Boehner Pledges To Privatize Social Security: ‘We’re Going to Get Serious About This’
Boehner Pledges To Privatize Social Security: ‘We’re Going to Get Serious About This’
In an interview with the Washington Times published yesterday, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised to privatize Social Security:
Q: Where does Social Security reform stand?
A: I just met with Congressman [Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican], a few minutes ago with his SAFE Commission [formed to fix the entitlement programs]. In 1990 when I first ran for Congress, I talked about the need to reform these big entitlement programs because the sooner we began the process, the easier it would be to make the necessary changes so that these programs were sustainable for the long term. … If I’m around in a leadership role come January, we’re going to get serious about this.
Privitization plans championed by Boehner and others would sharply cut guaranteed benefits and are opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Nevertheless, Boehner is just the latest prominent conservative to reaffirm his commitment to privatize Social Security in the months and years to come.
President Bush, 6/27/06:
Now is the time for the Congress and the President to work together to reform Medicare and reform Social Security so we can leave behind a solvent balance sheet for our next generation of Americans. … If we can’t get it done this year, I’m going to try next year. And if we can’t get it done next year, I’m going to try the year after that, because it is the right thing to do.
White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, 6/17/06:
Looking ahead to next year, he is trying to lay the groundwork for a renewed effort to reform Social Security and Medicare, the federal health-care program for seniors. He suggests Mr. Bush and his aides may have learned from their failed attempt to push through Social Security reform in 2005.
House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery (R-LA), 6/6/06:
Congress should make Social Security overhaul its top priority next year, while a rewrite of the tax code and revamping the nation’s healthcare system probably will wait until at least 2009, House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery, R-La., said today.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh man, I am soooooo for the republicans to push this. Social Security is a great thing to delve into shortly before an election. Man the republicans will be dropping like flies.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:20 pmIf I’m around in a leadership role come January, we’re going to get serious about this. – John Boehner
I wouldn’t be making any serious plans yet, little fella.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:21 pmWhy are Democrats so opposed to reforming Social Security? Do they honestly believe the system can be continued as-is?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:23 pmDailyKermit has an article that the presription drug plan has solid support by senior citizens, so similar plans to privatize social security will also be popular. Whether you like it or not, either we create private accounts in which individuals can make equity investments, or you will have to severely cut benefits / payouts in a couple decades. To refill the SS coffers, the government will have to start tasking home ownership and 401K’s, punishing those who saved wisely.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:25 pmWoops – taxing, not tasking…
July 31st, 2006 at 6:25 pmNo Chase I do think some reforms needs to be done. However the model the republicans wish to use to reform SS hasn’t worked in any country it has been tried in. SS could be made solvent and work, but it doesn’t need to be destroyed. The very term reform to the republicans, means to eliminate SS all together. Not to create a meaningful reform of the system.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:25 pmI think we’d all be wise to NOT plan on Social Security for retirement. It’s not going to be there.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:27 pmSS would have been okay for far longer, if the republicans had not raided it to finance the war in Iraq.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:28 pmWell every time Social Security reform is brought up, Democrats do nothing but attack, attack, attack and spout shit like “Social Security is fine. The GOP wants to scrap it and take away benefits to seniors and have them eat cat food!”
I would like to hear, Krazny or anyone, what is a good first step in keeping Social Security solvent.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:29 pm“He suggests Mr. Bush and his aides may have learned from their failed attempt to push through Social Security reform in 2005.”
I was not aware that they are capable of learning.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:29 pmThe republicans are trying to cut and run on social security
July 31st, 2006 at 6:32 pmThe prescription drug plan demonstrates that individuals are capable of making their own decisions about the plans that suit their needs best, so a similar set of choices that allow citizens paying into SS to buy bonds, stocks, REIT’s, whatever has now been demonstrated to be feasible.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:32 pmPrivatize SS? NOT JUST NO—BUT HELL NO!!!
July 31st, 2006 at 6:33 pm#12, Bluedog,
Yes, liberal answer is to tax the rich to carry those who didn’t wisely manage their money.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:33 pmAlso chase see my comment #9. Or how about pay back the money borrowed by the government. That would be a good start point anyway. The democrats don’t have to attack on this issue. Anyone stupid enough to attempt to change or SS is going to be run through the mud by the AARP.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:33 pm#12 – Are you going to cap benefits later? If someone pays in, say 5 times as much over their working life than someone else, are the entitled to 5 times the benefits?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:34 pm#20 – I don’t expect other to take care of me. I understand that by the time I hit retirement age (whatever it may be in 2050 or so) Social Security won’t be there for me. I resent the fact I have to pay in to a system that I will never recieve any benefit from.
There is a degree of self-responsiblity that needs to be exercised when it comes to personal finance, health care, etc.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:40 pmTo refill the SS coffers, the government will have to start tasking home ownership and 401K’s, punishing those who saved wisely.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 31, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Home ownership is already taxed: If you own a home you have to pay property taxes, once or twice a year.
401ks are also already taxed: They are simply tax-deferred plans. But you will have to pay taxes when taking out your money.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:40 pm#17, Krazny,
and the net effect of doing nothing is severe cuts in benefits, or taxing those who were wise enough to save and invest on their own.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:41 pmBurying the lede….
If….it is beginning to sink in….the hubris washes away..
July 31st, 2006 at 6:42 pmEntitlements are for the RICH! gimee gimee gimee
July 31st, 2006 at 6:44 pm#22, Gregor,
Yes, but since homes and 401K’s will be the largest collections of wealth in the country, the government will tax them at even higher rates than before to compensate.
Keep dreaming about donut-hole rage – LOL. The seniors were approached about insurance to “fill” those holes, and they also realize how much they saved all year, in spite of paying a little at the end of the year.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:44 pmSo, we do a little math.
The average retirement age is 65.
2050 – 2006 = 44
65 – 44 = 21
There is Chase’s problem. He is only 21.
Gregor Samsa. How could you expect a 21 year old to know that housing is already taxed and so are 401Ks?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:45 pmChase,
Social Security is the last “treasure” the Republicans have yet to raid and clean out. How about not letting them get their hands on it. Privatizing social security is going to enrich the rich investors (Friends of Bushco), and give the appearance that the markets are strong with the one time infusion of cash.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:46 pmWhy not tax-free retirement accounts. You deposit some percentage of your income into an account that you cannot touch until you either reach 65 (or whatever retirement age) or become disabled and can no longer work.
If you want to deposit a greater percentage, you can. If you want to deposit less, go right ahead. It’s your call. Once a year you can adjust the percentage, but other than that, it’s an automatic deduction.
Just thinking…
July 31st, 2006 at 6:47 pmMr. Hendler,
I am not suggesting we do nothing. The problem is the privatization scheme you recommend, has been disastrous in every country it has been enacted. I don’t think we should remove caps as bluedog has suggested, but a change in caps may be necessary. I also don’t agree with your overall philosophy, but we can leave that do another time.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:49 pm#27 – Actually, I figure by then the retirement age will be somewhere north of 70. I’m 23.
If you’re going to say my age is a problem, what is your age?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:49 pmChase,
The problem is that the government has already been taking social security tax from my paychecks for 22 years. If we are going to start over and hold each person accountable for thier own retirement, I want my 27,000 dollars back now please.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:50 pmSpudge_Boy,
he!
Those sweet years when you could mooch off mom and dad, eh?
July 31st, 2006 at 6:51 pmYou know,
I’m kinda excited to see the staged town meetings in which GDUB pitches privatizing social security, and people stand up and tell him how much they love his idea, while reading cue cards made by Karl Rove.
They remind me of the 99.9% approval rate that Saddam used to get in National referendums.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:51 pm#33 – I completely understand that. To me, that’s the highest hurdle.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:52 pm#33, For Truth,
There are methods of seguing to ensure that you stay covered. Privatization is aimed mostly at younger generations, so that they pay partially into the old system to support your retirement, and partially into a new one that will be there when they retire.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:53 pmChase you seem to know more about politics than the average 23 year old, but you are still 23, you don’t have the life experiences to be making the kind of judgements you make. Let me guess, finances have never really been a problem for you? No wonder you fall in line with the Republicans, its your bread and butter. If you had to work for all the things you wanted/needed since the age of 11, and had to pay your own way through college, and are currently paying back loans, bought your own vehicles with money you actually had to go to work and save for, I bet your tune would be very different.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:54 pmWow, a whopping 23. Yes, your age is a problem. You haven’t grown up yet. Come see me in ten years, when you are almost as old as I am. I am 36. I’ve been in the military, something I know you would never do and I have traveled outside of the US, something that probably scares the crap out of you. Chicken hawk. Bwak bwak bwak.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:55 pm#27 – By the way, I never said 401k’s or homes weren’t taxed. Keep that straight, broseph.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:55 pm#33
Me too, I want my money back.
Oh, and since I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, or with the money we give to Israel, so I want the portion of my tax money that goes to Iraq and Israel back!
July 31st, 2006 at 6:56 pmI understand that by the time I hit retirement age (whatever it may be in 2050 or so) Social Security won’t be there for me.
Comment by Chase — July 31, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
Your understanding is incorrect.
The President referred to the SSA projection, which calculates that the system’s trust fund will be depleted in 2042. After that, the system would have legal authority to pay only 73 percent of currently promised benefits — and that figure would decline each year after, reaching 68 percent in the year 2075.
The CBO doesn’t project trust-fund depletion until a decade later, in 2052, and figures that the benefits cuts wouldn’t be so severe, a reduction to 78% of promised benefits. But either way, even a “bankrupt” system would continue to provide most of what’s promised currently.
Bush’s State of the Union: Social Security “Bankruptcy?”
Social Security is not heading towards bankruptcy. Even in the worst case scenario, it would still cover 73% of the current benefits. That is, assuming nothing is done to tweak the system to provide full 100% coverage, and that economic conditions will not change between now and 2042.
I resent the fact I have to pay in to a system that I will never recieve any benefit from.
You can rest assured.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:57 pmHad Jesus privatized his miraculous distribution of loaves and fish many would have starved to death.
July 31st, 2006 at 6:57 pm#42, Jebus,
Go run to Canada – hippie!
July 31st, 2006 at 6:58 pm#38 – Actually, I would put my family in the lower-end of the “middle-class” income bracket. My college education was paid for 100% through merit scholarships and federal and state grants and loans. My parents never paid a cent out of pocket. I will pay it all back after law school.
And #39 – Congratulations on your exploits. Actually, I’ve been out the country (never to anywhere but the 3rd world, in fact) and as for military service: I’m very seriously considering JAG. Or does that not count?
July 31st, 2006 at 7:01 pmSocial Security needs to stay as it stands, so when it does run out, people like Chase can join the class action suit to get their money back. If it goes private, the responsibility to honor the promise goes bye-bye.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:02 pmHow did you get your wheels Chase?
July 31st, 2006 at 7:03 pmIt’s every man for himself,republican style. Careful what you wish for though, because the flip side of that coin will be ugly.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:05 pmNope, sure doesn’t.
Congratulation on leaving the country. Now, this time spend time with those third world people and learn something. Then come see me in about 10 years.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:06 pm#48 – Handed down.
#49 – Alright man.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:06 pmYeah thats the Republican way, every man for himself, until something happens where they need someone to help them.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:07 pmChase got his car for free, whatever condition it was in, it was free. Sorry Chase, if your family can give you a car, money has never been a really big problem for you, so continue to fall in line, follow the money, and work hard to become a lawyer. We all know what the priority of a lawyer is.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:09 pmwow, Republicans just can’t help but screw up whatever they touch.
Gread Over People every day. Let’s guess who’ll manage the private accounts… Halliburton or Dubai?
July 31st, 2006 at 7:10 pm#46 Another truthful disclosure from a troll, NOTTTT everything said by these turds is a lie just like their dopey masters. A 98 lb. pimplefaced white supremecist
July 31st, 2006 at 7:11 pmI am really hoping they push and push hard on this issue. I cannot think of any greater gift to the democratic party, then an attempt to destroy Social Security.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:11 pm#54 – You have no idea about my family, and to truth be told, it’s none of your business anyway. But don’t confuse yourself into thinking because I’m conservative, it must mean I come complete with a silver spoon firmly deposited in my chops. The reality is, I’m the first college attendee (much less graduate) from my family. I busted my ass, opened doors for myself through hard work. My parents sacrificed more than I can even imagine for me. I never waited around for someone to help me – I was proactive, and did it on my own.
And the reason I want to be a lawyer is to make sure criminals receive the justice they deserve. What, you thought I wanted to be a tax attorney, or some pinche criminal defense lawyer? Ha.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:15 pmformer (R),
Chase is probably full of lies. He says on one hand he had to get grants, scholarships to attend college, but his familly could afford to give him a “hand me down” car. That’s incongruent to me. My wife’s family has money, and they gave her “hand me down” cars. Not all families with money buy the kids a brand new car. In fact a lot of people with money are stingy with it, thats how they got it.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:16 pm#59 – You were the one with an interest in my personal background. I tell you and you dismiss it because, nah, it couldn’t be. Jackass.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:19 pmAhh Chase,
A prosecuter. Your so rightous, your gonna clean up society, while maintaining all of the defendants are guilty and need to be punished to the full extent of the law. I too was very idealistic at your age, I too was going to fix society. This is why you need to come back in 10 years and we can talk to you.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:19 pmChase,
Resorting to the old attacks, did I hit a nerve with you? You know the truth and I don’t, isn’t that enough?
July 31st, 2006 at 7:21 pm#61 – Maybe I’m idealistic. But I’m not out to clean up society -I know that’s not likely to happen. I’m out to do all I can to ensure that when someone gets caught committing a crime, they pay their rightful debt to society. That’s all.
#62 – It is enough.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pmChase,
July 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pmI am interested in your credibility, and to what level your credibility is at. When you resort to calling me a “jackass” you are helping me find where your credibility is at. I also think you have no credibility in discussing social security, as I feel you have not been in the real world (acedamia is far from it), and you have never really had financial problems.
Social security is in good shape. There will be a surplus in the account until 2017. According to Century Foundation the most recent (2006) shows that the gap in the fund after 2040 can be closed by small adjustments in revenues/benefits. Social security has been robust for 70 years and can be for another 70 years without drastic overhaul. Tinkering with the nature of SS will leave it in instability.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:24 pmThe greedy Republicans want to mess with it so they can get their greedy friends’ hands on it, and keep up the corporate contrubutions to their campaigns.
All the “old” people won’t go for it, they already have a huge headache when their medical care was messed with.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:30 pmLet’s reform the system. Let’s let the people that “reformed” the savings and loan industry reform social security. Let’s let the people that brought us Tyco, and Enron reform the system. What do you think will happen when those lying greedy bastards get their hands on your social security deposits. Do you seriously think that 401k accounts can’t be raided or defrauded. And when it happens these scumbag senators will fall all over each other saying “who could have predicted someone would steal retirement money from Americans.” But the money will still be gone and no one will be held to account.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:33 pmWell, I’m sorry you dismiss what I say because of my age or lack of “relevant” work experience. That’s pretty short-sighted of you, if you ask me.
However, I’m sorry, that’s not going to prevent me from voicing my honest opinion.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:33 pm#6 – You need to stay current on the love for the bush drug plan:
I live in Arizona in a retirement community. Many people hitting the “donut hole” are pissed and remember, this was forced on them. Sign up or have no coverage. Seniors support is no longer a given when it comes to repubs.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:34 pmChase,
On the positive side, its good to see a 23 year old interested in political issues, most are interested in getting laid (as I was), at 23. I feel bad for ripping you up. But you decided to comment here, a 23 year old can get shredded in these parts. Just be fair with the evidence when you get to put people away for crimes they supposedly committed.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:35 pm#70 – Trust me, my interests are many.
As committed as I am to making sure criminals are brought to justice, I’m equally committed to “doing the right thing”. I like to that that, even for a conservative, I’m ethical and fair.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:38 pmJason, I’m a doc and I see the horribly failed medicare drug benefit daily. If you think that this program is a success you are deluded. This donut hole crap is a ripoff, seniors “have” to buy supplemental insurance they previously didn’t need to fill the “hole”, and the payback on money invested in the supplemental insurance is pennies on the dollar. If you didn’t pick a supplemental plan they assigned you to a plan, a much higher cost plan that everyone else rejected. It is a horrible failure and I see seniors daily, a lot of seniors, and they are pissed. So by all means kepp telling that voting block what a great success the program is…then the Dems can clean all the republocriminals out of office.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:42 pmSouthwest Bob,
Just curious – did you always live in AZ?
Chase,
July 31st, 2006 at 7:44 pmPlease, Come back when you’ve had actual life experience. You’re frickin’ new to pubic hair, for crissake. (Zooey, that one’s for you!)
You want to restore SS. Once the Dems win in November, review every corrupt contract by the Bushites. For every contract not fufilled according to negotiated terms (we paid you 100 million for 100 Iraqi clinics, most of which were never built, we’re taking ALL the money back). Put it first into SS. You’ll have billions in SS surplus.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:45 pm#73 – Only if you promise to stay away until you’ve found an education – or at the least come with a informed point of view.
Oh, no can do? OK then, I’ll just stick around.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:48 pmBones,
First of all Great Name!
Second, you’re right, SS would be FINE if Dumbya would stop RAIDING it.
Put that $$ back.
I remember a problem during Carter’s Administration with SS.
One or two adjustments, problem was solved.
This current Administration simply want to keep as many people down as possible.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:50 pmOnly the rich would benefit from the removal of SS.
Chase,
July 31st, 2006 at 7:51 pmI hold 2 degrees.
Biotechnology. Physical Therapy.
Idiot
Trueblue…. Have been here 5+ years…..
July 31st, 2006 at 7:54 pmYep, that’s the difference between intelligent people and Dumbya. Like too many people today, it’s broken – throw it away and get a new one vrs no, fix it and make it work. There are only a dozen things I can think of off the top of my head (and I’m sure any intelligent economist, problem solver, mom who has to support a family and balance the checkbook) could offer that would “fix” the system.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:55 pmSouthwest Bob,
July 31st, 2006 at 7:55 pmThanks. I didn’t figure you for a native. I don’t know why.
Are you originally from more northern territory, if I may be so bold as to ask?
trueblue – Wonderful.
July 31st, 2006 at 7:59 pmTrueblue — Originally from Minn….but grew up and spent all my adult life in central CA.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:00 pmWow Jason…
I though it was the kool-Aid you admitted to drinking everyday
but now it’s clear that I’m talking to a 10 year old.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:02 pmI’ve got a plan to fund social security!!!
Take all the money that is now being spent in Iraq and divert it to something useful like…….. OUR OWN CITIZENS!!!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:02 pmThere are only a dozen things I can think of off the top of my head (and I’m sure any intelligent economist, problem solver, mom who has to support a family and balance the checkbook) could offer that would “fix†the system.
Comment by bones
You are so right, Bones.
I am a coupon cutting, fairly struggling mom myself. I never buy milk @ the grocery store- it’s too expensive. I pay ~2.00 less @ Cumberland Farms. Cheese? NEVER @ said grocery store. White Hen, 2.99 vs 5.99!
I have to figure things out all the time. A nudge here and there, problem solved!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:05 pmGee, Chase,
Only, “Wonderful”?
How about, “Sorry, I was wrong. I don’t know what the Hell I’m talking about.”?
See, again you show your age.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:07 pmI know how we can handle the coming shortfall of SS.
We can just tell all the people that voted for Bush to go F*** themselves because BUSH spent all of their money in IRAQ and squandered future funds with his TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP 1%!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:07 pmSouthwest Bob,
Thanks.
I thought you were of a more liberal persuasion…! :)
…did I spell that right?
July 31st, 2006 at 8:11 pm#86 – No thanks.
You tell me I have lack credibility because of my age and shortage of “actual life experience.”
I wouldn’t consider two associates degrees – particularly given their lack of applicability to public policy debates – as granting you credibility.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:15 pmTHEY ARE NOT ASSOCIATE DEGREES, YOU TWIT!
To be a PT in MA, it is a MASTERS degree.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:18 pmWRONG AGAIN, Idiot!
Neither was the biology (specialized in Biotech)
Everyone here knows I worked @ MIT, Chase.
On the Human Genome Project, Chase.
Again, you show your hubris and AGE!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:20 pmWell, the world needs physical therapists, don’t get me wrong.
I’m a little doubtful as to how much the education of a physical therapist is applicable to policy debates on social security, elections, etc etc.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know what you’re talking about and that you’re being intellectually honest as long as you afford me the same courtesy.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:22 pmYou, Chase, are an Idiot.
Enough said.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:24 pmWell, I extended the olive branch – remember that.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:25 pmI’ve said it before, I’ll say it again; the phasing out of social security and government medical benefits in favor of private investment accounts is nothing more than a SCAM to get interest free, risk free money for corporations that corporations could not otherwise get from banks or other lending institutions.
Other than personal greed on the part of those who have plenty already, there is NO REASON why Americans who have worked hard all of their lives and contributed to the greatness of this country, but not made it big financially, should not get to participate in and receive a fair share of the bounty of this country via social security and medical benefits.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:25 pmConsidering you are one of the biggest tools on this site, I don’t think I’ll lose any sleep; especially since you insulted me twice.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:28 pmNope. No remorse.
#71 Chase,
Sorry your getting ripped up more. I am glad to hear you are ethical and fair, don’t sell that out. My father in law is a good man, ethical, honest, fair. He devoted his entire career to Honeywell, and faithfully votes Republican. He now feels robbed and duped with his job and his politics. He was too good for his “leaders” and trusted them. I hope you question authority.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:29 pmSo, remember, if you want your Social Security benefits exploited in the hands of Wall St, be sure to vote Republican in the coming elections!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:32 pmIn 1996 the Social Security trustees predicted the Social Security trust fund would be depleted in 2029.
In 2000 the Social Security trustees predicted the Social Security trust fund would be depleted in 2037.
In 2004 the Social Security trustees predicted the Social Security trust fund would be depleted in 2042.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguide_socialsecurity
I guess that means that in 2008 the fund will be depleted in 2055! Hell, why do anything? According to the SS trustees, we can put it off forever!!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:33 pm#95 – What happens in 25 years when the number of workers per beneficiary falls to a point where the system is fiscally unreasonable?
July 31st, 2006 at 8:35 pmAs one who has paid into the Social Security program since 1945 I will guarantee that it is not, repeat is not, an entitlement program as the repugs would have you believe meaning something for nothing. If I had paid the same amount into a private account at the going rate of interest and started drawing out the interest only I would be drawing much more than the Social Security I am now drawing except the private accounts would have done just as the republicans have done and there would be nothing left. The exception is that the Republicans can steal the money but they still have to make the payments. The Social Security Program would be in fine shape if the Republicans had done as the program intended: Make the Program self-sustaining isolate the Social Security money from the General Fund and invest those funds. If funds were taken from the Social Security Funds for the General Fund they were to been paid back with interest. That was not the case. The Republicans stole the money and blamed the retired Democrats for depleting the funds by demanding their “entitlements.” If you thing for one minute that private investments will work just reread some recent history with King George the Old and the S&L Dragons. How soon we forget and how long it takes us to learn.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:36 pmChase, the problem is not your age. It’s the cocky, know-it-all attitude that comes through your posts. I think you’ve got the intelligence to take in knowledge but the lack of social and general life experience to apply that knowledge and share it with others. Further, you seem to be unwilling to accept any information inconsistent with your current view point. Maybe you should listen (or read, here) more and talk (or post) less.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:36 pmAnother line of thought. If the Government wants to privatize Social Security then treat the SSI collections as payment into a Mutual Fund and let the SS administrators invest the funds in the private market. The risk, however, would be on the part of the Government and any loss in the market would be made up from the general Fund as it is now. Obviously this would never fly because it is not about privatizing Social Security it is about privatizing LOSS due to theft, fraud, greed, mismanagement and all those things the Republicans have done to bleed the Social Security Program.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pmThis is another example of the crucial role of language in the values debate. The Republicans try to make social security seem like a “bad investment and retirement program” and it would be, if that’s what is designed to be. It is not. Social security is a safety net for our society as a whole, a guarantee of protection against a penniless retirement.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pmThis sits well for Lois Murphy, Democrat, who is running against Jim Gerlach, Republican and any other Democrat running for a position in the House. I can see the ads now… Jim Gerlach, rubber stamper, supports dismantling Social Security. What a gift from the repubs… showing their hand before the election.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:46 pmWhat happens in 25 years when the number of workers per beneficiary falls to a point where the system is fiscally unreasonable?
Comment by Chase — July 31, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
I posted a response to one of your posts, way up there in this thread. Follow the link, read the article from FactCheck. It is a concise, neat explanation on how the system is not anywhere near bankrupt and it debunks Pres Bush’s claims.
Social Security is in no risk of insolvency in 25 years.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:49 pmI love the “it’s an entitlement” routine. We as a civilized and advanced society have the obligation to care for our people and entitlement programs are the responsibility of any civilized society. It prevents large groups of people from dying slowly in the streets. But SS is not an entitlement. Workers paid into a fund and were promised a monetary return if they did so. that’s not a charity but a contract. It’s very easy for evil human beings to dismiss their responsibility (BushCo) as charity, but that doesn’t make it true or ethical. It is not permissable to allow it “to go broke”, the government made a deal with it’s citizens and MUST be held accountable. By the way, that still doesn’t even address the readily available nudges that will restore solvency by the time 2042 rolls around.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:52 pmChase,
I just went back and read some of your earlier comments. I would love to get into a little pissing contest with you about qulifications to debate the issue. Please be advised that I have a 30 Year-old Grandson who is a Federal Law Enforcement Officer and who generally agrees with me on everything except football so lets leave age out of this. Except for the time it takes to accumulate educational degrees and experience.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:53 pmI’ll be back soon….
July 31st, 2006 at 8:54 pmmust go watch Hell’s Kitchen with Mini-Blue! (She loves it, and loves watching it with her old Mom! Since she’s 16, I’ll take any time I can get with her!)
#19 – your are right about the donuthole… senior citizens and anyone else that pays taxes have gotten screwed on this plan. The Repbublicans are in denial… they will lose on in November.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:54 pm#107 Bones
This is the first time I recall reading your comments. I suspect it is my loss as you have stated my thoughts much more politely than I am inclined to do. Keep up the good work!
July 31st, 2006 at 8:58 pmPrivitization is already available – it’s called a 401K.
If the Bush&Co and the Repubs weren’t so gung ho about sending Americans off to fight a war, SS wouldn’t be in such dire straights.
Can’t trust a Republican with your tax dollar… they will exploit it to their benefit and big Corporations and your loss everytime.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:58 pm#108 – I’m advised.
July 31st, 2006 at 8:59 pmCome on people, why engage misinformation on their turf?
1. Before social security over a third of seniors were living in poverty. After social security, that rate has fallen by about 75%. The fact is, social security works and works exceptionally well.
2. Overhead/administrative costs on Social Security are pennies on the dollar at most and it is one of the most effecient systems around.
3. As pointed out already, no privatization plan has worked. Chile’s presidential candidates–conservative and liberal–both ran on getting government back into the pension system.
4. The most pessimistic projections have S.S. solvent for 40 years at COMPLETE benefit payouts. After that point, they will be able to give about 80% of the expected amount. Mr. Chris will get money back unless there is a catastrophic economic event–collapse of the dollar or equivalent.
5. Fewer actuaries are taking the pessimistic projections seriously and “moderate” and “optimistic” projections have S.S. solvent indefinitely as is. Even using pessimistic projections, a simple change such as increasing the $90,000 cap by $30-40k extends solvency a while.
6. If we don’t pay back the trust in full, then what the GOP will end up doing is to steal hundreds of billions of dollars from those of us who have paid into S.S. already. That’s grand grand grand grand grand larceny on the level of Monty Burns and the trillion dollar bill.
7. The “personal responsibility/ownership society” has been aptly termed the “YOYO economy” (You’re on your own), however I prefer the “F-you society”. The truth is, our country will never let senior poverty get to pre-S.S. levels. By going with this zany scheme, when it collapses, we are going to have to spend billions (trillions?) to fix it. It’s a stupid long term move.
Stick to the facts. Chase should demonstrate that he will not get any benefits before we start taking him seriously.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:00 pm#109 True Blue
Hell’s Kitchen doesn’t start here for an hour. Let me know if Sara gets kicked off so I can get Garndma to bet.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:01 pmYou’re frickin’ new to pubic hair, for crissake. (Zooey, that one’s for you!)
Comment by trueblue
Glad you’re toughening up, girl.
You don’t have to thank me, because I don’t want to think about Chase pubs again. ;)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:02 pmComment by Chase:
I resent the fact I have to pay in to a system that I will never recieve any benefit from.
Another selfish comment by an ignorant repub.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:02 pmChase,
Wow. Life experience. Glad I’m not the only one throwing those words in your general direction. You might want to pay attention, since it seems to be a bit of a trend. :)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:06 pmOh, and since I don’t agree with the war in Iraq, or with the money we give to Israel, so I want the portion of my tax money that goes to Iraq and Israel back!
Comment by Jebus loves me — July 31, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
Me too and not only that, I don’t want any more of MY MONEY going to support Isreal or the war in Iraq or for killing any other human, no exceptions.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:07 pmHere’s an idea for you libs…
Instead of making sure the rich support the poor through government handouts, why don’t you guys just volunteer your money? That way us conservatives are happy, you liberals are happy, and the “financially challenged” are happy. After all, liberals are the most enlightened people in the world. I would assume that the way you talk about making sure the poor are taken care of, you libs would be more than willing to spend your money to make life fair…..
July 31st, 2006 at 9:07 pmtrueblue & Clyde,
What is Hell’s Kitchen?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:08 pm#117 – How is that selfish? God forbid I would want some benefit from a system I pay into.
#118 – I think it’s more a desire to avoid actually discussing the merits of the argument and attack, ad hominem, the messenger instead. That seems to be the real trend.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:09 pmSo, then, I assume that you righties are against the add-on the Republicans have to the minimum wage bill? The estate tax cuts? I mean, those are just entitlements for the rich.
Or is it only an entitlement if it goes to the poor? You know, the ones who really NEED the assistance?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:10 pmOh Michael Sav, you child. Not the old I’ll keep mine you give yours away ploy. OK, I don’t want to pay for roads, Ted Stevens salmon babyfood earmark, the bridge to nowhere, the Iraq war, or Congressional perks. So let’s see the government owes me $30,000.00 this year. Thanks Mikey, glad you suggested it. Anyone else want money back like Mikey suggests?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:10 pmI like GQ’s post on number 114
July 31st, 2006 at 9:12 pmI am so tired of the “your on your own”, “it doesn’t benefit me” attitude of the right. I do not consider taxes a burden. Taxes are the cost of living in this great country. They are the dues I pay to make the system work for everyone. Taxes are my obligation to pay back to others what would benefit them because I have received what has benefited me. I have had the privelege of good parents, good health, a good public school, government sponsored school loans to attend government supported universities, good roads to travel to work and to fun activities, museums to visit on vacation, public safety personnel ready to protect me, and a host of other benefits which I never earned. It would be selfish and immoral not to pass on whatever benefit I can to the less fortunate, to all my neighbors, and to the next generation.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:13 pm#123 – I think a minimum-wage increase, like other bills, deserves an unencumbered up-or-down vote. I don’t like using amendments like that to provide cover for not debating the merits of both sides.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:13 pm#127 – That’s nice, Chase. But you didn’t really answer the question, now did you?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:16 pmLike I asked earlier….
Name one economy on the face of the earth which is more prosperous than the United States…
July 31st, 2006 at 9:16 pmMicheal Savage,
C’Mon man, the system is payed into, its not free to people who collect it. And you know its not politically correct for people to be sick and dying in the USA, not being taken care of, that looks bad.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:16 pmWell Chase since there has been no minimum wage increase in years and the price of gas has gone up 200%, without an increase you’re making more poor people for Mike Sav to have to support.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:18 pm#125
Yep, and the government owes me for welfare contributions, social security contributions, funding abortions through planned parenthood, diversity traininig amonst governtment employees, and the other 90% of government waste.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:19 pmsmass – I don’t consider repealing the estate tax “an entitlement”. All it does is allow earned wealth to be passed on, rather than appropriated by the government. I’m generally opposed to taxing all inheritance – but I find it obscene to tax it at a 49% rate.
Does that answer your question?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:21 pmBottom line, it looks like crap for your country’s poor people to be suffering and not have basic care. At the 1986 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games, the bums were given nice clothes, or removed.
Even if the Social Security System goes belly up from privatization, all politicians don’t want to “look bad”, so out of their own selfishness, the poor will end up having basic needs met. Even if the cost is Trillions to “fix” it. Then we can all bitch about what didn’t work.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:21 pm#131
Well, you obviously don’t understand social security, so please refrain from posting on the subject.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:21 pmAnd Michael Savage 4 Prez:
July 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pmI do donate my time, talent, and money to help others because there is a more personal touch to it. But taxes, as pooled money, have greater buying power and reach. Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs and that infuriates the right wing who seem to think that government can and should only control who you marry, how you express yourself as an American, what you should be able to see or hear on entertainment programs, and what country to threaten into submission.
Name one economy on the face of the earth which is more prosperous than the United States…
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
So living in the US is a privilege. Those who can afford it, should pay for that privilege.
Those who are too poor to pay or leave, must get help (no, not “handouts” or “entitlements”) to become contributing members of society and pay back the opportunity they were granted.
And they lived happily ever after ;-)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pm==============================
The Social Security Fund is in better shape than you and the GOP make it out to be. The only problem I see with the Social Security Fund is that Bush keeps on borrowing (stealing) from it to mask the failures of his economic policies. In fact, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 all borrowed excessively from the fund to mask their economic failures. Democrats wanted a lock box; republicans wanted tax cuts for the rich. Raise the taxes of the rich and put back all the money Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 borrowed (stole) from it.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pmMicheal Savage,
What are you gonna do to get your money back?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:23 pmAnd to the clowns who say the estate tax is an entitlement to the rich, how is it an entitlement when it is their money to begin with?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:23 pmBecause the topic has moved (momentarily) to the minimum wage, this BLS document should be a good starting place for a discussion.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:24 pm#137
Just answer the question…..All I am asking for is one country.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:25 pmThat seems to be the real trend.
Comment by Chase
No, actually I think it really is the life experience.
I think you might be feeling a bit picked on right now, Chase. You’re going to learn SO much in law school, and even more once you get to the prosecuting attorney’s office. Then, sometimes, you’ll look around this world, and realize you don’t know a damn thing. Everybody does…
July 31st, 2006 at 9:25 pmhow is it an entitlement when it is their money to begin with?
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
It is not their money. It is money they inherited, and the estate tax is meant to tax inheritance above $2million. Those people didn’t earn that money, or rather, they earned by virtue of being born to the right parents.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:26 pmChase – I find it odd that you’re so appalled by it. I mean, do you realize just how many estates have to even PAY the estate tax? About 0.27%. Or, about 1000, nationwide. (That’s with the 2mil exemption, I believe).
And, do you know just how many family farms have been forclosed on? That’s right. 0. Not a single one has been taken away because of the estate tax.
What it really comes down to is this: A person could win the lottery and win $35 million. Paris Hilton could inherit $350 million (or more). If the Republicans have their way, Paris would pay nothing. Now THAT is what I find offensive.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:26 pmSee Mikey you did’t get the sarcasm in the post, let’s lay it out. If everyone didn’t pay for everything they didn’t like about the government there would be NO COUNTRY and you wouldn’t have a house, or money, or water, or food. You’d be Iraq, and dead. See sarcasm and it was directed at your ridiculous and illogical post #120. Get it or do you need it explained again.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:26 pmAnd I’m sorry to all for moving the conversation away from Social Security
July 31st, 2006 at 9:27 pm#145 – According to the IRS, it only affects the wealthiest 2%. I’m against it for ideological reasons. The wealth was taxed when it was earned. Why tax it again?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:28 pm========================
The estate tax was put into place to keep America from shifting into a plutocracy.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:29 pmSo Micheal,
What do you do with the poor people? You do know they exist, right? Do you let them rot in the streets, tell them to leave the country, institionalize them, kill them, what? Do you just ingnore it? I mean how would you address the population of the poor in this country?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:29 pm#145
So you inherit money….it’s not yours?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:30 pmThe wealth was taxed when it was earned. Why tax it again?
Comment by Chase — July 31, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
This statement is absolutely false:
One of the most enduring myths about the estate tax is that it constitutes “double taxation†— that is, it taxes income that already was taxed under the income tax during the decedent’s lifetime. This claim is seriously distorted
July 31st, 2006 at 9:31 pmWHY THE ESTATE TAX IS NOT “DOUBLE TAXATION”
Again, going back to Paris Hilton (since that’s the kind of people that are truely affected by estate tax), what did she do to earn the money again? Nothing. She lived a few years longer than daddy. It wasn’t her money to begin with. She just has a huge windfall.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:31 pmActually Mike, inherited money is NOT yours, it belonged to someone else that what inherit means. You can’t inherit somethin g that belongs to yourself. And like any money you receive it’s taxed.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pmSo you inherit money….it’s not yours?
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:30 pm
Sure it is, after you pay your taxes.
Just like winning the lottery -taxes are due.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pmIf you are poor, you need to put yourself in a position to fend for yourself. You learn how to save. You educate yourself. You do whatever it takes to survive without relying on other people. Why is that such a difficult thing to understand?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pmChases point is initially convincing about the estate tax, but then, you apply the same concrete, hard logic, and technically the hiers(little brats), it ain’t their money.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:33 pmSo if you get a gift, is that not yours either since someone else worked for the money that purchased the present?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:34 pm#149 – Totally understand that. I just am ideologically opposed to high rates of taxation. I’m particularly offended by double taxation.
However, I’m willing to submit to the majority will on this. If the majority wants to maintain the estate tax, I can go along with it and keep arguing against it. Democracy is so quaint that way, isn’t it?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:34 pm#156 – You make the assumption that everyone has the same opportunities to succeed. Maybe if you left your ideal world (where minorities don’t exist), you’d know that that just isn’t the case.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:35 pmChase – How about a compromise, then? Taxed at the rate of regular income?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm156,
Michael,
Its not difficult for me to understand, but its too difficult for many to understand. You cant make people do something they cannot do. We saw this with the de-institutionalization of very sick mental patients in the 80’s, across the country. I know there are considerable people who “milk” the system. If you know of a way to better weed those people out, let the government know about it, they try very hard to prevent abuse.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm#152 – Very interesting, thanks. I’m going to investigate that point further.
#153 – But why does the state have more of a claim to his money than he does? Why shouldn’t he have a say in where it goes when he expires?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:37 pm158, Micheal Mr. Gift,
You can recieve a “gift” of up to 10,000 dollars, after that, its taxed. Next….
July 31st, 2006 at 9:39 pm#164 – Plus there is a $1mil lifetime gifting exemption
July 31st, 2006 at 9:39 pm#163
Yes, there will always be a part of society which will need help. Whether they be mentally challenged, disabled, etc. However, government handouts should be the exception, not the rule.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:40 pm#161 – I’m completely OK with that.
If my Mr. Hilton has an estate of $10 million (making numbers up for simplicity) and passes on $5 million to Paris and $5 million to Nicky, when it’s tax time, they should have to each pay the income tax on $5 million.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:40 pmMikey there are @40 MILLION Americans living below the poverty line (@19,500/year). I find it hard to believe your theory that we have 40 MILLION lazy, slothful, ner-do-wells. The actual fact is if you don’t give people the oppurtunity to suceed they never will.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:40 pmChase – And who says that people on the left and the right can’t get along? :)
July 31st, 2006 at 9:41 pmAnd again Mike you’re only half right. We should be insisting people work and do what they can, but then we as a society have to care for the rest. It’s the responsible, ethical, and moral thing to do.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:42 pmI wasn’t asking the how IRS tax laws worked. I just wondered in your theory of economic policy if that was fair. Obviously it is.
And I am so sick and tired of people crying about being oppressed because they are a minority. I am a black man who had nothing growing up, educated myself through student loans, and got where I am today through hard work.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:43 pm166, Micheal,
Again, making the handouts the exception and not the rule is what the government wrestles with every day, if you know a better way to only serve the people who truly need it, let them know. Just because the system does not work to the standards you want it to is not a reason the remove the help from the people who need it.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:43 pm#171- now Mike reach out and help someone and make sure they don’t have to suffer as much as you did. I’m sure almost everyone’s parents wanted their kids to do better than they did. We are a community of Americans, once your family is cared for everyone has the moral obligation to help another American. If not what the hell is the point of having a country, let’s just make it a free-for-all.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pm=========================
It’s not double taxation. The income Paris Hilton’s father makes, is being taxed and the income Paris Hilton receives (her inheritance) will be taxed. Two separate people’s incomes will be taxed.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pm#173
Okay, why don’t I just do this…
Quit my job tomorrow, claim disability due to the fact that I have anexity issues, and live off the government dole for the next 50+ years. What would happen if 100 million of us did that tomorrow?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pmAmerica: home of the predator and the prey, and people wonder why there are so many murders,violent crimes,people in prison, disgraceful slums, uninsured, poor etc.
American prosperity off of the backs of the American Indian, the African slave, child labor, the abused low payed worker, the immigrant, etc. something to be proud of.
Now do I trust the fascist right’s buddies in the financial industry with my SS money?No F’ing way, most can’t even keep an honest set of books or give their investors honest information . Scum.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:47 pmAnd I am still waiting for someone to tell me one country who’s economy is stronger than the CAPITALIST United States.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:48 pmMany people do and many people have such overwhelming psychiatric problems they can’t be employed. Yes we should try to seperate and get treatment for those who can be helped, but we can’t let those that can’t work just die in the streets.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:49 pm#177
The fascist right? Oh, you mean the islamofacists, right???
July 31st, 2006 at 9:50 pmha ha ha. I was sure that this thread will be really appealing for Chase and Jason.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:51 pmJason thinks union deserve to be destroy. Of course he prefers to work 12 to 15 hours a day as it was before Parson and the other Chicago´s martyrs.
Chase would like to make a better world by putting in jail all lazy, black and latino bums, while good, decent, white people can walk without worries in the night.
Mr. Michael,
You would have to be a full blown sociopath to convince the variety of doctors and psychiatrists that you are eligible for social security disability due to anxiety. Plus there is another team of people at the SS office in which determines eligibility. Its pretty rigorous, and as an uwritten rule, alomost everyone is automatically turned down initially. Beleive it or not, there are that many disabled people out there, thats why we look at issues like chemicals in the environment, food quality, water quality, stress on workers, and the general well being of a xociety.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:51 pmLet me pose another question since no one in here can give me an answer regarding my first…
Hugo Chavez is allegedly this great humanitarian who takes care of his people. So why don’t I see a long line waiting to get into Venezuela?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:52 pmAnd I am still waiting for someone to tell me one country who’s economy is stronger than the CAPITALIST United States.
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Luxemburgo and Switzerland, the richest countries in the world.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:52 pmYour americanism is embarrasing you.
176,
That is a good one too, I concur.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:53 pmOkay Juan C,
Define a prosperous nation in economic terms.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:53 pm#183 Luxemburg and Norway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
July 31st, 2006 at 9:54 pmI think Kuwait is richer than the US also, at least more per capita are wealthy.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:55 pmI don’t know crap about Venezuala. I dont want to move there.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:56 pmThanks Bones
I don’t really see Luxemburg or Norway holding the top spot though do you?
July 31st, 2006 at 9:56 pmAnd you don’t measure it per capita
July 31st, 2006 at 9:57 pmMicheal I know you are busy, but what do you think about finishing the discussion about Social Security? About your assumptions that its easy to collect benefits and so many people just easily became eligible.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:58 pmHugo Chavez is allegedly this great humanitarian who takes care of his people. So why don’t I see a long line waiting to get into Venezuela?
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
No, he is not a humanitarian. He seeks, just as any other president, to maintain companies happy. Some of them are US companies…if Hugo make them happy, US is happy. If Hugo turns to France, Germany or China, then Hugo is part of the axis of evil. Simple american stupid logic. Another example: Cuba with Batista protecting US interests then US ok with flagrant human rights violations (torture, murderer and imprisonment). Cuba with Castro turning to the soviets then Cuba, very, very wrong.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:58 pmAND Mike I don’t want to blow you mind but that makes the two wealthiest countries per capita, MONARCHIES. Not democracies. Not the US system but old world monarchies. And both have exceptionally strong “entitlement” programs to care for their citizens.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:58 pmDefine a prosperous nation in economic terms.
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
Cant be defined that simplistic way. Another, please.
July 31st, 2006 at 9:59 pm#192…
For example…I am a 15 year child, and my father retires and collects social security. The government will give me a check each month (along with my father) until the age of 18. Even though I haven’t worked a day in my life.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:00 pmMike can’t help if you don’t click the “link” yes it can be measured “per capita”, that makes it even so if I had a million residents with a dollar then my country is poorer than your country that has 2 guys with $500,001.00 each. Click the link above if you want more explanation.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:01 pmJuan C,
Economies are defined by GDP. Pure and simple.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:01 pm#10 Chase
Well every time Social Security reform is brought up, Democrats do nothing but attack, attack, attack and spout shit like “Social Security is fine. The GOP wants to scrap it and take away benefits to seniors and have them eat cat food!â€
No, you are absolutely wrong. Whether it’s just a case of a creative memory or you’re trying to prop up another straw man (Gee, that would be unusual for a rightie, wouldn’t it?), that was not the Democrats’ argument. That is not what anyone trying to defend Social Security from privatization was saying. And it’s stupid to have to explain all this stuff over again to you people. You lost the argument the last time around. You lost it big time. Don’t pretend that you can’t remember what the argument was. Suffice it to say, your side came up short. Even trying to swiftboat the AARP (with the original swift boat slimeballs) didn’t help. Even trying to equate the AARP with gay marriage didn’t help. You made asses of yourselves and you just couldn’t explain why you had this hard-on for privatization.
Just to refresh your memory, Bush kept trying to tie reform to privatization. He’d talk about how Social Security needed to be reformed and in the same breath he’d start talking about privatization. When someone managed to sneak into his tightly controlled “town hall forums” and ask him to explain how privatization would help keep Social Security solvent, he was forced to admit that it wouldn’t. And if you trace it all back to there, I think you’ll find that Bush’s drive for privatization was the thing that started his precipitous drop into the deep hole of disapproval he’s in now.
Now, please explain to us why you’re all worked up over Social Security reform when the fact of the matter is it’s going to still be solvent after Bush turns 100, heaven forbid. If you want to start sweating bullets over something, think about Medicare.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:02 pmMichael. I have one question. Why do you oppose that people get the same chances from the very beginning?
July 31st, 2006 at 10:02 pmClyde,
Sara’s GONE!!!!!!
Zooey, funny as ever!
I haven’t read any other posts, felt it necessary to report on the Hell’s Kitchen scenario….
Be back after I catch up!
July 31st, 2006 at 10:03 pmEconomies are defined by GDP. Pure and simple.
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
Economies, OK. Not prosperous countries.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:04 pmRep. Boehner (Boner) is from West Chester, Ohio, which is near where I live. He wrote an editorial on Social Security for the local paper full of lies, distoritions and fear mongering.
If I may say, I responded in print and completely distroyed his argument. His nephew used to talk to me at the gym. He hasn’t said a word to me since.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:04 pmIt’s been fun boys, but I got to go.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:04 pmI honestly think we need to give Chase a break. We all know that the need for prosecuters in the upcoming years will be great what with so many GOP criminals about to hit the streets as lobbyists. He may be young, precocious and full of himself but he is the type that could eventually become a mensch. He is in the right position to receive a full blast of street reality. Here’s to you Chase! one never knows where the next Elliot Spitzer will come from.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:05 pm===================================
The United States economy is being held together by bubble gum and string. The Bush administration is borrowing from the S.S. Fund, Saudi Arabia and China (whose economy is growing at a faster pace than the U.S.) and they are selling off America’s infrastructure to foreign countries in order to mask the failures of their economic agenda. Every country could have a great economy if they did the things Bush and the republicans were doing.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:05 pmSorry. Anyone who says an economy, which is nothing but human beings producing and reproducing the material basis of life in society, is defined by GDP doesn’t know what s/he is talking about.
My guess is this person is mindlessly repeating something s/he heard elsewhere without knowing what it means.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:07 pm#206, Of course on Michael Savage Radio show. He’s completely insane.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:12 pmMENSCH???
Are You Kidding?
A Mensch is a person who does good things in the world. Advocates.
Chase?- A Mensch?!!?
July 31st, 2006 at 10:13 pmthe switch to a predominantly service economy combined with a go it alone preemptive war foreign policy + add in massive debt = a future third world America, providing we don’t blow up the whole world.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:17 pmHey, true! I was hoping to read you.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:24 pmCould you answer a question not related to the thread?
Call it what it is, SS PIRATIZATION. It’s all about the righties getting their hands on YOUR money. SS is NOT an investment, it’s insurance.
Think of it like this: your chances of getting into a car accident are fairly small, so why not just take that money and invest it somewhere else instead? You’re smart enough, you can certainly make enough to cover whatever accident you MIGHT get into. See the fallacy there? Or your health insurance, same idea. You are a good enough investor to make enough to pay for whatever hospital stay you might need.
SS administration takes about 3%. ANY private account will come in at 10-15%. Who ends up with more money? It ain’t YOU. I have yet to hear of a single case of privatization that actually worked, and didn’t cause more problems than it solved. And with companies dropping pension plans like hot potatoes, this is NO time to screw with SS.
BTW, the way they came up with some of their figures is by interpolating things out to infinity (remember the 2 trillion dollar debt?) and by using VERY deflated figures for economic growth (lower than we have EVER had as a country). What we need to do is to stop our elected officials from robbing it to pay for their wars and tax breaks for the ultra rich.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:29 pmSounds like Michael Savage is barely learning US tax law. This threa must have been an eye opener…
July 31st, 2006 at 10:31 pmAbout MIT, true.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:31 pmIf privitization is so great, have the government invest the entire SS account for us and get 10-15% return and insure the individual accounts so nobody gets less than the 3% SS would guarantee.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:33 pm#16 Jason M. Hendler
Yes, liberal answer is to tax the rich to carry those who didn’t wisely manage their money.
When Bush succeeds in destroying the economy and all of us who aren’t among the mega-rich elite have gone through our retirement funds just to make house payments and pay medical bills (and that will include you, too, even though you think you’re not one of us), Roosevelt’s plan would make sure everyone had something still set aside to live off of, however meager. When Social Security came about, it was the Depression and most of the country was at the shit end of the stick. So, people who ran for office on the “suck up to the rich and tough shit for the poor” platform that Republicans love so well these days didn’t go too far. This country was in sad shape and Roosevelt fixed it. You don’t want to hear that, but it’s true.
When the economy is screwed up so bad that all those investments that you thought were wise ones turn to crap, when you can’t find work close enough that you can afford to drive to or ride a bike to, when you can’t afford your insurance premiums anymore and you get sick from something that’s going around, when you can’t even sell your house without going into debt, I hope you’ll be willing to stand up and be counted among “those who didn’t wisely manage their money.”
That’s the problem with conservatives. No foresight. You act like everything’s going to stay the same and work the same way forever. You never see it coming. Then when something bad happens, you go through all kinds of rhetorical contortions to blame it on the Democrats.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:35 pm#215, Iraq is a concrete example.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:37 pm#204 – He may be young, precocious and full of himself but he is the type that could eventually become a mensch. He is in the right position to receive a full blast of street reality. Here’s to you Chase! one never knows where the next Elliot Spitzer will come from.
Comment by Wyo
I agree.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:41 pmHey Chase… the system works jsut fine. Alle we have to do is raise the cap from 90,000 and it will continue to work for years to come.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:42 pmWhile we are raising the cap we should also be doing the correct moral obligation as every other democratized country,which is: give EVERY ONE access to health care. So while we are raising the cap on SS why not do away with insurance co’s and go to single payer medicare for all.
trueblue,
Hell’s Kitchen? Whaaa….?
July 31st, 2006 at 10:44 pm#180 -
That’s some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever read. Par for the course from Juan C. Keep it real, guey!
#215 – jimb – You really have a bleak outlook, don’t ya?
July 31st, 2006 at 10:46 pmBTW, do the rich taste just like chicken? or frog legs? Mayabe rattlesnake?
Comment by dixie blood
They taste like braised pus. You’ll burp for days, it’s really not worth it.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:46 pmB-O-N-E-R can go screw himself > he is NOT privitizing my future Social Security benefits!
July 31st, 2006 at 10:51 pmThat’s some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever read. Par for the course from Juan C. Keep it real, guey!
Each one of your comments in TP point that way. Maybe I exaggerate a little, but your concept of justice is related intimately to your own opinions. And your opinions, here are not very balanced. If you are going to type mexican insults, you have to do it correctly: güey.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:52 pmAnd I am not from Mexico, so guey me as much as you want.
#218 – To begin with, simply raising the tax cap is a bad idea. From Cato:
Regarding “single-payer health-care”, also directly ripped from Cato:
ome on the political left would like to see us copy one of the government-run “single-payer” systems that exist in Western Europe, Canada, and New Zealand, among other places. Proponents of socialized medicine point to other countries as examples of health care systems that are superior to our own. They insist that government will make health care available on the basis of need rather than ability to pay. The rich and poor will have equal access to care. And more serious medical needs will be given priority over less serious needs.
My apologies on the long quotes – I know how unlikely many are to follow links.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:53 pmThe wealthy are a fatty,tough,cheap piece of meat,needs tenderizing and a good strong sauce to camoflage the bitter taste.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:54 pmHaha, Juan, I’m glad you caught that. I didn’t mean it as an insult in any event.
I would say you more than exaggerated – you straight lied. Nowhere did I ever intimate I would like to jail “the lazy” or any minorities. I hope to be an equal opportunity prosecutor – commit a crime, regardless of the color of your skin, I’ll do all I can to insure your debt to the community is exacted.
July 31st, 2006 at 10:57 pmI guess I was not meant to know what “Hell’s Kitchen” is. I’ll track down trueblue in the next few days in order to solve this mystery.
Goodnight all ya’ll. Play nicely. :)
July 31st, 2006 at 11:00 pmI trust Bush and Co. with my money and my future.NOT IN A MILLION FU*KING YEARS
July 31st, 2006 at 11:01 pmHell’s Kitchen’: a reality show on Fox in its second season set in a kitchen with chefs competing in a weekly elimination with the winner receiving their own restaurant. Your typical cutthroat semi-staged reality show.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:07 pmChase, lets get back to the issue without insults. It is fun but it is enough.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:09 pmI know to call you racist was an exaggeration, not a lie…let me explain. You are in this thread commenting that the privatization of Social Security will be a good thing, is that correct? Ok, let me assume you say yes, somewhat. When you propose that you are condemning millions of poor people for that. Thats probably not racist, but discriminatory. Ultimately, racial minorities are poor people.
No big privatization has made a good thing on any society. I am from South America and can tell you that while privatizing everything external debt increased three times. Where are the benefits, buddy? You cant run a country like it was a company. Companies have recession times, when that happens, they put on the streets a lot of employers. Countries are to be managed with losses, so people can still have a job after recessions and lift the economy.
# 225 Chase: such crap. Close to 50 million of out population have no health care. These are the working poor, not the close to 50 million receiving SS with medicare. Money buying health and life is immoral and the mindset of one who can look the other way and hope the system dosn’t change so their health care is not affected is unthinkable.
I do believe SS can be saved by raising the cap – in fact raise it high and lower the payments.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:32 pmJuan C –
I do advocate the “privatization” of Social Security. I think not doing so will hurt the poor (which you suggest is code for “racial minority”) in the future, when Social Security as we know it is insolvent.
The rich, both today and in the future, will have their retirements assured with or without federal Social Security. Reforming the system is less important for them than it is for the poor.
The Cato “6.2 Percent Solution” is a great example of a system I would support. (The link is to the Executive Summary – please read it . If you want to read further, there is also a link to the full-report.)
July 31st, 2006 at 11:33 pm#233 – What exactly is crap? Go beyond just dismissing what I have provided and counter the point.
You believe Social Security can be saved by raising the cap? Why? Just thinking so doesn’t make it so.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:36 pmFace it: the repubs are fiscally irrespnsible to the extreme. Remeber it was cheney who said: “deficits don’t make any difference Reagan proved that.” And if people such as chase ARE NOT multi-millionaires they are arguing against heir own interests. If bush gets his hands on socsec he will destroy it. To the profit of such companies as halliburton. So chase is arguing for the head of some corporation with political connections to buy another multi-million dollar mansion in jackson-hole at the expense of his own retirement. Which is ok by me. If chase spends his retirement eating dog food and greeting at wal-mart. But I want to buy a winnebego and drive around the country.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:52 pmBowdler – If those are your goals (and they sound fun, even if they aren’t my style – yet) then I hope you are saving for retirement in other ways the Social Security.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:59 pmThat’s the problem with conservatives. No foresight. You act like everything’s going to stay the same and work the same way forever. You never see it coming. Then when something bad happens, you go through all kinds of rhetorical contortions to blame it on the Democrats.
Comment by jimb — July 31, 2006 @ 10:35 pm
Just wanted to quote the man.
July 31st, 2006 at 11:59 pmNot pissing 1/2 trillion dollars on the Iraq rabbit hole sure would have gone a long way to keeping Social Security in tip-top shape, don’t you think?
Besides that though, trusting the top 1% with your retirement has worked out well, especially for all of those people who were promised pensions by those exact same top 1%-ers.
Face it, the rich are only good at two things — lying and stealing your money. The Republican party acts as their enablers in their slash and burn version of class-warfare.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:17 amThe Winnebego is my dream. I religiously invest in my 401k. But, I have a little theory, any time you have several billion dollars in one place someone will figure out how to steal it (you might want to refer to the past 5.5yr.s of bush for an example). So it is my belief that even though I work hard and save, someone will rob my 401k. Ex-workers of bush’s old pal kenny-boy know this story. At any rate I consider socsec an important bolster (safety net if you will) to my private savings.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:19 amMy main point is this: These people are robbing us of our retirement.
I don’t think this one will go over, it won’t be popular because its another change, and its not stable. People want stability right now.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:27 amYeah I want the big Winny to drive around in, save extra for gas.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:28 amOk maybe A VW campervan or a Citroen 2CV camper would be more responsible. But the idea is to see the world, and not having to worry about going to work. Because you’ve already contributed a lifetime to work. Honestly, really, this is my dream.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:37 amBowdler – We may not agree on the best public policy for Social Security but we can both agree that’s a pretty good dream.
Night all, bed calls.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:40 am#215 – jimb – You really have a bleak outlook, don’t ya?
Comment by Chase — July 31, 2006 @ 10:46 pm
It’s better to prepare for the worst and hope for the best, than to prepare for the best and have no plan B.
jimb described the big depression of 1929 very well, but it is also applicable to the dot com bust of 2001, when companies where laying off people by the tens of thousands.
It is not a bleak ouotlook but a realistic one, and a recognition that events like an economic recession are cyclical, happen all the time, and they can catch off guard even those who made all the right decisions and thought were immune to an economic downturn. Events like those are beyond a person’s control. Other such events are medical emergencies, or the sudden death of the family’s bread winner.
Social Security was set up as a safety net against situations like that, among other things.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:59 am“…liberal answer is to tax the rich to carry those who didn’t wisely manage their money.”
You are implying that the reason over half of retirees depend on SS as their primary source of income is unwise money management. Could you maybe flesh that out little with some proof/facts? First, can you show us how much discretionary income these retirees actually had available to mis-manage over the years? Second, can you show us that “the rich” who the liberals want to tax are rich because they made better money management decisions?
August 1st, 2006 at 1:23 amMaybe
August 1st, 2006 at 2:14 amWhy are Democrats so opposed to reforming Social Security? Do they honestly believe the system can be continued as-is?
Comment by Chase — July 31, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
In a word……………….Yes.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:33 amDo you know something that we don’t?
Besides debunked and useless Republican talking points.
Everyone making $90,000, and below are subject to paying FICA on every dollar of their income, including those working for minimum wage. Say you earned $20,000,000 last year. Add in all of those nice little tax cuts GWB has been giving you, and the various tax dodges utilizedby the wealthy to shield their income. With all of those ‘gifts’, surely they can afford to have every dollar of their income be subject to FICA. If the working poor can do it, why can’t they? As for cutting Welfare, great idea! But let’s start at the top, instead of the bottom. First to go would have to be that 14.5 Billion to ‘Big Oil’, they are making plenty of money, they don’t need it. And no more ‘no-bid’ contracts. They don’t encourage ‘personal responsibility’, and it makes Corporations way too dependent on Government ‘handouts’. And no more taxpayer funded healthcare for Congress. They all make enough money to pay for their own. And if they don’t, oh well, not our problem. And to hell with those lifetime pensions they get. Even if they only serve one term! As most go on to become Corporate Lobbyists anyway, they will be fine. And there would be Social Security for them too. Creative thinking, that’s what is needed!
August 1st, 2006 at 2:35 amPost 249 > I agree with you Cyra > 100%!
August 1st, 2006 at 2:51 amhow is it an entitlement when it is their money to begin with?
Comment by Michael Savage 4 Prez — July 31, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
It is not their money. It is money they inherited, and the estate tax is meant to tax inheritance above $2million. Those people didn’t earn that money, or rather, they earned by virtue of being born to the right parents.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — July 31, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
Better to call it what it is
The “Grateful Heirs” Tax
And I’m hoping that the GOP plays this card again, seeing as how playing it the first time-with all that supposed “political capital” W claimed he had-it was a complete disaster no matter how hard the GOP tried to claim otherwise
And the best part was the more people learned about privatizing social security, the more they disliked what W had to say
Yep, that Karl Rove, he’s sure got the libs reeling since not being indicted all right, this absurd idea that privatizing social security will be accomplished any easier than it was last year will no doubt right the rapidly capsizing USS GOP
August 1st, 2006 at 3:37 am#250- Thanks, Jay! :)
August 1st, 2006 at 4:41 amChase,
August 1st, 2006 at 6:50 amLast time I checked Grants were a “Gift” from the taxpayers.
Chase, Cato has good sources but their interpretation of the data is often suspect. The statement that $549 billion would be the increased revenue for the Federal government is correct. However, $110 billion per year more in revenue would constitute a roughly 5% increase in the total. Since the government tax rate on total GDP is currently 16.6%,the increase to 21% would be less than what the average %age revenue under Clinton. It would may be the largest tax increase in history,but as a % of GDP,it would not be an outlier.
August 1st, 2006 at 7:00 amThe growth rate for GDP in the SS trustees assumptions has a low, middle and high end. As CBO has pointed out the “high” assumption is actually the average growth rate over the last 20 years. Under this “high” end growth of GDP,SS never goes “insolvent”.
At the middle rate (which is what drives your discussion points) the most SS requires as a % of GDP is 2.2% or less than the current annual deficit spending of this administration.
If you had used Medicare as the program to bankrupt the government,you would be on solid ground. On SS,you and Catop are all wet.
The reason that the Republicans want to privatize social security is to put more money in the stock market. The small players lose to those big accounts who get money managers to manage their portfolios and stock options. All of the small investors from social security will be constantly pouring in their dollars while the financial industry takes their cut and manages the wealthy accounts to boost their return. It’s just another way to steal money from the poor. About the only return the worker will see is something less than the total stock market return which will be eaten in half by inflation. Who will provide social security for the women and children?
August 1st, 2006 at 8:22 amThe other reason they want to privatize social security is to begin eliminating payouts. Right now social security has a huge surplus on the books. In fact, unlike the general fund, social security has a surplus each year. The problem is that the Republicans have “borrowed” from the social security fund to pay for their increasing expenditures and interest on the debt, and now they are so afraid of what is going to happen when they have to cough up some of the money they have “borrowed” from the social security fund. If they really wanted to invest the money in the social security fund in the stock market, they would have already done so with the fund itself instead of spending it on Iraq and their pork bills. If they believed in the stock market so much then they could have put their own fund surpluses in there and managed it on a very large scale. But you see they won’t because that isn’t how their ponzi scheme works. They don’t want to be accountable. They want to blame the elderly for their poverty. And of course the Republicans are “borrowing” the money for the Iraq war. The only people who will ever see a return from the $11 million per hour Iraq war are the oil barons.
The problem with medicare is so simple. Stop paying the pharmaceutical companies the high prices that no other country in the world will pay. And prosecute the medicare fraud so that the healthcare industry stops ripping off the tax payer.
The Republican government has no common sense, or maybe they think the voters don’t.
First and foremost, Social Security is an INSURANCE Program NOT an INVESTMENT program. Lets start there…
August 1st, 2006 at 8:50 amThis is to insure that everybody in our country is covered if they should become disabled or reach and age that they can no longer work. Like liabillity insurance you may be fortunate enough to go your entire life without an accident where you are to blame, but you were covered if it was to happen. looking back on the depession era from which SS was born, one could argue that SS is a program to insure that those wealthy investors who put all their money into stocks, the market crases and these formally wealthy americans are jumoing out windows. Let me assure them they will now have a financial safety net even if they have lost everything. Small tweaks i the program will keep it solvent. Strangleing someone that has a cold is not the cure thats the aristocrats solution…
I trust Bush and Co. with my money and my future.NOT IN A MILLION FU*KING YEARS
Comment by American Patriot
August 1st, 2006 at 9:33 am————————
That sums up my point-of-view quite nicely as well,AP.
PLC’s comment in #104 above is spot on. And this is this point about the real purpose of Social Security is one that the Republicans always want to avoid. Instead they obscure it by talking about “reform” (i.e., privatization) or “ownership society” or “it’s your money”. Their underlying motivation is to eliminate the program as it is and replace it with something that makes these funds available to the investment industry (i.e., greed). They will have a tough fight with the older generation, most of whom realize that the changes will not affect them; however, they have the experience, wisdom and compassion to understand the value of the program to their children and to our society. I think that many younger folks will as well…particularly those who have zero savings, negative net worth and are increasingly pensionless. There is no doubt that the system will need either increased revenue (e.g.., taxes, like removing the cap) or decreased benefits (e.g., increased eligibility age) to remain solvent with the baby boomers reaching retirement. Obviously there are not enough Senators or Representatives with the courage to debate the real issues honestly and openly in this Republican controlled government
August 1st, 2006 at 9:44 am[...] I think that there are probably one million reasons why I vote Democratic and now I can make it one million and one. House Majority Leader John Boehner is promising that should Republicans hold the House in 2006 that they will make a major push to privatize Social Security. Yes, they tried this once and it failed but when your Party has nothing, and I mean nothing, going for it all you can do is bring back the ideas that have failed and hope they win. [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 11:02 amWhat drugs is number #14 “The prescription drug plan demonstrates that individuals are capable of making their own decisions about the plans that suit their needs best, so a similar set of choices that allow citizens paying into SS to buy bonds, stocks, REIT’s, whatever has now been demonstrated to be feasible.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 31, 2006 @ 6:32 pm ” taking?
The prescription drug has demonstarted nothing except that drug companies profits can go up when the US government chooses to screw not just the elederly, but all the tax payers. And yes bush still hasn’t totally paid back wall street, so you want to see citizens retirements stolen in fees…again just so the few can get richer.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:17 amShame on you for supporting any program that fool puts out…to trust a man that has bankrupted every thing he’s touched is foolish!
Both of my parents and all of my aunts (no uncles) paid into Social Security all their lives. They died at 66, 60, 59, and 42. None collected their Social Security. Don’t assume you’re going to live long enough to have to worry about it anyway.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:34 pmi think alll good americans ought buy and send john a pack of his favorite smoke. c’mon john, smoke, smoke, smoke. are ya smoking yet? that sweet carolina smoke.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:55 pmOn drug program: the donut hole will not hit until September for most retirees, let’s see how satisfied they are then.
August 1st, 2006 at 12:58 pmOn Social Security: I am 52 years old, I have been paying into SS since I was 16 years old, these f**king republicans will steal my SS over my dead body.
It’s not a matter of does Social Security need to be reformed, it’s a matter of how and when. Private Accounts are not the answer, but we should get serious about reforming the system as soon as possible.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:24 pmGive B-O-N-E-R a ton of Vigra please > he will become so stiff that he will not be able to move or destroy Social Security, then give him to Jeff Gannon for his pleasure > lol.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:44 pmViagra not Vigra > lol
August 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pmIt’s spelled ‘Boner’ but it’s pronounced ‘Dickhead’! (sarcasm)
Chase, you say you want to become a persecuter… have you ever considered that the US incarcerates people at 10 TIMES the rate of the European Union? (Whose culture is very similar) That the US is number ONE in the incarceration of their citizens, both in total numbers and percentage? And the total imprisonment of citizens is increasing at 1000 people per day! (Not to mention those imprisoned without charge, without representation, for indefinate periods without Habeus Corpus rights? Have you even READ the Constitution?) Isn’t that the DEFINITION of repression? The majority of the imprisoned are convicted of victimless ’sex and drugs’ morality crimes… and the majority of the rest are imprisioned (at a cost of $30,000 plus per year) for stealing to live, when a $30,000 dollar support would eliminate their problems. Convicts make no income, pay no taxes, while their dependants require welfare to survive, vastly increasing the real costs of imprisonment. (not to mention social and psychological costs). If you truly loved the IDEA of an inpartial law, you MUST fight the actuality of ‘rich man’s justice’ vs. ‘poor man’s justice’! Should the Prosecutor’s budget be limited to equal that of the defense? Or do you (wrongly) assert that money has no influence on judicial outcomes? Why, then, are the poor convicted at far higher rates than the rich? Why were the MAJORITY of the citizens on Death Row in Illinois found INNOCENT when DNA tests were permitted? If I’m going to consider you a ‘MENSCH’ you’ve got to show me you’ve supported the PEOPLE over the AUTHORITARIANS! Doesn’t seem to be the case…. you definately would NOT get my vote for Prosecutor… I think the US needs far LESS fascists than MORE! Your proposed itinerary will do more damage to the US citizenary than help.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:59 pm[...] The aptly-named John Boehner — the new bagman for Jack Abramoff Republican House Majority Leader — will be in town doing a fundraiser for Kuhl on Sunday. It seems that Boehner thinks it is time the House “get serious” about phasing-out (or what’s the euphemsim they like? “privatizing”?) Social Security. [...]
August 1st, 2006 at 3:50 pmGo Bane of all Boners, you go, rock on!
August 1st, 2006 at 6:07 pmMake sure everyone knows that the Social Security program dismantling that was Bush’s first legislative defeat of his second term is your new baby! Go Go Go!!
There is an easy answer for getting SS in the black – Cap removal!
August 1st, 2006 at 6:10 pmApply the tax across the board without exempting the amounts over $96,000 a year and the program is instantly solvent.
My legislator also pointed out that the interest rate that the government pays when it “borrows” the SS money is dictated by Congress. So they just up the rate a quarter point and voila, solved permanently. This whole “entitlement” straw man is a code word for ’screw the middle class’!
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:52 pmTHERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE, WHO HAVE POSTED HERE, WHO MUST HAVE BEEN ASLEEP FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS. EITHER THAT, OR THEY LOVE THE DICTATOR WHO, ALONG WITH CHENEY, RUMMY & THE REST OT THE NEO-CONSERVATIVES, STOLE THE WHITE HOUSE WITH ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES (NO PAPER TRAIL). WHAT PREVENTS SOME FROM SIMPLY REALIZING, HISTORICALLY, WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY AND “WE THE PEOPLE,”? THE “ADMINISTRATION NOW IS SPYING ON ITS CITIZENS W/O A LAWFUL WARRENT. OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE BEING STRIPPED AWAY IE: THE PATRIOT ACT, OVER 45 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE NO HEALTH INSURANCE, THE ECONOMY IS LIMPING TO A HALT, EMPLOYMENT IS NOT TO BE FOUND BY MILLIONS, OUR SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE BEING THROWN IN THE GARBAGE SO THAT HALLIBURTON, ET AL, CAN RIP US OFF FOR BILLIONS. WE ARE IN AN “OCCUPATION” OF SEVERAL COUNTRIES WHERIN THE PEOPLE THERE ARE MURDERED BY OUR MILITARY MIGHT. NOT TO MENTION THE THOUSANDS OF OUR OWN YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE DYING FOR BU$H LIES AND BIG OIL!!!! MEDICARE HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH TO THE POINT WHERE THE ELDERLY ARE BEING KICKED OUT OF THEIR HOMES AND ARE ON THE STREETS DYINGOF ILL HEALTH. NOW THE BILLIONAIRES WANT TO STEAL OUR S.SEC.FOR WHICH MANY HAVE LABORED FOR THEIR LIFETIMES. PRIVATIZE?? HUMPH! PRIVATIZE = GIVING OUR SS $ TO WALL STREET IS WHAT THAT IS!!. ENJOY YOUR LIFE, CHASE. WHY ARE YOU SO WILLING TO SWEEP AWAY OTHER PEOPLE’S LIVES AND FREEDOMS? WHY ARE YOU SO WILLING TO CHANGE/THROW AWAY THE CONSTITUTION THAT HAS MADE US THE GREAT, BELOVED, RESPECTED AND LOVING COUNTRY WE ONCE WERE? HMMMMMM??????
A PASSIONATE PATRIOT.
I think it is a simple task of removing the cap. For the life of me I do not understand why those who are blessed financially would not want to help those less fortunate. It seems alot of people in the USA have an “everyman for themselves” attitude.
Also for the life of me I do not understand why the rich cannot see that if they do not help to keep SS solvent then there is a very good chance the USA implodes with revolution. Those without the financial means to survive if SS and medicare dissolve will simply do what is necessary to survive. If this is a significant percentage of the population then the rich can kiss their capitalist paradise goodbye.
Such selfishness and short-sightedness.
August 5th, 2006 at 3:31 pmI suggest the SAFE commission, the eejit in the oval office and boehner roll up their social security reform suggestions and shove them up their collective wazoo. The damn republicans have been trying to destroy social security since it was first passed.
Social security IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM, YOU FREAKIN LIARS–welfare is an entitlement. I PAY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND HAVE DONE SO FOR OVER 25 YEARS.
This program can be fixed. All these @ssholes need to do is RAISE THE CAP for deductions and quit LETTING the people who earn higher wages off the hook. The program is for ALL social security. If the cap is raised, the problem goes away. I am so damn sick of the ever widening gulf between the haves and the have nots since this greedy, diseased excuse for an administration took power and began class war against the middle and poor working classes. It’s time for pitch forks and torches at the gates folks.
Anyone who believes the crap these liars are spreading about social security deserves the government they get. Too bad they also drag the rest of us down with their stupidity.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:41 pm[...] Unlike some people at the White House, I think it’s fine to change your mind. There’s just one problem: I don’t think Kuhl is telling the truth here. If we are to judge him by the company he keeps, it should be noted that McCrery, after backing away from privatization has how come out in favor of reintroducing it after the November elections. It’s also worth noting that McCrery has given the Kuhl campaign $10,000. And here’s what House Majority Leader John Bohner (who spoke at a fundraiser for Kuhl not long ago) said about privatizing Social Security: Q: Where does Social Security reform stand? [...]
October 10th, 2006 at 9:50 pm[...] 53. Conservatives repeatedly tried to privatize Social Security, a change that would lead to sharp cuts in guaranteed benefits. [Link] [...]
November 6th, 2006 at 6:13 pm[...] 53. Conservatives repeatedly tried to privatize Social Security, a change that would lead to sharp cuts in guaranteed benefits. [Link] [...]
November 7th, 2006 at 12:57 pm