Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 298602" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>You're right. I will say he didn't try to end it and you in your above statement proved the point. Ending SS literally means ending the program, dissolving the agency and eliminating the tax. As I understand your proposed cuts earlier stated as relating to SS, you would do the same thing. I mean while kill the $5.5 tril SS Debt if that is not the case?Using what you said above, IMO Bush wasn't planning on ending SS, he would redirect the tax withheld and "allow" the taxpayer to invest in gov't pre-approved investment models. It was called Privatizing and the illusion was that this ended SS. IMO, ending SS meant as I earlier described and now the individual (former taxpayer) is free to do with their money as they see fit. Now that's ending the program.</p><p> </p><p>The republicans you think are the only one's pushing SS privatization but in fact they had a chance before Bush hit the scene and scuddled the opportunity. In 1998' Bill Clinton wanted to start a privatization approach to SS (just one example of that from 1998') <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n6_v62/ai_20645726" target="_blank">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n6_v62/ai_20645726</a> and the republicans instead of being "principled" they went for power and the whole Monica affair took on new light. Besides, had they gone with Clinton and used Monica as leverage to get what they wanted in the bill, the problem for the republicans is Bill and Al would have come out the hero and guess who would sieze the moment to the WH in 2000'? Good ole Al and the repubs knew this. Even ole Al had a privatization plan for SS. <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4668" target="_blank">http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4668</a></p><p> </p><p>Sometimes it really pays off sitting and lurking out on the net at the hardcore democrat websites and listening and boy what you learn and where to go look for it! So you see both the democrats of the DLC and the Republican of the Neo-Conservative variety for the most part has the same idea for SS. Sure some of the details were different but they are the same. OH, and you were about to ask why the dems. did go along with Bush's plan? Same reason as the repubs in 98'. An election was coming up and if they made Bush look good, Kerry would have had no chance at all. We're being played for suckers as to the folks in Washington, it's all about the party while we sit (to borrow a phrase from Rush) "out in the heartland" the victims of a do nothing gov't. The only time they act in concert is when both parties are threatened, like the recent so-called economic crisis and the emergency bill passed and the surprise cutting of the Fed. rate. Being in the middle of an election cycle, an upset and economically strapped voting public just might open their eyes and become disillusioned and either not vote at all so that who is elected is done so by a very small % of the total electorate or a mass migration to 3rd political parties. It was all about saving themselves and they rised inflation and more federal debt. to covers their <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" />!</p><p> </p><p>No AV, I do say wholeheartedly that Bush or Clinton or Gore was never about ending SS. Now in one sense, being the account is individually attacted to you and just maybe in the legislation, the funds are barred from Congress using it as a slush fund (in the same way the mob used Central States, and we call that criminal!) so in the end at least we're not holding gov't IOU's that enslaves our children and grandchildren to pay for so there could be a positive there.</p><p> </p><p>As for the following that you said, </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Sounds like we are on the same wave length in many respects. I'm all for citizens in State and local communities doing their own thing if you will. At least in my community where I have been involved and have served on a tax oversight board (we even have a libertarian city councilman in a near by town) the democrat/republican thing is about non-existant. Now you do have your agendas but it's not a result of party affliation but rather the general nature of the beast. I few of them during election time make something of it hoping to ride national coattails but in the day to day happenings, it's nothing. My wife has served as webmaster the last 2 elections for the chairman of our County Commission and although by party he is repubican, you'd never really know it with day to day operations. And yes, I vote for him as well and would do so if he were democrat. My objections to vote democrat or republican holds at the federal level and in some cases the State. In local elections they are so close to home that if they do a bad job, it's much easier to vote them out. At least in our area this is the case.</p><p> </p><p>But I'm going to ask you something in Part 2 that you may not like but I want you to think and consider for a moment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 298602, member: 2189"] You're right. I will say he didn't try to end it and you in your above statement proved the point. Ending SS literally means ending the program, dissolving the agency and eliminating the tax. As I understand your proposed cuts earlier stated as relating to SS, you would do the same thing. I mean while kill the $5.5 tril SS Debt if that is not the case?Using what you said above, IMO Bush wasn't planning on ending SS, he would redirect the tax withheld and "allow" the taxpayer to invest in gov't pre-approved investment models. It was called Privatizing and the illusion was that this ended SS. IMO, ending SS meant as I earlier described and now the individual (former taxpayer) is free to do with their money as they see fit. Now that's ending the program. The republicans you think are the only one's pushing SS privatization but in fact they had a chance before Bush hit the scene and scuddled the opportunity. In 1998' Bill Clinton wanted to start a privatization approach to SS (just one example of that from 1998') [URL]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n6_v62/ai_20645726[/URL] and the republicans instead of being "principled" they went for power and the whole Monica affair took on new light. Besides, had they gone with Clinton and used Monica as leverage to get what they wanted in the bill, the problem for the republicans is Bill and Al would have come out the hero and guess who would sieze the moment to the WH in 2000'? Good ole Al and the repubs knew this. Even ole Al had a privatization plan for SS. [URL]http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4668[/URL] Sometimes it really pays off sitting and lurking out on the net at the hardcore democrat websites and listening and boy what you learn and where to go look for it! So you see both the democrats of the DLC and the Republican of the Neo-Conservative variety for the most part has the same idea for SS. Sure some of the details were different but they are the same. OH, and you were about to ask why the dems. did go along with Bush's plan? Same reason as the repubs in 98'. An election was coming up and if they made Bush look good, Kerry would have had no chance at all. We're being played for suckers as to the folks in Washington, it's all about the party while we sit (to borrow a phrase from Rush) "out in the heartland" the victims of a do nothing gov't. The only time they act in concert is when both parties are threatened, like the recent so-called economic crisis and the emergency bill passed and the surprise cutting of the Fed. rate. Being in the middle of an election cycle, an upset and economically strapped voting public just might open their eyes and become disillusioned and either not vote at all so that who is elected is done so by a very small % of the total electorate or a mass migration to 3rd political parties. It was all about saving themselves and they rised inflation and more federal debt. to covers their :censored:! No AV, I do say wholeheartedly that Bush or Clinton or Gore was never about ending SS. Now in one sense, being the account is individually attacted to you and just maybe in the legislation, the funds are barred from Congress using it as a slush fund (in the same way the mob used Central States, and we call that criminal!) so in the end at least we're not holding gov't IOU's that enslaves our children and grandchildren to pay for so there could be a positive there. As for the following that you said, Sounds like we are on the same wave length in many respects. I'm all for citizens in State and local communities doing their own thing if you will. At least in my community where I have been involved and have served on a tax oversight board (we even have a libertarian city councilman in a near by town) the democrat/republican thing is about non-existant. Now you do have your agendas but it's not a result of party affliation but rather the general nature of the beast. I few of them during election time make something of it hoping to ride national coattails but in the day to day happenings, it's nothing. My wife has served as webmaster the last 2 elections for the chairman of our County Commission and although by party he is repubican, you'd never really know it with day to day operations. And yes, I vote for him as well and would do so if he were democrat. My objections to vote democrat or republican holds at the federal level and in some cases the State. In local elections they are so close to home that if they do a bad job, it's much easier to vote them out. At least in our area this is the case. But I'm going to ask you something in Part 2 that you may not like but I want you to think and consider for a moment. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing
Top