Democrats, Particularly Gore, Would NOT Deliver...

[Ornery]

I'll only mention these two items, because the average Democrat that reads this can't seem to digest more than that.

• Privatization Of Social Security
• Removal Of The Marriage Tax Penalty

These are two things that effect most of us. The Dems in office would prefer to spend the money on more programs. How would you personally like these issues to be resolved? Are there more important issues to you, that Gore would be more likely to deliver? He and the Dems have dropped the ball on those two already. I won't even mention School Vouchers or Affirmative Action for fear of overwhelming most of our Democrat participants.

 

[Tominator]

Good work Ornery....! Don't forget that the Drug Benefits proposed by Gore and Bush. Imho, that issue is what this election will hinge on. Seniors vote!

 

[UberNeuman]

We'll just have to see what President Gore does in office...

But thanks for opening my eyes to the dark truth hidden "out there!"

 

[Ornery]

Eek, you're gonna confuse the hell out of em now Tom! But, unfortunately, I think it's going to hinge on which candidate has the most appeal to "soccer moms". The issues seem to fall by the wayside with that group!

Edit: Couple quick questions Uber Neuman, if you feel up to it. How would you personally like these issues to be resolved? Are there more important issues to you, that Gore would be more likely to deliver?

TIA, Ornery

 

[UberNeuman]

I'd like to see the Goverment bring back welfare cheese...

i'm so very hungy...

 

[Tripleshot]

Ornery

Thanks. I read both articles.
Question?
Why are we fiddling with social security payments to recepients? What is Bush proposing that all americans don't all ready have? I can get a 401k or a keough plan just like the next citizen. Is Bush proposing a seperate fund (insurance policy) that is tied to the market place? That sounds more like big government and another beaurocracy that Republicans accuse Democrats for supporting.

Marrige tax penalty is a little murky.From what I know of the proposal,other things where piggybacked on to the package sent to Clinton and he vetoed it.At anyrate,these packages are feel good legislation for the candidates.I will take a wait and see approach on this issue. I am married and have an interest here,but I am sick of this back biting and posturing by a republican congress and a Democratic executive branch.

Perhaps after november, we will see that playing field changed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't forget that Bush, the defense candidate, is proposing 45 billion to Gore's 100 billion. Talk about not delivering. 4.5 billion a year? Is that even 1% of the defense budget? The guy is a gas bag. I'm the defense candidate. NOT NOT. But it's always good to play on fear.

Greed is good to play on too. Don't forget that the Republicans get their money from those who have it, the rich, and scream class warfare when this is pointed out. So you can always count on Repub legeslation to sound good to the greedy, how can you pass anything if it's doesn't generate some attention, but when picked apart, to reveal that you get a nickle and the over 200,000 people get mucho thousands. Oh, but they pay all the taxes. Ha, yea their taxes come right out of their food budget.

Naturally, since I have a major self respect problem, I always fantasize that I'm going to be rich and reject the notion of associating myself among the peons, so I vote Repub, even though it's against my best interests. Hay, what can I say. I need the ego boost. Besides, billions in propaganda were spent to make me this way. I guess this time though, it's looking like we're not gonna fool enough of us. It's time for another Orwellian greed is good campaign like Regan had. I'd hate to live in a world where my wallet didn't come before the greatest good for the greatest number. You know that's gonna cost.

 

[Ornery]

Hell, Bush's (and others) privatization plan is just a small sample of what it may pan out to. We would merely defer a small percentage of our accounts to a fund of our own choosing. If it takes off, it may be expanded to a higher and higher percentage.

As it is now, my employer kicks about $2,500 into SS and I pay the same. None of it earning interest. Hey, it's a damn social program. A tax. But what gripes my ass is that many government employees don't have to pay into it. They have a better program similar to 401K. I have one too, and I kick a lot into it. But why shouldn't I be able to put that $2,500 into it as well as my employers $2,500 portion? Imagine the return on that! And again, why in the hell do government employees get out of it? Son of a frggin bitch! :|

You're right about the marriage tax, but bottom line is that nobody should be penalized for this, whether they are rich or not. The Dems just don't want to give up that chunk of money. Nevermind who it gets ripped off from!

Edit: Ugh, Moonbeam snuck a post in there. I wish you could understand what this country and it's people really owe to "big business", "the rich" and entrepreneurs in general. Only everything! Take those folks away and what do you have? Hmmm, take a look around the world at countries that don't have people like that, or aren't allowed to exist, and tell me what you see... is it some kind of socialist utopia there? Well?

 

[searcher]

<< ...because the average Democrat that reads this can't seem to digest more than that. >>



<< ...for fear of overwhelming most of our Democrat participants. >>



<< Eek, you're gonna confuse the hell out of em now Tom! >>



<< The issues seem to fall by the wayside with that group! >>



<< Good work Ornery....! >>



Yup, you guys keep it up with your excellent persuasive speech tecniques, they are no doubt quite effective.


Michael

 

[Moonbeam]

Tripleshot, I think the idea is that there are all these billions of dollars going into ss, with no opportunity for private interprise to loot, charge commissions on and generally manipulate to boost the value of individual stocks those who want to control it have already bought low. The Repubs know that they can't get all of it at once, so are playing the peal off as much flesh as possible before the patient wakes up game. They keep dangling the phemominal 80's 90's bull market in front of people for bate, not the 29 crash. It's called social security, not social roulette. It has it's inefficiencies, but the old poor can get by better now than at any time in history. If we want to change our social structure, I suggest we put money into science to figure out a way to raise super children that always grow up capable, responsible, and wealthy. Until then, I'm glad to help with my taxes etc.

 

[searcher]

<< I wish you could understand what this country and it's people really owe to &quot;big business&quot;, &quot;the rich&quot; and entrepreneurs in general. Only everything! >>



RIIIIGHT!
Firestone/Ford, that the kind of &quot;big business&quot;, &quot;the rich&quot; and entrepreneurs you're talking about, in general?

Michael

 

[Triumph]

ok, if you don't want people to play with their retirement money in the volatility of the market: how about just make people put that money into a savings account at a bank? they would still get 3% interest, a safe investment, and you would eliminate all the overhead required to run SS. or i guess we wouldn't want them to do that, because that would give more capital to the evil BIG BUSINESS, and we have to get rid of them at any cost. <<puke>>

 

[BoberFett]

By forcing me to put money into the SS system, it's the same as saying that the guvmint knows how to invest my money better than I do. I'd think any intelligent person would be insulted at such a notion. :|

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry about your lunch, Triumph.

 

[Moonbeam]

BobberFet, as an intelligent person, (I wish) I realize that not everybody is. I am insulted, but I would rather suffer that indignity, that I couldn't do my personal best, for the sake of others, than to live in a society where we leave our old and poor to die because they had less of a gift, or made the wrong choices. Sometime that even happens to the most gifted. I try to look at what in the real world works for the greatest good for the most. Some kind of inherently less that perfedtly inefficient insurance program seems to offer the best choices. The risk with the repub plan is lucky and unlucky outcomes rather than an insured level of minimal survival.

 

[Tripleshot]

Hmmm.We are on the brink of a world wide recesion because of opec and the oil cartels greed(what can you spend all those bilions and billions of dollars on in the middle of the Sahara desert? &quot; Oh I know,ship it to Bush/Cheny campaign. They will let us keep profits higher than ever!!! HahHaHaHa!&quot; )

I digress

Putting social security money(and the plan is take a portion of the social security fund,not add to it) and risk it on the market is plain folly.
As soon as Bush begins the debate on this program,he loses. Even republicans in there senior years want to know they will have a roof over there head,food in there belly,and healthcare with medicene when they need it without stressing over the condition of the marketplace.

 

[thebestMAX]

I never discuss politics but............

Someone said &quot;people get the government that they deserve&quot;

Well, maybe, but what about the rest of us? After the last 8 years????

Maybe we should start a thread to find out if there are more dems or reps out there. I say REPS especially after reading the post on paying off the living relatives of dead slaves. I agreed most wholeheartedly with most on that issue.

 

[XMan]

<< Putting social security money(and the plan is take a portion of the social security fund,not add to it) and risk it on the market is plain folly. >>



I was under the impression that the plan would allow the individual taxpayer to elect where his SS allottment should go. I would probably stay conservative and stick it in a 401K. I think most people would. If somebody invests it in the market, and the market crashes, well, we're all adults here, aren't we?

I would much rather retain control of my own retirement, then have the government collect billions in Social Security, use part of it for Social Security, and spend large chunks of it elsewhere. Current SS recipients are receiving tens of times in SS of what they paid in . . . do you really trust the government to give YOU the same perk? I don't. Millions of baby boomers are going to hit retirement age in the next decade or so, and we're going to feel the pinch if the SS system is not totally revamped.

 

[CyberSax]

Don't forget that Bush, the defense candidate, is proposing 45 billion to Gore's 100 billion. Talk about not delivering. 4.5 billion a year? Is that even 1% of the defense budget? The guy is a gas bag. I'm the defense candidate. NOT NOT. But it's always good to play on fear.

All millitary and former millitary personnel that I've talked to are overwhelmingly in favor of George W. Bush. Hell, I know lots of African Americans in the millitary who are gonna vote for W. Throwing lots of money around doesn't solve anything. If anything, that idiot Gore would lay waste to the U.S. millitary while squandering billions of public dollars.

 

[chess9]

BobberFett:

The reluctance to let you invest your S.S. money has nothing to do with intelligence or even investment smarts. The truth is this: investing is a gamble. Many people have lost their shirts in the stock and commodity markets. I've lost well over $100K myself and I'm just some dumb Midwestern piker.

The vigor of the current market is a bad reason to assume you would continue to be lucky in the future. Some assets should NOT be risked. S.S. is one of them. If you have some discretionary income, by any and all means, invest it. It's fun when you're winning.

Ideas such as this one are why I will be voting for Gore. The right wing thinks capitalism is some magic pill for everything that ails this country. True Believers drape themselves in the flag, &quot;trickle-down&quot; economic theories, promises of bloated Defense budgets, tax refunds, and other excess baggage of the fully delusional.

I still think Bush will pull this out because I think he will be well prepared for the upcoming debates. Bush will look lovable, if a little obtuse, and will pick up more female votes. Gore will look like an ossified Redwood, but will make sense. Americans prefer lovable to sense, so Bush wins. That's why Reagan won-he was so warm and fuzzy. I can hardly wait for his proposed statute to be built next to the Reflecting Pool. <sigh>

 

[Triumph]

you are right, chess9: investing is a gamble. but SS the way it is now is definitely not a good system. if we could somehow find a way to eliminate all of the overhead, if we could have all of the money that we put into SS actually go back out to recipients of SS, then I would be happy. but i doubt that's ever going to happen.

 

[glenn1]

Moonbeam and Chess...

i can understand your concerns with folks potentially having less than stellar investment returns, should we allow a privatization plan to go into effect. But will you allow me to outline some of the case for doing exactly so, despite that possibility?

1. First of all, can you agree that Social Security is, in financial terms, an annuity plan? Pay in now, and once you reach a certain age, for as long as you live, we will write you a check. There's only one problem with that - a good payout on Social Security is predicated on that you live long enough to collect it.

Let's say you work hard your entire life - working, paying the bills, and trying to put kids through school. Now you get ready to retire, and on your 65th birthday, retire, and get ready to recieve your SS checks. Then you die the very next day. Well, under the current system, you and your heirs are pretty much screwed. You're dead, and your estate gets diddly squat from Social Security (i think a surviving spouse might get some, someone correct me if i'm wrong). How fair is that?

2. As a corrollary to point #1, under a privatization plan, the money set aside for me would be mine. It would be mine to keep, and to pass along to my estate, should i die and not be able to collect SS. It wouldn't (entirely) relieve me of my obligation to contribute to the Social Security system, so it's not as if anyone would be getting a free ride.

3. And even more reason to like #2. Since i would own the money in my plan, i wouldn't need to depend on the government for the amount of my benefit. As it stands right now, there is (and never could be, since it is an entitlement program, a guarantee from Uncle Sam that i will recieve a certain rate from SS, only that i will get paid. What if, due to crisis or Crash, SS payments had to be reduced sharply in order for the government not to go belly up?

4. So what if i'm a lousy investor. Since the money is MINE, not a government entitlement, i don't care if i lose money. If it's my money, and i lose 99% of it, that's still more REAL money than Uncle Sam's promised money. I think i heard an old expression once about &quot;one in the hand is worth...&quot;

5. No privatization plan would or ever could be perfect and offer a guarantee that you would not or could not lose money, theoretically at least (since as others have pointed out, privatized funds could be &quot;invested&quot; in an FDIC insured product, such as a cd, which has no risk at all of capital loss). But the only &quot;guarantee&quot; you offer is that politicians will never dare cut off or reduce SS benefits. Which of those two risks (market risk of loss, vs. the risk of trusting implicitly a politician to honor his word) do you think is the more foolish of the two to accept.

ummmmm... personally, i would choose for myself a privatization plan. But since you prefer the comfort (and false comfort, in my opinion) of Social Security, we would allow you that option. Where is the problem in this picture, the doom and gloom scenario that Privization would be the end of the world? To my point of view, EVERYONE ends up happy if a privitization choice is offered.

By opposing any form or fashion of privatization, the Dems seem to show a lack of willingness to allow a Dem-built social program to be in any way changed (and i would say improved) from its present form. And who knows, this might work for them. I don't like it, but that's why we hold elections. But i think privatization is an idea which is going to gain momentum no matter what happens in the short term, and despite the reservations of any particular party or politician, and/or their best efforts to maintain a status quo.

 

[Tominator]

<< investing is a gamble >>



In the last 30 years if I had invested my money in the Fortune 500 rather than letting the Government confiscate it, I'd be a millionaire now! Wall Street has an infinitely better record than the US Government when it comes to fiscal affairs.

Capitalism has many faults, but many more achievements!

&quot;Trickle down&quot; isn't a theory, it's a fact. Get used to it!

 

[dennilfloss]

&quot;Democrats, Particularly Gore, Would NOT Deliver...&quot;

That's it. No more democratic pizza for me. Though I heard that they deliver Chinese food, with secret ingredients to boot!

Waiting (The 5 Channels)

 

[Zucchini]

Well neither do republicans Contract with america eh?