On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:02:19 -0400, "Proto" wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:33:39 -0400, "Proto" wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:
Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.
The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a part
of American History. More than a political tool or simple act that
can be misused and taken away forever. I like to think that Social
Security is a small way of saying "Thanks" to the seniors that have
made that long and weary road to become the grandfathers of today
and yesterday. A proud but humble place to be and to some entirely
necessary.
Too bad it was not designed or implimented to be a gift to anyone
who manages to reach a magic age.
Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2
trillion as last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that
will end up.
I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were
when Ike was around or at least in theory.
So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program that
was rammed down our collective throats, along with regulations and
mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way, on a single
income.
Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.
Proto
I am not sure just what it was designed for. It depends on who is
doing the spinning but I know what thing for sure it was not
designed to be looted of over 2 trillion dollars that you failed to
comment on.....
Looted? By whom and when? You are a big boy Proto..you know there is
NO such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund. Its all paper, subject
to borrowing by the Government at large. Perhaps now you know why
Clinton claimed to have a surplus...because he claimed those IOUs as
revenue..along with POSSIBLE future revenue..and he spent a bunch of
it.
What do you think this is all about. The TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in
'Transition" fees to 'Reform' what they screwed up in the first place. This
'Trust (funny name in itself) Fund" has always been manipulated by both
parties of the government but never dismantled. And by the way, I would like
someone in their own words, you this time, explain to me just what SS was
indented to be anyway. It was never intended to be a retirement fund because
it was never thought that things would be so desperate for the poor. What
was only meant to help is now all some will have. So if this is what you
mean then you are right but it also does not mean it has to be changed. Why
not fund the elderly with a little help rather than Nation building. Why do
some get so bitter when the needs of the poor are addressed?
Proto
The reason so many people have only Social Security, as they by and
large, were told that SS would be there to bail them out when they
retired. A Retirment account. Something it was NEVER intended to be.
Now we have high income pensioners with one or more pension fund
drawing SS at the same time. This puts one hell of a drain on the
system. Btw..the average Poor in the US, is considered poor in no
other part of the planet. Ever see the government figures on the
poverty level?
The Elderly are already being funded. Funded at the level they wish
to be? Some are, some are not. They by and large should have done as
their forebearers did..and planned ahead. One should also note that SS
basicly ruined the charities that performed the task of taking care of
the truely needy.
The "needs of the poor" are well addressed in this country. Free
medical, low income housing, public transportation at discount and so
forth. Food stamps, WIC vouchers, aid to dependant children yada yada
yada.
While its true that the single biggest issue is perscription med
costs...those could be addressed by the Canadian method, and still not
touch SS funds.
Gunner
"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown
|