Preach on, my man! Excellent post in many ways. As for you Sam, I'm noticing an increasing amount of hatred and personal attacks coming from you. What's on your mind, chap?
LOL, it took you 5 days to come up with this rant? A republican president is in charge because people like you are misinformed and easily misled, I gather this from your authoritative pronouncements on Social Security juxtaposed with your highly erroneous factual assertions which showed quite clearly that you had about zero idea what you were talking about. Now you're just casting about aimlessly with irrelevant blather - make sure you mention Michael Moore next time you get spanked in such a fashion. Oh, and trust me, you're not a hard man to find stuff out about, Faisal, considering that you've linked to your website before on the BBS.
The only problem with this is that I don't think Medicare or Social Security are going anywhere. I think we should do away with SS because it is a crappy return on the taxes that get pulled out of everyone's paycheck, not because it is "in crisis." Any government program can be maintained in perpetuity, or at least until the fall of the government. Cutting taxes further to give everyone an opportunity to buy private insurance would probably be even better, but the same people that aren't going to be saving for their retirement are probably not going to be saving for health insurance. As for junking the government: save for a very limitted number of items (eg military, homeland security) I'm all for it. The less government the better, AFAIAC.
I remember when I thought I would "live forever," and that life would be a series of Hollywood moments, of which I would be the star. I grew out of it. To paraphrase an old Who song, you must believe you'll die before you get old. Maybe you'll get lucky. And be sure to walk that tightrope without a net. Who needs it? Keep D&D Civil!!
I think I know very well who's being condescending here, and it isn't me. However, I'll edit the tag line under my "Keep D&D Civil" request, because it is a bit much. A little civility towards the seniors of this country, who have lesser means than you or I, is probably too much to hope for as well. All I can guess is that you haven't known very many people who have their own homes, have lived long, productive lives and, because of circumstances beyond their control, have been forced to live primarily on Social Security and Medicare. I've know several. You would roll back the clock to Herbert Hoover. I couldn't disagree more. Keep D&D Civil!!
Khan it's not about Americans not being able to make choices. It is about preparing for the unexpected. What age is the person now that will have to start losing a chunk of their income to help pay down the debt? How much will that chunk be? What type of savings should they put aside for that? Will there be another president that increases the debt as much if not more than Bush? Will we be attacked again and have to pay for more military spending? How much do we alot for that kind of thing in our savings? Will there be another great depression type of ecnomic turn? How much savings should be put away for that as well? It's not that people can't decide for themselves. It is that if any of these events would eat away at what people thought they were saving for retirement, they will at least have S.S. to help out.
So it's okay for our government to solve problems for Iraqi's but not Americans? This is typical of the things we currently hear from people who support Bush. StupidMoniker, ideally, I agree with you. People SHOULD take responsibility for themselves. They SHOULD, really! I certainly am taking care of my own retirement apart from SS. But we have the small problem of human nature. Inevitabely, a segment of the population won't. When that happens, whether you like it or not, it will place a higher burden on YOU!!! SS helps all of society...not just individuals. Ideally, Sadaam is an evil person who tortures people and is possible threat to certain US interests (ahem...oil...ahem). Realistically, we removed Sadaam from power and more people have died in Iraq from unnatural causes than in the last 20 years combined. So at the end of the day, if you equate deaths with evil...who is more evil? Sadaam or America? Yes, a bad man is gone but was the situation improved? Debatable, at best. Yes they voted but at what cost. History will be the judge here and it certainly isn't clear yet. So far, Sadaam looks better. So Ideally people should take care of themselves. Realistically, it is never that easy.
There are different kinds of problems that require different kinds of solutions. Overthrowing a brutal dictator, that is a problem that you need the government for. Saving money for your retirement, that one you can handle on your own. Space exploration: government. Health insurance: individual. Interstate highway system: government. Diet: individual. See where this is going?
I think the people of Nicaragua (Somoza), Iran (The Shah), and Romania (Ceausescu) would be surprised to learn that invasion by a foriegn government is necessary to overthrow a brutal dictator.
Actually no. Every example you provided I can provide contradictory examples. But that isn't the point. I think it is interesting the W ran on a platform in 2000 that he was not into "nation building" because he wanted to focus on Americans!!! Now he seemed to have done a complete 180. He is spending so much money in Iraq that it is forcing him to cut programs to Veterans! Nice. I'd rather put 1/10th of that money into SS to help ALL American but I guess you feel it is money better spent supporting Iraqi's...who many incidentally don't even want our help.
How about the people of the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Iraqis under Saddam, the Empires of Germany and Japan? Certainly popular uprisings are possible, but it is nice to get a little help, like we did escaping the grip of the British.
That is the best you've got? Nicely done. The public also supported slavery. Newsflash...The public isn't always right...especially when the public is mislead by a campaign of fear tactics and misinformation. Just as WMD was a lie...SS will be "flat bust" by 2042 is also a lie. Oh yea, and my dad can beat up your dad.
My dad is dead. Just messing with you. I don't know or care if my father is alive or dead since he left when I was 4.
No big surprise here: I'm confused. We've been hearing for more than a decade that Social Security is on the brink of collapse. Now that someone is poised to take action to "fix" the problem... suddenly there is a clamor that there is no problem. Am I just mis-remembering?
oddly enough you heard this from two lame duck presidents concerned with "legacy" and I haven't seen anyone claim this will happen in the next decade or two which doesn't exactly bring to mind the word "brink" there are no easy solutions, and supporting the baby boomers with this system, especially in lew of rising healthcare costs and more overweight/obese seniors is going to piss someone off a lot, or a lot of people off a little, or some combo of the two there is no end-around this, I think most agree what is still being debated is whether or not the Gov should borrow 2.5 trillion while having a record deficit and not convincing very many people you are solving the original problem, or whether you believe a very different set of numbers... I'm guessing strong party affiliations are influencing both sides of the debate, as it seems to on every single conversation reguarding the gov. c'mon like the leaders of this great nation would ever say ANYTHING misleading
Yes. Clinton said that S.S. will be in trouble and needs to be fixed. He never said it was bankrupt, etc. In addition Bush's plan doesn't fix the solvency issue, according to his staff. So that is wrong on both counts. Clinton never said it was on the brink of collapse. That is an exaggeration of what he said. And Bush's proposal does nothing to fix it.
