Democrats, Particularly Gore, Would NOT Deliver...

[Ornery]

I'm sure glad I kept this to only a couple issues. Already several of you have overlooked the FACT that many, if not most, government workers do NOT pay into Social Security. Son of a mofo bitch! That irks the $hit out of me! My next question, despite not answering my first two*, is how does that square with you? Why in the hell do I have to pay into that abortion of a government program, but government workers don't? :|

* The other questions I was waiting for answers for were; 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?

 

[chess9]

Glenn1:

Well, nicely put young man. All of the arguments are pretty good arguments.

But, if you have a grandfather who remembers the depression and the destitution of elderly Americans who not only didn't have a job, they had no savings, no house, no property, no retirement account, then talk to him. The devastation and suffering was enormous. I know you think it will never happen again. I know you colts think the old stud is so far out in the pasture he couldn't find his way back to the barn. But I have a big nose. I can smell my way back. And I smell danger.

Social Security is not an investment for those who pay in. It is a slight hedge against the worst, nothing more. I don't expect it to outperform the Dow. If it does zero percent that's just fine. At least it is not AT RISK.

Many Americans do not have a savings account. In fact, I believe among industrialized nations America has the lowest rate of savings. How big is your savings account? Oh, you don't have one? Surprise, surprise! If we can't even save money, why should we trust our economic system with our only life jacket?

Ornery: The government pension arrangement is mandatory, just like social security. The only major difference, aside from benefit levels, is the public employee may remove his pension when he goes to a private sector job. Congress always pulls sh*t like that to protect its own. Until recently the Civil Rights Act didn't apply to Congress. They exempted themselves. Anyway, I think the solution is for them to pay into S.S., not privatize a precious resource.

One other thing. I love capitalism. I believe in it with my heart and soul. But, I've seen so much stupidity, avarice, and bad luck ruin so many people, I will never give it the same weight conservative Republicans do.

Protect Social Security. Keep it out of the hands of Wall Street.

 

[Tominator]

AT RISK.

If the Government has my money,then it is at risk! BIGTIME!

What happens in 20 years when it goes belly up? Even Clinton's own economic advisors estimate a 80% tax rate by then! Think a about that!

We have 3 persons paying into SS at present for every person collecting it. In less than 30 years this could very well reverse! Think about that!

Social Security in it's present form is a wreck trying to find a place[time] to happen. Bush has proposed that a small percentage of the younger folks contributions [confiscations!] be put into very secure investments. Anything is better that the 2% it is getting now. Even tax free bonds are getting 5%. Government insured at that!

 

[Dan]

I should stay outa this forum. If you really want to vote for a guy who will actually do something, take a look at Harry Browne.

 

[Ornery]

Hey Dan, take a look at how close old Harry is to the GOP on the following issues:

Harry Browne Libertarian

George W. Bush Republican

Alan Keyes Republican

Albert Gore Jr. Democrat


Abortion issues:

• Harry Browne -- "I oppose abortion..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.
  
  Alan Keyes -- Pro-life. Does not support abortion except in cases where fetal death is a collateral consequence of efforts to save a mother's life...
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Pro-choice...

Affirmative action:

• Harry Browne -- "I oppose Affirmative Action..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Opposes quotas and racial preferences.
  
  Alan Keyes -- Opposes affirmative action on the contention that it divides the people, and patronizes minority groups.
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Supports affirmative action.

Crime:

• Harry Browne -- "I favor an end to the War on Drugs..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Would increase sentences.
  
  Alan Keyes -- "I've never been somebody who thought that you should be applying capital punishment indiscriminately. But I do believe that it is necessary in certain instances in order for a society to show due respect for life."
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- ...he believes there is no more fundamental responsibility than to make Americans safer and more secure -- in their homes, on the sidewalks, and in their communities...

Defense spending:

• Harry Browne -- "...stop American interference in the policies of other countries."
  
  George W. Bush -- Supports rebuilding America's military strength to keep the peace...
  
  Alan Keyes -- He believes we have carried cutbacks too far.
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- ...supports a strong military and calls for continued development of advanced weaponry.

Drug policy:

• Harry Browne -- "I would end drug prohibition and the War on Drugs..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Strengthen penalties and sentences for drug-related crimes.
  
  Alan Keyes -- Increase penalties for selling drugs. Impose capital punishment for convicted international drug traffickers.
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- "The hours between 2 & 6 are the most perilous hours of the day for our children. A teenager is most likely to take up smoking between the hours of 2 & 6. That means we must engage our children in positive, constructive activities between the hours of 2 & 6, [by expanding] access to quality after-school care for all our children."

Homosexual issues:

• Harry Browne -- "The federal government has no Constitutional authority to legislate about groups, about marriage, about any personal matters."
  
  George W. Bush -- Bush opposes the extension of hate crime laws to protect gays and homosexual adoption.
  
  Alan Keyes -- "the effort to equate homosexual and lesbian relations with legal marriage represents a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family..."
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Supported ENDA, an annually proposed, yet not yet passed, federal employment non-discrimination law which would protect gays and lesbians in the workplace...

Education money:

• Harry Browne -- "I would remove the federal government from education entirely..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Supports school choice.
  
  Alan Keyes -- Strongly favor school choice approaches...
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- "I oppose vouchers..."

Environment:

• Harry Browne -- "The two largest sources of pollution in America are:
  (1) government agencies polluting their own property; and
  (2) government allowing private companies to pollute government lakes, rivers, roads, and lands with strip-mining, clear-cutting, and toxic-waste-dumping..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Believes environmental standards must be based on sound science, solutions based on market driven technologies...
  
  Alan Keyes -- He supports weighing the impact of environmental legislation on jobs, private property rights, and economic concerns.
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Al Gore has long been associated with environmental protection...

Evolution:

• Harry Browne -- "I believe in the separation of school and state, which makes the question of what to teach in school completely irrelevant to the government. Parents would choose whether to send their children to a school that teaches evolution or a school that teaches creationism. The government would have no say in the matter."
  
  George W. Bush -- Believes both evolution and creationism are valid educational subjects...
  
  Alan Keyes -- ...Favors only local control of schools, which would open the door for the teaching of Creationism in public schools...
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Favors the teaching of evolution in the public schools...

Foreign policy:

• Harry Browne -- "I favor no government aid whatsoever..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Interventionist...
  
  Alan Keyes -- Non-interventionist...
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Interventionist.

Gun control:

• Harry Browne -- "I oppose gun control..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Opposes gun control.
  
  Alan Keyes -- Opposes.
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Supports gun control legislation...

Health care:

• Harry Browne -- "The federal government is the biggest barrier to good health. Medicare and Medicaid have run up the price of health care; federal and state mandates have priced health insurance outside the reach of young people; federal regulations have overloaded doctors and made them less able to treat their patients efficiently and inexpensively. I would abolish the FDA so that life-saving medicines are available sooner. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in health care."
  
  George W. Bush -- Supports medical savings accounts as a health insurance option for all Americans. Supports giving patients in federally governed health care plans protections similar to those already enacted in Texas; opposes legislation that would supersede reforms already enacted by states.
  
  Alan Keyes -- Favors allowing Americans to set up a tax-free medical savings account, which would be taxed if used for any purpose other than medical costs...
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Supports. Wants to expand the availability of high quality health care to all Americans, especially seniors and children...

Moral issues:

• Harry Browne -- "It is ludicrous to look to Washington for moral and ethical leadership..."
  
  George W. Bush -- Proposed spending at least as much on abstinence education as on teen contraception programs.
  
  Alan Keyes -- Supports school prayer, and a parent's right to choose a child's school...
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- On the votes that the Christian Voice considered to be the most important in 1991-1992, Gore as a US Senator voted their preferred position 9 percent of the time.

Social security:

• Harry Browne -- "I would take Social Security completely away from the politicians -- and care for today's retirees with private annuities paid for by selling off federal assets the government has no Constitutional authority to own."
  
  George W. Bush -- Pledged to fulfill the solemn commitment of Social Security; no reduction in benefits for retirees or near retirees Called for dedicating all Social Security money to Social Security. Washington Post report: May 15 ?? "George W. Bush called today for dramatic changes in Social Security and Medicare, the government's two biggest entitlements programs, including the creation of personal retirement accounts that he said would extend the solvency of Social Security and allow all Americans to create wealth."
  
  Alan Keyes -- Believes we must "trust the capacity of people to make the right judgments about how to use their own money to provide for retirement..."
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Would protect. Wants to invest 62 percent of the budget surplus to keep Social Security going until 2055. Wants to work with Congress to maintain Social Security at least through 2075, but is wary of risky tax schemes. Acoording to an AP report on May15, 2000``You shouldn't have to roll the dice with your basic retirement security,'' Gore argued that the government ultimately will wind up bailing out those whose investments don't pan out. Gore would use savings from paying down the national debt to pump more money into the program and maintain Social Security much as it is today.

Tax policy:

• Harry Browne -- "I would make government so small that we can repeal the income tax and not replace it..."
  
  George W. Bush -- "This is not only no new taxes, this is tax cuts, so help me God..."
  
  Alan Keyes -- Wants to abolish the "socialist" income tax by replacing it with a national sales tax.
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Wants to keep interest rates low and investment rate high. Aims for a balanced budget every year. Wants to continue "reinventing government" to eliminate wasteful spending.

Trade issues:

• Harry Browne -- "I believe you should be free to buy whatever you want from whoever is willing to sell it to you, anywhere in the world.
  
  George W. Bush -- Called for eliminating trade barriers and tariffs everywhere so "the whole world trades in freedom..."
  
  Alan Keyes -- Advocates trade controls. Believes that free government is more important than free trade.
  
  Albert Gore Jr. -- Free Trader.Text
  
  That was a cut and paste job, so Keyes was just a bonus
  
  But notice who is the odd man out? If you're going to vote Libertarian, fine, but I like the Dems around here to see how "odd" their boy really is!

 

[sandorski]

Hmm, concerning privatized social security. The US once had private SS, way back before the Great Depression. Coincidently, the 20's were also a time of high flying Mutual Funds, as we know in retrospect, the market crashed and Public SS was introduced as a safety net. I think privatizers should seriously re-consider SS, just think what would happen after a market crash and all that SS revenue disappeared with it. Add to that high government debt loads and you're looking at a potential mess.

 

[glenn1]

Sandorski...

I understand your concerns, but i think that perhaps it might be unclear how the privatization idea works...
for purposes of simplification, think of it as a 401k plan, sponsored by the government. Part of your SS "contributions" (read: tax) would be given back to you to keep - it would be YOUR money. It would have to be placed in an account designated strictly for retirement, such as an IRA or a similiarly designed new type of tax-advantaged retirement account which Congress would create.

That's the whole premise of the argument: that retirement money intended for your use, that your payroll dollars have been deducted for, will be yours no matter what. It takes the government out of the question, and to me that's a good thing. Of course, not all your payroll SS "contributions" are going to simply fund your own SS benefits, it is going to finance those of every SS recipient. I don't have a problem with that.

I just like the concept (as should everyone that thinks about it) that since part of the SS tax is intended to provide benefits for me someday, that those funds will be there for me (or my heirs), and that Uncle Sam can't and won't be able to control the amount of, distribution of, or any other aspect of my retirement money. As things stand right now, every aspect of Social Security is at the whims of those in Washington DC. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

 

[BoberFett]

<< every aspect of Social Security is at the whims of those in Washington DC >>

For instance arbitrarily upping the age at which you can draw SS. Fact is, it's just another tax. It's not your money, there's no account with your name on it despite what the crooks would like you to believe. You've probably gotten SS statements that list your &quot;contributions&quot;. That's all it is, the amount you've paid into the system. That doesn't guarantee that a dime of that will be there when you retire.

SS is the ultimate in ponzi schemes. Take money from those currently working and give it to those who are no longer working. Then just hope that each future generation can support the new crop of retirees. Every ponzi scheme eventually reaches critical mass and falls apart, leaving those currently paying into the system holding the bill with no hope of recovering their costs.

 

[I'm Typing]

 

[I'm Typing]

The main thing that gripes my ass about republiKlans is they have this Darwinistic theory on how society should work, particularly with monetary matters. A few facts that Ornery will not tell you:

1) The money we place in SSI does not earn interest in a traditional sense, but the average American gets 3 to 5 times more out of SSI than they put into SSI. Not a great investment, but not bad. Somebody with a lot more time on their hands can do the math to get the actual numbers, but you can look them up. My sister in law works for the branch of government that dispenses SSI checks; she provided that figure.

2) The people behind this whole push to privatize SSI are stockbrokers, accountants and lawyers who drool over the commissions and fees they can get on the money. People like Ornery are along for the ride because they think they are better off rolling the dice on an economy that could turn sour long before they retire. Ornery will also not tell you that if your money is put in the hands of a manager, and the market crashes, YOU are screwed...but the manager is still driving his Jaguar.

3) It is a hard, but true fact?a significant portion of the people will NOT take that extra money and invest it...most will spend it on things like food, clothing and shelter, and hope someone will be around to take care of them when they get old. republiKlans (the compassionate conservatives) will tell you that it is &quot;too bad&quot; if people cannot manage their money, and end up destitute when they should be able to count on SSI. I happen to have a little more heart than that. I happen to think that the government in some cases, DOES know better when it comes to managing ones money. And if acknowledging the fact that there are many stupid taxpayers makes me a bad guy, than so be it.

I would match my IQ against yours any day, Ornery?as a lifelong Democrat and liberal. IMHO, when you equate a person's politics with their intelligence, you walk the same line as those who equate a person's skin color with their intelligence. If I could be offended by something a person says, I would be offended by your remarks at the start of this thread. It is good that bushlite is going to get spanked in November; you will have the opportunity to whine for 8 more years.

 

[JellyBaby]

Here's a novel idea: why not let those who want to stay in the SS system do so and let others who know they can manage their finances opt out of it? It's the best of both worlds and I know at least one privatization plan takes this approach.

SS is nuts. It's low-return, quickly going bankrupt and politicans steal the SS money and put it into the dreaded General Fund where it's wasted (though I think in 97' some brilliant politicans passed some legislation saying &quot;the money we take from you for SS should probably actually be spent on SS so ah, let's do that starting *now*&quot;...still due to loopholes much of it still prolly winds up in the general fund).

 

[chess9]

I'm Typing:

That's the point. Americans don't save now-they spend it all. Give them a chance to invest their S.S. and they will be buying lottery tickets with it. Guess who will be supporting the right wingers in 30 years when they turn up 65 and broke? So, the smart, and conservative approach, is to maintain the integrity of S.S. even assuming the ROR is low.

Frankly, if Americans showed more fiscal responsibility as a group, I'd be inclined to consider the proposal. But given the low savings rates and the way Americans live from credit card to paycheck to credit card, I don't think so. Even the Germans, who have much higher rates of savings than the U.S. have a similar social security system. Let's let them test the idea first. Please don't let the American people be the guinea pig for some radical idea that could cause needless pain to millions of our elderly.

 

[Tripleshot]

chess9
That is what I have been saying,or is it too hard to understand. We already have every kind of retirement scheme there is.Ask any insurance man and you will get an earful. This privatazation thing as I understand it takes a portion out of S.S. and allows you to invest it.I guess those who do not have the ability to contribute to a private plan will probably be selling burgers at micky D's until they are 85. It's a scam from the get go.

Make S.S. solvent and medicare solvent and make sure prescription drug coverage is included foe ALL americans and I will vote for that.

(How does a government pay interest on bonds? Don't they have to do it by collected taxes? Doesn't THAT increase the nat'l debt?)

The tax is 12+% for S.S. and a little extra for medicare. I am all for making Federal employees kick in.If you had everybody participating,the rate might drop to 8%. It angers me too that fed workers do not contribute,because I know for a fact they collect on retirement.The means testing for recipiants overlooks Fed employees as long as something like 25 quarters of your work history you contributed . Boom.Fed employees collect S.S.,Medicare,Medicaid and thier fed retirement.What a crock of Sh!t!

 

[chess9]

Tripleshot: Amen, brother, you are preaching to the choir.

 

[BoberFett]

Ah, but Tripleshot my good man, it's all about buying votes isn't it. What are the chances of winning an election if you promise to force federal employees to contribute, considering the number of federal employees.

Replublicans and Democrats simply choose to buy their votes from different groups.

And I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm 25 and I'm quite certain that if I were counting on retiring on my SS I'd be flipping burgers anyway. So where's my benefit? Either way I'm screwed, so I'd prefer my money now thanks.

 

[chess9]

Bobberfett:

That is sheer myth-the death of S.S. Congress may as well commit group suicide (why didn't I think of THAT before!?) if they are going to let S.S. fail. No way. If the economy gets bad they CAN'T do it and if the economy stays good there is no NEED to do it. You will actually benefit from a strengthened S.S. system, particularly if the economy continues to do well.

 

[Tripleshot]

BoberFett
I'm 50 and if something isn't done soon about the S.S., mess I will be selling burgers at Micky Dees because the system will be broke by the time I am 67. When I started my work life,retirement age was 63.It's already going up.The government's banking on the idea that I'll die before I collect anything.I hope to disappoint them.

At 25 you should be looking at saving 15% of your after tax income and investing the max you can in 401k mutual funds and then using whats left to guage your lifestyle and live within those means.You do that and you won't have to worry at all about what we are talking about here. I admire the oppurtunities you young folks have.Capitilize on it.

EDit....................................

I'll bet if retiries had thier retirement funds tied to wall street,the hospitals would fill up today with cardiac arrest patients just on news of todays sell off on wall street. Todays market drop is just why you don't privatize S.S. It is too volitale.

 

[BoberFett]

<< if something isn't done soon >>

Something? What exactly do you mean by something? Raise the contribution percentage for those of us that have a ways to go before retiring?

 

[JellyBaby]

Tripleshot, at age 50 I don't think you've much to worry about. It's the 40 and younger crowd who simply don't trust SS to be there when they retire. They've no reason to trust government to keep their promises -- we're currently under the brainwashing scheme &quot;don't expect to receive SS benefits&quot;. This is good in a way as you shouldn't wholey rely on SS for retirement anyway. And it's perfectly understandable you &quot;old farts&quot; want us &quot;young farts&quot; to keep paying into the system at least until you pass away.

There's another misconception here in that a private plan is too risky. There are hundreds of low-risk funds that give 2x+ the return SS will give you. The odds of these going broke are very low. Privatization would allow good stewards to triple their final retirement amounts. But again I say it should be optional -- those you want to stick with SS should be able to do so.

 

[Triumph]

ok, the democrats here keep saying that people will not invest the money, that they will squander it and have nothing. well, SS tax is already taken out of our paychecks now, without our consent. why don't they force us to automatically invest that same amount in a method of our choosing? we wouldn't be out any more money than we currently are, and people would have their investments. there, problem solved.

 

[Ornery]

Anybody that is offended by my trolling ought to lighten up! I am truly pissed at the Democratic party, but believe me, some of my best friends and even parents are Dems!

To me the Democrat platform merely promises anything and everything at the expense of &quot;the rich&quot; and big business. How can you lose with a platform like that? Talk about greedy and selfish! And the big picture that leads to is less and less incentive to start businesses and create jobs. Yep, I think capitalism is &quot;all that&quot;! The Democrat's generally consider it to be evil. Well, their actions point in that direction. They seem to think one of the government's main duties is to level the playing field. I hate to tell ya, but that is so communist and socialistic. Level the field! For what? You think there's a finite amount of money to be had from consumers world wide? Anybody with a little gumption can make a good go of it. And if you hamstring yourself by having kids in your teens with no idea who the father might be, why in hell do you think it's Bill Gates DUTY to bail you out? Again, it's that Democrat mindset :|

As far as SS privatization, IT you made three points all based on a wrong premise. The money is NOT given to the individual. You are given the option to allocate a SMALL percentage to CERTAIN funds. These funds are approved by the government. Uh, like the same funds that government employees are invested in!

Tell ya what. Screw privatization. Just let me in on those government retirement plans. You smegmoids got a problem with that? :|

 

[KingHam]

When Social was created life expectancy was 63. Now people are living to around 85. It's no longer a minority that collects Social Security but, a majority. That's where the problem lies. The only way to &quot;fix&quot; Social Security is to up the age requirement. Of course, that will never happen becuase it is political suicide.

As to the fear mongering that chees9, Tripleshot, I'm Typing, Moonbeam, and others are peddling; that really chaps my hide. Since when is it the government's responsibility to take care of us? All of your &quot;concerns&quot; are exactly what is wrong with America today. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

:| KingHan

 

[CyberSax]

What's funny is that these same liberal schmucks who want to legalize all drugs because they think people are responsible enough to handle them, don't think people are responsible enough to know how to save their own money and want to force a cr@ppy government retirement plan on us all. Typical Democrat hypocrisy

 

[BoberFett]

And vice versa CyberSax. Why do Reps seem to think people can handle their finances but not their habits?

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Why do Reps seem to think people can handle their finances but not their habits? >>

Wish I knew. Perhaps they feel everyone must have the same habits in order to successfully handle their finances? The GOP is locked in stupid tradition much of the time. Legislating morality is stupid and wasteful. Wish they'd stop telling me what to think and feel just as I wish democrats would stop taking my hard-earned money from me. :|