Fearful people are easily manipulated

COW-Fear-Itself.jpg
 
Thing, if you remember try to block her from future threads.

She clearly has either bi-polar or mental instabilities. Something is just not right with her.

how well has hiding from facts helped your party so far idiot?



you got trumped
 
I'll give her one - my most "conservative position": I believe 100% in privatizing Social Security, which I'm sure desh sees as evil.

I think it's a shame that privatizing got framed as a conservative position. To me, it's a very progressive approach to fixing SS for future generations.

Man....I'd think that through a little more Thingy.....privatizing would mean some entity would be out to make a profit for managing it and the scam artists would be
circling like vultures.....and who is going to have oversight over how its managed....more vultures ?.......At first I too thought it might be a good change, but not any more.....

Even the gov. DOJ with all its lawyers can't get an handle on the EPA, the IRS, the VA, etc.....we can't really trust anybody in Wash. DC to do an honest job anymore.....
nobody gets fired or is held responsible for fucking things up....they seem to only get bonuses for it.....
 
Man....I'd think that through a little more Thingy.....privatizing would mean some entity would be out to make a profit for managing it and the scam artists would be
circling like vultures.....and who is going to have oversight over how its managed....more vultures ?.......At first I too thought it might be a good change, but not any more.....

Even the gov. DOJ with all its lawyers can't get an handle on the EPA, the IRS, the VA, etc.....we can't really trust anybody in Wash. DC to do an honest job anymore.....
nobody gets fired or is held responsible for fucking things up....they seem to only get bonuses for it.....

Not to derail this but every now and then among all the partisan B.S. something like this comes up which makes things interesting/fun. So a person who generally leans left is pro privatizing S.S. and a person who generally leans right is against it. Nothing wrong with either person holding the position they hold but it's just rare to see something like this.
 
Man....I'd think that through a little more Thingy.....privatizing would mean some entity would be out to make a profit for managing it and the scam artists would be
circling like vultures.....and who is going to have oversight over how its managed....more vultures ?.......At first I too thought it might be a good change, but not any more.....

Even the gov. DOJ with all its lawyers can't get an handle on the EPA, the IRS, the VA, etc.....we can't really trust anybody in Wash. DC to do an honest job anymore.....
nobody gets fired or is held responsible for fucking things up....they seem to only get bonuses for it.....

This surprises me.

If people are in it for profit, good. They'll do a better job, unless they're just taking the money - and that's something that can be regulated at far less cost than the current SS admin.

The bottom line is this: SS is not built to survive long-term. Even the most ardent privatization opponents concede that by 2037, we'd need to make a 25% cut in payouts. Can you imagine that year for seniors, and what kind out outcry there will be?
 
I lean far left
And I'm for privatizing
It's clearly a Ponzi scheme
You get less than 1 percent on your money
Duh

Exactly. It IS a Ponzi scheme. It makes no sense mathematically. Why settle for 1% return when seniors could be looking at 4-5%, conservatively? It would be such a benefit.
 
And with over 300 million people, you have to expect a few nutters once in awhile.

We empower terrorists with our overblown fear of them. All it takes is a shooting like San Bernandino, and it practically paralyzes us as a nation. For terrorists that have VERY limited capability to attack us on any larger scale, that's the best thing they could hope for.

Thats a little over blown.....San Bernardino hardly paralyzed anyone....of course there was concern and the cops did a super job in short order.....that terrorists attack can be
laid at the feet of the gov. agency's....
I agree the terrorists have limited capability right now, but that threat is ever present....with open borders we can't underestimate the danger of a dirty bomb, or chem. attack of water supplies or some other large scale attack.....and there is a difference between a few nutters and dedicated terrorists driven by religion.....
 
This surprises me.

If people are in it for profit, good. They'll do a better job, unless they're just taking the money - and that's something that can be regulated at far less cost than the current SS admin.

The bottom line is this: SS is not built to survive long-term. Even the most ardent privatization opponents concede that by 2037, we'd need to make a 25% cut in payouts. Can you imagine that year for seniors, and what kind out outcry there will be?

Who is gonna regulate it....aren't you familiar with the scam artists that prey on investors for decades without getting caught....and you're pretty trusting they'll do a better job...
but with serious oversight, privatization might be feasible....

The SS system can be maintained indefinitely where it is with minor changes....

a year or two older to retire,
a small increase in the tax,
no income cutoff when the tax is no longer collected,
eliminating people in the system that don't belong there.
a law against the gov. borrowing from the 'fund'
conservative investing of the fund......
the tax applied to investment income ?

I'm sure you can come up with more ideas if you think about it......
 
Why limit it at all....done right now could bring down the payroll tax rate for everyone if there was no cut off.....

The reason for the cap on this end is to enable the cap on the other. So are we to leave the outgoing cap ? Think that will go over ?
 
Back
Top