Should Americans have the right.

[Beefy]

Should American workers have the right to opt out of Social Security?

[Annie]

Should American workers have the right to opt out of Social Security?

Yes.

[Beefy]

Yes.

I agree. As it is now, its simply a ponzi program that I have no interest in funding further, but I could have property seized and be put in prison if I opt out.

Very unamerican.

[Annie]

I agree. As it is now, its simply a ponzi program that I have no interest in funding further, but I could have property seized and be put in prison if I opt out.

Very unamerican.

I'm *shocked* over 50, so I assume I'm wedded to the system. But I care about those younger, including my 20 something kids. Get out, get out! I know SS is not as bad as medicare coverage regarding deficits, but the whole concept as now configured is a Ponzi scheme!

[Beefy]

I'm *shocked* over 50, so I assume I'm wedded to the system. But I care about those younger, including my 20 something kids. Get out, get out! I know SS is not as bad as medicare coverage regarding deficits, but the whole concept as now configured is a Ponzi scheme!

It has been since day one. Its simply a way for the Government to collect more reenue, redistribute it back, and gain ownership over the populace.

I really think this country has seen its last great century.

Social Security is a misnomer anyhow. Its been raided by the government since its inception.

[Annie]

It has been since day one. Its simply a way for the Government to collect more reenue, redistribute it back, and gain ownership over the populace.

I really think this country has seen its last great century.

Social Security is a misnomer anyhow. Its been raided by the government since its inception.

I see nothing right now that would make me disagree with your gloomy assessment. I'm just hoping that like the past, someone or some event will assert itself to make us rise.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Why must you perpetuate myths and lies, Beefy?

SS is a failure? I can think of no government program that more squarely did what was asked of it than SS - get seniors out of poverty. And you spread filthy lies about it - you should be ashamed of yourself, for your IGNORANCE of what a Ponzi scheme even is.

[Annie]

Why must you perpetuate myths and lies, Beefy?

SS is a failure? I can think of no government program that more squarely did what was asked of it than SS - get seniors out of poverty. And you spread filthy lies about it - you should be ashamed of yourself, for your IGNORANCE of what a Ponzi scheme even is.

What was the purpose of SS when enacted?

[Beefy]

Why must you perpetuate myths and lies, Beefy?

SS is a failure? I can think of no government program that more squarely did what was asked of it than SS - get seniors out of poverty. And you spread filthy lies about it - you should be ashamed of yourself, for your IGNORANCE of what a Ponzi scheme even is.

I suggest you do the same, become ashamed of yourself. The SS fund was hijaced the day it was incepted. Treasury bonds are IOUs, the only have value because the REPRESENT a debt. They are not money, they are IOUs, and SS is not sustainable. It will create a massive vacuum at some point in my lifetime due to its inability to sustain itself.

The government owes itself a lot of money, yeah, that makes me feel socailly secure.

Spaz.

You don't think you should have the right to opt out?

[Beefy]

And it is a classic Ponzi scheme. The Treasury Bonds are merely straw supports to keep it floating for a little while longer. Do you know what a Ponzi Scheme is?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

ZOMG? Do you think Americans should have the RIGHT to opt out of the flawed "police" system?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If social security is a "ponzi scheme", then all retirment and pensions are ponzi schemes also. Grandpa should work, ya here? Why does he get to laze all round?

[Annie]

If social security is a "ponzi scheme", then all retirment and pensions are ponzi schemes also. Grandpa should work, ya here? Why does he get to laze all round?

So that was the purpose of SS, so that grand pa could laze around?

[Beefy]

If social security is a "ponzi scheme", then all retirment and pensions are ponzi schemes also. Grandpa should work, ya here? Why does he get to laze all round?

No, SSI is a bunch of IOUs, government "guarantees", representations of liquid, but little liquid, and stop with your lame "slippery slope" shit. Its tardy and you know it.

[Cypress]

The Fake Crisis

Economist Paul Krugman explains Bush's latest con -- social security


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6822964/the_fake_crisis/

[Beefy]

The Fake Crisis

Economist Paul Krugman explains Bush's latest con -- social security


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6822964/the_fake_crisis/

Do you think Americans should have the right to opt out?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, SSI is a bunch of IOUs, government "guarantees", representations of liquid, but little liquid, and stop with your lame "slippery slope" shit. Its tardy and you know it.

This coming from a libertarian, the queens of slippery slopes.

A pension itself is nothing but an "IOU". THis "IOU" is, in fact, guaranteed legally. If you think DEBT is nothing but an "IOU" legally, then, well, yes, SS would be nothing but an IOU.

[Beefy]

This coming from a libertarian, the queens of slippery slopes.

A pension itself is nothing but an "IOU". THis "IOU" is, in fact, guaranteed legally. If you think DEBT is nothing but an "IOU" legally, then, well, yes, SS would be nothing but an IOU.

Your mom.

[Damocles]

The answer is yes, you should be able to opt out if you choose.

[Socrtease]

NO! Social Security, in the United States, currently refers to the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. Social Security can be saved solely by means testing. By the time you Retire at age 65, most of you will have no house payment, no car payment, no student loans left to pay etc. MOST of you will also have a 401(k) or other retirement pension that you set up through your employer, or yourself. Social security was meant to be an INSURANCE. It was supposed to provide for people who got to age 65, who had worked jobs that had no retirement like service sector jobs in the food industry etc. Now believe it or not it is MOSTLY rich white guys like Forbes that have advocated for Means testing Social Security. Charles Schwab believes in Means Testing. I have heard this idea compared to fire insurance. You MUST have fire insurance for your house but you only get to benefit from it IF YOUR HOUSE BURNS DOWN. Same for Car Insurance and every state government in the US mandates it. You don't get that money back if you drove safely the whole time. My grandfather retired from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with a pension, he had also invested in the stockmarket and was getting lots of money every month after he retired. His house was paid for and his car had been paid for for decades. He didn't need the Social Security and should not have gotten it. My father won't need it either and knock on wood neither will I. Topspin doesn't need it, Forbes, Jobs and Gates don't need it. I don't know where the cut off should be for those that need it and those that don't, I am a lawyer not an economist. But I do know that there are 10's of thousands of people that don't need it and should not be eligible.

[Cypress]

Do you think Americans should have the right to opt out?

Krugman was in response to the fear mongering about the social security "crises".

No, you shouldn't be able to opt out of FICA taxes anymore than you should be able to opt out of income taxes.

Want to end FICA taxes? Change the law and abolish SS.

I understand the libertarians hate SS on principle. That's fine. Propose abolishing SS. As for the fear mongering about an impending fiscal collapse of SS, that's coming from the conservatives, republicans and neocons. And we know what they're track record is, on predicting "imminent threats".

[Epicurus]

If Social Security is so widely loved and supported, why do you oppose an opt-out? The only thing an opt-out would do is permit those individuals who think they can invest their money better than the government a way to do so.

It neither damages the solvency of the program nor the social safety net it provides to seniors and workers who wish it. It clearly allows for a greater deal of personal choice; something liberals theoretically support.

Why would you oppose an opt-out if Social Security is widely supported by many? If your assertation is true then it should not damage the solvency of the system for a few people to choose not to pay the cost or reap the benefits of it.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

NO! Social Security, in the United States, currently refers to the Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. Social Security can be saved solely by means testing. By the time you Retire at age 65, most of you will have no house payment, no car payment, no student loans left to pay etc. MOST of you will also have a 401(k) or other retirement pension that you set up through your employer, or yourself. Social security was meant to be an INSURANCE. It was supposed to provide for people who got to age 65, who had worked jobs that had no retirement like service sector jobs in the food industry etc. Now believe it or not it is MOSTLY rich white guys like Forbes that have advocated for Means testing Social Security. Charles Schwab believes in Means Testing. I have heard this idea compared to fire insurance. You MUST have fire insurance for your house but you only get to benefit from it IF YOUR HOUSE BURNS DOWN. Same for Car Insurance and every state government in the US mandates it. You don't get that money back if you drove safely the whole time. My grandfather retired from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with a pension, he had also invested in the stockmarket and was getting lots of money every month after he retired. His house was paid for and his car had been paid for for decades. He didn't need the Social Security and should not have gotten it. My father won't need it either and knock on wood neither will I. Topspin doesn't need it, Forbes, Jobs and Gates don't need it. I don't know where the cut off should be for those that need it and those that don't, I am a lawyer not an economist. But I do know that there are 10's of thousands of people that don't need it and should not be eligible.

Need rather than universal coverage is usually more troubling and beaurocratic than it's worth.

[Epicurus]

Need rather than universal coverage is usually more troubling and beaurocratic than it's worth.

Oh wow well you convinced me there...

[Beefy]

If Social Security is so widely loved and supported, why do you oppose an opt-out? The only thing an opt-out would do is permit those individuals who think they can invest their money better than the government a way to do so.

It neither damages the solvency of the program nor the social safety net it provides to seniors and workers who wish it. It clearly allows for a greater deal of personal choice; something liberals theoretically support.

Why would you oppose an opt-out if Social Security is widely supported by many? If your assertation is true then it should not damage the solvency of the system for a few people to choose not to pay the cost or reap the benefits of it.

Indeed. Why would SS need more people paying in than it aims to support if it was truly self sufficient?

Why shouldn't I have the right to opt out, even if I'm wrong?

[Minister of Truth]

Technically though, younger people aren't paying for their own SS. They are paying for the current retirees who depend on it, so I don't think anyone should be able to opt out until reform is implemented and those not on the reformed program can be paid off despite the huge dropout rate that would occur...

[Beefy]

Technically though, younger people aren't paying for their own SS. They are paying for the current retirees who depend on it, so I don't think anyone should be able to opt out until reform is implemented and those not on the reformed program can be paid off despite the huge dropout rate that would occur...

Thus Ponzi.

If its not a Ponzi scheme which its proponents claim its not, then why not let us opt in or out voluntarily?

[Beefy]

Krugman was in response to the fear mongering about the social security "crises".

No, you shouldn't be able to opt out of FICA taxes anymore than you should be able to opt out of income taxes.

Want to end FICA taxes? Change the law and abolish SS.

I understand the libertarians hate SS on principle. That's fine. Propose abolishing SS. As for the fear mongering about an impending fiscal collapse of SS, that's coming from the conservatives, republicans and neocons. And we know what they're track record is, on predicting "imminent threats".

SS isn't the same as other taxes. Its specifically supposed to be a public pension for me, or whomever pays into it. If it is resilient and secure, then why not let people opt out? You're avoiding the question.

Maybe you can answer this then. Should the law be such that Americns can opt out of Social Security?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Krugman was in response to the fear mongering about the social security "crises".

No, you shouldn't be able to opt out of FICA taxes anymore than you should be able to opt out of income taxes.

Want to end FICA taxes? Change the law and abolish SS.

I understand the libertarians hate SS on principle. That's fine. Propose abolishing SS. As for the fear mongering about an impending fiscal collapse of SS, that's coming from the conservatives, republicans and neocons. And we know what they're track record is, on predicting "imminent threats".

Mathematically it should collapse. The only way it can survive is to reduce young workers to slaves and take nearly all their money.

[Cypress]

SS isn't the same as other taxes. Its specifically supposed to be a public pension for me, or whomever pays into it. If it is resilient and secure, then why not let people opt out? You're avoiding the question.

Maybe you can answer this then. Should the law be such that Americns can opt out of Social Security?

No, because FICA is a dedicated tax to pay benefits to current retirees, in the same was gasoline/highway taxes are a tax to pay for current highway maintainence.

You opt out of highway taxes, there isn't enough money to pay for highway maintainence. You opt out of FICA, there isn't enough money to pay current retirees the benefits they were promised.

[evince]

Indeed. Why would SS need more people paying in than it aims to support if it was truly self sufficient?

Why shouldn't I have the right to opt out, even if I'm wrong?

OK lets say you opt out.

Then you fuck it all up and lose your ass and have no means of support in your old age.

Guess who has to take care of you?

[evince]

"The people who hustled America into a tax cut to eliminate an imaginary budget surplus and a war to eliminate imaginary weapons," Krugman wrote recently, "are now trying another bum's rush."


Damn you gotta love that Krugman.

[uscitizen]

Do you think Americans should have the right to opt out?

sure they should be able to opt out so they can whine for help when they get old.

Just like the finiancial industry whined to get out from under restrictive regualtions preventing them from making money.
Thus we got another junk bond/S&L type of debacle and now they want bailed out.

[evince]

You got it US , there is no real way to "opt out" . The wages that get payed to people figure in SS anyway. You can bet people who Opted Out would end up getting paid less than people who stayed in the system.

[uscitizen]

Unless I am mistaken Regan signed into law the mess allowing the govt to spend the SS surplus as general funds and issue IOU's for the theft.
I believe he was also the one that started figuring SS into the general Budget as it had been a seperate item before.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

[evince]

Yeah he was a piece of work. I am dismayed at the idea Bush even makes me long for a R like Reagan.

I wish they would just go back to being the party of Ike.

[uscitizen]

Yeah it was just part of the plan to kill SS.
Bleed it dry and then whine about how much it costs.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

OK lets say you opt out.

Then you fuck it all up and lose your ass and have no means of support in your old age.

Guess who has to take care of you?

Fear mongering.

[uscitizen]

Ahh a claim of fearmongering from a head fear mongerer ?

Run! It's da Joos !

[Damocles]

No, because FICA is a dedicated tax to pay benefits to current retirees, in the same was gasoline/highway taxes are a tax to pay for current highway maintainence.

You opt out of highway taxes, there isn't enough money to pay for highway maintainence. You opt out of FICA, there isn't enough money to pay current retirees the benefits they were promised.
FICA was not designed, nor is it described to be, what you are saying here. You pay in to an account, it pays you back.

[uscitizen]

Yeah the only real SS crisis is that the govt cannot afford to pay back the surplus they "stole".

[Damocles]

It is an example of why we should not trust a clearly irresponsible government with such important things as retirement and health care.

[evince]

Damo it has been the aim of the republican party for the last thirty years to convince America of what you say. The system worked fine until it was attacked from within by Republicans bent on distroying it. They get elelcted by talking tax cuts and then they do things to fuck up systems which were working fine to in an attempt to make it look like government can do nothing right. They say government can do nothing right and then they get elected and Prove their point.

I really wish they would just go back to being the party of Ike and Help us make things better instead of lying about what they want to accomplish to get elelcted.

[Damocles]

Damo it has been the aim of the republican party for the last thirty years to convince America of what you say. The system worked fine until it was attacked from within by Republicans bent on distroying it. They get elelcted by talking tax cuts and then they do things to fuck up systems which were working fine to in an attempt to make it look like government can do nothing right. They say government can do nothing right and then they get elected and Prove their point.

I really wish they would just go back to being the party of Ike and Help us make things better instead of lying about what they want to accomplish to get elelcted.
It wasn't working "fine", there is a reason that Gore promoted his "lock box". Pretending it was only Rs that wrecked that system is simply partisan blinders and ignorance of the history of the program.

Irresponsibility on both sides created this, and pretending it will be solved by more irresponsible government is just sad.

[evince]

Reagan look to Reagan. He was the start of the whole mess.

[Damocles]

Reagan look to Reagan. He was the start of the whole mess.
And who was in Congress, Desh?

Your ignorance of this issue is astounding! Both parties played their part, both are irresponsible with our money.

[Cancel 2016.2]

I wish they would just go back to being the party of Ike.

That is quite possibly the best thing you have ever said on this site. IMO.

[uscitizen]

Damo it has been the aim of the republican party for the last thirty years to convince America of what you say. The system worked fine until it was attacked from within by Republicans bent on distroying it. They get elelcted by talking tax cuts and then they do things to fuck up systems which were working fine to in an attempt to make it look like government can do nothing right. They say government can do nothing right and then they get elected and Prove their point.

I really wish they would just go back to being the party of Ike and Help us make things better instead of lying about what they want to accomplish to get elelcted.

Pretty much right on Target Desh.

[evince]

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Social_Security.htm

Ronnie wanted to Kill SS outright and Knew he could not say so in public.

[uscitizen]

And who was in Congress, Desh?

Your ignorance of this issue is astounding! Both parties played their part, both are irresponsible with our money.

and the Dems had a veto proof majority ?
Who signed the bill, Regan could have vetoed it.

[Damocles]

and the Dems had a veto proof majority ?
Who signed the bill, Regan could have vetoed it.
They did not need to pass the legislation. The extreme fact is they had 100% control over spending regardless of a veto proof majority. We do not hold these irresponsible people to the reality. They are responsible for the legislation that was passed. The President cannot pass any of it.

[Cypress]

They did not need to pass the legislation. The extreme fact is they had 100% control over spending regardless of a veto proof majority. We do not hold these irresponsible people to the reality. They are responsible for the legislation that was passed. The President cannot pass any of it.


They did not need to pass the legislation. The extreme fact is they had 100% control over spending

That's not accurate. The Senate was republican controlled until 1987.

[Damocles]

The reality is that without the Democrats approving and passing that legislation Ronnie could not have waged his supposed war on SS. Nor did the Rs have 'veto-proof' majorities when Clinton was in office where the final blow to that program from irresponsible money-managers was taken.

[Damocles]

They did not need to pass the legislation. The extreme fact is they had 100% control over spending

That's not accurate. The Senate was republican controlled until 1987.
The Senate does not originate spending bills.

Why do I have to give lessons in government on a political message board?

[Damocles]

People who are desperate to proclaim their party free of guilt will point to anything at all but the reality that they had control of that part of things during the entire time.

[uscitizen]

They did not need to pass the legislation. The extreme fact is they had 100% control over spending regardless of a veto proof majority. We do not hold these irresponsible people to the reality. They are responsible for the legislation that was passed. The President cannot pass any of it.

a regan quote for those among us with poor memories.

"The buck stops here"

[evince]

I dont believe they had enough to override a veto durig any of Reagans years did they?

They had a very small majority in the Senate and could have Forced nothing through.

Im not saying they are Faultless Damo but when it comes down to it its the Rs who have always attacked SS even though the vast majority of Americans like the program.

[Damocles]

a regan quote for those among us with poor memories.

"The buck stops here"
And again, must we go through a class on how the government operates? The attempt to totally illeminate any responsibility from it from the actual body of government that passes the legislation and originates spending bills is just plain sad.

Add more partisan blinders, usc. It definitely doesn't make you look like a partisan hack..

:rolleyes:

[evince]

Hes not a hack , he knows as well as I do that the Dems are not faultless.

Damo it just that the Rs have wanted it dead for many years and everyone who pays attention knows this. The people who refuse to see this are the 30% republican base who refuse to ever realise America wants to keep the program and loves it.

It is fixable and every time the Dems do something to help fix it the Rs freak out and play dirty.

[uscitizen]

And again, must we go through a class on how the government operates? The attempt to totally illeminate any responsibility from it from the actual body of government that passes the legislation and originates spending bills is just plain sad.

Add more partisan blinders, usc. It definitely doesn't make you look like a partisan hack..

:rolleyes:

Well at least no more of a party hack than you are Damo :D

[Damocles]

Hes not a hack , he knows as well as I do that the Dems are not faultless.

Damo it just that the Rs have wanted it dead for many years and everyone who pays attention knows this. The people who refuse to see this are the 30% republican base who refuse to ever realise America wants to keep the program and loves it.

It is fixable and every time the Dems do something to help fix it the Rs freak out and play dirty.
And this is only one example of irresponsible government. The attempt to assuage guilt from the people who passed the actual spending bills is preposterous.

for over 40 years we have spent more than we make. Even during the projected balanced budget we borrowed money to pay the interest on the debt. We have paid not one dime of principal on any loan of ours for over 40 YEARS. Yet we think these people are responsible enough to make life choices for us.

[Cancel 2016.2]

And this is only one example of irresponsible government. The attempt to assuage guilt from the people who passed the actual spending bills is preposterous.

for over 40 years we have spent more than we make. Even during the projected balanced budget we borrowed money to pay the interest on the debt. We have paid not one dime of principal on any loan of ours for over 40 YEARS. Yet we think these people are responsible enough to make life choices for us.

Countdown to the "but Clinton had a budget surplus" nonsense... in ten, nine, eight....

[uscitizen]

Nope I will jump right back to Regan cooking the books to make his budget appear better than it really was.
ie counting the SS money as general budget money.

[Timshel]

This coming from a libertarian, the queens of slippery slopes.

A pension itself is nothing but an "IOU". THis "IOU" is, in fact, guaranteed legally. If you think DEBT is nothing but an "IOU" legally, then, well, yes, SS would be nothing but an IOU.


Huh, SS is not guaranteed legally. What are you talking about?

[Damocles]

Nope I will jump right back to Regan cooking the books to make his budget appear better than it really was.
ie counting the SS money as general budget money.
The exact same way that Clinton got his projected "surplus" where we still borrowed money to pay interest on a debt. Such practices are seriously irresponsible, yes from both parties. I have stated so from the beginning.

I hate this irresponsible behavior from those we give the largest responsibility to.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Nope I will jump right back to Regan cooking the books to make his budget appear better than it really was.
ie counting the SS money as general budget money.

1) Reagan... not Regan

2) Dems controlled the House. Not one single piece of legislation could hit Reagans desk without their approval. Not one.

3) Reagan was NOT the first to raid SS to cook the books. Though he certainly joined Carter, Nixon, Ford, Johnson and Kennedy... as did both Bushs and Clinton. Ike was the last fiscally responsible President.

4) Now please tell us how Clinton cooked the books. Or are we to ignore the fact that he did it as well?

[uscitizen]

1) Reagan... not Regan

who cares. He could not even spell his own name by the time he left office anyway.

2) Dems controlled the House. Not one single piece of legislation could hit Reagans desk without their approval. Not one.

but did the dems have a 2/3 majority to override Vetos ?

3) Reagan was NOT the first to raid SS to cook the books. Though he certainly joined Carter, Nixon, Ford, Johnson and Kennedy...

Link please.

4) Now please tell us how Clinton cooked the books. Or are we to ignore the fact that he did it as well?

Of course Clowntoon cooked the books as his predecessors had laid out. And it was a Republican congress he was dealing with. Why did the republicans not have a plan to end the "book cooking" ?

[Damocles]

The whole veto argument is weak. They vote for the legislation or he could not have signed it. It is so very partisan to attempt to forgive the very people who are responsible for spending bills from any responsibility toward spending bills. Not one piece of spending legislation could make it out of Congress without their votes. There wouldn't even be a bill to veto without their approval to begin with.

[uscitizen]

Damo that is the purpoose for Vetoes.
1, To see if congress is really serious about the legislation and will override your veto.
2, To force congress to rewrite the bill in a more acceptable format that the president will sign.

and I had assumed that you knew something about how govt operates.

[Battleborne]

I suggest you do the same, become ashamed of yourself. The SS fund was hijaced the day it was incepted. Treasury bonds are IOUs, the only have value because the REPRESENT a debt. They are not money, they are IOUs, and SS is not sustainable. It will create a massive vacuum at some point in my lifetime due to its inability to sustain itself.

The government owes itself a lot of money, yeah, that makes me feel socailly secure.

Spaz.

You don't think you should have the right to opt out?


However..SSA was and is sustainable...it is a very good catch all retirement fund...the problem came about when our elected officials decided to raid and rape the system for other projects that the fund was not intended for...Put a 'Lock Box' on this fund for the future, that was suggested in the past by a few honest representatives...this was ignored and now everyone is crying...!

[Damocles]

Damo that is the purpoose for Vetoes.
1, To see if congress is really serious about the legislation and will override your veto.
2, To force congress to rewrite the bill in a more acceptable format that the president will sign.

and I had assumed that you knew something about how govt operates.
The reality is, that in order for Reagan to veto something first it had to pass the House. That they voted in support of those laws gives them responsibility toward them. In every case, every spending bill must come from the same source and it was controlled solely by one party for a very long time. The attempt to cleanse their hands, so to speak, is a weak one. They vote for these bills. Every time. For over 40 years, since 1962 in fact, they have consistently, no matter who was in power, voted to overspend. Even during the supposed "surplus" years they overspent and borrowed money.

The attempt to call one or the other party fiscally responsible has failed miserably, and their irresponsible behavior in every single case while in power tells me that they have no ability to claim resonsibility over something as important to my life as health care.

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) Reagan... not Regan

who cares. He could not even spell his own name by the time he left office anyway.

2) Dems controlled the House. Not one single piece of legislation could hit Reagans desk without their approval. Not one.

but did the dems have a 2/3 majority to override Vetos ?

3) Reagan was NOT the first to raid SS to cook the books. Though he certainly joined Carter, Nixon, Ford, Johnson and Kennedy...

Link please.

4) Now please tell us how Clinton cooked the books. Or are we to ignore the fact that he did it as well?

Of course Clowntoon cooked the books as his predecessors had laid out. And it was a Republican congress he was dealing with. Why did the republicans not have a plan to end the "book cooking" ?


1) Got it... you wish to excuse your ignorance... understood

2) Does not matter if they had a veto majority or not. They had the majority, which means not one single piece of legislation could have made it to Reagan without the Dems approval. Not one.

3) A link to show they all used the SS funds?

4) So again, you excuse Clinton from doing the exact same shit as Reagan. Why did the Dems not have a plan to end the book cooking? Why did Clinton continue it? He did not have to. He could have vetoed it. I notice now you toss in the fact that Clinton could not have done so without Congress. Yet somehow Reagan could? Bottom line, the whole friggin point is that BOTH parties are responsible for this shit.

[uscitizen]

3) A link to show they all used the SS funds?

Yea as general revenue and counted them in the general budget instead of seperately.

[Socrtease]

That is quite possibly the best thing you have ever said on this site. IMO.


They did not need to pass the legislation. The extreme fact is they had 100% control over spending regardless of a veto proof majority. We do not hold these irresponsible people to the reality. They are responsible for the legislation that was passed. The President cannot pass any of it.So then it was NOT the Reagan recovery? It was the democratic congress that passed all that legislation who is responsible for the recovery? I doubt you would concede this but you want to say that it is congress' fault that SS is "in trouble". The truth of the matter is they are BOTH EQUALLY responsible for this.

[uscitizen]

Yep

[Cancel 2016.2]

So then it was NOT the Reagan recovery? It was the democratic congress that passed all that legislation who is responsible for the recovery? I doubt you would concede this but you want to say that it is congress' fault that SS is "in trouble". The truth of the matter is they are BOTH EQUALLY responsible for this.

I have said numerous times, it cannot be done one without the other. I have stated that BOTH parties have brought us to the mess we are in. Yes, certain Presidents are stronger leaders (Ike) and others are weak (Carter, Bush and Bush). The remainder fall somewhere in between.

But thank you for saying that BOTH parties are equally responsible. If you take a look back, that is exactly what Damo and I have both been saying.

A President cannot create a bill or a budget without Congress and Congress cannot force through a bill or budget without the President (unless they have a rare veto proof majority).

[Battleborne]

I have said numerous times, it cannot be done one without the other. I have stated that BOTH parties have brought us to the mess we are in. Yes, certain Presidents are stronger leaders (Ike) and others are weak (Carter, Bush and Bush). The remainder fall somewhere in between.

But thank you for saying that BOTH parties are equally responsible. If you take a look back, that is exactly what Damo and I have both been saying.

A President cannot create a bill or a budget without Congress and Congress cannot force through a bill or budget without the President (unless they have a rare veto proof majority).


right...fact remains that Damo spent way too much time 'under the sea in a yellow submarine' lack of oxygen twisted his outlook on life!:cof1:

[Cancel 2016.2]

right...fact remains that Damo spent way too much time 'under the sea in a yellow submarine' lack of oxygen twisted his outlook on life!:cof1:

What????

[Damocles]

So then it was NOT the Reagan recovery? It was the democratic congress that passed all that legislation who is responsible for the recovery? I doubt you would concede this but you want to say that it is congress' fault that SS is "in trouble". The truth of the matter is they are BOTH EQUALLY responsible for this.
That they supported his finances was my point. What part of this are you having a hard time with? Are they responsible for passing all legislation considering spending? Yes. Did they follow the program put forward by Reagan? Sure they did.

They most certainly had no obligation to do so, and should take responsibility for their votes. The whole, "It was his plan!" crap gives them no escape from the fact of their support and their vote.

You also ignore the very real call for any responsibility for over 40 YEARS, that has nothing to do with SS. SS is just one example of the total disregard of responsibility that we have in our government, the examples are myriad. Not the least of which is the fact of the national debt, how it has grown, and how we have not even one time since 1962 payed even one red cent towards the principal on any of those loans. Not even one penny, including the years of the "projected surplus" during the Clinton Era we STILL BORROWED MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST ON THOSE LOANS.

Your attempt to slither away from responsibility in the reality of today will solely show your partisan blinders, it will not gain you any credibility. Especially when you attempt to excuse the House controlled in all that time by the very group you attempt to wipe clean of all responsibility.

Whether or not they can "force him to accept it" with a veto proof majority, they can certainly refuse to pass legislation if it is against their ideology or if it irresponsibly takes money away from programs they support.

[uscitizen]

Yep both but damo seems to only portray one party as the evil ones. Well until nailed down anyways :)

[Battleborne]

What????



ask damo about his service under the sea...thats what he told me!
;)

[uscitizen]

actually it is everyones right to drop out of SS if they desire. Just become a street person.
no income = no taxes / SS.

Wussy libertarians are not strong enough to do it though and want the govt to do it for them.

[Beefy]

actually it is everyones right to drop out of SS if they desire. Just become a street person.
no income = no taxes / SS.

Wussy libertarians are not strong enough to do it though and want the govt to do it for them.

Lame. Again.

[uscitizen]

so correct is lame to you ?

[Beefy]

so correct is lame to you ?

No, idiots are lame to me.

[uscitizen]

No, idiots are lame to me.

wha ??? I thought you leaned towards the right...

[Damocles]

Yep both but damo seems to only portray one party as the evil ones. Well until nailed down anyways :)
Rubbish. What part of both parties means only one of them?

[uscitizen]

Look back thru your posts on this thread Damo.

seems like you blamed it on the demoncratic congress in at least one post and appeared to be defending Raygun.

[LadyT]

An extra 12% would be devine in my paycheck.

[Cancel 2016.2]

It wasn't working "fine", there is a reason that Gore promoted his "lock box". Pretending it was only Rs that wrecked that system is simply partisan blinders and ignorance of the history of the program.

Irresponsibility on both sides created this, and pretending it will be solved by more irresponsible government is just sad.

US..... you mean like this one of Damos? Where he clearly said it was both sides?

[Cancel 2016.2]

And who was in Congress, Desh?

Your ignorance of this issue is astounding! Both parties played their part, both are irresponsible with our money.

Or perhaps this one US... where again he said both parties.

[Cancel 2016.2]

The exact same way that Clinton got his projected "surplus" where we still borrowed money to pay interest on a debt. Such practices are seriously irresponsible, yes from both parties. I have stated so from the beginning.

I hate this irresponsible behavior from those we give the largest responsibility to.

yet another one US....

[uscitizen]

Actually more like this one.

"They did not need to pass the legislation. The extreme fact is they had 100% control over spending regardless of a veto proof majority. We do not hold these irresponsible people to the reality. They are responsible for the legislation that was passed. The President cannot pass any of it."

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually more like this one.

"They did not need to pass the legislation. The extreme fact is they had 100% control over spending regardless of a veto proof majority. We do not hold these irresponsible people to the reality. They are responsible for the legislation that was passed. The President cannot pass any of it."

yet that does not attempt to blame one party or the other alone. He recognizes three times that both parties were to blame. In the above post he was simply pointing out the stupidity of those of you who keep putting forth the "they did not have veto proof majority" crap. THAT is why BOTH parties were to blame. The bills HAVE to pass the House and Senate BEFORE the President can sign it. Thus, the Dems could have blocked any bill they wanted with the simple majority they held in the House. But they did not. THUS, BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME.

[uscitizen]

He kept ignoring the fact that nothing is law without the presidents signature or refusal to sign and the time thing or a veto and veto override.

Butt then you are in the same boat as Damo so why would I expect you to see that either.

[evince]

yet that does not attempt to blame one party or the other alone. He recognizes three times that both parties were to blame. In the above post he was simply pointing out the stupidity of those of you who keep putting forth the "they did not have veto proof majority" crap. THAT is why BOTH parties were to blame. The bills HAVE to pass the House and Senate BEFORE the President can sign it. Thus, the Dems could have blocked any bill they wanted with the simple majority they held in the House. But they did not. THUS, BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME.

There is very little blame for you to give the Dems fella , the lions share is in your camp.

[Cancel 2016.2]

He kept ignoring the fact that nothing is law without the presidents signature or refusal to sign and the time thing or a veto and veto override.

Butt then you are in the same boat as Damo so why would I expect you to see that either.

How did he or I ignore that? We both said that is why BOTH parties are responsible. Reagan signed it and the Dem led House sent it to him to sign. It is your idiotic argument that the Dems are somehow not to blame due to their not having a veto proof majority that we were arguing against.

[Cancel 2016.2]

There is very little blame for you to give the Dems fella , the lions share is in your camp.

Really retard... tell me... how many bills in the history of the country has the President created and signed into law without the consent of Congress?

[evince]

How did he or I ignore that? We both said that is why BOTH parties are responsible. Reagan signed it and the Dem led House sent it to him to sign. It is your idiotic argument that the Dems are somehow not to blame due to their not having a veto proof majority that we were arguing against.


They did not make those laws in a void.

They battled the R members with only a small majority.

If they had sent any pres a bill he was sure to veto over and over how long would they stay in office?

How much scorn would you now be spewing on them for it?

[Cancel 2016.2]

They did not make those laws in a void.

They battled the R members with only a small majority.

If they had sent any pres a bill he was sure to veto over and over how long would they stay in office?

How much scorn would you now be spewing on them for it?

So what you are saying is that Congress is not responsible for any bill they put forth unless they have a veto proof majority?

That is retarded. Apparently economics is not the only issue you are ignorant on.

[Damocles]

Look back thru your posts on this thread Damo.

seems like you blamed it on the demoncratic congress in at least one post and appeared to be defending Raygun.
In both of them I specifically answered a question of yours based on how you thought Ds were faultless. Both times I specifically pointed out that Reagan was involved as well.

You need a bit of honesty in your assessment. Maybe in everything that you do.

I never said that Rs were faultless, I said repeatedly that both parties were involved in irresponsible behavior for over 40 years, and I included examples outside of the narrow box of SS, which I said was only one example of that previously mentioned irresponsibility.

Now, can you honestly look at what I have written, including the context of your questions? Or will you try again to say that while I have said that both parties are responsible you have tried to absolve one consistently with inane remarks about how they were powerless in their power?

Helpless in all cases, including when they had Carter and a Dem Congress and Senate.

[Cancel7]

But what you fail to take into account is this: Whenever a Republican states that "both parties are to blame" that means that Republicans are soley to blame. If both parties really are to blame, they claim it is soley the democrats fault.

And we know that.

[evince]

Dont forget they claim the credit for the good dems do too.

[Cancel 2016.2]

But what you fail to take into account is this: Whenever a Republican states that "both parties are to blame" that means that Republicans are soley to blame. If both parties really are to blame, they claim it is soley the democrats fault.

And we know that.

crock of shit one

[Cancel 2016.2]

Dont forget they claim the credit for the good dems do too.

crock of shit two.

[Cancel7]

Awww, and it seems like just yesterday when our little SF could only make squeaking noises. Now, he is counting to ten.

Well, to two, anyway.

Before you know it he will be walking!

[Damocles]

He kept ignoring the fact that nothing is law without the presidents signature or refusal to sign and the time thing or a veto and veto override.

Butt then you are in the same boat as Damo so why would I expect you to see that either.
Rubbish. I kept answering your excuses for one of the parties with actual information that you probably learned in Civics Class in your Junior High School.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Awww, and it seems like just yesterday when our little SF could only make squeaking noises. Now, he is counting to ten.

Well, to two, anyway.

Before you know it he will be walking!

So you are in agreement with the retard then? That somehow Reagan could create bills without the approval of the Dem house or that Clinton could create bills without the Reps?

[Cypress]

There is very little blame for you to give the Dems fella , the lions share is in your camp.


Repubublicans like to spread the blame equally: for the iraq war, for the fiscal disaster they navigated us into, for the decline of american influence and image in the world. And Desh, you know why they want to spread blame equally - their policies are failures.

[Damocles]

But what you fail to take into account is this: Whenever a Republican states that "both parties are to blame" that means that Republicans are soley to blame. If both parties really are to blame, they claim it is soley the democrats fault.

And we know that.
This is such inanity. You are describing yourself if you put Democrat in instead of Republican and vice versa. I even gave examples of how both parties are to blame, and showed the pattern of over 4 decades of irresponsible behavior by both parties.

It is only the ones that desperately want to believe that they have all the heroes.... and that perfection pervades their human group they wish to belong to. It is the very mentality that has crippled this nation and kept it from responsible government for over 4 decades.

[Damocles]

People, when the government is borrowing money to pay INTEREST on a debt while reporting a supposed surplus it is irresponsible behavior. If you did this with your credit cards there is no Economist, banker, or anybody that dealt with money including your own parents that would say it was a good and wise choice.

[evince]

Awww, and it seems like just yesterday when our little SF could only make squeaking noises. Now, he is counting to ten.

Well, to two, anyway.

Before you know it he will be walking!


Hes already dancing

[Socrtease]

That they supported his finances was my point. What part of this are you having a hard time with? Are they responsible for passing all legislation considering spending? Yes. Did they follow the program put forward by Reagan? Sure they did.

They most certainly had no obligation to do so, and should take responsibility for their votes. The whole, "It was his plan!" crap gives them no escape from the fact of their support and their vote.

You also ignore the very real call for any responsibility for over 40 YEARS, that has nothing to do with SS. SS is just one example of the total disregard of responsibility that we have in our government, the examples are myriad. Not the least of which is the fact of the national debt, how it has grown, and how we have not even one time since 1962 payed even one red cent towards the principal on any of those loans. Not even one penny, including the years of the "projected surplus" during the Clinton Era we STILL BORROWED MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST ON THOSE LOANS.

Your attempt to slither away from responsibility in the reality of today will solely show your partisan blinders, it will not gain you any credibility. Especially when you attempt to excuse the House controlled in all that time by the very group you attempt to wipe clean of all responsibility.

Whether or not they can "force him to accept it" with a veto proof majority, they can certainly refuse to pass legislation if it is against their ideology or if it irresponsibly takes money away from programs they support.

no you are right Damo and I had not read far enough back to see that you were indeed making that point. Reagan and the Dems had an agreement, Reagan got his military funding increases and Tipp O'Neil got his social program increases. IF they hadn't we would have had 8 years of stagnate government that could not even pass necessary bills.

[evince]

And who would the Rs have blamed for that?

[Damocles]

And who would the Rs have blamed for that?
The opposite that the Ds would have blamed for it. Why are you still attempting to bend reality?

[evince]

Damo I think we all know the Rs have their message pretty well calculated.

Its the dems who break ranks and blame each other.

[Cancel 2016.2]

Damo I think we all know the Rs have their message pretty well calculated.

Its the dems who break ranks and blame each other.

You mean like you are doing now? LMAO.

Some of us are blaming BOTH parties.... you on the other hand want to continue your partisan parroting.

[uscitizen]

How did he or I ignore that? We both said that is why BOTH parties are responsible. Reagan signed it and the Dem led House sent it to him to sign. It is your idiotic argument that the Dems are somehow not to blame due to their not having a veto proof majority that we were arguing against.

And of course none of the Republicans in congesss voted for it.

anyone even know which party in congress brought up the bill ?

[Damocles]

And of course none of the Republicans in congesss voted for it.

anyone even know which party in congress brought up the bill ?
It cannot get to the floor without going through committee first, the committees are controlled by the party with the majority.

Again, more information that you should already know from 7th grade Civics classes.

Why are you so determined to protect one party? Amazingly by attempting to strawman it by saying others are doing exactly what you are.

I'm "stunned' (sarcasm) at your amazing partisanship for a person who professed for so long to be non-partisan.

[Topspin]

no way on the opt out. Can't wait to collect that max 2400 mo now wil pro be 3000 in 14 years.

[uscitizen]

It cannot get to the floor without going through committee first, the committees are controlled by the party with the majority.

Again, more information that you should already know from 7th grade Civics classes.

Why are you so determined to protect one party? Amazingly by attempting to strawman it by saying others are doing exactly what you are.

I'm "stunned' (sarcasm) at your amazing partisanship for a person who professed for so long to be non-partisan.

thanks for the compliment. I learned from a master. Yourself.

so you are saying that a minority party in congress cannot introduce a bill ?

And that no Republicans voted for it ?

or was that all purely diversion ? Because of the valid points I brought up that no one had discussed ?

[Damocles]

thanks for the compliment. I learned from a master. Yourself.
I have never professed to be non-partisan. That is your lie alone.

I have always informed people what party I belong to, and supported people who I believe best represent my ideology. I don't pretend to be something that I am not and have never suggested that I am other than a republican that leans libertarian.

[uscitizen]

and that 3k will be worth about 1,500 ;)


more miliionaires than ever before in 14 years :clink:

[Annie]

I have never professed to be non-partisan. That is your lie alone.

I have always informed people what party I belong to, and supported people who I believe best represent my ideology. I don't pretend to be something that I am not and have never suggested that I am other than a republican that leans libertarian.

I knew Damo from before this site, he said the same there forever. I may be wrong, but I believe before this site, at least 2 years?

[Damocles]

I knew Damo from before this site, he said the same there forever. I may be wrong, but I believe before this site, at least 2 years?
At least. But uscitizen has "known" me even longer than that at another site.

There seems to be some confusion as to my being "non-partisan". I have not been. I am a republican who leans libertarian. And, in fact, if the Libertarian party would straighten up and put people forward with some sanity and get some realistic shot at winning I'd be Libertarian.

That party shoots themselves in the foot all the time.

[uscitizen]

Damo, Lets just ignore my partisanship strawman you are throwing out.

so you are saying that a minority party in congress cannot introduce a bill ?

And that no Republicans voted for it ?

or was that all purely diversion ? Because of the valid points I brought up that no one had discussed ?
__________________

[Damocles]

Damo, Lets just ignore my partisanship strawman you are throwing out.

so you are saying that a minority party in congress cannot introduce a bill ?

And that no Republicans voted for it ?

or was that all purely diversion ? Because of the valid points I brought up that no one had discussed ?
__________________
They can, but without the support of the majority it will not get past committee. Stop being so deliberately obtuse. The majority party could stop a bill every single time. Every. Single. Time. Without their support, it would not pass. Every. Single. Time.

There is no party at all that has not been irresponsible.

Including during Carter's years while the debt increased, and they controlled both Congressional houses and the WH all the way through now, even when it was opposite, and at no time in between.

Even when the projected "surplus" was there and they robbed social security to come up with even the slowing of the increase on the debt.

Both parties have been players in this irresponsibilty, for over 45 years.

[uscitizen]

Yes I agree both parties, but Regan deserves the final blame for signing the bill into law, he could have vetoed.

[Annie]

They can, but without the support of the majority it will not get past committee. Stop being so deliberately obtuse. The majority party could stop a bill every single time. Every. Single. Time. Without their support, it would not pass. Every. Single. Time.

There is no party at all that has not been irresponsible.

Including during Carter's years while the debt increased, and they controlled both Congressional houses and the WH all the way through now, even when it was opposite, and at no time in between.

Even when the projected "surplus" was there and they robbed social security to come up with even the slowing of the increase on the debt.

Both parties have been players in this irresponsibilty, for over 45 years.

Well described! Kudos for you!

[Damocles]

Both of these parties have been so irresponsible to the point of extreme stupidity. They have, in fact, been so stupid that I don't trust them even with Social Security, let alone my health care.

I can't believe that people want people who are so stupid that they borrow money to pay interest on existing debt to start meddling in their health care. It boggles the mind that people would want such idiots ever making such decisions that could effect their life so massively!

[uscitizen]

Yep kinda like a family with no insurance going into debt and bankrupting themselves to get care for their child.

Up till subprime loans the largest cause of personal bankruptcy weas medial expenses.


How about all the other things we have bought on credit over the years Damo ?

Aid to katrina victims ? the elderly, Veterans, etc...

[Damocles]

Yep kinda like a family with no insurance going into debt and bankrupting themselves to get care for their child.

Up till subprime loans the largest cause of personal bankruptcy weas medial expenses.
Except not like that. It's more like a billionaire going into debt because they are too stupid to invest in the future.

The richest nation on the planet, the one that collects the most revenue, the one that spends the most money and has the largest budget is the one so stupid that they can't even realize how idiotic it is to borrow money to pay INTEREST on a debt.

[uscitizen]

Except not like that. It's more like a billionaire going into debt because they are too stupid to invest in the future.

The richest nation on the planet, the one that collects the most revenue, the one that spends the most money and has the largest budget is the one so stupid that they can't even realize how idiotic it is to borrow money to pay INTEREST on a debt.

But according to many republican leaders the debt does not matter. And several on here have told me as long as it is below a certain percentage of GDP....

this is not me you are going against on this. I fully support pay as you go. it is just a difference of opinion on what we pay for.

[Damocles]

But according to many republican leaders the debt does not matter. And several on here have told me as long as it is below a certain percentage of GDP....

this is not me you are going against on this. I fully support pay as you go. it is just a difference of opinion on what we pay for.
And according to the current congress who promised "pay as you go" and violated that promise with the very first piece of legislation passed.

[uscitizen]

And according to the current congress who promised "pay as you go" and violated that promise with the very first piece of legislation passed.

but the republican controlled congress had already struck down or let expire the pay as you go thing.
Or am I wrong on that ?

btw that does not seem to have anything to do with Regans responsibility.
Strawman!

[Damocles]

but the republican controlled congress had already struck down or let expire the pay as you go thing.
Or am I wrong on that ?

btw that does not seem to have anything to do with Regans responsibility.
Strawman!
Nope. Hence the word "and" in my post. Amazingly I was clear in my intent and inclusive in my wording. Just making sure the hackery doesn't stick with the one party.

Both of them have been very irresponsible with our money. Including during the years of projected "budget surplus" that was overspent so that people like A/C and Desh could pronounce how fantastic Clinton was while forgetting that the debt increased.

[Damocles]

Well described! Kudos for you!
Thank you.

[uscitizen]

Butt.
:D

[theMAJORITY]

Should American workers have the right to opt out of Social Security?

You do have the right. They don't want you to excercise it, because they want your money. But, there is no law saying you have to have a social security number to live and work in the Untited States of America. If you can find such a law (it does not exist) Erwin Shiff, author of "Pay no more income taexs" and "The Federal Mofia" (a must read, written decades ago), will pay you $10,000. You better hurry up and find that law though. Erwin is a older gentelman and may not be around much longer. Don't confuse IRS tax code with real law voted in by congress. To have such a law would technically make us a socialist society, and it would be unconstitutional---so the IRS was born, and is not part of our government. They are simply revenue collectors for the government, but not part of our government--even thoug our government dictates how much money we get taxed. Smells fishy? it is.