Gingrich 21st Century Contract with America

PostmodernProphet said:
I was sort of hoping someone intelligent would respond.....
Click to expand...

Your wait is over. :)

New choices? The first line: REPEAL “OBAMACARE” AND REPLACE IT.

The same tired, worn-out ideas. They had 45 years since Medicare/Medicaid to come up with a solution and the discussion concerning Medicare/Medicaid was started 10 years prior. That's 55 years. And what's his solution? (Excerpt)Instead, Americans would get the choice of a tax credit or the ability to deduct the value of their health insurance up to a certain amount.(End)

Hello?? People need money before they can benefit from a tax credit or deduction. This is just the same old, same old with a twist of lemon.

Then there's his SS brainwave. (Excerpt) With Social Security, younger Americans would have the option to put a portion of their contributions into personal savings accounts. “There are many exciting solutions … and I look forward to discussing these.” (End)

Hello?? Prior to the mid-30s everyone had the option to put their money wherever they wanted. They didn't put it anywhere. When the recession arrived they had no safety net.

What happens when someone requires the money they put in a personal savings account? Let's say it's forbidden to withdraw it until retirement but they can invest it how they want because it's "their" money. Then the person loses their job. They're heading to home foreclosure but they have $20,000 in a retirement fund. Do we insist they lose their home and the down payment they made because they can't touch their retirement fund, "their" money? Do we forbid them from taking $5,000 to pay the arrears on the mortgage? Do we prevent then from taking $5,000 when they're positioned to lose $100,000 if the bank grabs the home?

Some people age but never learn. Up until the mid-30s people could do anything they wanted to prepare for their retirement. Anything at all. And what happened? Why was SS implemented? It was implemented because with all the free choice in the world the majority of people did not plan for retirement.

When it comes to Republican ideas it's a case of "Been there, done that".

As Obama told the Repubs don't come with tired, worn-out ideas and that's all those ideas are.
 
apple0154 said:
What happens when someone requires the money they put in a personal savings account? Let's say it's forbidden to withdraw it until retirement but they can invest it how they want because it's "their" money. Then the person loses their job. They're heading to home foreclosure but they have $20,000 in a retirement fund. Do we insist they lose their home and the down payment they made because they can't touch their retirement fund, "their" money? Do we forbid them from taking $5,000 to pay the arrears on the mortgage? Do we prevent then from taking $5,000 when they're positioned to lose $100,000 if the bank grabs the home?
Click to expand...

can they pay off their mortgage with the money they put into social security now?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
can they pay off their mortgage with the money they put into social security now?......
Click to expand...

No, they can't but no one is saying it's "their" money. They pay into an insurance. How long would it take for the law to be changed if it was described as "their" money? What possible logic could anyone offer prohibiting a person from paying a mortgage with "their" and keeping their home?
 
apple0154 said:
No, they can't but no one is saying it's "their" money. They pay into an insurance. How long would it take for the law to be changed if it was described as "their" money? What possible logic could anyone offer prohibiting a person from paying a mortgage with "their" and keeping their home?
Click to expand...

????....actually, the opposite is true.....every time some suggests revising SS, EVERYONE says it's their money.....it's not insurance, it's an annuity....
 
[SIZE=+1]Newt Gingrich and Paul Ryan aren't alone in promoting a scare-scam on the public.

Hank Paulson and Pete Peterson are both calling for benefit cutbacks, an older retirement age and other attacks on the system.

Paulson of course is the the guy who as Treasury Secretary under President George W. Bush, helped engineer the real estate bubble that brought the economy to its knees, and who then engineered the sweet deal that helped his former company, Goldman Sachs, come out of the crisis as the nation's biggest bank, fattened by tens of billions of taxpayer bailout dollars.

Pete Peterson, the former ad exec turned self-described economic guru has been a perpetual doomsayer about Social Security, calling for its privatization.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]
But really, what's the crisis?[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]That is a political question.

There is no reason on earth why the payroll tax should be set at the same percentage rate for all income levels, as it is now, instead of progressively calculated, so that high-income workers would pay a higher percentage of income into the fund than low-income workers.

And finally, there is no reason why the income subject to the payroll tax (the FICA tax on your W-2 statement) should be capped (currently at $106,800), or why investment income should be exempt.[/SIZE]




http://www.rense.com/general90/fake.htm
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....actually, the opposite is true.....every time some suggests revising SS, EVERYONE says it's their money.....it's not insurance, it's an annuity....
Click to expand...

Everyone may say it's their money but how many people know exactly how much they've contributed over a lifetime? If held in a personal account they'd see an exact figure.

It was designed as an annuity because folks wouldn't have gone along with it otherwise. The solution is to tax back the benefits from the more affluent. Other countries have taken that approach. A scheme similar to unemployment/welfare. When one earns money the unemployment/welfare check is cut correspondingly. With SS a percentage could be used. For those earning over $100,000, tax back 10%. Over $200,000, tax back 20% and so on. At the million mark one would be taxed the full amount.
 
apple0154 said:
Everyone may say it's their money but how many people know exactly how much they've contributed over a lifetime? If held in a personal account they'd see an exact figure.

It was designed as an annuity because folks wouldn't have gone along with it otherwise. The solution is to tax back the benefits from the more affluent. Other countries have taken that approach. A scheme similar to unemployment/welfare. When one earns money the unemployment/welfare check is cut correspondingly. With SS a percentage could be used. For those earning over $100,000, tax back 10%. Over $200,000, tax back 20% and so on. At the million mark one would be taxed the full amount.
Click to expand...

the best solution is means testing......turn it into a true insurance......you pay premiums based upon your income in exchange for insurance that if your investment dreams fall to hell in a hand basket you won't be living in poverty......instead, we take a limited amount of money from everyone and give everyone the same amount of money, which alone is not enough to live in comfort and on the other end of the scale is simply a little more money that isn't needed........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the best solution is means testing......turn it into a true insurance......you pay premiums based upon your income in exchange for insurance that if your investment dreams fall to hell in a hand basket you won't be living in poverty......instead, we take a limited amount of money from everyone and give everyone the same amount of money, which alone is not enough to live in comfort and on the other end of the scale is simply a little more money that isn't needed........
Click to expand...

And take less... Use it as an insurance program, take less from everybody, only give to those in need. It shouldn't be a program to live in luxury, it should be something that makes it so you aren't destitute if your retirement collapses.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the best solution is means testing......turn it into a true insurance......you pay premiums based upon your income in exchange for insurance that if your investment dreams fall to hell in a hand basket you won't be living in poverty......instead, we take a limited amount of money from everyone and give everyone the same amount of money, which alone is not enough to live in comfort and on the other end of the scale is simply a little more money that isn't needed........
Click to expand...

The only problem with means testing is once it becomes a welfare scheme qualifying factors can be easily adjusted. Benefits will be whittled away.
 
Is a majority of the electorate OK with this?

Yes, or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top