This program is on a collision course with financial reality. Fortunately for SS-lovers, Medicare will drop out far more quickly so your sacred '3rd rail' will take a back seat to a more serious government-created problem.

"Assuming the current structure"

And why would we assume that changes won't be made to the system. Obama already says that we should raise the income level on which SS is deducted, as did Ronnie Raygun. Conservatives lower taxes on the rich and then whine about the government robbing the SS fund, they see that eventually there won't be enough income into SS to pay outlays but don't really honestly consider how easily fixed that is.
The truth is that conservatives have always hated SS and will do their utmost to present it in its worst possible light, pretending that if they were paying their fair share of income tax we wouldn't be robbing SS, and we could make the system sound for us and our children.

Death rates vs. birth rates are largely irrelevant when talking about SS.

Just crap, it is common sense JJ.

More people increasing population means more people putting into SS. Common sense!

10 people die and 20 put in but SS is going to go negative......LOL!

I don't care if they live 30 years longer, if population is increasing faster then deathrate then SS will always be fine. Common sense.

Wages is the only thing that will take SS down which brought my second comment into play, offshoring give the U.S. a triple negative.

McCain voted for Bush's 2006 Social Security privatization plan.

MW,


You are taking a far too simplistic view of this.


It's NOT just about death rates vs birth rates. Shit, a newly-birthed child doesn't even start contributing toward the fund until they at least reach the age of 18.


Seriously, read up on this. It's going to be a problem for at least a couple of decades. Now, once those dastardly boomers begin dying en masse, the ship may right itself.

Danni,


And why would we assume that changes won't be made to the system.


I am not saying that I don't.

However, right now we are in a status quo mindset.

Perhaps Bush is partly to blame. He picked the worst possible time to try and introduce partial privatization. Maybe had he taken a more pragmatic approach he could have forced the Democrats to honestly address the problem and some kind of bi-partisan solution could have been reached. Instead, all we got from the Democrats was, "All we have to do is raise taxes...."

A few decades down the road, partial privatization may be a great thing for SS as long as the age demographics can support it.

Your SS taxes are not an investment like a 401K... They go to pay TODAY's retirees. The actual hours you work are the only investment that you get a return on in SS. And they will be paid for by our children and grandchildren.

Not that I don't agree with you about the effects of unbridled greed coming from the largest demographic group in the nation.

Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2008-05-19 08:50 AM | Reply | Fla

I think the biggest problem with the current system is that we're currently going through a major demographic change; we'll be a much older nation in the future. Unless we start having a lot more babies (which isn't feasible with the current economy) or increase immigration, I just don't see how we'll have a worker-to-retiree ratio to support the whole pyramid.

increase immigration. That's the ticket.

Maybe people who don't need it can refund their SS? I don't know why we have to subsidize anyone's car payments on their Lexus.

increase immigration. That's the ticket.


That's exactly what Europe is trying to do.

They've got a massive declining birth-rate and as such have adopted an extremely liberal immigration policy. Within the next 50 years, at most, the entirety of Europe will be a majority of Muslim population.

The U.S. population is about 238,000,000 today. The country grows by about 17.5 million a year at current rates. So, the 2010 population should be around 300,000,000, assuming that the rate of growth will continue to decrease as it has been doing.

"Instead, all we got from the Democrats was, "All we have to do is raise taxes...."

When you figure in inflation we needed to raise the cap on earnings that pays into SS just to remain in the same place....and you say Dems....try Ronnie Raygun who did the exact same thing.

Alright MWar, you got me.


I guess with no formal education whatsoever, you are far more bright and knowledgeable in the field of actuarial science than those who undergo extensive class-work, study and certification in order to be able to try and make such predictions based upon their field of study.

We might as well throw out everything actuaries put forth becuase it all boils down to such simplicities of comparing and contrasting birth rates with death rates.

Danni,

How about, just this once, we reduce government spending?

Fertility: The U.S. average fertility rate is currently 2.1335 births per woman, the U.S.'s highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom's fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3.)

Common sense.


Uh huh.


You are right of course. We don't have a population bulge in our society. The term 'Baby Boomer' is a misnomer. Evertything is honky dory. Let's just continue to increase taxes to solve all of society's ills. No amount of taxation is too high, right?

JJ,

it is simple, more people, more SS. It is common sense.

People like Barack Obama will guarantee that Social Security will be bankrupt anyhow. So, by all means, let's keep the Ponzi scheme going for as long as we can. It plays well in the senior retirement homes. Ask people under 40, though, and we've no delusions what the Social Security program is all about: a massive wealth redistribution from workers to retirees.

And guess what? We vote too. And if the only funding alternative to Social Security is to raise SS taxes on workers, we're not going to put up with that either.

So enjoy your Social Security while you can. You libs pretend to resent borrowing money that your children and grandchildren have to repay, but have no problem raiding their paychecks for 15% of earnings just so you don't have to dip into your own savings.

I agree with Obama on one thing: if anyone is to rescue Social Security, it shouldn't be him. He doesn't understand even the rudiments of basic finance. So under an Obama Administration, I hope he leaves SS alone.

it is simple, more people, more SS. It is common sense.


Yep.

You are right of course.

It's all that simple. Black and white and all of that.


That explains that when push really came to shove, Democrats reluctantly acknowledged the problem, then down-played it and THEN proposed more taxation as the solution.

I don't understand why the actuaries even exist when evertying is so simple as you portend.

You and all of your brilliance have completely eradicated the validity of an entire field of study. I am duly impressed.



PS - At what point does one have to surrender his income where you say we've reached an excessive level of taxation.
50%?
75%?
90%?

What is the magic number?

Let's just continue to increase taxes to solve all of society's ills. No amount of taxation is too high, right?

Huh?

Where the fuck did that come from?

Touching SS is just stupid, there are far better things to try and fix than a system that is NOT broken by any measure and making up manipulated numbers so the wall street elite can get their hands on it is just idiotic and stupid.

Stop all the bull shit spending on corporations subsidies and even R&D and billions could be saved. Why should the people pay for a private companies R&D so they can make millions in profit and not taking a social responsibility to the society they got the money from?

If they need the money do it like every normal American does it, take out a loan.

Well Jeff when the US had to pay off the WWII debt the top tax rate was 90%.

But of course the days of 90% tax rates were when it was important to pay an employee for their labor instead of securing golden parachutes for do nothing CEO's.

At what point does one have to surrender his income where you say we've reached an excessive level of taxation.

Huh?

I think you are very confused because SS is not taxation. You can try all you want to name it as such because the government takes it from you but hmmmmm, when you are old you seem to think you keep losing it.

IT IS A SUPPLIMENTAL RETIREMENT FUND and it is just political hackery to try and claim it is taxation. IT IS THE PEOPLES MONEY, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. Go figure that one out.

Where the fuck did that come from?

It came from your bullshit populist rhetoric.



Touching SS is just stupid, there are far better things to try and fix than a system that is NOT broken by any measure and making up manipulated numbers so the wall street elite can get their hands on it is just idiotic and stupid.

The program is on a collision course with major problems, but I agree that privatization will only exacerbate the problems for reasons stated above.


Stop all the bull shit spending on corporations subsidies and even R&D and billions could be saved.


As long as your mandate is all-inclusive I couldn't agree more. Keep the government out of the economy - ALL of it. That includes corporate welfare AND any attempts to annex health care, subsidizing "green technologies", etc.


If they need the money do it like every normal American does it, take out a loan.

As long as that standard is universally applied, you and I are on the same page, my friend.

"How about, just this once, we reduce government spending?"

Jeff, we gave y'all six years with the total control to do exactly that but instead you just cut taxes for the wealthy and irresponsibly created a huge deficit. Some cutting is perhaps a good thing but most likely if you cut too much you would cause a depression. Better to put taxes back to a responsible level and pay the bills instead of just borrowing the money. I know one thing, I never want to hear another REpublican whine about Democrats not cutting spending again after they had total control for so long.

"Ask people under 40, though, and we've no delusions what the Social Security program is all about: a massive wealth redistribution from workers to retirees."

That is bull shit. It really is a way to pay the government's bills while allowing the wealthy to avoid paying reasonable income taxes. Ronnie Raygun showed y'all how to do it and they've been doing it since. Let's start some more wars and enact big tax cuts at the same time and pretend we are fiscally responsible conservative Republicans.

Danni,


I know one thing, I never want to hear another REpublican whine about Democrats not cutting spending again after they had total control for so long.

F-ing A!!!!

Outside of the Whitehouse, I am seriously hoping that the Dem's absolutely smoke the Repubs in '08. Get these bums out of office. For fuck's sake, if Republicans are going to embrace the worst aspects of liberal governance AND embrace the worst aspects of corporate prostitution I would rather have lefty dems who are at least honest about their politics.

If a private company had scammed their investors the way the dems have done for the past 70 years there would have been arrests and criminal charges. We should perform a citizens arrest on this upcoming dem congress and president when they takr office and continoe this vote buying pyramid scheme. Obama the appeaser has already promised us that he would.

"Ask people under 40, though, and we've no delusions what the Social Security program is all about: a massive wealth redistribution from workers to retirees."

Yes, and there is no delusion here. Ask those retirees how their parents got the money from the post working retirees.

We pay for our parents as our parents paid for theirs, and our kids will pay for ours.

The above statement has to be the stupidest statement I have seen in a very long time, but it is clearly evident that this one is a selfish bastard.

Danni, I don't care what you do or don't want to hear. I've been screaming for the last dozen years for cuts in spending. I was at a Town Hall meeting in 2004 with my very Republican congressman and told him that the spending bills coming out of Congress were outrageous--what the hell did we send the Republicans to do? What do we need them for, if they're going to be spending like Dems? and so on.

I do find it amusing that the Dems' newfound fiscal conservativism seems to be just another fad, now that it seems that they're on the verge of taking the White House, along with Congress. I always had a feeling . . .

And by the way, you can raise taxes on the wealthy back up to 90% again, and it won't save Social Security or Medicare. And given the choice between skyrocketing taxes to keep the money wheel going another year or two, or letting it go broke--give me door number two.

There's a middle way. Just have a group of public pension managers run Social Security investments--the same guys who run the money for the Texas Teachers and the Georgia Public Retirement fund, who manage to crank out 8% gains every year. That would save SS without having to raise taxes on anyone. But no. Obama needs the money to pay for his election promises, and the ticket price rises every day.

Obama will bankrupt Social Security, along with the people who will elect him. And that's fine with me.

"The above statement has to be the stupidest statement I have seen in a very long time"

Except the one right above your post is even stupider.

JJ,

Some of us democrats are not as liberal as you would like your post to indicate.

Didn't see much difference with the current ruling democratic party in congress these last two years and won't see a difference in the next either.

I happen to feel for the democratic party here because 2 years from now they will be thrown out for doing nothing and the republican party will have learned the lesson by getting thrown out this up coming election. The dems just don't seem to get it while at least the republicans learn who they represent.

Yes, and there is no delusion here. Ask those retirees how their parents got the money from the post working retirees.

We pay for our parents as our parents paid for theirs, and our kids will pay for ours.

The above statement has to be the stupidest statement I have seen in a very long time, but it is clearly evident that this one is a selfish bastard.

Posted by moneywar
* * * * *

Um, familiarize yourself with the demographic changes that've taken place in the last 50 years, then come back. I'll give you a quick primer, though--when great-grandma was working, the average lifespan was 60. Obviously, you had a lot of workers supporting few retirees. Now it's 76, and rising. And now there are far fewer workers (3) supporting each retiree. So as soon as you get your head around the numbers, you'll realize that comparing this generations to the ones before is stupid.

MWar,


Selfishness has nothing to do with reality.


Reality is that our country has a major bulge in its population that is about to do 2 things simultaneously:

1. Exit the work-force and thus cease to continue their contributions to our tax revenue - and likely at a much higher rate (acheiveing executive status, etc) than the typical newbie to our workforce.

2. Begin drawing benies en masse when we don't have (workforce * average wage) to maintain the current status quo.



Face it, SS is a massive Ponzi Scheme.

"give me door number two."

I'd rather have door number one. Tax the rich, make the government solvent, create jobs, rebuild infrastructure, watch economy expand, create more wealth.....as we have done since FDR while righties whined the entire time even as many of them became rich. Look at you for instance, you whine about taxes yet your income has continued to rise regardless.....I bet you made money under Clinton didn't you????? Predictions of the demise of SS have been made by whining righties since its inception.

Yes, and there is no delusion here. Ask those retirees how their parents got the money from the post working retirees.

We pay for our parents as our parents paid for theirs, and our kids will pay for ours.
* * * *

Tell ya what. I'll pay for my parents, you pay for yours, and let's just shut down the whole thing? You know, charity begins at home, stuff like that?

RIR you'll pay for my parents and many others. The reason being is that you are wealthy. This is the way society works. The government will redistribute your wealth because you are too greedy to do yourself.

Look at you for instance, you whine about taxes yet your income has continued to rise regardless


A non-sequitur.

Your premise suggests that upward mobility didn't exist prior to all of the implementation of your ideological policies...

Personally, I don't give a crap if wealthy folks don't like social security or income tax. There are more of us than them and as long as we turn off right wing propaganda everything will be just fine.

Obama '08

At least Danni is honest about her proclivity to tax and spend. Of course, she's not recommending her own taxes go up. Just on "the rich".

Well five years ago I considered anyone making about $75,000 a year rich. Millions of Americans feel that "rich" starts at about $45,000 a year--that's a pretty good living in many part of the country. So who should decide the level at which "rich" starts?

Another Clinton reference. How about we just revert to Clinton-era tax rates? Would you want that? That way, about 14 million households that were removed from tax rolls entirely under Bush would start paying again, the child tax credits get cut in half, taxes increase sixfold for families at the $40,000 level and POOF!--the government's books are balanced again!! But think of all the jobs and wealth created, the bridges built . . . Did it ever occur to you that rebuilding America's infrastructure is something that you SHOULD use borrowed money for?

Probably not. The Obama School of Economics doesn't teach the matching principle.

At least Danni is honest about her proclivity to tax and spend. Of course, she's not recommending her own taxes go up. Just on "the rich".

Well five years ago I considered anyone making about $75,000 a year rich. Millions of Americans feel that "rich" starts at about $45,000 a year--that's a pretty good living in many part of the country. So who should decide the level at which "rich" starts?

Another Clinton reference. How about we just revert to Clinton-era tax rates? Would you want that? That way, about 14 million households that were removed from tax rolls entirely under Bush would start paying again, the child tax credits get cut in half, taxes increase sixfold for families at the $40,000 level and POOF!--the government's books are balanced again!! But think of all the jobs and wealth created, the bridges built . . . Did it ever occur to you that rebuilding America's infrastructure is something that you SHOULD use borrowed money for?

Probably not. The Obama School of Economics doesn't teach the matching principle.

Age 50 and older is 1/4 of the population.....hmmm!

Just with this alone one doesn't have to compute too many numbers to realize SS is not in any danger but these money stealin thieves would like to get people to think so.

So who should decide the level at which "rich" starts?

Posted by rightisright

what is your annual salary? we can start there

I don't get a salary.

well whatever you made then. You need to be paying more.

"So who should decide the level at which "rich" starts?"

Candidates for office should decide and voters should decide if they agree with them or not.
Right now I think Obama and Clinton are both considering $200,000 per year a high enough income level to be able to afford additional taxes which will come due when the tax cut for the rich expires.
If we don't do anything taxes will rise primarily for the wealthy and slightly for the rest of us.
Wars cause sacrifices, balanced budgets sometimes require sacrifices. You righties want to cut back spending then you should be opposed to appropriate taxation which is what would eventually cause taxpayers to demand spending cuts. Lower taxes and there is little obvious incentive to cut spending.

"taxes increase sixfold for families at the $40,000 level"

er....DOUBLE BULL SHIT!

How about we just revert to Clinton-era tax rates?

Jan 1, 2011 it will happen automatically.

"Did it ever occur to you that rebuilding America's infrastructure is something that you SHOULD use borrowed money for?"

And pay back the lender how??????

WE always borrow to build infrastructure but there has to be sufficient revenue to eventually pay off what you borrow plus the interest. Right now we borrow with no way to pay off the principal and interest payments take larger and larger portions of the tax revenue collected. But you know that and are just trying your hand at right wing propaganda.
RisR is a propagandis as surely as is Rush, he just has a much smaller audience. Just as dishonest though.

er....DOUBLE BULL SHIT!

Posted by danni
* * * *
Run the numbers. Family of four, with two children, making $40,000 a year.

Sixfold.

For all I hear about how Bush likes to screw the middle class to help out his rich pals, I sure don't see a lot of lefties squawking to repeal Bush's tax cuts on the middle and lower class. Just the folks at the top.

Johnson, Reagan, Clinton, BushI & II have all robbed from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to appear to be more responsible (Conservative) than they actually were.

As these chickens come home to roost keep in mind three things:

1. The private sector would add at least 10% profit to the systems costs. But once established, much like the Health Insurance Industry, they would pick away at benefits while increasing premiums until they are able to skim 30-40% of every premium (tax) dollar.

2. Once the system had been privatized the cash cow would be so large a buyback would become essentially impossible.

3. There is NO record where for profit privatization has reduced costs and increased the quality and reliability of the goods and services provided. Not in delivery of water, electricity, gasoline or natural gas. Japan has private health insurance for EVERYONE at substantially reduced costs (compared ot the United States), but the Government sets fees and rates for the Industry and does not permit it to generate a profit.

4. Endless changes in policy provide endless opportunities for those controlling the Political System Purse Strings to Screw the Public. Even when our regulators realize what is going on they are helpless to put a stop to it. During the California Energy crisis many Corporations illegally gamed the system to the tune of billions of dollars. But the California Energy Commission was powerless to undo the damage. One example, today ratepayers there pay $200 for the same amount of natural gas that costs $30 in Utah.

the middle class need the tax cuts the rich don't.

For what Shrub has already WASTED in IRAQ, Social Securities unfunded liabilities could have been covered for 75 years.

Keep this fact in mind whenever you here him threatening or vetoing GI or Social Security legislation.

Whatever Danni. I haven't listened to Rush in 15 years, but believe whatever the hell you want. Fact is, it's stupid to raise taxes to build bridges and roads. It would be stupid if Dade County did it or the State of Florida, or if the Federal government did. Those are long-term assets, and should be paid for with long-term borrowing. That's what the matching principle is, and I can count on Obama to be wholly ignorant of it, along with his tens of millions of Dem voters. Like you. It's not propoganda, it's not right-wing talking points--it's basic finance.

And you don't know it, so you attack those who do. Raising taxes on the rich, the poor, the illegals, the retirees, you name it--to build airports and dams and bridges and highways--is just stupid. And with 10-year treasuries at 3.83% (the rate at which the US government borrows)--it's REALLY stupid.

I find it interesting that Nutcase used Japan as an example. I was an expatriate in Japan. American corporations would send their employees to other countries whenever they required hospitalization rather than risk being seriously hurt in a Japanese hospital.

I was sent back to NY by my employer when I required surgery. One of my co-workers broke his leg in a motorcycle accident. The doctors in Japan set his leg wrong and he was sent to New Zealand where they had to rebreak the leg to set it correctly

In truth, while the rich have paid less income tax the working class share of the burden has increased.

* * * *

Completely false.

Wow. Nutcase makes a great case for socializing everything. Why not food, housing, and transportation? Technology? Airlines? After all--the government could step in an ensure more efficient deliveries of the essential (and non-essential) staples of life. We'll all get rich!

In truth, while the rich have paid less income tax the working class share of the burden has increased.

* * * *

Completely false.

Posted by rightisright

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.



You will understand if in the future we consider your financial advice to be completely and utterly wrong.

"And with 10-year treasuries at 3.83% (the rate at which the US government borrows)--it's REALLY stupid."

But they eventually do have to be repaid. I understand about bonds for building infrastructure but you still have to be able to pay the interest which right now on federal borrowing which for 2008 will be $243,903,652,968.47 and increases every year.

Raising the limit to $200,000 is not the answer to fixing the shortfall with the program. Unless you are saying those who pay it in are not going to get it back out but are just really having it taken without a choice on their part to help others who don't receive enough. Of course this is because the government fucked them in the first place.

Bee Swell

Touching SS is just stupid, there are far better things to try and fix than a system that is NOT broken by any measure and making up manipulated numbers so the wall street elite can get their hands on it is just idiotic and stupid.

The same folks that brought us Iraq now seek to bring us "GOP Social Security and Privatization: The Sequel".

RR<

Thanks for acknowledging the soundness of my arguments. Have you any argument of substance to offer?

We have real choices in what car or TV to buy and the free market model serves people well in this and many other regards.

Basic services: water, electricity...health care require regulation whether administered by Government or the Private Sector. The reason for this should be clear when looking at California. These goods and services are so vital to life as we know it they cannot be permitted to fall into the hands of Criminal Corporate Extortionists. In those circumstances the user has no time or market power to reach price justice.

Like she said, size really does matter. Governments, Corporations, Labor Unions, Churches and other charities of similar size exibit similar inefficiencies because of their size.

Isn't it interesting that Corporations can vaporize their Pension Funds with no consequence for the responsible parties while Labor Unions which loaned millions to the Mafia to build Las Vegas got every penny back plus interest. The scoundrels running the Globalization Agenda clearly have fewer scruples than Organized Crime Families. Corruption continuously undermines the best of intentions. Only regulation can keep it in check.

TIMBI,

100,000 patients die every year from improper hospital treatment in this country. But, the number one killer is misuse of prescription drugs by doctors, patients or pharmacists. Everybody makes mistakes. A more rational answer would document error rates in the various systems operating today. One thing we can say unequivically i