# social security "problems"



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

*What do you think?*​
Left wing loonies for sure763.64%they could be on to something...436.36%


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

What do you all think about these cartoons?? Any truth to them or are they just a bunch of left-winged loonies?

http://bushin30years.org/finalists.html ... 282c54b905


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Cute, but the entire base of the argument is hard cold facts. I'm not sure that you could argue that they are loonies at all. I've been saying this for weeks, the conservatives keep offering up solutions that do nothing to solve the actual problem at hand.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well even thought they are from a radical group they were funny. Funny, but incorrect. Or maybe a better word is huge exaggeration. 
First off these people are not bothered by 75 percent in 2042. If a loss of 25 percent doesn't bother then why do they get so upset over 5 percent? They handily forget what a small amount we are talking about.

Five percent isn't major surgery it is very minor surgery. To make it safe we need to undo some of the things the democrats have done since the 1960's. First don't let congress spend it. Repeal the law that Johnson signed that allows this. In Al Gores words, put it in a lock box. More accurate, put it back into the lock box that it was in prior to 1968.

I see this as, they took a sliver of truth and have blown it all out of proportion. This doesn't equal facts, not even close. I don't know how we are going to solve this problem if "the sky is falling the sky is falling " crowd can't get real.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The sky is falling crowd? Can you not see the hypocrisy in that statement? Your entire argument is based on instilling fear in people that the system will suffer some huge crash at some point in the future. As well none of your figures account for inflation, or more people feeding into the system. This was explained in one of the videos, I suggest you watch them all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I watched them all, and I am not predicting disaster. Much the opposite if you read my post. They say 25 percent loss not total destruction. I worked off that prediction not Bush's. One of the problems MT (and one you have totally backwards) is that there will be less people paying into the system. I suggest you go back and watch them over again. The one you need to watch is If it aint broke don't privatize it. You have what your buddies say backwards.

Most of the presentations were emotional and false. Not all the money goes to privatization, but they insinuate it, and at the same time the video shows all the little dollar signs going to privatization. What they didn't depict incorrectly in words they did in video. No accident it was meant to mislead. Just like Moveon.org did during the campaign.

If you were older you would personally remember all the times the democrats said that social security is in trouble. I don't think it will be totally destroyed, but it sure will not be what it used to be in 20 years. The sky is falling crowd is the ones so scared to invest five percent of their social security tax. I wouldn't be for investing a lot. I would be for investing five or ten percent on very safe things like U S savings bonds etc. I think they give a much better return on the money. Of course after Johnson in 1968 there is no money in the fund to draw interest.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Meant to mislead? Just like the speeches given by Bush himself to incinuate that his supposed plan would pull the system from going into debt? Only recently has he stated that this was false and that "his" plan will do barely anything to curb the future deficit.



> The sky is falling crowd is the ones so scared to invest five percent of their social security tax. I wouldn't be for investing a lot.


Five percent put into a market where people have as good of a chance of losing money as they do to make money. What will happen to these people when they don't have enough money to take care of themselves in their old age? Why they will be put on welfare, such that the workers of that day have to pay for the mistakes of the working class today, what a grand proposal. You might not be for investing a lot, frankly you shouldn't be for investing any at all. If Bush had his way the entire system would be privatized.

I'm still stunned that you are willing to make such hypocritical statements. "The sky is falling crowd"? As previously explained the entire argument that is pro privatization is based on making people fear that the system will be washed up entirely.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey, even your buddies at moveon.org think it will lose 25 percent by, when is that again 2042? So if they lost all of their investment that would make it 30 percent.

As I mentioned put it in very safe places like U S savings bonds. If those fail the nation is gone anyway. I think they beat social security by two or three percent. Of course it is all smoke an mirrors anyway. There is no money in the fund so it can not earn interest.

I think a loss of 25 percent is bad. If Bush says it will be totally lost I think he is wrong. Bush says the system will crash, moveon.org says people will eat dog food if the invest privately. The more ludicrous of the tow is the dog food story. Soooooooo they and those who believe it are the sky is falling crowd. Much of what moveon.org has said over the past year indicates they have a chicken little complex.

So, MT did you get it straight yet about the numbers paying in to social security increasing or decreasing? You know if your still missing that it might explain why you don't understand the rest.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Hey, even your buddies at moveon.org think it will lose 25 percent by, when is that again 2042? So if they lost all of their investment that would make it 30 percent.


If a person was overly cautious and wanted to play it smart they could take the 5% and as you say put it into US savings bonds. When everyone else gets the 75% payment, which you will also get, you then add your 5% back into the mix and you are at 80%. It's a no lose situation............. unless of course you are a politician and then you lose that 5% that they had to give me or you for investment because they can no longer spend it. It becomes locked into a account with your name on it. THAT's why they, both Democrats and some Republicans don't like the program ......... they are the real losers


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

George Bush continues to push for Social Security reform, despite the erosion of support in Congress and amongst the public. Speaking in South Carolina yesterday, the president said "By 2034 the annual shortfall will be more than $300 billion and by the year 2041 the entire system will be bankrupt." Actually, the entire system is already bankrupt, but we'll play along for now.

He also continued to push for private accounts for younger workers, pointing out that they are comfortable investing in stocks and bonds, and should have no problem supporting the same for Social Security. Unfortunately between the misinformation of the Democrats, the AARP, the mainstream media and Rock The Vote, we don't seem to be getting anywhere. That's too bad. What then are some of the other proposals?

The president floated the idea of raising the retirement age, currently at 65 and soon to be 67. The president was asked about raising it to 70,

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=8215185

and said that was on the table. People are living longer and working later in life, so that would reduce the benefits. Unfortunately, Bush also praised Lindsey Graham's proposal to raise the cap on Social Security taxes for high-income earners. It feels so good to screw those evil rich people, doesn't it? Charge them more in taxes and make them wait longer to get their benefits. :lol: :lol: :eyeroll:

It's unfortunate that people aren't getting through their thick, government-programmed skulls just what private accounts would mean for them. Right now, if the government maintains control of the system, they get to decide *when* you retire, they get to decide *how much *to pay you *and they get to keep all the money when you die*. :******: With a private system, the money would be yours to do with as you please.

The left and the gimme generation have people right where they want them when it comes to Social Security.

Its hopeless this country has no appreciation for freedom or privacy rights anymore we all want cradle to grave care and management from the government. I give up Oh and the hell with the Fair tax too it won't work nothing can be changed blah blah blah uke: :sniper:


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

The sky is falling. Read Death of the West!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If a person was overly cautious and wanted to play it smart they could take the 5% and as you say put it into US savings bonds. When everyone else gets the 75% payment, which you will also get, you then add your 5% back into the mix and you are at 80%. It's a no lose situation............. unless of course you are a politician and then you lose that 5% that they had to give me or you for investment because they can no longer spend it. It becomes locked into a account with your name on it. THAT's why they, both Democrats and some Republicans don't like the program ......... they are the real losers


And if you lose that 5% you are yet deeper in the hole than you once were. I know this is radical, but what about if we took a little more money from workers to help pay for social security? Ah yes I forgot, that would be socialism.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> And if you lose that 5% you are yet deeper in the hole than you once were.


wrong .......... read it again.



> Ah yes I forgot, that would be socialism.


Nice to see you got something correct.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon have you ever considered moving to a Monarchy or Despotism based country?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Gohon have you ever considered moving to a Monarchy or Despotism based country?


Sorry sonny .................. I have a hard time understanding childish jabber. Now would you care to explain if that was suppose to mean something, how it is related to the subject, and most of all why you can't get through one post without reverting to your typical moronic blabber. GROW UP.........


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Starting to see why I got after MT are you Gohon 8) Aggravating little cuss sometimes isn't he. :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I'm going to be the bigger man and not point out who is calling the names. It simply seems to me that you would rather have ten extra dollars in your pocket and watch your neighbor starve. I don't think a capatilist society is quite radical enough for you, thus I suggested a few more basic forms of government. In fact I think you would be happy as a clam in an anarchist society, fortunately that doesn't work, I think says something right there.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon wrote:


> If a person was overly cautious and wanted to play it smart they could take the 5% and as you say put it into US savings bonds. When everyone else gets the 75% payment, which you will also get, you then add your 5% back into the mix and you are at 80%.


Militant Tiger Wrote:


> And if you lose that 5% you are yet deeper in the hole than you once were.


Hey MT, go back and take dat der tird grad ritmatic der buddy.

Also, everything is from a point of perspective MT. You have your perspective of Gohon and others think you would be perfectly happy if you could revive Stalin and get him elected president. Personally I am sure you would be happier in a communist country. I am not being insulting either. Your political beliefs are more in line with communism or socialism than a democracy. In democracies the majority rules, yet all you think about is all the minorities. Also it is evident that you would take from the productive to give to the lazy.

I am sure you will jump right on my comment about minorities, but the truth is I look at everyone as Americans. That is as unbiased as you can get.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon would do well in the anarchist society, and I'm sure you wouldn't object living under a right wing fascist society either Plainsey. Thats your real problem you know, you can't find whats wrong with yourself and your party, just others. That, and you are an extremist.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Like I said MT it is all a matter of perspective. I realize that it works both ways ie the further left you are the further right we appear, and the further right we are the further left you appear. Of course I am conservative, but a moderate conservative. I think this because I don't like the some of the ideas of the left or right wing within the party. I am sure there are some that would accept gay marriage on one hand, and others who would let large businesses rape the environment . Not me on either count. 
The only thing you have against the far left is their stand on the second amendment. That's your own words from the past. Who's radical?????


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Give me an "M", give me "T", what do you get, WHACKY. :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Like I said MT it is all a matter of perspective. I realize that it works both ways ie the further left you are the further right we appear, and the further right we are the further left you appear. Of course I am conservative, but a moderate conservative. I think this because I don't like the some of the ideas of the left or right wing within the party. I am sure there are some that would accept gay marriage on one hand, and others who would let large businesses rape the environment . Not me on either count.
> The only thing you have against the far left is their stand on the second amendment. That's your own words from the past. Who's radical?????


No Plainsman, you are a radical conservative with a few liberal views. I am a reasonable liberal with a few conservative views. Whats the difference? I take the time to think out my position, I don't have it spoon fed to me by the media.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As soon as you learn to count you will figure this out. Like you said I have a few liberal views. You have already stated that the only thing you disagree with the liberals on is second amendment rights.

So, I have three or four liberal ideas you have one conservative idea and I am the radical. Who is more towards the center? Does your one conservative idea trump my three or four liberal ideas, and why?

I'm serious, why do you think this. It doesn't add up to me. Am I missing something?

Also, I don't have my views spoon fed to me by the media. I have had these thoughts for many, many years, and finally their is portions of the media reflecting my values. Finally. However, I do hear your thoughts from the liberal media days, even weeks before you express them here.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Why does your meausrement not make sense? Because if you thought that abortion was fine, guns were bad, profiling was bad and the death penalty was cruel but still supported slavery you are still a radical conservative.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT wrote:


> Why does your meausrement not make sense? Because if you thought that abortion was fine, guns were bad, profiling was bad and the death penalty was cruel but still supported slavery you are still a radical conservative.


It makes sense if you go strictly by numbers, but if it makes you happy lets use your system.

I think the second amendment is one of the most important for maintaining freedom in America. We agree on that I think. I will take a chance and assume that we also agree on the importance of environment and conserving our natural resources. I think we agree that big business should not be allowed to rape the resources of this country, or take advantage of the citizens of this country. I could go on with things that we agree with, but that would be no fun. We agree on these things because I have moved towards the middle. I am sure you would agree because you see these things as liberal attributes. I do not, but that's another story.

You stated in the past that the only thing you are disappointed with the liberals about is the second amendment. Are we together so far?

That leaves me with a much higher inclination to move towards the middle than you.

Simply because someone doesn't agree with you does that make them radical? I think anyone that agrees with the far left 95 percent of the time is radical. I also think anyone that agrees with the far right 95 percent of the time is radical. There is no one on this form radical right, and you are the only one I would classify as radical left.

EJ says he is republicrat, but I don't know what he is really. I don't know if he is radical, he just doesn't sound coherent. I might agree with some of his points if I could understand them.

Now for your radical statement about supporting slavery. Just so you don't lose any sleep I would never do anything cruel to anyone. Making that statement MT is radical. I could respond with a likewise radical statement, but that would solve nothing, and make me a small person also. You see liberals are not the kind people they portray themselves as. As a matter of fact you display the viciousness I have many times witnessed from liberals. I think you would call it "mean spirited".

And like all arguments with you we have digressed from the original subject. So how about social security folks?


----------

