# Why social security can't be changed



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Answer congress isn't affected, why should they worry?

Lawmakers Never Faced With Losing Benefits 
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 
Wed Apr 19, 5:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Members of Congress occasionally lose elections, but they never lose retirement and health benefits that most Americans can only envy.

A lawmaker who retires at 60 after just 12 years in office can count on receiving an immediate pension of $25,000 a year and lifetime benefits that could total more than $800,000.

That doesn't include 401(k) benefits. And any member who lasts five years in office also can get taxpayer-subsidized health care until he or she reaches Medicare age.

Congressional pensions tend to be far more generous than those offered in the private sector. Benefits start earlier and - unlike most private pension plans promising a fixed monthly payment based on years worked and pay - come with annual cost-of-living increases. They also accrue a third faster than the average plan offered by private companies.

Any member of Congress with five years of service is eligible for full benefits at 62. Those with 20 years in office can get full benefits at 50, younger than most workers.

Cost-of-living adjustments, a shield against inflation, "haven't been slightly common since the 1980s" in the private sector, said John Ehrhardt, an expert in corporate retirement programs at the Seattle-based consulting and actuarial firm Milliman. He said COLAs could add 25 percent to the value of a congressional plan over its lifetime.

It doesn't matter what a lawmaker does before or after leaving office. Former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., who was sentenced to eight years and four months in jail after pleading guilty to bribery charges this year, is still entitled to an annual pension of about $36,000 for his 15 years in the House. That doesn't include his military pension or 401(k) benefits.

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who is resigning after 22 years, will qualify for an initial pension of $56,000. DeLay could get pension payments of nearly $2 million over his expected lifetime, according to the National Taxpayers Union, which tracks congressional pension issues.

Lawmakers also have the peace of mind of knowing their federally backed plan will be there when they retire.

"I don't think that many people in Congress would be quite so indifferent to the demise of the defined-benefit plan if they didn't have such a robust plan themselves," said James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, which represents companies with pension plans.

Congress is now working on pension legislation aimed at shoring up the defined-benefit plans available to some 44 million employees and retirees, but there's no stopping the trend of companies shrinking their plans or not letting new hires join them.

Employers also are switching to less costly cash balance plans, under which employees generally receive one lump-sum payment when they retire or leave the company.

Rep. Bernard Sanders (news, bio, voting record) of I-Vt., is a critic of the cash balance plans that the House bill would encourage. In 2003 he asked the Congressional Research Service to see what would happen to lawmakers' benefits under such an approach.

"The result would have been huge cutbacks for some members," Sanders said in a recent interview.

For example, say a representative retired at 56 at the end of 2002 with 18 years of service. At 62 he or she would have a defined benefit plan worth $608,000. A comparable cash balance plan would be worth $251,000.

Under current rules, lawmakers who serve 30 years will receive a yearly pension of 44 percent of their annual pay, which this year is $165,200. That doesn't include their Social Security benefits and what they get back from their 401(k) plans. Like other federal workers in the Thrift Savings Plan, the government's equivalent of a 401(k), lawmakers may invest up to $15,000 yearly, more if they're over 50, and receive a contribution from the government equal to 5 percent of their pay.

Older lawmakers, who were in office before the rules were changed two decades ago, can receive even higher pensions, though their Social Security is less.

Rep. Henry Hyde (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., who is retiring at the end of this session after three decades in the House, will receive a pension of $119,000 a year, according to the National Taxpayers Union, an interest group that keeps track. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, a senator for 38 years, would be eligible for $125,000 if he retired at the end of his current term. He has a higher salary as the Senate's President Pro Tem.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a multimillionaire physician who is stepping down after 12 years, can expect an initial pension of $23,000 in 2007. With his thrift plan investments, Frist's estimated lifetime benefits will be around $1 million, the NTU says.

Former presidents, for comparison, receive a taxable pension equal to the base pay of Cabinet secretaries, currently $183,500.

The Congressional Research Service, in a study of member retirement benefits updated last year, quoted a Senate report from 1946, the year Congress extended the federal pension system to lawmakers:

The retirement plan, it said, "would contribute to independence of thought and action (and be) an inducement for retirement for those of retiring age or with other infirmities."

"Sixty years of results have shown that experiment to be an utter failure," commented Peter Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union. The average age of senators in the current Congress is 60.4 years, the oldest in history, according to the CRS. The average age of House members is 55 years, also probably the oldest ever, the CRS said.

Congress' pension system was overhauled in 1983, when the Social Security Act was changed to require federal employees, including members of Congress, to participate in Social Security. Those elected in 1984 or later, under what is now called the Federal Employees' Retirement System or FERS, get smaller pensions than their more senior colleagues. But they also get bigger Social Security checks.

The CRS said that as of October 2002, there were 340 retired members receiving pensions under the pre-1984 system averaging $55,800 a year. There were also 71 who retired with service under both systems or only FERS, with annual benefits of $41,900. The total cost of the pension program for members of Congress is estimated at $25 million a year.

Sepp said his group's figures show that lawmakers' contributions to the FERS defined benefit plan cover about 20 percent of the typical lifetime payout. Lawmakers send 1.3 percent of their annual pay into the FERS pension plan, and the government adds 15.8 percent. Other federal workers contribute 0.8 percent, and the government adds 10.7 percent of their pay.

One lawmaker who won't be getting the benefits is Rep. Howard Coble (news, bio, voting record), R-N.C., who since his election in 1984 has declined participation in either the pension or the thrift savings plan and has tried, without success, to eliminate or scale them back.

"He thought taxpayers should not have to subsidize retirement programs for people who run for public office," said his spokesman, Ed McDonald. But he's "given up on trying to reform the system."

The recent flurry of legislative action in the wake of the Cunningham and lobbying controversies has produced several proposals to deny pensions to those convicted of felonies. Currently, an act of treason is one of the few ways a House member or senator can lose a pension.

Members of Congress also participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program or FEHB, which covers some 8 million federal workers. The FEHB is lauded as a model for a large-scale comprehensive health care plan, and lawmakers are frequently criticized for failing to come up with a comparable system for the tens of millions of Americans without adequate health care.

The key ingredient of the FEHB, said Robert Moffit, director of health policy studies at the Heritage Foundation, is "the government doesn't force you into some kind of straitjacket."

Participants choose from about a dozen fee-for-service plans, plus several hundred HMO plans and, more recently, health savings accounts paired with high-deductible health plans.

The government pays an average 72 percent of premiums, less than the average 82 percent that employers in the private sector paid in 2003, according to a Labor Department survey. Retiring legislators, as well as other federal workers, can continue to participate after just five years of enrollment, and the government continues to pick up 72 percent of the premiums.

Once 65 and eligible for Medicare, they can still buy so-called wraparound plans to fill any gaps in coverage.

Current members can also purchase top-of-the-line care, using their FEHB benefits, at Washington's military hospitals, and for an annual fee, now $480, can drop by the Attending Physician's Office in the first floor of the U.S. Capitol for X-rays, EKGs, physical exams and consultations.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The way it seems to me is that a reasonable plan hasn't been set forth as of yet, thus no action has been taken.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Reasonable plan would be to Privitize the situation until all Americans are "Weaned Off" from Government Compelled Socialism.

GWB had the right idea ...

But as Mr. Franklin said ...

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

Folks just don't seem to understand (or have the self control to expect from themselves that) they could earn/build more wealth with "FICA" money on their own ...

What a bunch of NUMBSKULLS we all are

To them it's viewed as "Free Money"

Or so it seems to me


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Your right, someones worried about losing their FREE LUNCH!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Privitization seems rather risky to many people and rightly so. The whole reason that Social Security was formed was because people were too dumb to manage their own funds and ended up living in boxes in their old age. No society can survive using only one form of government. Truly great governments use many elements to prevent the pitfalls of any one given system.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

And it appears the government cant manage it anyway so we might as well take our wack at it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The issue here is that Bush is trying to push major reforms that would regress the way the SS system functions. The system isn't broken, or at the very least is still functional. Minor changes are certainly in order but overhalling the entire system and risking the future of the American people is not the way to go about it.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

It is only functional for people whom want nothing out of their money. You could put your money in a fricking savings account and out perform social security. And don't give me that people are too stupid crap, we seemed to get by for over 100 years without it


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Do you recall why Social Security was started? Old folks were starving to death and living in the streets because they couldn't manage their money properly. Roosevelt helped to pull the country out of economic hell with this program among others. Call me a cynic but I don't have a lot of faith in the American people. They have proven that they can't keep themselves out of the economic gutter after retirement once and I don't feel like we need to prove it again.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The best part is that you MT will suffer the consequences of your ignorance when you are paying through the nose for social security because of the burden it will put on this country.

A burden that mathmatically is unsustainable because the Democrats in congress stole the money through accounting trickery that our ignorant public including you is incapable of understanding.



> The system isn't broken, or at the very least is still functional. Minor changes are certainly in order but overhalling the entire system and risking the future of the American people is not the way to go about it.


No one that understands SS believes that unless they have an ajenda that is more important than the future of the country.

Rich bastards like me will enjoy recieveing your tax dollars because you're too stupid to do simple math and believe corrupt congressmen that don't have to pay into the system and don't suffer the consequences of their fancy slick slight of hand accounting.

The reforms Bush was pushing would of made a huge positive effect on the SS system, and now self interested politicians and K street lobbiests will continue to screw you and other ignorant young people.

Why? because they can, they realize you are too stupid to know better.

The only reason Bush didn't fix it is because corrupt political forces in the democrat party didn't want the equally corrupt republicans to get credit for fixing it, K street would lose money and the republicans in congress don't have the guts to help.

In a few years I will be spending your tax dollars while you struggle to earn a living and support your family with confiscatory high SS taxes being levied on your salary, and I don't need a cent of it. That was one of several things Bush was trying to change.

But I know the template, Bush is wrong, Bush is evil blah blah.

:eyeroll:

You really begin to understand the frustration the few good politicians that are there for the right reasons must feel when they see the sheer ignorance of the MTs in the world and realize the hopelessness of explaining even simple concepts.

What does it matter that congress would put you in prison for running a retirement plan like they have :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The best part is that you MT will suffer the consequences of your ignorance when you are paying through the nose for social security because of the burden it will put on this country.


I'll be paying through the nose to pay off the debt that has been accumulated under this administration.



> The reforms Bush was pushing would of made a huge positive effect on the SS system, and now self interested politicians and K street lobbiests will continue to screw you and other ignorant young people.


How is that? By letting half of this country who as you said is too ignorant to follow said plan and thus far to ignorant to do something as advanced as plan out their future take their retirement into their own hands? I don't feel like paying for housing projects and food programs to keep them from starving. I would prefer to pay into the SS fund.



> But I know the template, Bush is wrong, Bush is evil blah blah.


He hasn't done a whole lot to show people otherwise.

Bob I'm glad that you can plan out your retirement. I could probably do the same. Many people, as evident in the 1920s and early 30s cannot. They too are Americans, and if you try to leave them in the dust you will only end up paying for them directly out of pocket.

A side note, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you really want to convince people that your plan is best you might shy away from calling them ignorant, stupid, or otherwise in lalaland.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The frustration Bobm is exhibiting is the frustration one gets while trying to help someone. Like Bob said can you imagine the frustration that the few good politicians must feel.

If I remember the plan it only let you invest about 2 percent. Not 2 percent of your salary, but two percent of what you pay in. Two percent isn't much. If it fails Bob and I will not notice in our grave, but fellows that are just starting working now will be the ones starving. This is your future we are talking about MT. If Bob and I were selfish we would tell you forget that savings plan and keep paying in so we can afford things we don't even need when we retire. We will buy them with your money. Unless you go for a plan that lets you save and lowers the income level that people can withdraw social security.

If this plan works like my friends federal retirement system these people can't goof up because they don't choose where they invest. They have the choice of say A, B, or C funds. I can remember this much about the plan, but I bet most people didn't give it enough chance to pay attention and don't know this.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

There never was a plan to privatize Social Security. Allowing people to manage 4% of their Social Security is not overhauling the entire system. :fiddle:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Gohon ... My personal belief was that the thing would be ramped up over time ... maybe eventually giving folks an opportunity to bail completely out at some point. (all speculation on my part but it's about the only way to eventualy eliminate the current system which is what is needed.)

It's a cinch something has to change ... SS is a much worse "return on investment" than the stock market and it is 100% guaranteed to get worse as we move forward.

Withholdings will have to be increased, Benefits delayed or decreased ... or all three ...

If MT thinks private accounts are "RISKY" ... maybe MT needs to take a look at the ledger and see that there is indeed NO QUESTION on SS.

SS is Guaran-God-Damn-Te'ed to go bankrupt in MT's lifetime unless the Return On Invetment for folks in the system is reduced greatly, in one or more of the ways I mentioned.

I think I'd take the Private Account Program today if could.

And the sad part from where I sit is ... being self employed ... I pay BOTH HALVES of FICA out of the profits of my business ... Since I am a sole proprietor my business profits are my taxable income


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I agree that something must be done, but I don't think this is the proper way to do it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> but I don't think


Man sometimes MT you do write the truth!!!!!!! 

Sorry could not resist!!!!!!!!


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT Wrote: .... I don't think this is the proper way to do it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK ... here's your shot kid ...

Give me your profund way out of the Ponsey Scheme.

You do realize that is what SS is ...

If you and I got together and set up a financial organization that functioned like the SS System ...

We would be uncerimoniousy tossed in Jail ...

I can promise you that.

It is a "Classic" Ponsey Scheme set-up


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I will add ...

Someone is going to have to "Pay the Freight" to get this ship Righted and do it soon

or at some point many, many folks will be much worse off than those poor Bastards you talked about from the 20s and 30s ... because at least those folks from the twenties and thirties got to spend the money they earned rather than have the Government confiscate it for a "PROMISE"

It was "Un-Constitutional" when it was implemented ... and it still is


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I agree that something must be done, but I don't think this is the proper way to do it.


There are only three options. Let the government handle all of your money, handle all of it yourself, or allow for a mixed control of your money. The key word here is YOUR money btw.

If something has to be done, and you dont think people can handle controling a pitance of the money they send in, let alone all of it, what else is there but to bend over and take it in the rear long, slow, and dry?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Give me your profund way out of the Ponsey Scheme.


I don't know enough to tell you what will work but I do know enough to tell you that that the reason social security was setup was because people needed a safety net. If you put the net in their hands, it becomes useless.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Safety net is one thing ...

Seems to me all those folks you don't Trust to begin with ...

Turn those nets into .....

HAMMOCKS


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

And you propose that instead of putting our cash into a collective we instead pay out of pocket to build shelter and feed those who cannot properly manage their retirement?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

No, I propose that I take care of my money, and that those who cannot take care of themselves suffer the consequences.

Men and women work harder and are more productive when they know that they are the only ones they can rely on.

Theres a reason socialism failed.....


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... the fundamental problem you have is you disregard what America was intended to be ...

From George Washington who presided over the making of the Constitution to James Madison who scribed it ...

NONE believed the Federal Government owed one seconds thought nor a plugged nickle to the financial well being of any American ...

FDR Blackmailed SCOTUS (and had enough pull with him considering the times) to make the threat believable ...

The rest is Historical Fiscal Disaster

And we here today are reaping the dubious rewards for that action.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> No, I propose that I take care of my money, and that those who cannot take care of themselves suffer the consequences.


So you propose that we let those who have lost their savings starve like dogs? Certainly you aren't suggesting such a thing.



> Theres a reason socialism failed.....


Socialism worked fairly well. Communism failed because of greed and a lack of adherence to the idea of no social class. That is a different matter entirely.



> The rest is Historical Fiscal Disaster


It has done fairly well for what, 70 years now? Hardly a disaster in my book.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... the point is ...

Those are not (were not intended by the founders) to be in the realm of the Federal Government ...

They should be done by Private Charity and Religious Welfare ...

Not through Federal Confiscation


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> So you propose that we let those who have lost their savings starve like dogs? Certainly you aren't suggesting such a thing.
> 
> Socialism worked fairly well. Communism failed because of greed and a lack of adherence to the idea of no social class. That is a different matter entirely.


No, I dont suggest they starve like dogs. I suggest they take full advantage of liberal generocity and leave me and my money alone. If there isnt enough liberal money to go around, tough.

And no, socialism didnt work. For EXACTLY the reasons you said. Its human nature to be capitolistic. Those that try to think otherwise are usually the ones that would benefit more from it, there by making them capitolistic in their own rights.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

If it's such a success ... why do you admit something must be done ...

but acknowledge it is so difficult you have no clue what to do???

Get your head out into the clean air and breath ...

you are once again sounding moronic in your argument


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If there isnt enough liberal money to go around, tough.


So, you are suggesting that if people can't make ends meet after retirement that they should starve. Isn't that nice.



> And no, socialism didnt work.


Oh I would argue that point. Look at the Soviet Union under Lenin.



> Its human nature to be capitolistic.


I don't think it is human nature to adhere to any given economic ideology.



> If it's such a success ... why do you admit something must be done ...


It ran for 70 years. I would call that pretty successful.



> but acknowledge it is so difficult you have no clue what to do???


The absence of an absolute solution to a problem does not necessitate action that would worsen the situation.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Isn't that nice.


Life isnt "nice"...The sooner you realise that the better off you will be.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> The absence of an absolute solution to a problem does not necessitate action that would worsen the situation.


Tell us all how managing the "warm cup of spit" the government would allow us to control privately would make matters worse....


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

This was was released in 1998 but I thought it was a differant view worth sharing.



> Liberals' defense of Social Security shows they've abandoned their core principles.
> 
> For immediate release: 3-July-1998
> 
> ...


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Sorry for the CAPS ... had caplock on and to much typed to want to retype it ... so there you go 

mt ... iF i IGNORE ALL THE INCREASES IN WITHOLDING AND DECREASES IN BENEFITS OVER THAT 70 YEARS AND BITE MY TOUNGE AND JOIN YOU IN CALLING IT A SUCCESS ... KNOWING FULL WELL WE BOTH ACKNOWLEDGE IT AS A FAILING SYSTEM ... THAT 70 YEARS IS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AMERICAS EXISTENCE AND HOPEFULLY A MINISCULE PART OF IT'S FUTURE ... IN THAT PERSPECTIVE OF TIME ... I CALL IT A RESOUNDING BLUNDER ... ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE BURDEN IT NOW PUTS ON EVERY AMERICAN


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Quote: 
And no, socialism didnt work.

MT says


> Oh I would argue that point. Look at the Soviet Union under Lenin.


    

Is this what they teach you in schools in Michigan, Lord help us! If they did you should get out of that school and fast!!

With this blatant ignorance as a basis for discussion I don't know why I try. :eyeroll: 
But I will...

*READ THIS * Study the return comparison then tell me you would prefer the crooks in Washington running the plan :eyeroll:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/ne ... 16.art.htm

In fact print it and show it to other young people, assuming you hang around with like minded kids let them see the facts.

Congress ( in this case primarily the Dems) although the reps haven't shown any real desire to change this because they are the current beneficiaries of the SS SLUSH FUND. :******: is screwing your generation big time. Are you going to let them?? is the question.

You seem so interested in politics why don't you get the facts and devote your life to changing things for the better instead of parroting the crooked congress party line. Their line benefits them not you.

Do remember this. In 1981 Galveston County in Texas decided to remove county employees from the Social Security system. They replaced it with a county plan where every employee owned his own account. * The tax structure was virtually the same as with Social Security. * A percentage was taken from the employee's paycheck to fund the private plan, and the county matched that amount with a corresponding "contribution." (The idea of a matching contribution is a fraud ... but we'll save that for another time). Like Social Security, the Galveston plan offered a retirement, death and disability benefit. Today when a county worker retires in Galveston County his retirement income exceeds what he was making when he was retired! *After privatization of the Galveston retirement plan people see their income go UP, not down when they retire. *
So ... why haven't more local governments done what Galveston County did? Because congress passed a law prohibiting it just two years later. *Politicians need Social Security*. We don't.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> THAT 70 YEARS IS LESS THAN A THIRD OF AMERICAS EXISTENCE AND HOPEFULLY A MINISCULE PART OF IT'S FUTURE ... IN THAT PERSPECTIVE OF TIME ... I CALL IT A RESOUNDING BLUNDER


You consider pulling the country out of a tailspin and a 70 year run a blunder? Care to point out a few government programs that have done better?



> Life isnt "nice"...The sooner you realise that the better off you will be.


I'm not going to watch the elderly die of starvation. I like to consider myself a better person than that.



> Is this what they teach you in schools in Michigan, Lord help us! If they did you should get out of that school and fast!!
> 
> With this blatant ignorance as a basis for discussion I don't know why I try.
> But I will...


I would argue that it is you who is the ignorant one, Bob. I'm certain that socialist is such a dirty word to you that you reject it implicitly, not taking the time to understand it's inner workings and means. I just finished studying socialist and communist Russia, and recently finished reading the _Communist Manifesto_ on my own time. I can however see that your tactic is to call someone ignorant when they disagree with you, so let us digress.

As to SS privatization, it won't work because people won't be able to reap any greater benefits than they currently are. For each dollar put into Social Security, the government must raise that dollar in private markets. You won't see any jump in the economy if privatization is done because one is simply rerouting money. This means that you are giving the same funds that would be invested by professionals and giving it to people with little or no financial experience. If these people hope to make more than they would in SS, they will invest in stocks. By doing so they will have essientially bet their retirement on the markets.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You just don't know much about anything do you I guess I need to keep that in mind when we talk.

Remember what I said about making yourself look stupid by spouting off idiotic unsupportable positions.

Name one place that socialism has worked better than capitalism, just one.

Be sure to point out how many people from the US are immigrating there because its so wonderful there.

Just one is all I ask. :roll: :roll:

Second Point-

argueing about money with a stubborn little high school kid who won't accept facts when they are put in front of his face is a joke. I have 5 teenagers of my own and I painfully understand what a oxymoron teenage logic is :lol:

When I was about your age and pissing off My dad he once asked me when I thought I would know what he knows.

Of course being an arrogant little "know it all" high school kid I gave him my best estimate. :withstupid:

The correct answer was never :lol:

You will never catch up and neither did I.

But at least now I know it :wink:

Hint, If you read a wider variety of viewpoints it would help.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Name one place that socialism has worked better than capitalism, just one.


Who said it was better than capitalism? I said it worked rather well.



> Hint, If you read a wider variety of viewpoints it would help.


I already do. I watch Fox News regularly and have read or glanced at every article posted on this thread as well as a few outside articles supporting privatization.

Back on topic, can you refute any of my points in my previous post concerning SS?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I'm not going to watch the elderly die of starvation. I like to consider myself a better person than that.


Thats fine. But what you suggest is that Everyone pay for these elderly whether they want to or not. Thats socialism, and Im no socialist.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You can call me a nazi if you like, but I think that American lives are too important to let the elderly die off for lack of food and shelter in this land of plenty. I am amazed at how vehemently you defend the rights of the unborn but are willing to watch the elderly starve like dogs.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I fail to see anywhere I called you a Nazi, dont put words in my mouth.

Secondly, while America is indeed great, I dont see why it should be my responsibility to support myself, my family AND anyone else that couldnt get their head and their *** wired together.

You keep implying that without social security every elderly person will wither and die. That is not true. Only the ones that didnt prepare for retirement will starve and die. And even then, Im happy to see private charitues help these people. But its not right that the govt forces me to help somebody.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Secondly, while America is indeed great, I dont see why it should be my responsibility to support myself, my family AND anyone else that couldnt get their head and their a$$ wired together.


Lets put it this way, I'm not willing to let the unfortunate elderly die out of principle.



> You keep implying that without social security every elderly person will wither and die. That is not true. Only the ones that didnt prepare for retirement will starve and die. And even then, Im happy to see private charitues help these people. But its not right that the govt forces me to help somebody.


I am not implying that all elderly will die, but as evident in the 1930s many do.

I suppose you could argue that the government couldn't force you to pay for the roads that you don't drive on or the water treatment plants that you won't take advantage of, but that isn't how our society works.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Mar 1, 2006)

Don't forget back then Banks were not insured either that's why most people lost everything when the Banks went under.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT lets look at one aspect at a time. First of all lets get socialism our of the way. Maybe we can agree on this. Socialism is a step towards communism. I say this because communism takes everything you have and divides it among everyone equally. Socialism takes away from those that have (the productive) and gives it to those that do not have (the none productive). This is close to, but not communism.

Now, you say it worked rather well. I contend that it will never work because of the innate human behavior. That behavior works as follows, and I will pose it as a question. Which would make you work harder, getting everything you earn, getting 60 percent of what you earn, or getting the same as everyone else, no matter how hard you work. The answer is easy isn't it?

I believe the communist system has worked better in China because these people have practically been slaves to the emperor for thousands of years. They have been conditioned, but even slight tastes of freedom and capitalism leave then wanting more. It will eventually fail there also, but after many useless deaths bringing it about, and I fear also as it dies.

I don't advocate letting old people starve, and MT your smart enough to know that no one on this site would let that happen. This is where people get angry. I understand that you have been the brunt of some of this, but telling people they want old people to starve isn't going to solve your problems.

So how do we keep these old people fed? We don't have to keep the old system. If they invested 4 percent and lost it all keep in mind it is only 4 percent. If we continue as we are they will have to reduce benefits how much, 10 percent, 20 percent, what? They may have to also increase the amount we put in. That isn't much different than loosing the 4 percent private investment is it? Give these things some thought.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT lets look at one aspect at a time. First of all lets get socialism our of the way. Maybe we can agree on this. Socialism is a step towards communism. I say this because communism takes everything you have and divides it among everyone equally. Socialism takes away from those that have (the productive) and gives it to those that do not have (the none productive). This is close to, but not communism.


Socialism is just making industry publically owned. It can and has worked. Communism, the idea of the classless society and complete equality is ridiculous. I believe that many do not make the separation because both are such dirty words in our nation.



> I don't advocate letting old people starve, and MT your smart enough to know that no one on this site would let that happen.


I do not accuse you of such a thing, but that is precisely what GO has stated.



> If they invested 4 percent and lost it all keep in mind it is only 4 percent.


Using that system at very best you will be making somewhat more money on 4% of what would have otherwise been in the SS fund. This isn't going to make a big difference in the system. It may in fact result in people having less money, considering that you are giving that four percent to many people with no experience in investing.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Social Security is built on and perpetuated on a Premise which is quite simply "Illegal" in the United States of America ...

It's Illegal or the very reasons we are and have been experiencing fiscal for many years now.

To say nothing of the fact that it was "Unconstitutional" when it was proposed and only the threat of "Stacking/Expanding SCOTUS" with Justices agreeable to the case compelled the existing Court at the time to Cave In to the Demands of FDR.

Talk about a President doing something Illegal and Unconstitutional ... there you go ... FDR is your man.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

He also successfully led America through a war and out of depression. That is beside the point.

What exactly makes SS illegal? I have seen this claim many times, but no one has explained themselves.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Socialism has never worked anywhere its been tried period.

Reading the posts above its clear that none of you understand China.

China's historically been a fierce totalitarian system where socialism failed and was enforced with threat of death.

After Mao's death China has evolved into a one party authoritarian rule capitalistic society and then and only then did they begin to become a world economic power and a place where there citizens began to enjoy decent life styles.

The socialist model failed miserably. And began to be abandoned after tienamin(sp?) square because the socailist communist govt realized they were facing a revolution if they didn't change the economy for the better

If you want to know some more about China Read these

http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/ert/e19/putter.htm

http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/ert/e14/china-4.htm

the bottom line is that socialism has failed everywhere its been tried and there is a real basic reason why.

*When you take all the politics out of it the underlying reason socialism failed is that it denies human nature*,

nothing that deines human nature will ever work period. Humans want to be free and they want to enjoy the fruits of their labors, period end of story.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov_2002/heady.htm

Read the links, I picked short onesthat are easy to read, so at least you could have basic understanding of the China we are now facing

MT if any teacher you have is telling you socialism works they are lying to you! Ask them to show you a successful society that has used it. None exists.

Academia is the last bastion of failed socialist ideals( of course its govt and there is no competition so they believe the real world should work that way also), it doesn't. Thats why they fight so hard to prevent and competition they are firghtened of it so they produce a substandard product as all socailist systems do.

Unfortunately you have to go outside academia to really understand the world.

And for the few teachers on the site that will take this wrong I am not implying all teachers are socialists so spare me that idiot wailing.

I am saying the system is.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... search "Ponzi Scheme" ...

It is based on a permise that folks pay into the system and the money is given to earlier entrants to the system on the promise that these folks will get their turn at the riches later ... from the new members entering the system in the future.

But no accumulation of wealth exixts ... just a "shuffle" of money.

That is illegal and you and I would be uncerinomiously tossed in jail if we set up an enterprise which functoned that way ... It's Illegal.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Socialism has never worked anywhere its been tried period.
> 
> Reading the posts above its clear that none of you understand China.
> 
> China's historically been a fierce totalitarian system where socialism failed and was enforced with threat of death.


China has existed for 57 years with it's current system. Even if one was to consider China a failure that does not mean that socialism is incapable of working.



> nothing that deines human nature will ever work period. Humans want to be free and they want to enjoy the fruits of their labors, period end of story.


Like abstinence programs? Just a joke.



> MT if any teacher you have is telling you socialism works they are lying to you! Ask them to show you a successful society that has used it. None exists.


I find it really laughable that you have these ideas that the youth is being corrupted by liberal teachers. I didn't get any of this from my teacher, I have come to my conclusions out of my own research and readings.

As to no successful society, define successful.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> MT ... search "Ponzi Scheme" ...
> 
> It is based on a permise that folks pay into the system and the money is given to earlier entrants to the system on the promise that these folks will get their turn at the riches later ... from the new members entering the system in the future.
> 
> ...


I like how the Chinese figure if your not contributing enough they'll sell your liver or some other body part; successful society.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

China has not "lasted 57 years", they put you to death if you didn't like their system for 57 years, big difference. The population lived in austere impoverished conditions with the exception of the politically connected.
Capitalism has changed that.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

How do you figure that they haven't lasted 57 years? Their socialist/communist government has held power since 1949, how is that not successful? I don't agree with their policies but they have indeed been successful.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Sounds like the only way socialism works is to kill the citizenry to keep it in fear.

It blows my mind how you can continue to argue the benefits of socialism and not grasp the fact that it has not, nor will it ever work. Its an idealisitc theory, that works great in theory, but the trouble is that the theory never takes human nature into account.

Find a way to manipulate the human work ethic, and eliminate greed and lust for power and socialism will work fine. But you got a better chance of making an all in one pill out of candy that cures AIDS, cancer, and puts wings on pigs.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

And yet you deny that it has worked for so long in China and worked for so long in the USSR.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Consider their living conditions when you speak of communism working. It's though to go up against tanks with pitch forks and clubs also. I watched the students in Teneman (can't spell worth two cents) square. It appeared they like communism too. Also, which way was it they were crawling to get over the Berlin wall? Then compare that to the United States. Do we want boarder security to keep people in?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You are welcome to fight that straw man if you choose. I am not saying that communism nor socialism produces a very happy climate nor is it particularly desirable for many people. I said it works. As evident in China, it does.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think our disagreement comes in the definition of works. Hitler's government worked also. So did every other terrible government that has ever been on this earth. I guess you could say that a dictator who murdered thousands of people each day still had a government that worked. My definition of working is a government that can make it a couple hundred years and the citizens are still satisfied with it. We have made it what about 230 years now, and communism is comparably new.
I say it doesn't work, because when government destroys personal ambition it isn't working. When one must be threatened with death to follow, it isn't working. When children must be brainwashed to turn in parents it isn't working. When tanks run over dissidents it isn't working. When freedom is lost it isn't working. 
If China is the same in the year 2506, and the people feel it can not be improved upon, then I will agree. Unless of course they have killed everyone who doesn't agree with them.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I say it doesnt work because there are people in power that have much, much more than the common citizen. They use what the have to force the lesser peoples into submission. The whole idea of functioning socialism goes right down the drain when the leader of socialist countries will kill you on the spot for wanting more for yourself, and then return home to a 50 room palace, enjoy a lobster dinner and watch American shows on his satellite TV. Thats not socialism, its a form of serfdom.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Indeed Plainsman we are using different systems of measurement. By working I simply mean that the government was successful and survived for a reasonable amount of time. I would not call Hitler's government terribly successful because it lasted but twelve years.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

As with all socialist or communist states there is a constant and never ending reinvention of government taking place within. The last one with China took place in 1978 when Deng Xiaoping seized power and launched capitalistic economic reforms. The old communist doctrines were scraped even to the point of the communist Party formally condemning Mao for the economic disasters from 1957 till his death. So the present Chinese government is not 57 years old but a mere 28 years


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I happen to believe that for a Govenment to be considered "Reasonable" or "Successful" it needs to sustain MANY prosperous generations ...

Not just a pitiful, impoverished few.

MT ... you need seriously to Raise your standards and expectations ... and do it in a sobber manner.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MT you would argue that a square wheel "works".

Another waste of time.........very boring stupid conversation.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I happen to believe that for a Govenment to be considered "Reasonable" or "Successful" it needs to sustain MANY prosperous generations ...


No one ever claimed that it was reasonable. Once again, I claim that it works, it has. Our greatest enemies in recent times have been communists. If the system did not work this would not be so.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

No offense to anyone personally , but back to the topic as you three ( I would guess younger guys ) duke it out . Seems that you really need to do your research on a topic as complicated as this . I am hearing what is begining to sound like a broken record as you each tout what you have heard from the self made pundits on both sides of this issue .

In the very first place on January 17th, 1935 President Roosevelt asked Congress for Social Security and it was introduced in the House and the Senate the same day . So it seems there was a matter of urgency about this proposal . Notwithstanding as the only measure Roosevelt sought in the " New Deal " reform , Social Security was tied to a list of combined reforms .

You should read : William E. Leuchtenburg - FDR and The New Deal 1932-1940.
< a quote from > Conservatives charged that the social security conception violated the traditional American assumption of self help , self denial , and individual responsibilty .

Also today the conservative ring is much the same regarding social programs . But it has always been known that anyone opposed to social programs are insensitive and cold hearted , only accepting them as an impasse that are untouchables . The House and Senate approved the bill overwhelmingly and Roosevelt signed it into law August 15th , 1935 . 
Those who would dismantle the social programs , with good concience of course , Prefer to just privatize them because they are just something that will never go away . Their idea is to reduce government (so they say) so as to limit governments powers ( over who I ask ). They want to deregulate everything and make privatization a priority in steering the economy , industry and our social lives .
Sounds good - That is if everyone does the right thing and would police themselves accordingly . But that eutopian notion has proven itself the greatest fallacy in support of a Democracy . Now , back to the " New Deal ".Without going into the details of the constitutionality of Social Security you can rest assured that it was crafted so as not to violate that document .What really supported the success of Social Security were three other bills that did also pass . The Wagner Labor Bill ; a Banking Bill ; and Public Utility Holding Company measure were all part of the New Deal . Each of these , for their time and place had a signifigance that were social reforms in their own right .
So you see it wasn't just about SocialSecurity but also reigning in the corporations from imposing poor working conditions and little compensation . I might add , there was much bloodshed for many years to follow the passage of the Wagner Labor Bill as labor fought for the right to exercise " collective bargaing ". The Eccles bill reformed the federal reserve system and took control of the monetary banking system away from a few bankers . and the FDIC was created . Anti-trust legislation was enacted to break up holding companies from monopolizing utilities and forced the utilties companies to electrify rural America . 
You see , at a time when all were not doing the " Right Thing " these were all drastic measures .Even today they slip throught cracks . i.e. , Pension Raiding : Union Busting ; Credit Practices ; Corporate Money Laundering ; Enron ; and least , but probably not last the Oil Gaints , bring thought to the 1935 struggle .
Do you really want to trust Wall Street bankers to manage your money ? Do you really want to see all the regulations go away . 
Because in this " Me First " society , many people fail to realize that Social Security was never meant to give you a grand retirement . It was designed as a safeguard for those who were disabled and to keep the elderly from starving when they could no longer work . Unemployment compensation was a rider on the Socail Security Act . Should we try to eliminate that too ? Collective bargaining bought and paid for good pensions and health care for retirees for almost fifty years following the " New Deal " . We are in a new era where many people will enter the work force never understanding what folks fought so hard for to maintain a decent standard of living for the lower and middle class . We now are in another class war . How do you see the distribution of wealth ? Does Democracy support the Capitalist system or is it the other way around ? We are talking about a country whereas those opposed to our social programs think only of their own entity, and not our country as a whole . In my opinion you can push Socialism right up against Capitalism amicably . If the Socialism gets too much power you have Communism ( NO GOOD ). If the Capitalism gets too much power you have Facsism ( NO GOOD ) .

" We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal , moral , and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits . With those taxes in there , no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program . "
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
And I would like to add that no damn politican , or anyone has the right to tamper with those funds in any way , but restore them , and ensure that they are never misused for any fiscal or political purpose under penalty of law !!!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Your joking right?


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

Hell No ! Not joking .
With a remark like that , suppose you tell us what it is that you would like to see happen as you grow old . What do you expect from your career and your employer . Are you being treated fairly . What would you like more of , or are things just fine . Reports are the economy is doing great . Are you OK with that ? What could make it better for you ?

In the long run men hit only what they aim at . Therefore , though they should fail immediately , they had better aim at something high . -----

Henry David Thoreau


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I would like to see my retirement accounts growing as fast as possible.

I'd like to be allowed to invest that 15% of my income currently going to FICA ... Into my ROTH IRA ... SEP IRA and Health Care Savings Account ...

Instead of this PONZI SCHEME FDR and his Cronies dreamed up ...

James Madison and his Comrades never insinuated all Americans were "EQUAL" ...

Just that they would have equal rights under the law and an equal starting line.

Their destiny up to them ...

In fact we have a name for that phenomenon ...

It's called ...

"The American Dream"


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

atec said:


> Hell No ! Not joking .
> With a remark like that , suppose you tell us what it is that you would like to see happen as you grow old . What do you expect from your career and your employer . Are you being treated fairly . What would you like more of , or are things just fine . Reports are the economy is doing great . Are you OK with that ? What could make it better for you ?
> 
> In the long run men hit only what they aim at . Therefore , though they should fail immediately , they had better aim at something high . -----
> ...


I'm retired and living the DREAM here in Alaska and doing just fine as long as you keep the liberals down there with you and they keep their dickbeaters off my money. Thanks for asking.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I'm retired and living the DREAM here in Alaska and doing just fine as long as you keep the liberals down there with you and they keep their dickbeaters off my money. Thanks for asking.


It is sad how blinded you are by partisanship. You refuse to see that the Republican party now spends as liberally (if not considerably moreso) than the Democrats. You refuse to see the incompetence and mistakes of this administration in Iraq and at home. You can only bury your head in the sand for so long.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > I'm retired and living the DREAM here in Alaska and doing just fine as long as you keep the liberals down there with you and they keep their dickbeaters off my money. Thanks for asking.
> 
> 
> It is sad how blinded you are by partisanship. You refuse to see that the Republican party now spends as liberally (if not considerably moreso) than the Democrats. You refuse to see the incompetence and mistakes of this administration in Iraq and at home. You can only bury your head in the sand for so long.


:rollin: :bowdown: Your so misinformed :eyeroll:


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> It is sad how blinded you are by partisanship. You refuse to see that the Republican party now spends as liberally (if not considerably moreso) than the Democrats. You refuse to see the incompetence and mistakes of this administration in Iraq and at home. You can only bury your head in the sand for so long.


Republicans have to spend more cause we are at war. Do you think we can just go to war without it costing money, that is why the Dems spent less is cause they sat back and got their C***S sucked by interns, and where busy lying under oath.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Republicans have to spend more cause we are at war


Unfortunately that is only wishful thinking. Yes the war is costing us a lot of dollars but we have some Republicans that are just as pork barrel zealots as some of the Democrats. One of the best suggestions I've heard in congress, is a change so that all spending amendments must be done on the floor with a vote, and not in secret during committee meetings as it is now. Another suggestion was that all bills had to be made available a certain amount of time ahead of a vote, so no one could use the excuse they didn't have time to read it. Anyone heard where these suggested rules changes sit at the moment?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Republicans have to spend more cause we are at war. Do you think we can just go to war without it costing money, that is why the Dems spent less is cause they sat back and got their C***S sucked by interns, and where busy lying under oath.


Not all of this spending has been going to the war, though our spending on said war appears to be fruitless. Understand that FDR did not go into debt so heavily in World War Two when inflation is accounted for. This president presides over and has created the greatest debt that this country has ever seen, and we have certainly had larger wars in the past.

Also recall that this president has given tax breaks during war time. If he was serious about this war he would have not created such tax cuts and would have asked the public to take part in the war effort. He instead has chosen to pacify the public by keeping the war as far from the public eye as possible.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I remember when I was growing up that all the Dem's were *****ing about the money we were spending trying to go to the Moon also.....and they were wrong there too. And they thought we ****** away our money when we bought Alaska........ that turned out to be a pertty dam good deal also. That's the problem with their party they have no vision!


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

They have a vision, but it is their head up their A**es


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

hill billy said:


> They have a vision, but it is their head up their A**es


Agree, hey I would like to stay and watch the liberals here keep making fools of themselves but I'm going to do something much more fun, going Bear hunting! :sniper:

Peace Out!


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Later


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

You can't debate antagonism .

I'm Out .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hill billy, ABBK, atec, I am right behind you , but with one departing remark. Bobm was the smartest he pulled out a while ago.



> Not all of this spending has been going to the war, though our spending on said war appears to be fruitless. Understand that FDR did not go into debt so heavily in World War Two when inflation is accounted for. This president presides over and has created the greatest debt that this country has ever seen, and we have certainly had larger wars in the past.


MT, I get the feeling your being disingenuous with us again. We have gone over this before, and surely you understand. Of course FDR didn't go in debt this far. Do you know how much someone made per hour back during WWII? I know around here it was less than $0.25 and hour. That's right ¼ of a dollar. Now it is what? Your people on assembly line that require no more training than to turn a nut get $25 minimum. That is 100 times as much. Think about these things.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> MT, I get the feeling your being disingenuous with us again. We have gone over this before, and surely you understand. Of course FDR didn't go in debt this far. Do you know how much someone made per hour back during WWII?


Did you miss the part where they accounted for inflation?

As to atec I do believe he was suggesting that ABBK and hill billy are antagonizers with their constant droning diatribe that the Democrats have their heads in their fannies.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

standard inflation doesnt count for increased wages for factory labor as well.

Look at some other things, such as the fact that in ww2 soldiers were given a minimum of equipment, much of which helped win the war not because it was better, but because it was cheaper. Standard infantry men had fatigues, a rifle, and a steel helmet. IF they drove somewhere, it was in an open top jeep.

Now our soldiers have NVG's, Kevlar, Laser targeted rockets, armored HUMVEEs and a host of other weapons and equipment that costs 100s of times more per soldier than the old stuff.

This stuff saves lives, and thats whats important, but dont forget to take into account that while done on the cheap, WW2 cost a LOT of Americans their lives. Something in todays war that has been reduced drastically.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Now our soldiers have NVG's, Kevlar, Laser targeted rockets, armored HUMVEEs and a host of other weapons and equipment that costs 100s of times more per soldier than the old stuff.


That shouldn't account for too much of the cost considering they sent the soldiers to Iraq ill equipped in many cases.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

sheesh, more spin...

Ill equiped compared to who?

The Iraqis? HAHAHA

Compared to their 1942 D-Day equivalent, even the first troops to hit Iraq were more like futuristic soldiers than an ill-equiped fighting force.

Did more and better equipment come to Iraq? Sure. Same thing happened in every war we've ever fought in. By your standards the heros that stormed Normandy were ill equiped and never should have been sent to those beaches.

So how does it feel to not only argue that the president spends to much, but that he also doesnt spend enough?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Compared to their 1942 D-Day equivalent, even the first troops to hit Iraq were more like futuristic soldiers than an ill-equiped fighting force.


So evidently the soldiers would be properly equipped with muskets, because in the Crusades they used swords. What an awful comparison.



> So how does it feel to not only argue that the president spends to much, but that he also doesnt spend enough?


Seems to me that spending has to be put in the right place to be of any use. Big numbers don't win wars, competent leadership does.

As to Iraq specifically, arming our troops with body armor would be nice. Hasn't that technology been around for a great many years? Seems to me that it isn't so futuristic that our troops should have been sent out without it.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

> As to Iraq specifically, arming our troops with body armor would be nice


What? Our troops have Body armor...


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

This statement must be a sample of your ignorance:


> As to Iraq specifically, arming our troops with body armor would be nice. Hasn't that technology been around for a great many years? Seems to me that it isn't so futuristic that our troops should have been sent out without it.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT what's the topic of this thread anyway? you turn every thread into what you want it to be, KNOCK IT OFF or leave.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, I agree get this on topic. If you want to talk Iraq constantly MT do it on threads that are talking about Iraq. There is no need to turn every thread into Iraq.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It certainly wasn't a turn I was shooting for, but things went from SS to debt to the debt caused by the war, and thus the war.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > I'm retired and living the DREAM here in Alaska and doing just fine as long as you keep the liberals down there with you and they keep their dickbeaters off my money. Thanks for asking.
> 
> 
> It is sad how blinded you are by partisanship. You refuse to see that the Republican party now spends as liberally (if not considerably moreso) than the Democrats. You refuse to see the incompetence and mistakes of this *administration in Iraq *and at home. You can only bury your head in the sand for so long.


The subject was led there by you.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I think social security should be your option at 18,if you pay in at that point you can recieve benefits if not you get ZERO.


----------

