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.
Social Security is a morally upright program to take care of those who are old.. Romney wants to make changes to Social Security. Romney wants to cut the rate to the wealthy americans who get social security and also give people a choice.
Obama is blind to the problems of Social Security going bankrupt if something is not changed. Better to get a check under Romney than no check under Obama.
As the OP accurately stated, Republicans have been trying to get rid of SS from the very beginning and now you believe that a Republican wants to save it. There is a sucker born every minute.
I was watching a video of Ronald Reagan a few days ago, from 1964, and he said something along the lines of "Now, we're not going to get rid of Social Security, but it would be best if we turned it into a purely voluntary program where smart people could direct their money. And all this talk of government in health care is the road to socialism! And also, Democrats are going to bankrupt our children because of the deficit!" The health care changes he was warning against were ultimately, of course, Medicare. Notably, he didn't repeal either of those programs as president 20 years later.
But it got me thinking. Conservatives started kvetching about social security about 10 seconds after Franklin Roosevelt put the program in place. Their arguments were essentially the same arguments Reagan made in 1964, which have gone on to be the same arguments that Bush was trotting out when he was going to privatize Social Security back in 2005. And, once again, the public smacked him down hard over it.
I have to say, the fact that they've been making the exact same arguments about these programs for almost 80 years made my ears perks up, almost like they mainly want to get rid of these programs, instead of patching them and making them work, because they oppose them purely on ideological grounds.
And now we're back to the topic again, with Paul Ryan and the voucher stuff for Medicare, and the large boost in Obama's polling numbers with the elderly in Ohio and Florida as a result.
Will this awkward dance between voters and conservatives ever end with conservatives giving up? I'm sure some of you are convinced that it will end with hyperinflation and government collapse and etc etc etc, which is what conservatives have been saying for 80 years, and that's fine, but hypothetically, supposing that doesn't happen - will there ever come a point where conservatives throw in the towel and accept that, basically, the broad electorate simply violently disagrees with them and always will?
Not as long as liberals never stop burying their heads in the sand, and ignoring the fact that both program will go broke unless they are FIXED.
I was watching a video of Ronald Reagan a few days ago, from 1964, and he said something along the lines of "Now, we're not going to get rid of Social Security, but it would be best if we turned it into a purely voluntary program where smart people could direct their money. And all this talk of government in health care is the road to socialism! And also, Democrats are going to bankrupt our children because of the deficit!" The health care changes he was warning against were ultimately, of course, Medicare. Notably, he didn't repeal either of those programs as president 20 years later.
But it got me thinking. Conservatives started kvetching about social security about 10 seconds after Franklin Roosevelt put the program in place. Their arguments were essentially the same arguments Reagan made in 1964, which have gone on to be the same arguments that Bush was trotting out when he was going to privatize Social Security back in 2005. And, once again, the public smacked him down hard over it.
I have to say, the fact that they've been making the exact same arguments about these programs for almost 80 years made my ears perks up, almost like they mainly want to get rid of these programs, instead of patching them and making them work, because they oppose them purely on ideological grounds.
And now we're back to the topic again, with Paul Ryan and the voucher stuff for Medicare, and the large boost in Obama's polling numbers with the elderly in Ohio and Florida as a result.
Will this awkward dance between voters and conservatives ever end with conservatives giving up? I'm sure some of you are convinced that it will end with hyperinflation and government collapse and etc etc etc, which is what conservatives have been saying for 80 years, and that's fine, but hypothetically, supposing that doesn't happen - will there ever come a point where conservatives throw in the towel and accept that, basically, the broad electorate simply violently disagrees with them and always will?
You need to pay more attention...
Quote:
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things—we're never "for" anything.
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
Now—we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood.
You're still doing that and every ten years or so up to this point liberals have had to face the consequences of making those accusations and ultimately have to raise taxes or cut benefits to keep SS solvent. Eventually it will consume 100% of taxable income no matter how you look at it.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,527,286 times
Reputation: 2038
No, due to their anti government, pro private sector stance on everything. If they were successful in this in 2005, like Bush wanted, well, could you have imagined what would have happened to both, after the mess that W's policies caused in 2008?
Most politicians are blind to the simple way to fix Social Security Income Insurance so it will last indefinitely.
First take the upper limit off taxable income to include all income from all sources legal or not. Second limit payments to people with other incomes in excess of the 80th percentile. Increased income pool and reduced payments will result in a much lower tax rate. Continue the pay as you go system by eliminating trust funds and keep the system out of the hands of the Wall Street speculators and gamblers.
Also increase government investment in the handkerchief and tissue industry to take advantage of the increased demand by the crying and whining wealthy.
something else needs to be corrected with social security, and that is giving death benefits to people who do not need them. why should we be giving benefits to people because a spouse/parent died, and the people who are receiving the benefits have jobs and dont need the money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by artisan4
Right-wingers' very nature as human beings (no compassion, no morals, no sense of shared responsibility/teamwork or nationhood) means they will never give up, IMO. But their desire to regress to the bad old days of exploitation of working people, no labor laws or unions, no social safety net, etc. makes them dinosaurs. We will NEVER go back.
the right has no compassion? get real. answer this, what is more compassionate, giving someone a meal everyday, thus making them dependent on you? or putting that person into a position to where they can earn their meal everyday, and thus be not be dependent on anyone?
the reality is that your post is COMPLETE rubbish and you know it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
I already proposed a solution to the Social Security Insurance system. Medicare and Medicaid would be replaced by a universal health care system funded with an all sources all income tax with a deductable equal to the 85th percentile. This system would not involve the private sector insurance business at all. Both private and government owned hospitals would be audited for waste, fraud and abuse. Medical personnel would be very well paid but administrators much less so. This would provide a long term solution to paying for health care in this country.
It, too, would create great consternation amongst the top 10% but as is obvious we outnumber them 9:1.
an interesting idea, but remember we are talking about a government, which is already massively wasteful with taxpayer money, auditing hospitals and private insurance companies for waste and fraud? do you let the foxes guard your chickens?
No, due to their anti government, pro private sector stance on everything. If they were successful in this in 2005, like Bush wanted, well, could you have imagined what would have happened to both, after the mess that W's policies caused in 2008?
How decidedly socialist of you. As for W's policies, those belong to the Dem controlled congress. That mess belongs to them and Obama, through and through.
It is a sad state of affairs. On the one hand you have incompetent government and on the other sleezy, scumbag for-profit health insurance racket that sits squarely between doctor and patient along with their scumbag shareholders. What to do? A one payer system in absolute direct competition with regulated for-profit health insurance companies who will play the role as supplemental insurance coverage. Now, if it where up to me and if these insurance companies did not like it, I'd tell them to go into the car insurance racket or move their operations to Brazil. Good luck with your job prospects, you'll need it.
It is bad because people don't know who they can trust. There are a lot of horrible health insurance companies. I work for a fantastic one. I couldn't work in this industry if I knew they were screwing the elderly. When I looked into them, I asked the question, "what would I suggest for my mama". If it wasn't good enough for her, them I moved on. The great thing about the Supplement Medicare insurance (not to be confused with Medicare Advantage, which I would NEVER sell) is that the government regulates the different plans and then the senior gets to choose which plan they want depending on their needs and budget. Our company HAS to abide by the plan. We can't be wishy washy and say that we will not cover that. If Medicare approves it, we HAVE to too. With the Romney/Ryan plan, the vouchers that they are talking about will be used by the seniors to help pay for the private insurance supplemental plan. They will be able to get the best healthcare of their life at a lower price at a time in their life when they need it the most. It is great!
It is bad because people don't know who they can trust. There are a lot of horrible health insurance companies. I work for a fantastic one. I couldn't work in this industry if I knew they were screwing the elderly. When I looked into them, I asked the question, "what would I suggest for my mama". If it wasn't good enough for her, them I moved on. The great thing about the Supplement Medicare insurance (not to be confused with Medicare Advantage, which I would NEVER sell) is that the government regulates the different plans and then the senior gets to choose which plan they want depending on their needs and budget. Our company HAS to abide by the plan. We can't be wishy washy and say that we will not cover that. If Medicare approves it, we HAVE to too. With the Romney/Ryan plan, the vouchers that they are talking about will be used by the seniors to help pay for the private insurance supplemental plan. They will be able to get the best healthcare of their life at a lower price at a time in their life when they need it the most. It is great!
I'm critical of Ryans plan only because I think of it in terms outside of medicare and how health insurance companies usually behave with high risk patients. Another words if someone who is 50 becomes very ill, loses job and coverage with pre-existing condition the rates would be astronomical when attempting to acquire independent coverage. Toss a voucher at them problem solved except 6-7 thousand dollar voucher would be chicken feed to most carriers. However, you might be correct in that if they are regulated strongly within medicare a voucher plan sounds feasible. However my gut says that carriers could opt out leaving a couple of insurance companies in the game altimately leaving the elderly with less choice yet again in that many doctors will not participate.
A better question would be why do Democrats refuse to address the unrealistic financial burdens SS and Medicare have put on this country? It seems they would rather wait until there's no way to pay these obligations before they'll admit there's a problem. There's no way around it -- these programs NEED to be overhauled since they're simply NOT SUSTAINABLE until they're fixed, but as long as the Democrats present any attempts to fix these programs as "attacks" on the poor and elderly, nobody is willing to touch it in fear of being thrown under the bus, as has recently happened with Paul Ryan. Democrats are convinced Ryan wants to destroy Medicare, when he simply proposed changes to turn it around.
Was his plan perfect? No, but it's somewhere to start. But rather than take those ideas and start working towards something we could agree on, Democrats crafted scary ads saying that he was going to eliminate Medicare and throw Grandma off the cliff.
An even better question would be why the GOP House, Senate, and administration thought that dumping trillions down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan was such a brilliant idea. Odd how they think that burning up tax dollars on explosions in those countries is a much better investment than spending that amount of money here in the USA.
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.
