Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Social Security debate is one of Republican freedom versus Socialistic Collectivism, or, how much do we enjoy receiving gratuities and gestures of charity from Congress?
The "Republican freedom" of which you speak includes the wishes of people with whom you disagree and for whom your buddy irspow will not shed a tear as he, and possibly you, walk over their body parts. Those people of whom I speak are those who support Social Security as a permanent and valuable system, members of the Democratic-Republic.
If the both of you are neo-cons bent on controlling the means of production and distribution by means of complicity with government, then you are super-socialists, and you are out of touch. If you are merely Republicans, then you are neo-con sympathizers if you continually vote for neo-Republicans, and you are out of touch. If you are Libertarians who continue to hope for the utopian world of genuine free markets in which said markets will do away with avarice and unfettered capitalism will thrive, you are out of touch. If you are Objectivists who celebrate greed and selfishness as virtues, you are out of touch.
You need to deal with your fear of the unknown, and stop wishing for the deaths of those of your fellow citizens holding views and values different from your own. If not, then you’ll be wishing for the deaths of roughly 180,000,000 people in America because, from your writings, it appears that everyone disagreeing with either of you is evil and/or socialist.
Really; you need to come to grips with the fact that you hold bizarre views. Social Security isn't going away, and we "other" Americans are neither evil nor socialist.
Really; you need to come to grips with the fact that you hold bizarre views. Social Security isn't going away, and we "other" Americans are neither evil nor socialist.
Death is simply Nature's way of telling one to slow down. Don't fear the Reaper.
There is no law requiring anyone to obtain a Social Security Number.
And participating in Social Security is nothing personal. It's just business.
If upon obtaining a Social Security Number, one enjoys becoming a legal entity, a juristic person, a subject of Congress (alieni juris) a.k.a. a taxpayer, which is a business entity operating within a State, upon obtaining a Social Security Number, have at it.
Trading Constitutionally secured rights originating from a source higher than Congress for congressionally granted privileges seems like a bizarre trade-off, but if it makes the human resources happy, the States cannot deny to these human resources their federal privileges nor immunities.
Enjoy that debt of submission in exchange for the charity and gratuities of Congress. I sure would not call that Republican freedom, Republican meaning, "and to the Republic for which it stands."
It helps a lot also if you actually have some money to manage. With Buhsie's eight years of redistributing wealth upward, a few are enjoying that luxury more and more, while fewer and fewer are able to enjoy it at all.
Newsflash, wealth was skyrocketing upward long before Bush went into office. Median salaries between workers and executives massively ballooned during Reagan, Bush Sr, and especially Clinton's administrations.
News flash: Population projected to grow. There is nothing wrong with the system. There is nothing even resembling such a "tipping point" as you suggest anywhere in the foreseeable future. The "large population" you seem to envision and fear is merely one that becomes statistically significant over a period of roughly 20 years and then ceases to exist. It has already been accounted for. Think about getting a grip...one of those might actually come in very handy...
Newsflash: You obviously haven't learned enough about ecosystem balance, water & food supply, energy supply, etc. There will be a point that the country (and world) simply cannot sustain such a high number of people. Creating social service systems while disregarding this concept means it is FLAWED. Yes, population is projected to grow, but this system REQUIRES that it grows exponentially FOREVER for it to be sustainable.
Starting January 1st, 2009, American workers are told they have the following choices:
Ages 30 and younger: They can opt out of Social Security entirely provided they contribute a like amount to a private investment fund that they would control. OR, they can simply continue to contribute to Social Security
Ages 40 to 31: They can contribute up to 50% of their "normal" social security contribution into a private investment fund, with the other 50% going into "traditional" social security
Ages 55 to 41: They can contribute 25% of their "normal" social security contribution into a private investment fund, with the other 50% going into "traditional" social security
55 + : They must continue to contribute to social security.
Starting January 1st, 2009, American workers are told they have the following choices:
Ages 30 and younger: They can opt out of Social Security entirely provided they contribute a like amount to a private investment fund that they would control. OR, they can simply continue to contribute to Social Security
Ages 40 to 31: They can contribute up to 50% of their "normal" social security contribution into a private investment fund, with the other 50% going into "traditional" social security
Ages 55 to 41: They can contribute 25% of their "normal" social security contribution into a private investment fund, with the other 50% going into "traditional" social security
55 + : They must continue to contribute to social security.
Sign me up! ANYTHING is better than the current broken and bankrupt system.
Enjoy that debt of submission in exchange for the charity and gratuities of Congress. I sure would not call that Republican freedom, Republican meaning, "and to the Republic for which it stands."
I fully realize that you would not call it Republican freedom. I've met and had to deal with so many of you over the years in and out of business that your definition became clear long ago: Freedom is what so-called conservatives believe is freedom, and all those in the "other" America, no matter how large the number of us who participate in self-sovereignty as we see fit, are in bondage and do not deserve what so-called conservatives call freedom.
You might have difficulty believing that you can actually be wrong about something. It reminds of the people who believe that the Constitution can be treated as a crossword puzzle worked in pencil. The bushcheney regime comes to mind in this case. Not willing to put forth the effort to win support for amendments, they skirted (still are trying) the mechanisms by metaphorically using their erasers and then they inserted the desired answers. Not yet content, they erased the clues and rewrote them to yield the changed answers for cover.
The aforementioned might fit your modus operandi. You selected an ideology that creates comfort for the persona you wish to develop. You then create an environment in which you can direct, or attempt to direct, the thoughts and actions of others to suit your desired persona. You then have purchased it all and are so proud of your ownership that all others around you thinking and acting differently than you are untrustworthy.
Another analogy might that of the clam. Clams with either shell opened or closed have no vision. Ideally, if clams can be congregated together and be assured that other creatures with vision are not around to threaten them, they can get all warm and fuzzy; better known as “happy as clams.” Possibly this is how you approach life. I’m no psychoanalyst, but I’ve known many people over my 6 decades who communicate as you do.
We free persons who support the very fine established system known as Social Security (fine-tuning may be necessary, but certainly not abolishment) are not your enemies; we merely disagree with you.
Newsflash: You obviously haven't learned enough about ecosystem balance, water & food supply, energy supply, etc. There will be a point that the country (and world) simply cannot sustain such a high number of people. Creating social service systems while disregarding this concept means it is FLAWED. Yes, population is projected to grow, but this system REQUIRES that it grows exponentially FOREVER for it to be sustainable.
Run a few calculations on a spread sheet using a no-growth population with formulae projecting increases in income of the very large group known as "middle income." Use various percentage increases projected out over the next 10 years and then 20 years for comparison. If rates stay the same and incomes grow, what will be the projected total premiums paid into Social Security?
Nothing like increased wealth to solve the problem, in fact, many problems.
I believe population growth is going to be a far greater problem in the not-too-distant future than any problems we have now. Unfortunately, we always seem to have too many problems requiring immediate attention that the really big ones with the catastrophic results, too depressing to think about or act on, get put on the back burner.
when there is no net the weak will perish.
the strong have no need of a net. ruthless capitalism created a need for social security.
marie antoinette is back with us. dont ditch the net.
Newsflash, wealth was skyrocketing upward long before Bush went into office. Median salaries between workers and executives massively ballooned during Reagan, Bush Sr, and especially Clinton's administrations.
Not sure what data you're drawing from, but the CEO-to-worker income ratios commonly seen in the MSM are not very meaningful on account of the small number of CEO's. "Obscene" is a word often seen in such articles, but it really doesn't much matter what CEO's earn.
Of much more interest would be the fact that by the final year of the Clinton administration, the real (i.e., constant-dollar) income of every sector was at or just a hair off of an all-time high. What's happened since? The data are in 2007$US and are for the highest income included in each quintile, plus the lowest income in the top 5%...
To this we might add that in 2006, the top 1% broke through to account for more than 20% of the nations's income. For the first time since 1928. At the same time, their average tax rate fell to its lowest level in 18 years.
Bush has steadily moved income and wealth up the charts. The middle and lower classes have simply been left behind. The upper middle folks, particularly towards the upper end, have at least held their own, while the wealthy have only become more wealthy, in both absolute and relative terms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
