It was towing the GOP line because you did not offer any reasons for your statements. I did not imply that I disagreed/agreed.Quote by: Mr.Vicchio
It was towing the GOP line because you did not offer any reasons for your statements. I did not imply that I disagreed/agreed.
So it goes
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...l?storyid=3551
Here is a link that helps explain the pitfalls of following the current hype on this topic.
http://www.njfac.org/langer.htm
Another that reflects a similar viewpoint.
Last edited by Milton Bradley; 15th August 2005 at 06:14 PM.
More will be paid out in Social Security than it takes in in about 18 years. So the system will be essentially broke. They will have to reduce payments or increase deposits.
The trouble is that for some reason many of the people believe that SS will pay their entire retirement. About half of the folks who are collecting SS use it for their entire retirement income.
SS was never meant to be one's entire retirement. I have always ingored it. I put away for my retirement as I matured. Now I'm a millionaire, at least on paper. I went to college, graduated, spent 30 years in the military (active and reserve) and invested in real estate and worked hard. I started with little or nothing.
I'm too young to collect my SS. I haven't decided whether or not to do so.
And how is this different from the Federal government itself, particularly the Federal government under the free spending Republicans? Maybe only that we don't have to wait eighteen years to see huge deficits?
Rick
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis
Do you honestly believe that the Democrats would spend less than do Republicans? Democrats want universal health care. They want a guarenteed income. They want European style socialism.
Sure the government spends too much, but it's not just a Republican problem. The pork goes both ways. Furthermore, none military spending has decreased under the Republican leadership.
The government is in debt, but it isn't broke. That's why the foreigners buy our Treasury Bonds. They have faith in the power and reliability of our economy. And economy that the Democrats would like to tax out of existance.
Hello? Are you paying any attention at all? The last Democratic president balanced the budget as well as reformed welfare while the current president is spending like a drunken sailor, or Texan, whatever, and is growing government at an alarming rate.
No, I do not trust the Democrats to control spending but the Republicans aren't any better. The biggest defict spenders have been Republicans like Reagan.
You might consider putting a modicum of thought behind your biases. They might be more interesting that way.
Rick
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis
Sean, here is what is up in SS.
We KNOW that there isn't enough money available as more people turn old to support SS in it's current form.
Let's say we do nothing. Do you know what would happen?
The answer to that is a fail safe built into SS to already handle that. If nothing is done about it, every one will get a percentage of what their check would have been. That is what is written into law currently.
So let's say as an example that there is 70% of the money needed to fund SS. Everyone WILL get their checks at a payment of 70%.
I don't see ANY Democrat ideas by the way. As usual, all you get is the complaining, but never ideas.
The Bush idea (and at least he has one unlike the Democrats) is to take a small percentage of savings for SS, maybe 2-5% and let it get invested in secured higher yield accounts to increase the cash flow. I do not believe the individual will be able to actually remove any money through any means until they are of age. These funds will still be under government control. I think it will be in selected government accounts with higher yields and that is about it.
Outside of the Bush plan, the only other alternative to getting a full check would be not allow SS to be collected until some time after 70 I guess.
This is a situation where you get to pick your own poison.
You get one of three choices "SO FAR".
#1 Bush's 5% into secured higher yield accounts.
#2 Raise the age to over 70.
#3 Only collect part of your check.
I hope something works out.
You are forgetting that while Reagan (The Great) and Bush (The Wonderful) did not cut taxes. What they did was reduce tax rates. AND the revenue (that means income) to the government has INCREASED in both instances. So that while R and B reduced tax rates the following growth in the economy actually increased the income of the government.
In the Clinton years there was lots of money around. It was because of the fraud in the stock market. It was also do to rising revenues do to tax rate reductions be Republican presidents.
Clinton immediately raised tax rates. The highest tax rate increase in history. This rate increase did not immediately show in the GDP because Republican economic policies were so successful that Clinton's tax screw up didn't show up until the last year of Clinton's reign. In the last year of the Clinton Administration 401K lost value. Why? Because the tax rate increases were finally taking effect.
In this Administration the economy is almost perfect. We have sustained, controlled growth that is increasing the GDP by about 4.5 % annually. Inflation is running at 2.4% (about perfect). Unemployment is way down, jobs are being created at about 160,000 a month. Interest rates are low, very low; almost the lowest in history. The market is up and sustaining itself. The recession caused by lousy Clinton tax rates and the 9/11 attacks is over. We are not in recession now.
You will note that the Democrats aren't mentioning the economy much anymore. Why? Because it's running perfectly.
Something the Democrats never mention is the terrible economy we had during the Carter Administration. I recall it well. Inflation was huge (double diget), interest rates were extremely high (12% for home loans and 22% for car loans). We had stagflation. Nothing was going anywhere. Folks were saying that we should do away with the presidency because it was obviously too much for one man to handle.
Then Reagan came along and we had prosperity. The Reagan prosperity held until Clinton came along.
Today the deficite is being lowered, and non-military discretionary spending is down about 5%.
We could have a better economy, I suppose, but I don't know how.
Well, Ronbo allowed passage legislation in the law which allowed foreign investment into our business, and financing, as well as our banking systems. I'm sure that caused an influx of monies into the equation.
I would suggest that both heads of the same beast practice similar tactics, and both are just doing anything possible to cover their asses, and keep the truth from the people.
As usual, each side (of the bipartisan equation) sees only half of the truth becasue they cannot comprehend indicting one of their own for making a mistake, or doing the wrong thing.
Why not attemp to merge your two truths together, and come up with a comprehensive picture of the overall reality?
I mean, you know, you are both right to an extent, the other side is a bunch of crooks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks