What did Ahmadinejad say?

The first thing to do with SS is to quit robbing the surplus, we only have a few more years of surplus anyway.

but that would make the budget defict look worse so it won't happen.
 
"The first thing to do with SS is to quit robbing the surplus, we only have a few more years of surplus anyway."

Which is EXACTLY why we should take it out of the hands of the politicians. They have proven that they are not trustworthy.

"but that would make the budget defict look worse so it won't happen."

Agreed.
 
uscitizen said:
The first thing to do with SS is to quit robbing the surplus, we only have a few more years of surplus anyway.

but that would make the budget defict look worse so it won't happen.
Click to expand...
Why do you think we need a whole new influx of "legal" workers?
 
Superfreak said:
"Well, other than bankrutped us in a lie of a war? He not only tried to privatize SS, privatization was also his "solution" to the healt care crisis. You haven't forgotten the personal medical accounts, where you were going to save up for years, and this way if you had a massive heart attack, after years of saving, you might just have enough to cover the medflights to get you to a trauma center before you were dead."

Actually, the HSA accounts are meant for the minor expenses. They are complemented with catastrophic care insurance to cover something major. This is how I have my healthcare covered. It is ideal for individuals like myself that do not get sick often. They also allow you to invest in the market if you choose or you can leave it in a money market fund. Bottom line though, I do not pay taxes on my contributions to the HSA.

I think for anyone without children, this structure is ideal.

As for privatizing Social security. We should have the option to do so. Remember, privatization does NOT mean you have to put your money in the market. It just means the government wouldn't be able to continue dipping into the SS fund. If you think the market is bad for SS, keep in mind that the politicians are going to bankrupt SS over the next 30 years or so.
Click to expand...


Personal accounts does not equal privitizing social security.
 
Superfreak said:
"The first thing to do with SS is to quit robbing the surplus, we only have a few more years of surplus anyway."

Which is EXACTLY why we should take it out of the hands of the politicians. They have proven that they are not trustworthy.

"but that would make the budget defict look worse so it won't happen."

Agreed.
Click to expand...

Yep put it in the hands of business we sure can trust them :rolleyes:
 
Superfreak said:
"Yep put it in the hands of business we sure can trust them "

NO... you put it in the hands of the individual.
Click to expand...

The irony that we can't trust business but we sure can trust the government to take of our money as they've shown they are so good at it.
 
Superfreak said:
"Personal accounts does not equal privitizing social security."

Thanks.... but I don't believe I said they were equivalent.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I thought I was responding to Darla's post. Detractors try to say Bush wanted to "privitize social security". It was a good scare tactic but that's not what his plan was. It was to allow the option of personal accounts which is not the same as privitizing the entire system.
 
uscitizen said:
No not at all, you have me confused with someone else.
Click to expand...

His point is if you bring more workers into the country (i.e. legalize the illegals who are here) who pay into Social Security it will help the system stay afloat longer. Simple economics.
 
I think the reason is to keep inflation ie wages down and make the economy look better than it really is. Of course the added SS and such would be a plus as well.

I mean more than one state is looking to use slave/prison labor to repalce the illegals.
 
Last edited:
"Sorry, I think I thought I was responding to Darla's post. "

My fault then. You didn't indicate who it was to, so I assumed (again, my bad) that it was directed at my post right above yours.
 
that would depend on your definition of using prisioners.
CO and TX are looking into that option last I heard.

You are using people who are not free.
 
cawacko said:
I said at the end of my post that it was an overstatement to compare him to Lenin and the governments of Western Europe are not Communists.

But yes Krugman is a big time liberal economically and yes the governments of Western Europe are just as liberal.
Click to expand...

But, cawacko, so what if Krugman supports universal healthcare? Does that make him a leftist who is way out of the mainstream? Consider this:

"A new poll finds that roughly half of Republicans favor universal health care and gays in the military."

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/po...l-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html
Click to expand...


....or, is it possible that Krugman is well in the mainstream, and that you, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are on the extreme, fringe right? ;)
 
Cypress said:
But, cawacko, so what if Krugman supports universal healthcare? Does that make him a leftist who is way out of the mainstream? Consider this:




....or, is it possible that Krugman is well in the mainstream, and that you, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are on the extreme, fringe right? ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not a supporter of Ann Coutler and not all that much with Rush Limbaugh. Paul Krugman writes for the "paper of record". I consider the "paper of record" (at least editorially wise) for the right to be The Wall Street Journal. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh don't write for The Wall Street Journal (well actually Llimbaugh wrote a column that was published several years back in the Journal).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top