It's the economy stupid!

[SagaLore]

Liberal tool.

 

[Garet Jax]

You're not being totally fair. Bush had little or nothing to do with creating or bursting the technology/start-up bubble. Yet he has to deal with the consequences of the bubble bursting. Most of the lost jobs can be attributed to the layoffs and business closures directly related to the burst technology bubble.

In addition, the stock market has taken a huge hit. These things combine for a terrible economy. I don't think blaiming Bush for the terrible economy is accurate.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

In terms of a short term boost, tax cuts or other boosts to the lower classes would suffice, but in all honesty, something needs to be done in the long term to completely reform the US tax code, for all income levels.

Yes!

Personally I think someone needs to site down and go through every point in the budget. Budget reform right now is just cutting spending in the big programs and to either reduce it's size or add spending to other programs. I think they could at least cut the budget in half by dropping all the social programs, and then cut it down to a fifth by cutting all the tax incentives and exemptions and whatever - you know, all the laws each congressman slips in there to benefit their constituents.

I'm sure when the founding fathers put together our government, they meant for the Houses to focus on legislature, passing laws, making decisions, etc. and not so much on how much money to spend somewhere. They did a good job of seperating our nation's financial system (banks) from the goverment, for a darn good reason. I think they should have taken it a step further and taken the power of raising taxes and creating social programs out of the hands of the Legislature, and made another government body that moderated it. Then when our Reps and Senators were elected by us, they were allocated a budget that was enough to perform their duties as Law passers and that's it. Then any formation of social programs would kept strictly at the state level.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax
You're not being totally fair. Bush had little or nothing to do with creating or bursting the technology/start-up bubble. Yet he has to deal with the consequences of the bubble bursting. Most of the lost jobs can be attributed to the layoffs and business closures directly related to the burst technology bubble.

In addition, the stock market has taken a huge hit. These things combine for a terrible economy. I don't think blaiming Bush for the terrible economy is accurate.

Blaming ANY president is inaccurate, even Clinton.

Viper GTS

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: calpha

Originally posted by: Zakath15
What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

In terms of a short term boost, tax cuts or other boosts to the lower classes would suffice, but in all honesty, something needs to be done in the long term to completely reform the US tax code, for all income levels.

Thank god for that idea. Medicare has it's own problems, but Social Security is a pot laden of mastadon turds. I'm for adding welfare to that list. I've never even liked "Welfare" as a title. Call it "Reformation" or "Rejuvination", or something. An guy I worked with at one company's wife was in social services working in welfare, and he had nothing but hatred for the welfare system (and he was a democrat if there ever was one).

Tax code wise. I am holding on to my belief, that Turbo Tax, and TaxCut be damned, there will be one day when the Tax code looks like this:

Income for Year: X
Losses for Year: Y
(Loss = lost income on investment, interest paid on certain loans such as houses, studen loans...etc)

Charitable Contributions: Z

Tax Owed= A
A = .15 * ((X-Y) - (X-.15*Z))

Wouldn't that be nice. A flat .15 percent tax rate. No complex tax code. No loopholes. Taxes could be done in less than 5 minutes.

And by the way. The economy was in the sh!tter before Bush took office. I don't just blame Clinton either. I blame Clinton and the Republican congress. But the economy in it's current state was inherited. Both from Clinton, and the Congress of 1996/1998. I blame all the companies that were foolish enough to buy into the Internet Mantra. Spend Spend Spend on an idea, and the idea alone is enough to make money. People killed warren buffet figuratively when he refused to buy into technology stocks (he only bought M$FT to follow it becauase Billy G was his friend). He didn't buy them because he couldn't see any long term profit potential. The burst of the Internet Bubble is a HUGE reason for the market being the way it is today. Anyone else remember when companies in the B2B sector were goiong to be the best thing since sliced bread? And the value of the stock soared, only to take one of the largest falls (across the sector).? So again, the economy isn't Bush's fault. It's not Clinton's fault. It's a lot of people's fault. But, I'll agree on one thing. it's Bush's job to fix. And his reelection depends on his results IMO.

Furthermore, corporate malfeasance has also damaged our market, and while you can blame some of it on Clinton's Laisezz-fairre (so sue me, I'm not a speller) approach to the corporate world, the real blame goes on the ones who cooked the books, regardless of the legislation that was or wasn't in place.

But I don't think the blame for the current economy job wise can be laid on the war, but the blame for a falling stock market can be put on the war's uncertainty. And if you're foolish enough to equate the job market with the stock market, go back to economics 101. Companies can no longer just make paper promises, or hook into good ideas. Companies have to prove their value in order for them to grow. Like it or not, we are still recovering from this adjustment which was essential after the fallout of Internet Stocks. P/E Ratios matter AGAIN. Company Debt/Asset Ratio matters AGAIN. It's the product and the service you provide, AND how well you run your company that will make a company grow. Warren Buffet was right, too bad I didnt' listen either.

I'm not exactly sure when the Welfare system was created, I think it might have been during the Great Depression. But I do know it was intended to be a limited and temporary system, which was only supposed to last for 2 years. But then legislature kept the program alive and funded it more and more...

I completely agree with you with the taxes, unfortunately for me if that were to ever occur, it would put my firm out of business.

 

[BOBDN]

Liberal tool.

????????????????????????????????????

I'm sure there is some deep meaning here. Or not.

Why not address the facts in my post?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Liberal tool.

????????????????????????????????????

I'm sure there is some deep meaning here. Or not.

Why not address the facts in my post?

Sure. Once you post some facts, I'll be happy to.

 

[BOBDN]

You're not being totally fair. Bush had little or nothing to do with creating or bursting the technology/start-up bubble. Yet he has to deal with the consequences of the bubble bursting. Most of the lost jobs can be attributed to the layoffs and business closures directly related to the burst technology bubble.

I'm not interested in who to blame. I'm interested in the current administration touting tax cuts targeted for the rich as being their solution for the ailing economy.

Why can't anyone on these forums address the issues? I post economic information to refute the misinformation posted and all you people can post is "who to blame" or "liberal tool." Address the facts. Since the Bush administration came into power we've lost 2.5 million jobs in America. We have gone from record budget surplus to record budget deficit. People have lost billions in retirement funds because of the weak economy. Bush's only answer is to target hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to benefit only 10% of Americans. The richest 10%.

How does anyone justify these tax cuts and the way Bush and his administration are handling the economy? Why does Bush claim on the one hand to be attempting to help the economy with these unfair tax cuts yet on the other hand take no responsibility for the current awful state of the economy? Doesn't anyone here see a coorelation between the two?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

You're not being totally fair. Bush had little or nothing to do with creating or bursting the technology/start-up bubble. Yet he has to deal with the consequences of the bubble bursting. Most of the lost jobs can be attributed to the layoffs and business closures directly related to the burst technology bubble.

I'm not interested in who to blame. I'm interested in the current administration touting tax cuts targeted for the rich as being their solution for the ailing economy.

This is just liberal propoganda of class warfare. What is actually wrong with giving tax cuts to who you claim as being rich?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Why can't anyone on these forums address the issues? I post economic information to refute the misinformation posted and all you people can post is "who to blame" or "liberal tool." Address the facts. Since the Bush administration came into power we've lost 2.5 million jobs in America. We have gone from record budget surplus to record budget deficit. People have lost billions in retirement funds because of the weak economy. Bush's only answer is to target hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to benefit only 10% of Americans. The richest 10%.

How does anyone justify these tax cuts and the way Bush and his administration are handling the economy? Why does Bush claim on the one hand to be attempting to help the economy with these unfair tax cuts yet on the other hand take no responsibility for the current awful state of the economy? Doesn't anyone here see a coorelation between the two?

Quick question - Name who your favorite 3 Congressman are. Can be Rep or Senator, doesn't matter.

 

[Shade4ever]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: calpha

Originally posted by: Zakath15
What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

In terms of a short term boost, tax cuts or other boosts to the lower classes would suffice, but in all honesty, something needs to be done in the long term to completely reform the US tax code, for all income levels.

Thank god for that idea. Medicare has it's own problems, but Social Security is a pot laden of mastadon turds. I'm for adding welfare to that list. I've never even liked "Welfare" as a title. Call it "Reformation" or "Rejuvination", or something. An guy I worked with at one company's wife was in social services working in welfare, and he had nothing but hatred for the welfare system (and he was a democrat if there ever was one).

Tax code wise. I am holding on to my belief, that Turbo Tax, and TaxCut be damned, there will be one day when the Tax code looks like this:

Income for Year: X
Losses for Year: Y
(Loss = lost income on investment, interest paid on certain loans such as houses, studen loans...etc)

Charitable Contributions: Z

Tax Owed= A
A = .15 * ((X-Y) - (X-.15*Z))

Wouldn't that be nice. A flat .15 percent tax rate. No complex tax code. No loopholes. Taxes could be done in less than 5 minutes.

And by the way. The economy was in the sh!tter before Bush took office. I don't just blame Clinton either. I blame Clinton and the Republican congress. But the economy in it's current state was inherited. Both from Clinton, and the Congress of 1996/1998. I blame all the companies that were foolish enough to buy into the Internet Mantra. Spend Spend Spend on an idea, and the idea alone is enough to make money. People killed warren buffet figuratively when he refused to buy into technology stocks (he only bought M$FT to follow it becauase Billy G was his friend). He didn't buy them because he couldn't see any long term profit potential. The burst of the Internet Bubble is a HUGE reason for the market being the way it is today. Anyone else remember when companies in the B2B sector were goiong to be the best thing since sliced bread? And the value of the stock soared, only to take one of the largest falls (across the sector).? So again, the economy isn't Bush's fault. It's not Clinton's fault. It's a lot of people's fault. But, I'll agree on one thing. it's Bush's job to fix. And his reelection depends on his results IMO.

Furthermore, corporate malfeasance has also damaged our market, and while you can blame some of it on Clinton's Laisezz-fairre (so sue me, I'm not a speller) approach to the corporate world, the real blame goes on the ones who cooked the books, regardless of the legislation that was or wasn't in place.

But I don't think the blame for the current economy job wise can be laid on the war, but the blame for a falling stock market can be put on the war's uncertainty. And if you're foolish enough to equate the job market with the stock market, go back to economics 101. Companies can no longer just make paper promises, or hook into good ideas. Companies have to prove their value in order for them to grow. Like it or not, we are still recovering from this adjustment which was essential after the fallout of Internet Stocks. P/E Ratios matter AGAIN. Company Debt/Asset Ratio matters AGAIN. It's the product and the service you provide, AND how well you run your company that will make a company grow. Warren Buffet was right, too bad I didnt' listen either.

I'm not exactly sure when the Welfare system was created, I think it might have been during the Great Depression. But I do know it was intended to be a limited and temporary system, which was only supposed to last for 2 years. But then legislature kept the program alive and funded it more and more...

I completely agree with you with the taxes, unfortunately for me if that were to ever occur, it would put my firm out of business.

I agree, welfare, SS, and medicare all need to be flushed...taxes could be cut immensely (IIRC these programs are something like 40+% of the annual budget), leftover money could go to further various research programs that wouldn't be touched otherwise, and we would have more of our own earned money.

While we're at it, let's privatize the public school system as well...I wrote a college paper over the subject a while back, and it's costing almost twice as much per student for the public schools as private school do ($5k vs. ~$3k -- at least in my state - KY), while the private schools provide better education. Sorry I don't have those statistics handy, but if there's an interest I'll see about digging them up.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote

well i guess thats one way to get the growth rate of the working population to be higher than the rate paid out on social security... of course if we're buying only american made products then we'll lose to inflation most of our gains[/quote]

****************

I assume you mean that the cost of American goods is inflated above the cost of foreign goods (for the same or similar item). If that be the case, the marginal cost would be reduced on an increase of volume as fixed costs are amoritzed over the larger production. Plus the increase in demand would attract more investment in manufacturing thus competition and with a healthy economy less unemployment more spending less govt debt lower interest rates and lower inflation. Cept for oil... go to hydrogen cell for vehicles.. more nuke production and solar...

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

In terms of a short term boost, tax cuts or other boosts to the lower classes would suffice, but in all honesty, something needs to be done in the long term to completely reform the US tax code, for all income levels.

It's very easy for people who haven't been contributing to Social Security all their lives to now call for the "scrapping" of Social Security and Medicare. For the people who have worked all their lives and been forced to pay the SS and Medicare tax it's another story.

I get a statement from SS every year. I would advise everyone to do the same. My most recent statement shows I have contributed almost $64000 to SS. My employers have contributed almost $63000. This is toward my retirement. $127000. Had I been free of the burden of SS tax and invested that money over the years I would have approximately $508000 for my retirement if you follow the rule of seven. My employers and I have paid almost $35000 in Medicare tax over the years as well. Rule of seven = $140000. Retirement contributions to SS and Medicare for me alone = $648000 at the average rate of interest over the past 30 years.
My point is if I hadn't been obliged to pay a substantial part of every pay check to SS and Medicare I could have invested in another retirement plan. Now I've lost 30 years of investment income.

First, $648000 is more than I'll ever collect in my lifetime. Unless I need medical treatment, then that sum could disappear virtually overnight.

Second, this doesn't take into account the lifelong contributions my wife has made to Social Security and Medicare. These are just my figures.

Now you people say just scrap Social Security and Medicare!

Do you think it's fair to have me and my employers pay $162000 toward my retirement and get NOTHING in return?
How do you justify this robbery? How would you susggest we compensate people who paid into the system all their lives?

As far as tax reform, let's get that flat tax in place. But, NO LOOPHOLES, NO "HELP" FOR THOSE CONTRIBUTORS WHO ASK FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT, NO CORPORATIONS SETTING UP OFF SHORE TO AVOID TAXES, NO CORPORATIONS EARNING BILLIONS EVERY YEAR AND PAYING NOT ONE CENT IN TAXES. Think that'll ever happen with the lobbyists and politicians we have in Washington?

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Shade4ever

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: calpha

Originally posted by: Zakath15
What needs to be done for any long term prosperity is for Medicare and Social Security to be reformed - and by that, I mean scrapped.

In terms of a short term boost, tax cuts or other boosts to the lower classes would suffice, but in all honesty, something needs to be done in the long term to completely reform the US tax code, for all income levels.

Thank god for that idea. Medicare has it's own problems, but Social Security is a pot laden of mastadon turds. I'm for adding welfare to that list. I've never even liked "Welfare" as a title. Call it "Reformation" or "Rejuvination", or something. An guy I worked with at one company's wife was in social services working in welfare, and he had nothing but hatred for the welfare system (and he was a democrat if there ever was one).

Tax code wise. I am holding on to my belief, that Turbo Tax, and TaxCut be damned, there will be one day when the Tax code looks like this:

Income for Year: X
Losses for Year: Y
(Loss = lost income on investment, interest paid on certain loans such as houses, studen loans...etc)

Charitable Contributions: Z

Tax Owed= A
A = .15 * ((X-Y) - (X-.15*Z))

Wouldn't that be nice. A flat .15 percent tax rate. No complex tax code. No loopholes. Taxes could be done in less than 5 minutes.

And by the way. The economy was in the sh!tter before Bush took office. I don't just blame Clinton either. I blame Clinton and the Republican congress. But the economy in it's current state was inherited. Both from Clinton, and the Congress of 1996/1998. I blame all the companies that were foolish enough to buy into the Internet Mantra. Spend Spend Spend on an idea, and the idea alone is enough to make money. People killed warren buffet figuratively when he refused to buy into technology stocks (he only bought M$FT to follow it becauase Billy G was his friend). He didn't buy them because he couldn't see any long term profit potential. The burst of the Internet Bubble is a HUGE reason for the market being the way it is today. Anyone else remember when companies in the B2B sector were goiong to be the best thing since sliced bread? And the value of the stock soared, only to take one of the largest falls (across the sector).? So again, the economy isn't Bush's fault. It's not Clinton's fault. It's a lot of people's fault. But, I'll agree on one thing. it's Bush's job to fix. And his reelection depends on his results IMO.

Furthermore, corporate malfeasance has also damaged our market, and while you can blame some of it on Clinton's Laisezz-fairre (so sue me, I'm not a speller) approach to the corporate world, the real blame goes on the ones who cooked the books, regardless of the legislation that was or wasn't in place.

But I don't think the blame for the current economy job wise can be laid on the war, but the blame for a falling stock market can be put on the war's uncertainty. And if you're foolish enough to equate the job market with the stock market, go back to economics 101. Companies can no longer just make paper promises, or hook into good ideas. Companies have to prove their value in order for them to grow. Like it or not, we are still recovering from this adjustment which was essential after the fallout of Internet Stocks. P/E Ratios matter AGAIN. Company Debt/Asset Ratio matters AGAIN. It's the product and the service you provide, AND how well you run your company that will make a company grow. Warren Buffet was right, too bad I didnt' listen either.

I'm not exactly sure when the Welfare system was created, I think it might have been during the Great Depression. But I do know it was intended to be a limited and temporary system, which was only supposed to last for 2 years. But then legislature kept the program alive and funded it more and more...

I completely agree with you with the taxes, unfortunately for me if that were to ever occur, it would put my firm out of business.

I agree, welfare, SS, and medicare all need to be flushed...taxes could be cut immensely (IIRC these programs are something like 40+% of the annual budget), leftover money could go to further various research programs that wouldn't be touched otherwise, and we would have more of our own earned money.

While we're at it, let's privatize the public school system as well...I wrote a college paper over the subject a while back, and it's costing almost twice as much per student for the public schools as private school do ($5k vs. ~$3k -- at least in my state - KY), while the private schools provide better education. Sorry I don't have those statistics handy, but if there's an interest I'll see about digging them up.

The problem with killing SS & Medicare is that there is a HUGE voting population who would be shafted (in their mind at least) by that. For people like me (20), I would MUCH rather take the cash now & be responsible for investing it for my own retirement. For people who are 60 & have nothing (which there is no excuse for), there is NO benefit in killing the programs, so why would they vote for it?

I would be perfectly happy even if I didn't get back what I have put in thus far.

Perhaps an opt-out option would be best, let people who are already in decide for themselves which is better for them & then assume anyone under 18 now will not get anything.

Viper GTS

 

[LunarRay]

Quote

Quick question - Name who your favorite 3 Congressman are. Can be Rep or Senator, doesn't matter.[/quote]

*****************

Bella Abzug
Alcee Hastings
Alex Hamilton

 

[3L33T32003]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
AHHH ,this is sooo flaimbait!!!

IIRC, the economy was already in the shitter before Bush took office.

The fact that he has done nothing to help it since is the issue now.

I have to laugh when people defend tax cuts like this...the typical person getting this kind of tax cut would not give you the time of day, and yet you are so eager to allow them to grow even more wealthy.

 

[BOBDN]

The problem with killing SS & Medicare is that there is a HUGE voting population who would be shafted (in their mind at least) by that. For people like me (20), I would MUCH rather take the cash now & be responsible for investing it for my own retirement. For people who are 60 & have nothing (which there is no excuse for), there is NO benefit in killing the programs, so why would they vote for it?

First off, I'm not one of the people who have "nothing" for my retirement. I have a 401k and an annuity along with savings. I've worked 3 jobs most of my life. For many years 7 days a week. We saved and planned for our retirement.

My point is why should I and my employers have paid $172000 into government programs for my retirement and expect nothing in return now that people don't want to pay their share?

Why doens't the US Government bite the bullet and pay people who have invested all their lives into the system their investment + a suitable return. Then you can opt out all you like. But don't expect retirees to just put up with being robbed for their entire lives.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: 3L33T32003

Originally posted by: rbloedow
AHHH ,this is sooo flaimbait!!!

IIRC, the economy was already in the shitter before Bush took office.

The fact that he has done nothing to help it since is the issue now.

I have to laugh when people defend tax cuts like this...the typical person getting this kind of tax cut would not give you the time of day, and yet you are so eager to allow them to grow even more wealthy.

1) The President has virtually no control over the economy. Go take some economics classes.
2) "Allow" them to grow more wealthy? They need my permission? Do I need your permission if I want to be wealthy?

Sounds like someone's jealous.



Viper GTS

 

[LunarRay]

Any reduction to the inflow of revenue (tax cut) can be easily offset by where that tax cut goes... viz. If business gets a tax cut that stimulates employment can result in a net gain.. (more tax inflow, lower unemployment costs and other social costs) Now then... You must also give the incentive to the people to purchase the goods the business makes/sells or they won't need the new employees (generally). You do this by giving tax credit to folks who buy good mfg in USA. You target this toward the sector that needs the boost.. change annually.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Shade4ever

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: calpha

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I'm not exactly sure when the Welfare system was created, I think it might have been during the Great Depression. But I do know it was intended to be a limited and temporary system, which was only supposed to last for 2 years. But then legislature kept the program alive and funded it more and more...

I completely agree with you with the taxes, unfortunately for me if that were to ever occur, it would put my firm out of business.

I agree, welfare, SS, and medicare all need to be flushed...taxes could be cut immensely (IIRC these programs are something like 40+% of the annual budget), leftover money could go to further various research programs that wouldn't be touched otherwise, and we would have more of our own earned money.

While we're at it, let's privatize the public school system as well...I wrote a college paper over the subject a while back, and it's costing almost twice as much per student for the public schools as private school do ($5k vs. ~$3k -- at least in my state - KY), while the private schools provide better education. Sorry I don't have those statistics handy, but if there's an interest I'll see about digging them up.

I suggested the same thing the other day while discussing taxes and public schools, etc. with a group of co-workers. But I got back a response I hadn't thought about - he said that we couldn't privatize, because the public schools are run by Administrators, not businessmen. So a radical privatization would force us to recreate the school system from scratch... I just think it would be better for Schools to run themselves and compete, give people a choice, also give people a religious foundation if they choose so, but our legislatures could still regulate the schools, just not fund them.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

The problem with killing SS & Medicare is that there is a HUGE voting population who would be shafted (in their mind at least) by that. For people like me (20), I would MUCH rather take the cash now & be responsible for investing it for my own retirement. For people who are 60 & have nothing (which there is no excuse for), there is NO benefit in killing the programs, so why would they vote for it?

First off, I'm not one of the people who have "nothing" for my retirement. I have a 401k and an annuity along with savings. I've worked 3 jobs most of my life. For many years 7 days a week. We saved and planned for our retirement.

My point is why should I and my employers have paid $172000 into government programs for my retirement and expect nothing in return now that people don't want to pay their share?

Why doens't the US Government bite the bullet and pay people who have invested all their lives into the system their investment + a suitable return. Then you can opt out all you like. But don't expect retirees to just put up with being robbed for their entire lives.

**********

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement program. It was a security net. In this non socialistic country we are suppose to plan our retirement and medical out of our earnings... We should not try to emulated Grand Brittania on the outflow side and not consider the inflow side.... the social cost in europe is staggering.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

The problem with killing SS & Medicare is that there is a HUGE voting population who would be shafted (in their mind at least) by that. For people like me (20), I would MUCH rather take the cash now & be responsible for investing it for my own retirement. For people who are 60 & have nothing (which there is no excuse for), there is NO benefit in killing the programs, so why would they vote for it?

First off, I'm not one of the people who have "nothing" for my retirement. I have a 401k and an annuity along with savings. I've worked 3 jobs most of my life. For many years 7 days a week. We saved and planned for our retirement.

My point is why should I and my employers have paid $172000 into government programs for my retirement and expect nothing in return now that people don't want to pay their share?

Why doens't the US Government bite the bullet and pay people who have invested all their lives into the system their investment + a suitable return. Then you can opt out all you like. But don't expect retirees to just put up with being robbed for their entire lives.

First, I was writing my post as you posted yours - I did not read yours prior to my reply.

Second, do you see what I put at the end? Allow people to decide. Me? I'd cut my losses and run. Keep the money I've put in, I don't care.

You obviously would want your money. That's fine. Kill it for everyone who has not yet contributed, let everyone else opt out if they want.

Viper GTS

 

[BOBDN]

The fact that he has done nothing to help it since is the issue now.

I have to laugh when people defend tax cuts like this...the typical person getting this kind of tax cut would not give you the time of day, and yet you are so eager to allow them to grow even more wealthy.

My point exactly. People need to wake up and realize Bush and Co. are using their "no tax" BS to effect a redistrobution of wealth upward. The only taxes they are against are the taxes that have them and their friends pay their fair share.

1) The President has virtually no control over the economy. Go take some economics classes.

Economics classes aside, since we've all made it through those, are based as all economics on the economic view of the professor. Or the powers that be, ie Bush and Co. Why not respond to the economic facts and figures posted above? As for the president having no control over the economy, then why push tax cuts for the top 10%? If he has no control then he should be charged with robbery.

2) "Allow" them to grow more wealthy? They need my permission? Do I need your permission if I want to be wealthy?

Don't play word games. "Help" them to become more wealthy. The point is they are wealthy and greedy. They don't want to pay their fair share. They want to bankrupt the nation to grab more while they already have more than they'll every need. Why not address the record budget surplus to record budget deficit issue under Bush? Even though you claim he has no control he seems to have emptied the treasury and cost us trillions in deficits and billions in interest to service our new found debt.

 

[BOBDN]

You obviously would want your money. That's fine. Kill it for everyone who has not yet contributed, let everyone else opt out if they want.

Great, have the US government cut me a check for $648000. I'll let them know how much they owe the wife. I'd estimate about $216000.

 

[BOBDN]

Social Security was never meant to be a retirement program. It was a security net. In this non socialistic country we are suppose to plan our retirement and medical out of our earnings... We should not try to emulated Grand Brittania on the outflow side and not consider the inflow side.... the social cost in europe is staggering.

I really don't care what the intention of SS was. I was forced to contribute to the plan. I expect a benefit. To do otherwise is not only anti-socialist it's plain old fashioned robbery.

If you were the administrator of a retirement plan and after you investors contributed over their lifetime you told them they were not receiving their benefit what would happen to you?

Don't think an entire generation will stand for the government sanctioned robbery of their retirement no matter who is in power or what economic theory is in vogue.

*EDIT*
I forgot to add. I did plan my own retirement. See above. Being forced to participate in SS and Medicare made my planning that much harder. I could have contributed more. Therefore, I demand the retirement benifit as promised.