Gunner wrote:
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 implemented 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 Retirement account. Something it was NEVER intended to be.
This is what I am trying to find out. Where does it say just WHAT it was
intended to be? I have heard many say what it was not intended to be. Who
can explain to me their idea of what it is supposed 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.
How does their being able to collect money from another pension have
anything to do with the SS trust fund?
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?
No but it would be nice to set a site while you bring it up.
The Elderly are already being funded. Funded at the level they wish
to be? Some are, some are not.
I don't know enough of them to comment. The ones I do know are always
hurting and call it a 'fixed income' when it sure seems broke to me.
They by and large should have done as
their forebearers did..and planned ahead.
So what you are saying then they should be penalized for this.
One should also note that SS
basicly ruined the charities that performed the task of taking care of
the truely needy.
You might have to run that one by me again.
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 dependent children yada yada
yada.
Is this before or after my mother-in-law loses her house? Being poor is
different from becoming poor.
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.
Whole different topic.
Proto.
|