Republican Debate last night 03/07/11..what a crock!

[brett636]

I think Sleeve makes a good point. If it is a ponzi scheme (which I concede the idea has some merit) then shouldn't the republican field of candidates be proposing it's immediate abolition? Because from my perspective at age 43, why should I still be on the giving end of a ponzi scheme only to get screwed in 22 years?

The system will abolish itself so trying to say the republicans can or will or must end the system is really a matter of do they choose when it ends or do they let the math run its course until the system collapses? A lot of our leaders in Washington would rather choose the latter because it makes the next election cycle that much easier for them. Perhaps the system needs to be reworked so that those who have paid for benefits can still receive them, but those of us young enough to adjust as well as those who have yet to start contributing be given the option to fore go this government ponzi scheme and allow us to put our money where we want to put it instead. I would much rather put that 6.2% of my money into my 401k where I know it will be worked harder and earn more over my lifetime than it ever could in this mess we call Social Security.

 

[The Other Side]

Brett,

I posted the story of Social Security from the perspective of Roosevelt himself. His fireside chats That i posted, clearly shows his motivation for its creation. IN 1933, there were thousands of widows writing letters to him asking for help, help that never came in the 20's and during the depression. Some had children, some were children themselves. Orphanages were jammed packed with widowed children.

Roosevely knew he had to act, and in 1933, he formed the committee that constructed social security. By the time 1935 came around, it had changes and additions to it and he signed it into law.

Afterwards, it was modified many times over the years that followed but its intention from the begining was the same. There were thousands of americans out of work, suffering and homeless, Roosevelt never wanted the country to get to that point again in history and believed that the goverment should help its citizens.

Unlike todays republicans, who believe the goverment should help only the top 1% tax bracket in this country, every entitlement program is on the chopping block but they dont have the "sack" to tell the old people themselves. They use clever words like "reform", or "Fix", or streamline, to confuse the listeners.

Old people dont associate the word reform with something bad. Just ask moreluck. I am sure she will say that Republican Reform is something good. Id put money on it.

Either way, Social Security was intended to help americans. If three presidents hadnt put their collective hands on that money in order to hide their fiscal failures, the fund would be in great shape. The money stolen from the fund has never been paid back and its owed 3 trillion dollars.

Funny how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost 3 trillion dollars so far, the same amount that is missing from the ss fund, but nobody is complaining about that.

Lets see , what did we get for that 3 trillion dollars in two wars? Oh yeah, 6500 dead soldiers and nothing.

I think you have your priorities backwards. That money should have been spent paying back the SS Fund.

Peace.

 

[bbsam]

You need to read again...he was talking about people on WELFARE and them being freeloaders. Post 33 line 6.

I think you are wrong. First off, we were speaking of Social Security and he tied it into WELFARE. Next in post 39, he reiterates the claim. I am twisting nothing. Babs is calling Social Security recipients free loaders.

 

[bbsam]

The system will abolish itself so trying to say the republicans can or will or must end the system is really a matter of do they choose when it ends or do they let the math run its course until the system collapses? A lot of our leaders in Washington would rather choose the latter because it makes the next election cycle that much easier for them. Perhaps the system needs to be reworked so that those who have paid for benefits can still receive them, but those of us young enough to adjust as well as those who have yet to start contributing be given the option to fore go this government ponzi scheme and allow us to put our money where we want to put it instead. I would much rather put that 6.2% of my money into my 401k where I know it will be worked harder and earn more over my lifetime than it ever could in this mess we call Social Security.

But in a Ponzi scheme, that is not possible sinc current payments are being pushed out the back door in benefits, aren't they? So the system would have to be scrapped so current payees could invest that money, no?

 

[trplnkl]

I didn't have to twist it. We were speaking of Social Security and Babs went off the deep end. "No matter how the rules change, the free loaders will always find some way back on the welfare rolls." So I ask you, WTF!!! How does the logic flow? Why when the subject is Social Security is Babs talking about "free loaders"? He's the one who seems to equate it.

No, you didn't twist what he said, but you sure took it out of context, TOS is teaching you well.

 

[bbsam]

No, you didn't twist what he said, but you sure took it out of context, TOS is teaching you well.

Then see post 43. He doubled down on the claim. Are you sure it's out of context? He continues to make the assertion.

 

[trplnkl]

Then see post 43. He doubled down on the claim. Are you sure it's out of context? He continues to make the assertion.

Where did he say SS was welfare or that SS recipients were freeloaders. The was talking about two different programs. SS could never be done on a state to state basis as welfare is done.

Perry was not saying that SS should be dumped but reformed and he is correct. The majority of the people collecting SS today paid into the system for years which would make abolishing the system entirely disastrous.

There is nothing in post 43 from Baba.

 

[bbsam]

Where did he say SS was welfare or that SS recipients were freeloaders. The was talking about two different programs. SS could never be done on a state to state basis as welfare is done.

Perry was not saying that SS should be dumped but reformed and he is correct. The majority of the people collecting SS today paid into the system for years which would make abolishing the system entirely disastrous.

There is nothing in post 43 from Baba.

43 explained, but I will bring you up to speed. In post 32, I made an observation about the ponzi scheme comment by Perry. In post 33, Babs began with Social Security and quickly spun into welfare. In line 10 of post 33 he makes the free loader comment. In post 39 he sites a specific example of such free loaders. I am twisting nothing nor is Babs claiming I am taking his words out of context.

 

[Babagounj]

A big thank you goes out to tos, " , Social Security was intended to help americans. " { post # 42 }.
So anyone who is not an american citizen , who has not paid into the system, and collects from SS, is in fact an unwanted burden .
That also applies to anyone on state supported welfare systems.

I object to anyone calling me Babs, not until we have taken a few hot showers together.

Also in Post # 42 , tos shifts the conversation to claim that the SS monies paid for the current middle eastern wars.
Which I find quite funny.
That money was missing decades before those military conflicts started.
All that is the "lock box", a nice way of saying Your money is safe with us, is paper IOUs .
And given the facts that our money is not worth the paper its print on, in the end we all are getting screwed.
And everyone knows that a future Congress can not be held to any promises, especially anything that would in turn make them the bad guys.

 

[brett636]

Brett,

I posted the story of Social Security from the perspective of Roosevelt himself. His fireside chats That i posted, clearly shows his motivation for its creation. IN 1933, there were thousands of widows writing letters to him asking for help, help that never came in the 20's and during the depression. Some had children, some were children themselves. Orphanages were jammed packed with widowed children.

Roosevely knew he had to act, and in 1933, he formed the committee that constructed social security. By the time 1935 came around, it had changes and additions to it and he signed it into law.

Afterwards, it was modified many times over the years that followed but its intention from the begining was the same. There were thousands of americans out of work, suffering and homeless, Roosevelt never wanted the country to get to that point again in history and believed that the goverment should help its citizens.

Unlike todays republicans, who believe the goverment should help only the top 1% tax bracket in this country, every entitlement program is on the chopping block but they dont have the "sack" to tell the old people themselves. They use clever words like "reform", or "Fix", or streamline, to confuse the listeners.

Old people dont associate the word reform with something bad. Just ask moreluck. I am sure she will say that Republican Reform is something good. Id put money on it.

Either way, Social Security was intended to help americans. If three presidents hadnt put their collective hands on that money in order to hide their fiscal failures, the fund would be in great shape. The money stolen from the fund has never been paid back and its owed 3 trillion dollars.

Funny how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost 3 trillion dollars so far, the same amount that is missing from the ss fund, but nobody is complaining about that.

Lets see , what did we get for that 3 trillion dollars in two wars? Oh yeah, 6500 dead soldiers and nothing.

I think you have your priorities backwards. That money should have been spent paying back the SS Fund.

Peace.

You originally stated it only covered widows and children from a war that had not taken place, and later they added the elderly to it. I like how now you even ignore what you had posted just a couple pages ago. As far as what is motivating you to post this kind of nonsense I will take Pathological Liar for $500 Alex! I feel sorry for the people in your life who are not aware of this. You are probably setting them up for some major disappointments down the road.

 

[The Other Side]

A big thank you goes out to tos, " , Social Security was intended to help americans. " { post # 42 }.
So anyone who is not an american citizen , who has not paid into the system, and collects from SS, is in fact an unwanted burden .
That also applies to anyone on state supported welfare systems.

I object to anyone calling me Babs, not until we have taken a few hot showers together.

Also in Post # 42 , tos shifts the conversation to claim that the SS monies paid for the current middle eastern wars.
Which I find quite funny.
That money was missing decades before those military conflicts started.
All that is the "lock box", a nice way of saying Your money is safe with us, is paper IOUs .
And given the facts that our money is not worth the paper its print on, in the end we all are getting screwed.
And everyone knows that a future Congress can not be held to any promises, especially anything that would in turn make them the bad guys.

You missed my points Babs...

First, no spin on the wars. Those are comparatives. If Reagan and Bush1 took 3 trillion dollars out of social security during their terms and put social security into the red, why did Bush 2 focus on starting 2wars and spending an additonal 3 trillion dollars that the goverment didnt have instead of shoring up social security?

Ill tell you why. They were looking to abolish social security back then as well. I dont understand how people believe the republicans have their best interests at heart? They do everything to hurt middle class americans and yet, people line up behind them as if they were benefitting from it.

If the goverment had been able to privatize SS during BUSH as he wanted, ALL THE MONEY WOULD BE GONE. SS would have been wiped out. Thank gosh the democrats stood up for the middle class and protected them. Rick Perry says its a ponzi scheme and he's being criticized for it.

Its too late to take it back, it will come back to haunt him. People have benefitted from SS for decades, and they will in the future if the democrats keep the republicans hands off the fund.

The answer to SS is simple. Re-employ america.

Tax ALL companies who build products overseas and put that money into social security. I dont care what company it is. If they want to leave our shores and evade employing an american, or evade taxes, or evade benefits, then tax them at the border.

One way or the other, they will be forced to be patirotic and protect americans.

peace.

 

[The Other Side]

You originally stated it only covered widows and children from a war that had not taken place, and later they added the elderly to it. I like how now you even ignore what you had posted just a couple pages ago. As far as what is motivating you to post this kind of nonsense I will take Pathological Liar for $500 Alex! I feel sorry for the people in your life who are not aware of this. You are probably setting them up for some major disappointments down the road.

Brett,

WWII was a typo, which I clearly demonstrated. Regardless, what I said stands. Roosevelts own words confirm my point. All you have to do is read them. You want to talk about 1935 and I am talking about his motivation in 1933.

It doesnt change the circumstances Brett. Roosevelt felt the pressure of widows and orphans in 1933 and he acted upon that. He didnt just wake up one day and decide to give retired americans a leg up.

That is foolish. Everything has a motivation Brett.

Peace.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Bush II did try to shore up Social Security. He was unable to get his plan through Congress.

 

[The Other Side]

Bush II did try to shore up Social Security. He was unable to get his plan through Congress.

His plan was to privatize social security and invest in the stock market. It was a scheme to destroy Social Security and the democrats stopped him in his tracks.

Peace.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Bush II did try to shore up Social Security. He was unable to get his plan through Congress.

His plan was to privatize social security and invest in the stock market. It was a scheme to destroy Social Security and the democrats stopped him in his tracks.

Peace.

I am about halfway through "Decision Points", the George W. Bush memoirs, and he discusses his efforts to fix Social Security, which were misinterpreted as an attempt to privatize SS. The plan that he favored was crafted by Robert Pozen (D) and used progressive indexing, which set benefits to grow fastest for the poorest and slowest for the wealthiest, with a sliding scale for everyone in between. By changing the benefit growth formula, the plan would wipe out the vast majority of the SS shortfall. In additon, everyone would have the opportunity to earn higher returns through personal retirement accounts.

BTW, this has been a good read thus far. There is a lot more to GWB than the image created by the media.

 

[wkmac]

His plan was to privatize social security and invest in the stock market. It was a scheme to destroy Social Security and the democrats stopped him in his tracks.

Peace.

If he did have a plan to privatize, it's not like it was anything new. Clinton and Gingrich came damn close to a privatization plan until Monica surfaced but then should we ask the question if we really know what it happening as we speak? I refer to the following in the above linked article:

President Obama has likewise entrusted Erskine Bowles with the task of chairing his own Deficit Commission, which is currently meeting in secret to address Social Security and other entitlement issues.

It should also be worth noting that Obama had a high number of Clintonista's in his cabinet many of them from a economic POV. Being the meetings are secret, we have no way of knowing but then what walks like a duck!

 

[Babagounj]

" Tax ALL companies who build products overseas and put that money into social security. I dont care what company it is. If they want to leave our shores and evade employing an american, or evade taxes, or evade benefits, then tax them at the border. "

Nice idea but totally unenforceable.
There is currently a law on the books to double tax foreign profits that are returned to the USA. And guess what those companies have done......kept those profits overseas, companies like GM, which its overseas units did not require any gov't assistance.

 

[brett636]

Brett,

WWII was a typo, which I clearly demonstrated. Regardless, what I said stands. Roosevelts own words confirm my point. All you have to do is read them. You want to talk about 1935 and I am talking about his motivation in 1933.

It doesnt change the circumstances Brett. Roosevelt felt the pressure of widows and orphans in 1933 and he acted upon that. He didnt just wake up one day and decide to give retired americans a leg up.

That is foolish. Everything has a motivation Brett.

Peace.

Lol, its a typo even though I already demonstrated that Social Security was enacted well after WWI and before we even got into WWII yet you continue to push this lie anyway. Look, this is why I don't bother responding to most of the crap you post. I just dismiss it as completely false and I'm certain a lot of regular posters here recognize this as well. I don't even bother to research anything that you say because I know its untrue to begin with. I simply cannot fix this obvious psychological problem you have with accepting the truth.

 

[The Other Side]

Lol, its a typo even though I already demonstrated that Social Security was enacted well after WWI and before we even got into WWII yet you continue to push this lie anyway. Look, this is why I don't bother responding to most of the crap you post. I just dismiss it as completely false and I'm certain a lot of regular posters here recognize this as well. I don't even bother to research anything that you say because I know its untrue to begin with. I simply cannot fix this obvious psychological problem you have with accepting the truth.

Brett,

How long after WWI do you think the depression happened? How long before widows of WWI were affected by the deaths of their husbands at old age? If a wife was 30 something in 1919, and she turned 42 and was unable to work because women were not allowed in the workplace yet, how was she to survive?

Do some thinking bro. Dont just read something to fit your dialog. The facts are the facts. Roosevelt started with widows and children for social security, and by the time it made it to congress it had many changes.

You dont have to research, you will only dissapoint yourself. You are free to think what you want. It doesnt matter to me.

It is what it is.

Peace.

 

[brett636]

Brett,

How long after WWI do you think the depression happened? How long before widows of WWI were affected by the deaths of their husbands at old age? If a wife was 30 something in 1919, and she turned 42 and was unable to work because women were not allowed in the workplace yet, how was she to survive?

Do some thinking bro. Dont just read something to fit your dialog. The facts are the facts. Roosevelt started with widows and children for social security, and by the time it made it to congress it had many changes.

You dont have to research, you will only dissapoint yourself. You are free to think what you want. It doesnt matter to me.

It is what it is.

Peace.

Its a far cry from widows and children only to the elderly only. Not to mention http://www.ssa.gov corresponds with everything I have been posting so the facts are on my side, not yours. Its ok to admit you are a lying sack of you know what, but getting you to admit that would mean speaking some truth and we both know that is well beyond your capability.