Romney Picks Paul Ryan...

[WC_lun]

Yes, maybe if you paid less taxes, you would be able to donate more. However, infrastructure in the United States still needs to be paid for and it is paid for by taxes. Also, we have had a time in this country when we did not have social programs to keep epople from falling through the cracks. Many, many people were dying because of it and 50% of seniors were living in poverty. So while you yourself might donate to keep people from falling through the cracks r giving them a helping hand up, not enough do. So it becomes a choice of helping through the government or deciding some people do not deserve help. Personally, my compassion makes it an easy decision.

 

[Steve]

I've posted the stats regarding social security before. Some social programs are unqualified successes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Makalakumu]

I've posted the stats regarding social security before. Some social programs are unqualified successes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If nothing changes, social security will pay out more than it pays in a few years. On top of that fact, the government stuffed the till with IOUs, so when the rest of the governments I'll spent bills come due, we'll all be in for a rude awakening. There is no real money there.

Social security works as long as the music is playing, Steve. It's worse than a ponzi scheme because once you figure out that it is a ponzi scheme, you can't get out of paying it. There's a gun to your head and they want your money.

 

[ballen0351]

These "safety" nets were never ment to be used for entire generations. My sisters been getting govt assistance for 12 years and has no desire to get off. I've said before in the hoods in my area where I work 16 is a great birthday not because of a drivers license but because there is a 2 year waiting list for govt houses so at 16 you apply and get your house by 18. This is not sustainable

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sukerkin]

Quite so - the phrase I have always used on this matter is that Social Security is supposed to be a safety net, not a life-style choice.

I've had to make use of it myself in the past and, without it being there to provide a roof over my head and food, things would have been pretty darned miserable for me.

I do think tho' that living that way is corrosive to the spirit. For those that are honest and do not 'game' the system, the amount you get on the dole is not enough to have a 'comfortable' life (and nor should it be); for example, I have spent entire evenings nursing half a pint in the pub because I could not afford any more. Tho' I still had a rented room to live in and food to eat, it was not really living a life, it was surviving. If people stay that way for too long then they lose the will to 'fight' any more and just give up. I am sure that is where some of the generationally unemployed come from - families where the drive to work has been lost and where the focus becomes squeezing as much 'free' stuff out of the system as they can.

 

[Steve]

Sukerkin, social security isn't welfare. Conservatives tend to view it that way, though.

Malakalumu, I am well aware of the pitfalls, but they don't change the statistical evidence. Social security has literally changed the landscape for seniors in our country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

Then pass laws to keep the systems from being abused. Enforce those laws and laws already exsisting. Get the moochs and criminals off of welfare. Gutting welfare to the point where no one gets help when they need it, because some are abusing the system, is cutting off your nose to spite your face. While there are people who abuse the system, the majority do not. Most people who recieve assistance only do so for a short time and then get back on thier feet.

 

[ballen0351]

Sukerkin, social security isn't welfare. Conservatives tend to view it that way, though.

Malakalumu, I am well aware of the pitfalls, but they don't change the statistical evidence. Social security has literally changed the landscape for seniors in our country.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The problem I have with social security is I could do a much better job investing for my own retirement. They should allow people to opt out and invest there own money how they want. I get a much better return on my IRA then I ever will on social security. I dont even have a say on how my money is invested they just take it and the way its going I won't get any return on it when I'm old enough to use it it will be gone.

 

[ballen0351]

Then pass laws to keep the systems from being abused. Enforce those laws and laws already exsisting. Get the moochs and criminals off of welfare. Gutting welfare to the point where no one gets help when they need it, because some are abusing the system, is cutting off your nose to spite your face. While there are people who abuse the system, the majority do not. Most people who recieve assistance only do so for a short time and then get back on thier feet.

I would live to see laws passed but the left won't allow it and if you bring it up your just against the poor. I'd love to see a life time cap per person. The problem is now people are born on the system raised on the system and don't even know they can get off the system they just expect the check to cone. I went to a domestic the other day they were fighting over who was going to pay the rent. 25 dollars a month for a 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment. They were 4 months behind. He was mad because his girlfriend gets 600 a week for assistance and she won't even pay the 25 a month. He wanted her evicted to teach her a lesson. She was mad because he sells dope and had a pocket full of money and wouldn't give her 100 bucks. Neither one even mentioned getting a job.

 

[Steve]

The problem I have with social security is I could do a much better job investing for my own retirement. They should allow people to opt out and invest there own money how they want. I get a much better return on my IRA then I ever will on social security. I dont even have a say on how my money is invested they just take it and the way its going I won't get any return on it when I'm old enough to use it it will be gone.

I dont have the time right now to thoroughly answer your post. But I did take the time a while back in a thread with bob Hubbard on the subject of social security and would encourage you to do a quick search for it.

Quick answer is that you could, but probably wouldn't do better on your own. Individually, some people would do better, but most wouldnt do it at all. Ask the people who have 401k available through their employers and dont even put in enough to get a company match. Ask the folks who worked at Enron how their private retirements look. What about the people who invested heavily in the junk bonds? Or the victims of whatever bank debacle is in the news in a given year. I get that you don't trust the government. That's an understandable position. But do you trust the banks? Really? Huh...

As for solvency, there is currently an earnings limit for contributions. Remove the cap for FICA for individuals earning over around $115k per year. Add another tier to the payment calculation and voila: solvency problem is gone. Beauty of that is that it actually makes it more fair, too.

Of course there are other alternatives, and we have 20 years to put something into place that will shore up the 20% or so shortfall.

And just to be sure everyone heard it, social security isn't welfare. May mean something else to our uk friends.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

I dont have the time right now to thoroughly answer your post. But I did take the time a while back in a thread with bob Hubbard on the subject of social security and would encourage you to do a quick search for it.

Ill look for it

Quick answer is that you could, but probably wouldn't do better on your own. Individually, some people would do better, but most wouldnt do it at all.

not my problem really. If your not smart enough to know that someday you will need to retire and you refuse to save for it then thats your fault and you get what you deserve. however Keep social security for those but allow others to opt out and invest on there own. Ill even sign a waiver to any and all future claims for govt help. The problem is the govt cant let me opt out they need my money they already spent the currne tgroup of retirees money and are now using mine to pay and they will expect my kids to pay my way ect, ect ,ect.

Ask the people who have 401k available through their employers and dont even put in enough to get a company match. Ask the folks who worked at Enron how their private retirements look. What about the people who invested heavily in the junk bonds? Or the victims of whatever bank debacle is in the news in a given year. I get that you don't trust the government. That's an understandable position. But do you trust the banks? Really? Huh...

its called diversify I have a retirement from my current job, I have an IRA, I invest in stocks and bonds, and I started buying gold and silver. I would never put all my eggs in one basket thats just stupid.

As for solvency, there is currently an earnings limit for contributions. Remove the cap for FICA for individuals earning over around $115k per year. Add another tier to the payment calculation and voila: solvency problem is gone. Beauty of that is that it actually makes it more fair, too.

Its not fair most people making that much wont ever need social security so why should they pay into a retirement program they dont want or need.

Of course there are other alternatives, and we have 20 years to put something into place that will shore up the 20% or so shortfall.

And just to be sure everyone heard it, social security isn't welfare. May mean something else to our uk friends.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I never said it was welfare I pay into the system so I deserve to get a return on my money. I just know I could get a better return if I were allowed to run it myself. Im not given the choice.

 

[elder999]

Thats not what he said. He said the chances of pregnancy from a rape are RARE which is true. The chances of getting pregnant from a rape are rare. According to the CDC and National Sexual Violence resource centers numbers there are approx 650,000 rapes in the us each year of them 35,000 result in a pregnancy.
So we should keep abortions legal and allow people to kill millions of babys every year because of 35,000 people? So be honest and admit Abortions are just another form of Birth control and thats it. It has nothing to do with a rape but using it as birth control does not look good in the papers so we will focus on 35000 people

Interesting article:

Writing in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Dr. Felicia H. Stewart and Dr. James Trussell have estimated that there are twenty-five thousand rape-related pregnancies each year in the United States. While these numbers make up only a small part of this country’s annual three million unwanted pregnancies, the numbers are still extremely hig

Even women who try to learn their child’s blamelessness can find it desperately difficult. The British psychoanalyst Joan Raphael-Leff writes of women bearing children conceived in rape, “The woman feels she has growing inside her part of a hateful or distasteful Other. Unless this feeling can be resolved, the fœtus who takes on these characteristics is liable to remain an internal foreigner, barely tolerated or in constant danger of expulsion, and the baby will emerge part-stranger, likely to be ostracized or punished.” One rape survivor, in testimony before the Louisiana Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, described her son as “a living, breathing torture mechanism that replayed in my mind over and over the rape.” Another woman described having a rape-conceived son as “entrapment beyond description” and felt “the child was cursed from birth”; the child ultimately had severe psychological challenges and was removed from the family by social services concerned about his mental well-being. One of the women I interviewed said, “While most mothers just go with their natural instincts, my instincts are horrifying. It’s a constant, conscious effort that my instincts not take over.”


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...egitimate-children-of-rape.html#ixzz25FGlHLmD​

​

 

[Makalakumu]

I dont have the time right now to thoroughly answer your post. But I did take the time a while back in a thread with bob Hubbard on the subject of social security and would encourage you to do a quick search for it.

Quick answer is that you could, but probably wouldn't do better on your own. Individually, some people would do better, but most wouldnt do it at all. Ask the people who have 401k available through their employers and dont even put in enough to get a company match. Ask the folks who worked at Enron how their private retirements look. What about the people who invested heavily in the junk bonds? Or the victims of whatever bank debacle is in the news in a given year. I get that you don't trust the government. That's an understandable position. But do you trust the banks? Really? Huh...

As for solvency, there is currently an earnings limit for contributions. Remove the cap for FICA for individuals earning over around $115k per year. Add another tier to the payment calculation and voila: solvency problem is gone. Beauty of that is that it actually makes it more fair, too.

Of course there are other alternatives, and we have 20 years to put something into place that will shore up the 20% or so shortfall.

And just to be sure everyone heard it, social security isn't welfare. May mean something else to our uk friends.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are lots of "fixes" for the system, but nothing can fix politicians. During the Truman administration, when social security was popular and moral, congress started to borrow from it to fund other projects that weren't so popular. The other factor we must take into account is inflation. No investment retirement scheme will work, public or private, in our current inflationary environment.

Buy gold. It's about the only thing that will retain any kind of value.

 

[elder999]

Buy gold. It's about the only thing that will retain any kind of value.

I generally recommend against buying more than $10,000 worth of gold, and that strictly for bartering purposes, when currency becomes worthless.


Buy non-perishable foodstuffs. Buy guns and ammo.

Buy land it truly is the only thing that retains any value.

 

[Makalakumu]

I generally recommend against buying more than $10,000 worth of gold, and that strictly for bartering purposes, when currency becomes worthless.


Buy non-perishable foodstuffs. Buy guns and ammo.

Buy land it truly is the only thing that retains any value.

Good strategy. I suppose I should have put "value" on quotes.

I guess the bottom line is that the world financial system is off the rails. All paper currencies are racing each other lower and lower. Precious metals rise in "value" against a failing currency when measured against the imaginary value of the paper, but you can't eat it.

Who gives a **** if Romney picked Ryan for his wrestling tag team partner. The whole system is unsustainable because of dudes like them and people need to wake the **** up to the fact that we're living in a kleptocracy as far as your money goes. Guarenteed that Romney knows all of this. I'm not so sure about Ryan. He seems like a dupe to me. Worse than Dan Quayle.