Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

If you're looking for the program, though, try SSI and SSD. And we wonder why social security is broke.

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_021899.html

Social Security is not broke.

In a couple of decades, we may need to change the amount we pay out, which would be bad.

Or, we could remove the cap from contributions (no earnings over $93,000.00 are subject to FICA withholding), and solve the problem today.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Social Security is not broke.

In a couple of decades, we may need to change the amount we pay out, which would be bad.

Or, we could remove the cap from contributions (no earnings over $93,000.00 are subject to FICA withholding), and solve the problem today.

I'm always amazed at how some people find the most irrelavent minutae of an argument to dispute. I assume they simply find the part they feel is easiest to dispute, and dispute it, even if it's really irrelavent to the overall conversation.

That's of course how arguments deteriorate, because what is being argued, begins to mutate in bizarre and random ways. You, for example, take an off-hand comment about social security, and seek to attack that. I bet if I re-read many of your posts, i'll find that's a common theme.

At any rate, i'm digressing, but it did seem interesting as an observation of individual argument style.

 

[celtic_crippler]

In the current environment, if you expect to recieve any SSI benefits you are sorely mistaken. You better be investing elsewhere if you plan on retiring. FYI: I work in the financial field.

 

[michaeledward]

In the current environment, if you expect to recieve any SSI benefits you are sorely mistaken. You better be investing elsewhere if you plan on retiring. FYI: I work in the financial field.

I'm listening.

As I understand it, the Social Security Trust Fund is backed by United States Treasury Bonds; the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Are you saying the United States Government is not to be trusted?

 

[celtic_crippler]

Uh...exactly!

 

[Matt]

This fellow in the movie here must be some sort of bleeding heart liberal as he harps on the president's need to get a search warrant to wiretap americans. This is from 2004.

Pants on fire.

Matt

P.S. I think you can download it here.

 

[DngrRuss]

I just knew he was a closet liberal. And, as we all know, you can't trust a liberal cuz they all hate America, and Jesus, and babies, and I think they even kick puppies.

Okay- sarcasm aside-
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU WHO STILL FOLLOW THIS TEXAS RETARD DOWN THE ROAD TO STUPID-TOWN?

I am amazed that more Republicans aren't jumping up and down about the hijacking of their party.

 

[mrhnau]

I'm listening.

As I understand it, the Social Security Trust Fund is backed by United States Treasury Bonds; the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Are you saying the United States Government is not to be trusted?

There is no trust fund. Money you pay out goes to pay someones check. They money you give is not in any kind of fund. So, the problem comes when the expenditures start exceeding what comes in. I hear Democrats harp about national debt, just wait until this happens.

Social Security is not broke.

In a couple of decades, we may need to change the amount we pay out, which would be bad.

Or, we could remove the cap from contributions (no earnings over $93,000.00 are subject to FICA withholding), and solve the problem today.

Social Security is broke, or will be in 20-30 odd years, unless senators take their fingers out of their ears and start making tough decisions.

Unless something dramatically happens to seniors to reduce the cost of living, a cut in SS will be devestating (yes, I hear you crying for universal health care, which is another bad idea). Many are living check to check. Unless the system is fixed AHEAD of time, its going to be a disaster.

Removing the cap or increasing the cap might help. Another tax for the "rich", which is the answer to all of our nations problems. I also assume you would not increase the amount they get for when they retire. Sounds like robbery, just using different terms to make it sound better...

I'm not planning on it being here when i get to retirement age. I know alot of people are planning on it. I'd prefer to keep more of my money so I could use it to plan. thats one reason I think Bush's idea of letting us keep some of it is great. I'd love having it all back, but I doubt that would ever happen...

but what would I know... I'd probably qualify for one of the "poor", so I'd definately not have the smarts to invest it wisely, so I need Father Government to hold my hand for me

 

[Ray]

Another tax for the "rich", which is the answer to all of our nations problems.

Statements like the one above is probably a reason there are still Republicans. My household income is above the 2003 median - but my adult children "believe" that I am rich, that I should subsidize them and other low wage earners like them by paying higher taxes. They believe that they should have free health care, again subsidized by people other than themselves... Just bring up the subject of Bill Gates' wealth and they will, in all seriousness, say that most of his money should be confiscated because no one should be that rich...

 

[jdinca]

I just knew he was a closet liberal. And, as we all know, you can't trust a liberal cuz they all hate America, and Jesus, and babies, and I think they even kick puppies.

Okay- sarcasm aside-
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU WHO STILL FOLLOW THIS TEXAS RETARD DOWN THE ROAD TO STUPID-TOWN?

I am amazed that more Republicans aren't jumping up and down about the hijacking of their party.

I'm glad you chose to put the sarcasm aside.

 

[michaeledward]

There is no trust fund.

Because the incoming funds are used as general revenue. The United States Federal Government currently holds Treasury Bond I.O.U.s for the amount of Social Security Funds the Congress has taken.

Social Security is broke, or will be in 20-30 odd years,

Define Broke?

In about 45 to 50 years, withholding from workers are projected to only be able to cover 70-some odd percent of projected benefits. I don't know if I would consider 70 percent equal to 'Broke', but I never learned right wing mathematics.

 

[tradrockrat]

Statements like the one above is probably a reason there are still Republicans. My household income is above the 2003 median - but my adult children "believe" that I am rich, that I should subsidize them and other low wage earners like them by paying higher taxes. They believe that they should have free health care, again subsidized by people other than themselves... Just bring up the subject of Bill Gates' wealth and they will, in all seriousness, say that most of his money should be confiscated because no one should be that rich...

Be Careful, Ray! Statements that make sense are unwelcome in these kinds of threads...

 

[Don Roley]

Statements like the one above is probably a reason there are still Republicans. My household income is above the 2003 median - but my adult children "believe" that I am rich, that I should subsidize them and other low wage earners like them by paying higher taxes. They believe that they should have free health care, again subsidized by people other than themselves... Just bring up the subject of Bill Gates' wealth and they will, in all seriousness, say that most of his money should be confiscated because no one should be that rich...

Anyone see today's Dilbert cartoon?

Office guy "I was wondering if you could stop by this weekend and show me how to install my wireless network?"

Dilbert "Under what theory are the competent obliged to help the incompetent?"

Office Guy "Boy this is awkward."

Dilbert "Watch what happens when I just stare at you."

 

[tradrockrat]

Anyone see today's Dilbert cartoon?

Office guy "I was wondering if you could stop by this weekend and show me how to install my wireless network?"

Dilbert "Under what theory are the competent obliged to help the incompetent?"

Office Guy "Boy this is awkward."

Dilbert "Watch what happens when I just stare at you."

artyon: :rofl:

 

[michaeledward]

This has less to do with the violations of the First and Fourth Amendments ... but it is an interesting read.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/5bankrupt.html

The 'Bankruptcy Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act' seems to be creating some 'Activist Judges', or at least some judges that want to become more activist.

Some quotes from the Bench.

• "The new law is not a model of clarity."
• "particularly difficult to parse and, at worst, virtually incoherent."
• credit councelling "one of the more absurd provisions of the new (bankruptcy) act."
• provisions "inane," "absurd" and incomprehensible to "any rational human being."

Oh, and just to remind us where this came from ...

Congress passed the new law in April on largely partisan lines.

 

[celtic_crippler]

In the most simplest of terms...

With the "Baby Boomers" approaching retirement, there will be more people drawing off of SSI than putting into it. Basic math dictates this process can not fund itself in this manner. Will there be legislation to address or plan for the problem? Who knows...if there is I'm sure it will be inadequete. But that just my humble opinion based on what I've see from partisan politics.

I wouldn't rely on the Fed's for my retirment. I would instead at the very least invest in a 401K or an IRA of some sort and consider any SSI I may receive as gravy.

 

[michaeledward]

In the most simplest of terms...

With the "Baby Boomers" approaching retirement, there will be more people drawing off of SSI than putting into it. Basic math dictates this process can not fund itself in this manner. Will there be legislation to address or plan for the problem? Who knows...if there is I'm sure it will be inadequete. But that just my humble opinion based on what I've see from partisan politics.

I wouldn't rely on the Fed's for my retirment. I would instead at the very least invest in a 401K or an IRA of some sort and consider any SSI I may receive as gravy.

Investing in a 401(k) or an IRA is a very good idea.

The Social Security system was never meant to be the entire source of retirement funds. It was designed to be one third of the program. Defined Contribution programs ... pensions ... were a major part of the plan; As were personal savings.

What has happened to Defined Contribution Plans in the last 30 years? Ask any lifelong employee of United Airlines or Bethlehem Steel.

That's OK, about the time companies wanted to stop contributing to Defined Contribution Plans, they managed to get congress to create the 401(k) plans ... pushing the idea (and funding) on to the individual. (I'm wondering, did salaries go up because of this shift in burden?) Great! Unless, you're 401(k) is at Enron ... how did that work out for them?

And, let's talk personal savings ... what is the current savings rate for America ? ? ? Guesses, anyone .... Can you imagine it is less than zero? Yep, Americans are saving less than zero percent of their income. Instead, going into debt with Home Equity Credit lines and Second Mortgages.

So, let us review the 'basic math'.

Currently, there is ample cash on the Social Security books to cover payouts for the next 30 years or so (actually, not cash, but United States Treasury Bills). At some point in the future, paying outs will exceed incoming revenue. At which time, the current IOU's from the Treasury will cover the difference. Eventually, the IOU's will not be enough to cover the benefits ... but remember, there will still be incoming revenue to the system ... So, if we wait, we will have two choices; a) borrow the difference or b) reduce the benefit.

Currently, we are borrowing like a 'drunken sailor' to fund the day-to-day activities of our government (hell, the government is borrowing FROM social security). Why would we not be able to do the same (borrow) for Social Security in, say 30 or 40 years?

Or, we could indeed, reduce the amount of monies paid out. So, instead of paying out $1,000.00 per month, we pay out $750.00 per month. Yes, that would be painful, but, it is not the disaster scenario some paint.

A third option would be to act now. By making some changes now, we could reduce the impact of future changes. We may not be able to eliminate them, but reduce the rate of decline (isn't that what the President was praising himself for the other day ... reducing the rate of growth for non-security discretionary funding each year of his presidency?)

What might that third option be ... a) raise the age when funds can begin to be withdrawn b) increase the withholding amount c) eliminate the withholding cap of $94,200.00 (everything after that is not subject to withholding).

(As an aside ... it is awfully nice, round about October (or earlier if you're really well paid), when your paycheck reaches that $90,000.00 threshold for FICA (2005 threshhold) .... they stop withholding 6.2 % from your paycheck ... it's like getting a raise for the last few months of the year. Woo-Hoo).

So, yes, basic math does tell us the program has some challenges. But thoughtful examination (as opposed to partisan rhetoric) shows us this is not the equivelent of a six-mile-wide asteroid headed for Planet Earth.

 

[celtic_crippler]

So, yes, basic math does tell us the program has some challenges. But thoughtful examination (as opposed to partisan rhetoric) shows us this is not the equivelent of a six-mile-wide asteroid headed for Planet Earth.

It could be as catastrophic if your entire retirement plan is counting on it... or any pension plans as you mentioned earlier as well. Most companies stopped offering any kind of pension plan in 2004.

I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. IMO, if you want to retire then you should plan for it...wisely (pay attention to where your money is going.) I simply do not support wealth distribution systems(socialism) as a method for retirement planning. However, because we live in a "free" country, you can if you like. But consider this, the more the government leans towards "socialist" policies the more "freedoms" you will ultimately loose.

 

[michaeledward]

It could be as catastrophic if your entire retirement plan is counting on it... or any pension plans as you mentioned earlier as well. Most companies stopped offering any kind of pension plan in 2004.

I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. IMO, if you want to retire then you should plan for it...wisely (pay attention to where your money is going.) I simply do not support wealth distribution systems(socialism) as a method for retirement planning. However, because we live in a "free" country, you can if you like. But consider this, the more the government leans towards "socialist" policies the more "freedoms" you will ultimately loose.

No one should have an 'entire retirement plan' counting on Social Security. The system was never meant to be the sole source of retirement funds. My company still offers a Defined Benefit program (pension), as do many other companies. However, corporate contributions have gotten smaller.

Why aren't those opposed to 'socialist' policies screaming about the corporations removing their pension benefits? You work for a company for 30 years, and they eliminate a benefit that has been part of your compensation package throughout that career? Which means, you have settled for less annual salary, anticipating the pension when you retire, which leaves you will less savings potential.

And, when the Pension Plan gets thrown out in a backruptcy proceeding, the Federal Government that so many people who scream 'socialist' ends up bailing out the program (from an underfunded Pension Insurance Corporation).

Social Security isn't going to be there ... but your tax money is going to pay for the defaulted defined benefit program anyhow. ....

Seems the program is designed to screw the little guy regardless, eh?

 

[michaeledward]

In an effort to stave off revisionist history, here's a link to the list of Democrats that have received money from Abramoff.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551786/posts

Draw your own conclusions.

This story, while not reporting any wrongdoing [yet] on the part of members of Congress, is submitted for consideration for the revisionist historians.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11286613/

Three more lawmakers linked to Abramoff
....

Two of the elected officials referred to in Friday’s filings have been identified in published reports as Reps. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, and Don Young, R-Alaska. According to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, the two representatives wrote to the GSA in September 2002, urging the agency to give preferential treatment to groups such as Indian tribes when evaluating development proposals for the Old Post Office.
...

Friday’s filings by prosecutors refer to a third member of Congress, Rep. Shelly Moore Capito, R-W.Va. Her name appears in e-mails that suggest she was trying to help Abramoff secure a GSA lease for land in Silver Spring for a religious school.

Of course, the liberal media does not identify these Congresspersons by Political Affiliation in the story's headline. And you need to read the story to paragraph six before the names are revealed.

And, gee, what's the harm in transferring federal property to Jewish Schools and Indian Tribes.