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.
You are mistaken, the US is not a democracy. The US is a republic, where the tyranny of the majority has no say. See Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution. This is a nation of laws, and the Supreme Law of the Land does not grant Congress the power to spend taxpayer money on social re-engineering programs, much less ponzi schemes like Social Security.
Democratic Republic. The people of this country vote for whom they think best makes decisions that help them, then that person goes to Washington to make those decisions.
If the majority of people want people making 200,000 dollars or more per year to prop up social security, sooner or later, they'll get representation to do just that.
Republicans lost the 2006 election in part because President Bush tried to change social security. Most of them won't make that same mistake again, except a few Idealogues who don't want social security at all.
The supreme law of the land does allow congress to tax and spend tax payer money to ensure the public welfare. As such, and the reading of the Constitution ever since the year 1800, it has been read that exact same way.
As I said--it's going to be an interesting year. People understand that entitlements are in trouble, but they want them fixed--not cut. If this is the proposal that winds up on the table, it puts the R's in a real bind--a tax increase for wealthy Americans to support it vs. cuts. They can't appease their base and still keep the swing voters they need to stay in office happy.
The other issue is drawing a line in the sand on health care vs. working on job creation--if they focus too much on repeal or defunding, they appease their 30% base and lose everyone else.
I personally think that raising the age for entitlements for young people who aren't paying in yet will probably work because of many of the issues raised here--better health at a later age--but I don't know that raising the age on folks who are already paying in is going to go over well. That leaves bringing in more income...and raising payroll taxes, or taxing benefits for wealthy Americans, makes sense.
Maybe the average American isn't so dumb after all
As I said--it's going to be an interesting year. People understand that entitlements are in trouble, but they want them fixed--not cut. If this is the proposal that winds up on the table, it puts the R's in a real bind--a tax increase for wealthy Americans to support it vs. cuts. They can't appease their base and still keep the swing voters they need to stay in office happy.
The other issue is drawing a line in the sand on health care vs. working on job creation--if they focus too much on repeal or defunding, they appease their 30% base and lose everyone else.
I personally think that raising the age for entitlements for young people who aren't paying in yet will probably work because of many of the issues raised here--better health at a later age--but I don't know that raising the age on folks who are already paying in is going to go over well. That leaves bringing in more income...and raising payroll taxes, or taxing benefits for wealthy Americans, makes sense.
Maybe the average American isn't so dumb after all
but the liberals cant seem to fix them...the liberal answer higher taxes
why did the liberals chose to tax ss as an income...yet if you say tax welfare as an income they get their feathers in a bunch???
why did the liberals put the ss trust fund into the general fund, and then rob it???
why have the liberals made it so a foreigner senior can collect ss, even though he /she has never paid into it???
why do the liberals never try to fix welfare and the 3-5 generalions of welfare people..they keep allowing the add a child increase your welfare bit...why not make it workfare instead...beause JOBS and WORK are four-letter words to liberals
why would the liberals (progressive fascists) cut medicare, and not medicaid???
why do the liberals keep pushing for cradle to grave entitlements, instead of pushing for a productive working sociaty??
remember SS was DESIGNED to be OPTIONAL with a 1% deduction( not the current 6.1%) from your income...why did the libverals change that???
but the liberals cant seem to fix them...the liberal answer higher taxes
why did the liberals chose to tax ss as an income...yet if you say tax welfare as an income they get their feathers in a bunch???
why did the liberals put the ss trust fund into the general fund, and then rob it???
why have the liberals made it so a foreigner senior can collect ss, even though he /she has never paid into it???
why do the liberals never try to fix welfare and the 3-5 generalions of welfare people..they keep allowing the add a child increase your welfare bit...why not make it workfare instead...beause JOBS and WORK are four-letter words to liberals
why would the liberals (progressive fascists) cut medicare, and not medicaid???
why do the liberals keep pushing for cradle to grave entitlements, instead of pushing for a productive working sociaty??
remember SS was DESIGNED to be OPTIONAL with a 1% deduction( not the current 6.1%) from your income...why did the libverals change that???
Read the poll I posted earlier. Over 65% of Americans think that taxes being raised on those making 200,000 to 250,000 a year and above should be raised to make social security solvent, and that their benefits should be cut.
Since this is a "center right" country, and only about 23% of that number is actually "liberal" it seems to me that the majority of the country thinks taxing those making a butt load of money a smidge more is a good thing.
Republicans lost the 2006 election in part because President Bush tried to change social security. Most of them won't make that same mistake again, except a few Idealogues who don't want social security at all.
.
actually many people would like to have personal CONTROL ( much like peronal responsibility)of their ss
why not make ss a mandated (since liberals fascists love to mandate) savings program like a 401k.....not taxed, mandated of ATLEAST 6.6% with employer MATCHING, optional INCREASE (if you want you could have 90%( obvsoly mandating the employer be capped at let's say 10%)...with out the current 15k limit (on pre-tax 401ks) that the IRS imposes
but if you did that , liberals would lose control of your money , and therefore you.... liberal fascists love controlling the people
Read the poll I posted earlier. Over 65% of Americans think that taxes being raised on those making 200,000 to 250,000 a year and above should be raised to make social security solvent, and that their benefits should be cut.
Since this is a "center right" country, and only about 23% of that number is actually "liberal" it seems to me that the majority of the country thinks taxing those making a butt load of money a smidge more is a good thing.
oh,. oh so a 'poll' stating that 'those who were polled' THINK that we should raise the cap (meaning the limit of who is taxed (ss is a tax)(currently at 102k) and NOT increase the PAYOUT (btw totally changing the SS INSURACE program)
and then what have congress say that people making over 50k dont deserve it...or people making over 30k dont deserve it
fact..BY LAW..if you raise the limit cap (the intake ), you rauise the PAYOUT limit (output)
currently a person making 102k will pay about 6.1k a year into ss....and a person making 1 million will also pay 6.1k.... at the PAYOU level that 102k person will get a 2k monthly check...that 1 million dollar person will also get a 2k monthly check.....the incomelimit and the payout goes hand in hand
oh,. oh so a 'poll' stating that 'those who were polled' THINK that we should raise the cap (meaning the limit of who is taxed (ss is a tax)(currently at 102k) and NOT increase the PAYOUT (btw totally changing the SS INSURACE program)
and then what have congress say that people making over 50k dont deserve it...or people making over 30k dont deserve it
fact..BY LAW..if you raise the limit cap (the intake ), you rauise the PAYOUT limit (output)
currently a person making 102k will pay about 6.1k a year into ss....and a person making 1 million will also pay 6.1k.... at the PAYOU level that 102k person will get a 2k monthly check...that 1 million dollar person will also get a 2k monthly check.....the incomelimit and the payout goes hand in hand
why do liberals continue to fail to see that???
And the majority of the people oppose that law, and are supporting it being changed.
Hell, Republicans are talking about means testing as a viable way of saving money.
And yes, a poll, you know of the people that run the country.
And the majority of the people oppose that law, and are supporting it being changed. Hell, Republicans are talking about means testing as a viable way of saving money.
And yes, a poll, you know of the people that run the country.
you mean like a majority of people from Cali (during the election) VOTED (ie polled) to NOT allow same sex???
sorry but SS was set up as an INSURANCE and was OPTIONAL,
why should anyone (the people) EXPECT that someone else should pay for them???? I am certaily not rich (I make about 60k) and I certainly dont want anyone else paying for me...I chose freedom and personal responsibility..which is what this country was founded on
More Bad News for the Farsiders.
So taking a wild guess before I read the posts, the farsiders will most likely attack the source or say polls don't count (unless they post em) or say it is all a lie or in a very rare case try to discuss the point of the thread. You know, the usual tactics.
Casper
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.
