Official VP Debate Thread

Damocles said:
Yeah, the Senate leadership have simply elected not to vote for them. And there is no filibuster on budgets. The budgets are so bad they won't even bring it up for a vote. Rather than associate themselves with a horrible budget they'd rather simply not follow the law...
Click to expand...

Well, let's be accurate about what happened. "Didn't present a budget for three years" is just false.

Ryan's budgets failed in the Senate just like Obama's. Also, too, the President has complied with the law. He presents a budget. Whether Congress passes a budget is up to Congress.
 
Rana said:
The same here, I have a SEP, we have Roths, and a 401K plus SS.
Click to expand...

But, if you could have the money that goes into Socialist inSecurity and do what you want with it would you put it into Socialist inSecurity or another vehicle.

This question isn't hard. Why are you two being intentionally obtuse unless you are afraid of being exposed by your "truthful" answer
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
What plan? Link to it. Bush never presented a plan. Ryan did though, and it is nothing like what you are describing.
Click to expand...

Geebus... He talked about it in a SOTU address, etc...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirement/stofunion_socsec/index.htm

It's like some people can't remember their own name anymore.

In his plan it began with 1%, then increased until you could eventually invest up to 1/3 of your payroll tax into an account if you so chose rather than into the SS insurance plan only. There was no requirement for it and people could remain on traditional SS if they so chose.
 
Damocles said:
Geebus... He talked about it in a SOTU address, etc...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirement/stofunion_socsec/index.htm

It's like some people can't remember their own name anymore.
Click to expand...


Where's the bill? Where is a document that presents the particulars of the plan (including the 1% nonsense you're talking about. The link says one third of the 12.4%, not 1%).

I have a very good memory of how the whole Social Security privatization thing went down. Bush never presented an actual plan for Congressional consideration. Never happened.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Well, I kinda do have a choice that I exercise through my votes. I personally will never vote for any politician that supports private accounts. Period.
Click to expand...

Alright, lets try this another way. Why don't you take your other "investments", liquidate them and put them all in social security since it is such a great deal

You unwittingly are proving my point even though you think you aren't. You know damned well if given a choice people wouldn't choose social security. But, then how could you retain your totalitarian control over them if the controlled tehir own retirement and healthcare?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Where's the bill? Where is a document that presents the particulars of the plan (including the 1% nonsense you're talking about. The link says one third of the 12.4%, not 1%).

I have a very good memory of how the whole Social Security privatization thing went down. Bush never presented an actual plan for Congressional consideration. Never happened.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was confused! Kept rereading it.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Where's the bill? Where is a document that presents the particulars of the plan (including the 1% nonsense you're talking about. The link says one third of the 12.4%, not 1%).

I have a very good memory of how the whole Social Security privatization thing went down. Bush never presented an actual plan for Congressional consideration. Never happened.
Click to expand...

It said up to 1/3 over time. You are conflating, and purposefully. They spent quite a bit of political capital presenting the idea, but the "privatize it" people scared the old people by pretending that their benefits would go away somehow even though they wouldn't be affected at all.
 
Rana said:
Wouldn't the government have to borrow to sustain current benefits? I thought the idea was to lower the deficit?
Click to expand...

The government is going to have to borrow at some point to pay for the benefits they have promised. Unless they change the full retirement age for future takers.

They may borrow to pay for today's seniors, but would have less an obligation than currently for future retirees. In the long run, it should prove less as the investment risk moves from government to individual. This is why so many companies went from pensions to 401k/403b formats over the past 40 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top