I dunno about privatizing it, but I sure wish the Dems hadn't robbed the system blind.

I recall that the idea was 5%? of the SS 'contributions' and optional (each indiv could elect to or not). That's not the same as privatizing it which the Bush initiative was never about. The nice thing about doing that is you could pass on to your children what you did not use (something the current failing system does not allow). Yes I'm for privatizing a portion up to say 20%.

Yeah, great idea. Hand over social security to all these corrupt and collapsing Wall Street firms like John McCain recommended.

I dunno about privatizing it, but I sure wish the Dems hadn't robbed the system blind.

#1 | Posted by American1st at 2008-09-17 09:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many trillions did the nat'l debt go up under Bush WHILE he was spending the SS trust.

The debt is almost double what it was in 2000.

Who cracked the lock on the box to begin with, BetelG?

"Who cracked the lock on the box to begin with..."

Pretty pathetic goddam defense.

"Who cracked the lock on the box to begin with, BetelG?"

Who's been promoting deregulation and privatization for the last 20 years?

Nullifidian-
Remember that crazy Al Gore droning on about how he would put the SS trust fund into a "lock box"? Damn, good thing we didn't elect that fool.

No, "we" decided we'd rather have a beer with the dry drunk.

Yes I'm for privatizing a portion up to say 20%.

Let me guess... You're a stockbroker.

Actually I believe that it was the Johnson administration that first found a way around the rules to allow tapping the 'lockbox'.

If I live the lifespan of the average American male, I will get back app. half of the money I put into social security.

I could've done better just putting the money in a jar in the ground or actually made some with a simple passbook savings account or more than quintupled it by investing it my self.

The answer is simple.

Goatman-
Of course it is, if you're just out for yourself. In which case, when you are crippled tomorrow, go beg in the streets and I may toss you a dime, if I feel like it.

SS was originally designed to take care of ourselves when we retire, betelg. So why should I think otherwise?

Thanks for the offer -- keep your dime and use it to call someone who gives a shit

"The answer is simple..."

To a rightwinger who pretends not to be rightwinger.

Goatman-
It's also designed to take care of you and possibly your wife if you should lose your legs tomorrow, before your investments mature.

But it seems we're all scrapin' for the last morsels of the pie, since the plate is currently being licked clean by "conservatives".

poor nully. just can't let go. His obsession with me is like the energizer bunny. It goes on and on and on and on.

Do you jerk off dreaming of me being righ wing? Anyone who brings up as much as you must take the fantasy and lie to it's ultimate conclusion. lol

I'm on the rig with a couple of buddies now. They are laughing their asses off at your 'right wing' label you put on me. You keep us amused nully.

S Bullet has a question: He wants to know if you think Kennedy is right wing, too.

Never mind. He knows your answer, he says.

LOL

It's also designed to take care of you ....

It wasn't originally (read my post again) designed to do that, betelg.

"poor nully. just can't let go. His obsession with me is like the energizer bunny. It goes on and on and on and on."

Apparently that's the latest tactic of rightwingers on Drudge. Whine that they're being stalked when challenged on their dishonest self-labeling.

I've been on two threads here since last Sunday and within minutes of posting, my own private little nully-troll jumped right in with his nose up my butt on both of them. If that's not proof of an obsession, I don't know what is.

Whine that they're being stalked

Whining? Idiot. LOL stands for Laughing Out Loud.

I think I'll go post on another thread. Be ready, you obsessive stalker, you! lol

Yeah that's right. I just sit here waiting for you to post, you paranoid rightwing nut.

If you weren't a moron, you would see that I was posting here before you came on line, dumbshit.

Yeah that's right. I just sit here waiting for you to post,

Obviously. My first two posts since Sunday and you are there within a couple of minutes with your right wing fantasy in tow. No need to state the obvious, nully.

"Obviously."

Compare time stamps, dumbshit. I was posting this evening before you showed up. If you want to show up and say something stupid I'll call you on it, crybaby.

nully --

I asked you a question the day you began your fantasy, but you never answered. Care to now?

Does a right winger fit this description:

Is against capital punishment.
Is against prayer in schools
Is pro abortion
Is against corporate welfare
Is against the war in Iraq
Dislikes Bush
Is not a huge gun advocate
Dislikes Rush and other right wing talk show hosts
Is against supply side economics

These things fit me. That's why I think you have a really, really bizarre definition of a right winger. But to each his own.

Compare time stamps, dumbshit.

???

I did. THat's why I could truthfully say that you posted directly to me within a few minutes of me showing up for the first time in days.

Obsessive stalker

(I hit publish before finishing)

Yes I saw that you had been posting, but I avoided you. However, the second you saw my posts, you jumped in.

Who's stalking whom? LOL

And that explains the fact that you spend 100 percent of your time here bashing liberals/Democrats how?

If what you say about your views is true, I would expect at least a few posts now and then bashing McCain/Palin.

Goatman-
Not to pile on, but didn't you vote for Bush?

"However, the second you saw my posts, you jumped in."

If I see a post I disagree with, then I may or may not jump in. This is the Drudge RETORT.

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Can't answer the question still, I see. It must really suck to avoid painful questions that illuminate yourself as a shill.

would expect at least a few posts now and then bashing McCain/Palin.

This is a left wing blog. DOn't you think there's enough of that going around? Oh, I get it. You would prefer to see 100% your view and no opposing ones.

Besides, who said I don't like McCain and Palin?

Not to pile on, but didn't you vote for Bush?

Not being able to change history, my answer is still the same as the first couple of dozen times you've asked me that question, boyd

Goatman-
I just wanted to hear it again.

Besides, who said I don't like McCain and Palin?

#31 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-18 12:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you do. You are a person who :

Is against capital punishment.
Is against prayer in schools
Is pro abortion
Is against corporate welfare
Is against the war in Iraq
Dislikes Bush
Is not a huge gun advocate
Dislikes Rush and other right wing talk show hosts
Is against supply side economics

And yet you are a Republican to your core.

Go figure.

"You would prefer to see 100% your view and no opposing ones."

No, I would expect someone who describes himself as a "bleeding heart liberal" not to post like a rightwinger at least 50 percent of the time.

The fact of the matter is that your posts could easily be written by any self-described rightwinger on Drudge. That's just the way it is. Sorry.

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

???

Who said I can't handle the heat? I accurately pointed out that you are stalking me. Is assigining false positions your only blog tactic? "You're a republican. You can't stand the heat". Try the truth sometime. It's refreshing, although it does significantly reduce your scope of criticism

And yet you are a Republican to your core.

Well, you are about 1 in 100 who think so. But being wrong -- though it makes you look like an idiot -- is your right as an American. And I see you make the most of it. LOL

Food for thought if part of your SS were invested on Wall Street:

Bush's Inaugural until today:

DOW - January 20, 2001 - 10,488
DOW - September 17, 08 - 10,609.66

The Dow went from 3300 to 10700 under President Clinton

PS The internet swing was on NASDAQ

No. If you can't handle the heat, don't hold a single press conference a few months before you may be elected de facto President.

The fact of the matter is that your posts could easily be written by any self-described rightwinger on Drudge.

???

Most of the posts I read from the rightwingers on the DR indicate they are against abortion, pro-capital punishment, want prayer in school and god in government, etc. as per my list.

What are you smoking tonight?

" I accurately pointed out that you are stalking me."

Nobody is stalking you. You're just whining about being called out on your demonstrably false self-description as a "bleeding heart liberal".

AU,

Dow, Jan 20, 2001:

10,587.59

Goatman-
If you would apologize for voting for Bush, I might feel better. I should probably send you a bill anyway.

I remember a few months ago claiming the economy was good. I cited the high stock market as an indication. Several lefties came down hard on me and told me the stock market was irrelevant as it pertained to the health of the economy.

Is it relevant again, now that it has fallen?

What are you smoking tonight?

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-18 12:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

What were you smoking when you voted for Bush?

"Well, you are about 1 in 100 who think so."

Just about everyone on Drudge thinks you're on the right, so I don't know where you get that absurd statistic. Perhaps you're just "misunderstood".

Goatman-
re: And yet you are a Republican to your core.

Well, you are about 1 in 100 who think so. But being wrong -- though it makes you look like an idiot -- is your right as an American. And I see you make the most of it. LOL

#37 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-18 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

I mean in the way you have and will vote, not your rhetoric.

You're just whining about being called out on your demonstrably false self-description as a "bleeding heart liberal".

Nully. Please try to keep up:

1) I explained I am not whining. I'm laughing
2) I never once described myself as a bleeding heart liberal. i said my co-workes call me one.

Again, false assigning of positions seems to be your only game. Quite frankly, I'm weary of it. You become more and more like da bOoB with every post.

I'm going to go eat. But I'll be back to see what other false positions you've decided to assign to me in the meantime. I'm hoping you'll grow up an leave the lies behind, but I don't have much hope of that happening.

I'll stand by your link DANFORTH for January 20, 2001

The DOW is today 22 points higher than the day W took office.

Bill Clinton tripled it. That did not include most of the 'dot.com bubble' which happened on NASDAQ (as I know you know)

I mean in the way you have and will vote,

About 75% of the votes I've cast in my life have been for democrats. So I guess that makes me one, right?

I remember a few months ago claiming the economy was good. I cited the high stock market as an indication. Several lefties came down hard on me and told me the stock market was irrelevant as it pertained to the health of the economy.

Is it relevant again, now that it has fallen?

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-18 12:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

????

Are you pretending to be stupid, or is that why you voted for Bush?

Don't embarrass yourselves by talking about the stock market, like you know what you are talking about.

"2) I never once described myself as a bleeding heart liberal. i said my co-workes call me one."

Nobody cares what you allege your co-workers call you. My evaluation is based strictly on the content of your posts, as it should be. Your posts could easily be written by any Drudge rightwinger. That's just a fact. Deal with it. After all, there's nothing wrong with being a righwinger, as long as one is honest about it.

Rex-
Dang. No reason to slap Goatman around like that!

Besides, who said I don't like McCain and Palin?

#31 | Posted by goatman

Serious question Goatman, since McCain/Palin seem to work counter to every one of the positions you've listed above, what possible reason could you have for supporting them?

" That did not include most of the 'dot.com bubble' which happened on NASDAQ."

It battered the DJIA as well. But even if you pin the post 9/11 lows on Clinton (probably not fair, but...), it's still a 150% rise.

"About 75% of the votes I've cast in my life have been for democrats. "

Unverifiable and irrelevant. The only thing that counts here is the content of your posts. That "statistic" is in no way reflected in your posts.

I'm talking to everyone in this thread Boyd (nice to see you btw). The forces at work here are so myriad and diverse that even the best and brightest minds, with 40-50 years in the markets, don't fully grasp what has and is happening.

Bill Clinton did not triple it. It tripled while he was president.

The telecom infrastructure which brough on the internet boom and dot com was a ripe fruit for the picking. (tons of cheap bandwidth) In fact, it was Reagan's deregulation of the telecom industry and breakup of the AT&T monopoly in the early '80s that lit the fuse. The stock market would've soared in the '90s no matter who was president. In fact, it started it's meteoric ascent before Clinton took office.

Goatman will vote Republican again, being conflicted. He'll understand and yet be defensive all at the same time, and get a chuckle out of being the "lib" on an oil rig.

If you would apologize for voting for Bush, I might feel better.

What an absolutely idiotic thing to say. I'll never apologize for anyone I've voted for. Besides, why the fuck should I care if you feel better or not if your welfare depends on the lever I pull behind a curtain?

You're a strange duck, boyd

My evaluation is based strictly on the content of your posts

As I've said, you are 1 in 100.

Your posts could easily be written by any Drudge rightwinger

LOL Reality. Check it out, nully. Any of the right wingers. OK. Let's pick one at random. So Johnson is pro abortion? He is against prayer is school? He wants god out of the government?

You are a funny duck, too, or a human with a pitifully short memory of other right winger's posts. EIther way, you are amusing

Just about everyone on Drudge thinks you're on the right, so I don't know where you get that absurd statistic.

This may come as a really big shock, but in the 53 years I've been on this planet, I have associated with people outside of the DR. Not a one of them has ever called me a right winger. That's where I get that 'absurd' statistic.

Are you for real?

....don't fully grasp what has and is happening.

Nor do you.

I'll never apologize for anyone I've voted for.

A right wing stance to be sure. ; )

Seriously, though...not to intrude on the love fest here, by why wouldn't you apologize for voting in a tard like W? Calif Chris did, so I'm curious as to where the two of you have a difference in philosophy on the subject.

question Goatman, since McCain/Palin seem to work counter to every one of the positions you've listed above, what possible reason could you have for supporting them

Who said I supported them?

Goatman-
re: "if your welfare depends on the lever I pull behind a curtain"

Unfortunately, it does. But I'm more worried about my children and the future of this nation in general.

Did they give you a cool "I voted" sticker when you voted for Bush?

Do you still have it?

Nobody cares what you allege your co-workers call you.

Of course you don't. YOur ego makes your opinion the only one that matters -- to you anyway

" but in the 53 years I've been on this planet, I have associated with people outside of the DR. Not a one of them has ever called me a right winger. That's where I get that 'absurd' statistic."

I'm not interested in your unverifiable allegations about how other people describe you. How many times do I have to repeat this? The content of your posts on Drudge is the only thing that counts.

Goatman will vote Republican again, being conflicted.

The great karnak has spoken

I think I've got it. Goatman isn't a "right winger"; he just votes for them and then...

Gotta go, but carry on.

The telecom infrastructure which brough on the internet boom and dot com was a ripe fruit for the picking. (tons of cheap bandwidth) In fact, it was Reagan's deregulation of the telecom industry and breakup of the AT&T monopoly in the early '80s that lit the fuse.

The US has lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world in Internet speed and bandwidth for many years.

To be honest, your posts do lean to the right, goatman. But not off the right side of the table like Pinche mao.

Who said I supported them?

#67 | Posted by goatman

My apologies for making an assumption. Who would you like to throw your endorsement too, just so we'll ALL know?

The stock market would've soared in the '90s no matter who was president.

GOATMAN

Hey, I'm not judgin'...I'm just sayin'....

DOW up 300% during Clinton, about to drop below the level it was when W took office.

PS We were in a recession when Clinton took office. We weren't when he left.

We were not in a recession when W took office. Looks like we're headed that way now though

I think I've got it. Goatman isn't a "right winger"; he just votes for them and then...

Yes, as I've said -- I do vote for them about 25% of the time.

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if someone votes democrat about 75% of the time and holds many left leaning ideologies, how does that make him a right winger? I'm at a loss to explain this.

Unity, since you are an expert on the stock market, please fully explain to us the last, say 30 years of the financial markets, and how we came to be where we are today and what forces played into it.

I would love to hear your expert opinion.

why wouldn't you apologize for voting in a tard like W

Because when I vote for someone, I vote for who I think is the best candidate at the time. I reasonably think things out and take time to study the issues and the candidate's stances. I do not feel I should apologize for this.

The people who owe people like me an apology are the sheeple who do not spend one millisecond to consider the candidates. They know that they will be voting for their party regardless what -- even if satan himself was running.

These are the people who should be sorry. We need thinking voters, not sheeple voters.

Did they give you a cool "I voted" sticker when you voted for Bush?

no

The content of your posts on Drudge is the only thing that counts.

To you, maybe. But to those of us who have a life outside of druge, thre are other things that matter and to be considered.

Who would you like to throw your endorsement too, just so we'll ALL know

Ask me a few days before the election. It's far to early to make that decision.

To you, maybe. But to those of us who have a life outside of druge, thre are other things that matter and to be considered.

#81 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-18 01:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is true, but people here can only judge you by what you write. And anyone can say they do whatever in real life. So all posters have to judge others with is what they can see with their own eyes.

Personally, based on what i've seen you write, and how honest you can be, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, it did surprise me to learn you vote democratic 75% of the time. Never would have guessed that based on your posts alone.

PS We were in a recession when Clinton took office.

The recession had been over for a few months when Clinton took office. A recession is two or more months of negative gdp growth.

Looks like we're headed that way now though

So I've been hearing for a couple of years

That is true, but people here can only judge you by what you write

So when I say I am pro abortion, anti prayer, etc. (I get sick of writing the list) why do people forget these things and say I'm a right winger? A: Because people here are so left, that if you espouse a single piece of right wing dogma, you are automatically labeled right wing. That's how shallow and stupid some people can be.

Everyone thought that CC was a man until recently. Did that make her one? No.

Likewise, DRers may think I'm a rightwinger. Does that make me one? No.

However, it did surprise me to learn you vote democratic 75% of the time. Never would have guessed that based on your posts alone.

As a general rule, I seem to vote more left the lower the level of government and gradually move to the right to the higher levels.

As I said, that's a general rule. Not being a blind sheeple, there are exceptions.

Any one want to tackle why growth has slowed? Or why the housing market bubble has tanked, or why it hyperinflated in the first place?

Or what drove the increase in the commodity markets? And what is forcing them down now?

Anyone know who controlled the purse string on the fed fund rates the last say 20 years? Or why they increased or decreased rates during each quarter of the last 16 years?

Can anyone tell me why a company reports earnings every quater, when that is the worst way to understand the value of a company or an industry?

Can anyone tell us the role of speculators in each seperate market played in this weeks down turn?

Or what blame the naked shorts hold?

However, it did surprise me to learn you vote democratic 75% of the time. Never would have guessed that based on your posts alone.

We don't discuss school board and San Antonio city council politics much here. *grin*

Lots of experts out there.....lets hear some awnsers instead of stuipidity.

Well, I feel your pain, goatman.

I get accused of being 100% democrat, and I'm not. It's probably the targets you pick that make people think you're a right winger.

All lefties.

As I said, that's a general rule. Not being a blind sheeple, there are exceptions.

#86 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-18 01:51 AM | Reply

You are a blind sheeple. You simply lie about it.

And since national politics is what this site is all about...

Voting mostly republican at the top will get you the "right winger" tag, dude. As you said, it's what you talk about.

I'm your huckleberry Alexa, want to play a game?

The housing market went into the crapper from deregulation brought on by that corrupt pos Phil Gramm. Too many people were granted mortgages that couldn't afford it. Going to watch the UFC replay in 2 mins. hope it was a good one.

Starting in 2001, Greenspan held the fed funds rate below the year-over-year percent change in the median price of an existing single-family home, holding it below house-price appreciation through 2005 (see Chart 2). That is, the real fed funds rate in terms of house-price appreciation was negative from 2001 through 2005, establishing a record low real fed funds rate of minus 9.6% in 2005. Not since the late 1970s had the Fed allowed the fed funds rate to consistently trade below the rate of house-price appreciatio

all are problems can be blamed on pos republicans.

It has been fan freaking tastic so far JA....better then I could have hoped for.....Best free UFC so far

JA, don't quit your night job buddy. Stick to UFC

why wouldn't you apologize for voting in a tard like W

Because when I vote for someone, I vote for who I think is the best candidate at the time. I reasonably think things out and take time to study the issues and the candidate's stances. I do not feel I should apologize for this.

If you looked at the issues and the first four years of Bush and still voted for him you are one stupid ass.

The people who owe people like me an apology are the sheeple who do not spend one millisecond to consider the candidates.

You considered the candidates and came up with a lifelong failure like Bush over a proven success story like Kerry. You are one stupid ass.

They know that they will be voting for their party regardless what -- even if satan himself was running.

Only dumb fucks vote for party. It just happens that republucans have been fighting against American Principles for about a hundred fucking years. No equality--rich run everything--fuck the little guy. That's their party--voting against that isn't necessarily party over country--it is using your fucking brains and voting for America. You are just one stupid ass.

These are the people who should be sorry. We need thinking voters, not sheeple voters.

STFU sheeple. Vote McCain as you always would even if Satan himself put on the republican mantle. You pass the buck just like every other member of your Party over country crowd. It wasn't your vote--it was everybody elses vote that was the problem.

You are a party hack. A genuine POS.

#79 | Posted by goatman at 2008-09-18 01:35 AM | Reply

Greenspan is a 'ding ding' on one of our biggest problems....Maybe he was spending to much time with his face in Mitchell's crotch to see what was happening, or maybe he is senile.

But that is only part of todays problem that started decades ago.

greenspan is a rethug. Rethugs can't be trusted. Vote DNC or vote for corruption. the choice is between good and evil.

Greenspan is a lib dude. But I dont blame his decision making on his politics, or his wife.

In fact, trying to boil this down to one side or the other is useless....both sides are equally culpable and equally helpless.

This coin only has one face.

Gaia

You simply lie about it.

bOoB tactic #2:

When you don't have a counterpoint, call the other person a liar without providing proof that he is.

all are problems can be blamed on pos republicans.

Life must be simple (but boring) when you blame everything on a single person or entity. Such are the simple minded who prefer not to think and reason.

ou considered the candidates and came up with a lifelong failure like Bush over a proven success story like Kerry.

I did? If I remember correctly I voted for neither one. Thank you for setting me straight, bOoB. I didn't even know you knew me then, much less were watching over my shoulder that day at the polls.

Goatman, you still have alot to learn about blogging brother. You were played tonight.

I enjoy the game. It really hasn't changed much since the BBSs of 25 years ago.

Always be the gameplayer, not the game being played.

If you don't like the question, ignore it.

Make up your own question and your own awnser.

Rex-Greenspan is a lib dude.

And never ever, ever, be ashamed of who you are or what you beleive.

People change Alex.

I am Zeitgeist, I know what is and is not.

My life is understanding the players.

Inside and out.

Alan Greenspan is not a liberal.

Period.

I have proven he is a self-described libertarian republican, and has belonged to the republican party his entire life.

You have proven nothing.

Outside of a mathmatical equation, I could never 'prove' anything.

Are you ready?

You are fluff, rex. Tasteless and without substance.

I'm the big dawg, Alex.

Always have been, always will be.

correct and if someone suggests we put the ss surplus away like a lock box, lets ridicule that person!

Alexandrite

... but why wouldn't you [Goatman] apologize for voting in a tard like W? Calif Chris did, so I'm curious as to where the two of you have a difference in philosophy on the subject.

#66 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2008-09-18 12:51 AM

That's not really a fair question. Goatman has his own mind and I have mine. You can't expect every person to have the same reasons and think the same way about their voting decision. Too many factors come into play. I came to my decision about Bush and to actually leave the Republican party toward the end of 2003 after a lot of soulsearching and seeing what Bush had done to my country up to that point - lying to take us into the Iraq war was the tipping point.

I was a Republican for years and it was not an easy decision to leave the party. I then registered as a Democrat but found them too liberal for me so I'm now content as a registered independent -- and more and more Americans are registering the same way.

As for Goatman's "Why I am a liberal list'

Is against capital punishment.
Is against prayer in schools
Is pro abortion
Is against corporate welfare
Is against the war in Iraq
Dislikes Bush
Is not a huge gun advocate
Dislikes Rush and other right wing talk show hosts
Is against supply side economics

So you see, you cannot lump everyone's voting decision into one neat package.
Goat has his own reasons for perhaps disagreeing with Bush and I certainly have mine but they are not one and the same.

I'm in favor of privatization if Americans really can do whatever they want with the money. If you don't want to save for your retirement, that's your own problem. If you do, you shouldn't be forced to let the government "hold it for you."

And to all the morons pointing to mismanagement on Wall Street, I'd remind you that if any private business were as far in the red as our government, it would have gone under long ago.

Even with the piddly cost of living amount Social Security gives every year it's still more than you would have made letting Bush privatize your social security account and giving it to his thugs on Wall Street to invest during the eight years he's been in office.

And you far rightwing zealots who hate social security so much and are so smug about it , you better pray to God that you can guarantee that you will never have a car accident or catastrophic illness in your life because SS also covers life long disability payments for people of any age should they not be able to work.

I doubt any of your corporate employers will give you long term disability payments for the rest of your life or health coverage either.

You are one traffic accident/major illness away from needing Social Security disability payments for you or your spouse to make ends meet. How ironic if you Republicans got your wish to destroy Social Security and then needed disability payments yourself the following week. It would serve all you pompous Republicans right to end up with nothing.

And to all the morons pointing to mismanagement on Wall Street, I'd remind you that if any private business were as far in the red as our government, it would have gone under long ago.

#123 | Posted by JOE at 2008-09-18 09:19 AM | Reply

So Joe, you must be so happy that "our government" has just gone a few hundred billion farther into the red to bail out a few "private businesses".

How do you make sense of that, while you support Republicans. Isn't it "our money"?

I don't support the bailouts, and I don't support Republicans. Try posting something that isn't laden with bullshit and maybe the conversation will go somewhere.

Try posting something that isn't laden with bullshit and maybe the conversation will go somewhere. - Joe

Hardly likely - you spew enough for the two of us. But I am truly sorry if I was misled into thinking that you supported Republicans. You do loathe Democrats though, and I was being "logical". I guess you're in favor of somebody who can't possibly win. So, cool.

I'll admit that I used to like Republicans when the party still had any semblance of "small government" left in them. But I've never voted for one - and the fact that Libertarians have no chance of winning certainly isn't my fault. I blame sheep who support the "major parties" for that.

Getting back to the question posed in the headline, I, too, think that Social Security should be privatized... actually, that many not be accurate.

My belief: the money that is currently taken from my paycheck to benefit someone else should be given back to me so I may use it for my own benefit. (Note: I am not saying I want a refund of what I've already paid into the system, though it does read that way. I'm well aware that money is long gone, and there is no way of getting it back. I am merely saying no longer pay into the Ponzi scheme.) Likewise, if this (now ridiculous, teetering on the brink of failure anyway) program somehow survives past the time where I may collect from it, those paying into the program so I can get my check should not be paying into the program. Joe said it earlier in the thread, and I've said something similar for a good while now: If you don't take care of yourself (as far as retirement, per Joe, and as far as health insurance, food, fuel, etc, per myself), that's on you. If I screw things up for myself (using the pretty bad case scenario in #13 as an example), then that's on me, not on anybody else.

So I suppose I'm actually not for the privitazation of Social Security... I'm for the out and out elimination of it.

Hard for some? Hell, it'd be hard for me, even if I survive to be that age, likely I won't survive much beyond that without an extremely lucky streak. But that's my own damn fault.

Joe

There once was a time before Social Security. Did you know that? And people could spend their money any way they wanted---just like you would like to see happen again. Do you know why they started Social Security? Because people are too fraking stupid to know how to save for their old age. Oh--that's not YOU---you are wise beyond your years and would invest the money wisely like in Lehman, AIG, or Bear Stearns, I'm sure. TFB that the rest of the nation has proven they aren't as bright as you, and if left to their own devices would spend all the money they got their hands on--and then some--just like they do now. Then what would happen when they got old--not you of course--you are safe in a chalet in the Alps with your friend Seifried--but what about those who spent all their money and are now broke with no income? Can you use your imagination a bit? Imagination? Look it up.

Joe

The results of this weeks AIG fiasco were from small government. That is--letting business alone without regulation. Men will always be greedy--the only way to control that greed is with government regulation. Of course the reality of the situation is not as convincing to you as the brainwashing mantra "smaller government is best".

"Do you know why they started Social Security? Because people are too fraking stupid to know how to save for their old age."

Again - that is not my problem, and that is not the government's problem. If people have the same amount of money they are forced to put into SS and they don't save for their own retirement, it is nobody's fault but their own.

"you are wise beyond your years and would invest the money wisely like in Lehman, AIG, or Bear Stearns, I'm sure"

How you're "sure" of that I'll never know. I never said I'd invest in any of those companies or in any wall street firm. That along with the rest of your post is pure bullshit.

"Men will always be greedy--the only way to control that greed is with government regulation."

The AIG "fiasco" has nothing to do with social security.

I'm still for privatization.

I'm very torn when it comes to Social Security.

On one hand, I strongly believe that people should watch out for their own best interests and we should be able to put that 15% of our salary towards our own retirement and whatever optional disability insurance polices we want. Hell, if I could invest that 15% in bonds or even the cash funds in my portfolio, as well as buy every optional AFLAC policy, I would still be better off than what Social Security would give me.

One of my biggest gripes with SS is that those who are getting ready to retire lived their lives in an incredibly prosperous period of American history, one that in all likelihood will never come back. They also grew up in a period where a university education was nearly free (paid for by higher taxes). But, when they took over the reigns of government, they gutted education, cut their own taxes, and left us with a pile of debt. Yet, somehow the Baby Boomers as a whole weren't able to save enough for retirement, even though they lived through an era huge economic growth and low taxes... I do not feel that this generation was a responsible steward to the American economy or government.

On the other hand, I know that there are many Americans who will not look out for their own best interests (ie, sub-prime mortgages, 25 year olds going w/out health insurance when they could get an HSA/HDHP for $30/month, 40 year olds w/no retirement savings...), and I also realize shit does happen. I just don't want to live in a country where a disability would guarantee a life of poverty or have the elderly living on the street or dying of starvation.

Years ago when I used to do consulting work all over the place, I can vividly remember the elderly and disabled (the blind, amputees, retarded, massive tumors...) begging in front of churches when I worked in Romania. I realize it's an extreme example but I wouldn't want anything resembling that in the USA, even if it meant my portfolio would be 2x as big.

The issue really comes down to a couple of things: what shape do I want my country to be in, and what role should the government have in this. SS was created because of the circumstances of the Great Depression and its effects on the U.S. Very dire times, definitely needing some kind of intervention.

Since then the country/government has applied fixits to attempt to avoid a repeat. But the other question hasn't been answered. People are living longer, jobs are paying less, the economy is