Fearful people are easily manipulated

Dumberthanmany is one of the more flagrant party hacks
Not many on this site support much at all on the left
The only near moderates I can name are cawacko, super freak, and Damo
 
Rune said:
Says the rightard
Click to expand...

All this answer tells me is that you're not thinking about the future of Social Security. You're 100% buying into the fearmongering that any discussion of changing SS threatens seniors and is off the table.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is just the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. SS will be a problem, no matter how many "tweaks" they make or taxes they increase. It's unsustainable in its current form, and all we're doing is procrastinating the inevitable unless we're willing to at least talk about it & consider wholesale changes to the program (some of which, btw, will actually make retirement much more comfortable for our senior population).
 
Thing1 said:
All this answer tells me is that you're not thinking about the future of Social Security. You're 100% buying into the fearmongering that any discussion of changing SS threatens seniors and is off the table.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is just the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. SS will be a problem, no matter how many "tweaks" they make or taxes they increase. It's unsustainable in its current form, and all we're doing is procrastinating the inevitable unless we're willing to at least talk about it & consider wholesale changes to the program (some of which, btw, will actually make retirement much more comfortable for our senior population).
Click to expand...

Rubio was being raked over the coals this morning for making this point about SS in the debate by the blonde gal on Morning Express. They were attacking the specific numbers he cited which probably came from a different source than she were using. At any rate, even using her numbers it is obvious that steps need to be taken to ensure the solvency of SS.
 
Thing1 said:
All this answer tells me is that you're not thinking about the future of Social Security. You're 100% buying into the fearmongering that any discussion of changing SS threatens seniors and is off the table.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is just the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. SS will be a problem, no matter how many "tweaks" they make or taxes they increase. It's unsustainable in its current form, and all we're doing is procrastinating the inevitable unless we're willing to at least talk about it & consider wholesale changes to the program (some of which, btw, will actually make retirement much more comfortable for our senior population).
Click to expand...

Ironic.
You are the one who has bought into the right's fear generating machine.
Let's see.
Without any tweaks at all the system will last as is until 2037 (Over twenty years) (Over 100 years total).
Seems sustainable to me, considering all the options before one even needs to think about privatizing.
Options including but not limited to;
Eliminating the cap (best choice) raising the cap (2nd best)
Means testing (still better than privatizing).
Were you awake in '08?
How would seniors have survived that crash?
Have you no memory?
 
leaningright said:
Rubio was being raked over the coals this morning for making this point about SS in the debate by the blonde gal on Morning Express. They were attacking the specific numbers he cited which probably came from a different source than she were using. At any rate, even using her numbers it is obvious that steps need to be taken to ensure the solvency of SS.
Click to expand...

When I talk about privatization with some on the left & bring up that the returns will be much greater that way - thus ensuring more comfortable retirements for seniors - the response I get consistently is that "it's not an investment plan."

I've never understood that. If it works better as an investment plan, and is sustainable for the long-term as an investment plan, and - here's the kicker- if seniors are actually MORE comfortable if it's an investment plan, how is "it's not an investment plan" any kind of reasonable or thoughtful response?

Politicians have made SS a 3rd rail for too long. I admire any candidate who is willing to talk about it honestly.
 
Rune said:
Ironic.
You are the one who has bought into therifgt's fear generating machine.
Let's see.
Without any tweaks at all the system will last as is until 2037 (Over twenty years) (Over 100 years total).
Seems sustainable to me, considering all the option before one even needs to think about privatizing.
Options including but not limited to;
Elinating the cap (best choice) raising the cap (2nd best)
Means testing (still better than privatizing).
Were you awake in '08?
How would seniors have survived that crash?
Have you no memory?
Click to expand...

The bolded is pretty crazy. 20 more years screams "sustainable" to you, does it?

Sustainable means that it pays for itself indefinitely. It means that those being born now will still have SS when they retire - and their children will have it, and their children.

You seem to be agreeing w/ me.

As for the fearmongering "what if the market crashes!" BS - we're talking about SS investment over the course of 40 years of a working life at minimum. You tell me - how much will the return be for anyone having their funds invested for that long be, even with the kind of % that the '08 crash represented?

Nothing but fear tactics & denial on your side. Again - SS is not sustainable for the long-term.
 
Rune said:
Seeing as I am stupid, edjumacate me.
What are your left stances?
Click to expand...

getting gov out of marriage/gay marriage rights
right to choose.....i'd prefer they choose life, but if they don't, that is their right
repealing the patriot act 1 and 2, NDAA, closing gitmo, etc.
HUGE right to privacy advocate

maybe you should pay a bit more attention to posts instead of blindly labeling others based upon what a majority may or may not support. Hell, you're even calling Thing a rightie and he is most certainly not.
 
Just to continue ranting - what lefties NEED to realize is that privatizing is a progressive idea. The monthly payout for seniors if privatized is estimated to be 1.8 times what their current payout is. This would lift literally millions of Americans out of poverty - not to mention what it would do for the economy at large.

I need to hear a good reason why people are so vehemently opposed to this. It's not enough to say "it's not an investment plan," and "what about a crash?" has been thoroughly debunked as any kind of fear.

The left should be championing the cause of privatization. It is a progressive ideal - it would help so many people who live in poverty or on its edge. I just don't get the opposition, at all.
 
Trying to predict the future about the sustainability of SS is foolish.....

RUNE SAYS----
Without any tweaks at all the system will last as is until 2037 (Over twenty years) (Over 100 years total).
Seems sustainable to me, considering all the option before one even needs to think about privatizing.
Options including but not limited to;
Eliminatingthe cap (best choice) raising the cap (2nd best)
Click to expand...

Just adjusting the cap would sustain SS far into the future.....and we are already taxing some SS....that is, in reality, a kind of means testing.....now if we just
passed legislation that would return that tax to the SS system instead of handing it over to the gov. general fund, that too, would go far in sustaining the program.....

Liberals have boasted about and defended this 'ponzie scheme' since its inception as one of the greatest things the Democrats have ever done......it can't be undone, so
we all have to learn to live with it......

Nice to see Rune agreeing with what I've posted previously.....
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
Just to continue ranting - what lefties NEED to realize is that privatizing is a progressive idea. The monthly payout for seniors if privatized is estimated to be 1.8 times what their current payout is. This would lift literally millions of Americans out of poverty - not to mention what it would do for the economy at large.

I need to hear a good reason why people are so vehemently opposed to this. It's not enough to say "it's not an investment plan," and "what about a crash?" has been thoroughly debunked as any kind of fear.

The left should be championing the cause of privatization. It is a progressive ideal - it would help so many people who live in poverty or on its edge. I just don't get the opposition, at all.
Click to expand...

not to demean or diminish your idea of progressive, but getting most lefties to understand that privatization beats government is never going to work. in lefty minds, government is the best.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
not to demean or diminish your idea of progressive, but getting most lefties to understand that privatization beats government is never going to work. in lefty minds, government is the best.
Click to expand...

Normally, I would agree with you, but with privatizing SS, without doubt, means that those controlling the 'fund' would want to profit from it, so serious oversight would
be required, another bureaucracy burning up more gov. assets with employees, their benefits, their pensions, and every other cost that goes with it........

We all know, or should know, the gov. is corrupt....we've really lost any control over it....it controls us....
 
Thing1 said:
I'll remember that when we have to cut benefits by 25% in 2037.

Like I said - privatizing is a progressive idea. It's not sustainable as a public program. I care about seniors. You seem to care more about party.

And many trillions of debt was accrued by Dems. We spend too much as a country - quite clearly.
Click to expand...

privatizing is a progressive idea ?....Seriously?

I thought Democrats were dead set against Bush when he proposed privatizing SS.....Correct me it I get that wrong.
 
Thing1 said:
And that's why I'm making the point. It's inherently a progressive idea.
Click to expand...

Its a progressive idea but Democrats were dead set against it when proposed by Bush and republicans ? did you all do a flip/flop

Come now Thingy.....you can't have it both ways.....if it was a progressive idea, Dems would have embraced it 20 years ago....
 
NOVA said:
Its a progressive idea but Democrats were dead set against it when proposed by Bush and republicans ? did you all do a flip/flop

Come now Thingy.....you can't have it both ways.....if it was a progressive idea, Dems would have embraced it 20 years ago....
Click to expand...

I'm not a Democrat, and who ever said that Democrats were progressive?

Like I said, it's the point I'm making. If anyone on the left considers themselves a progressive, they should support privatization, because it's a progressive idea. Toward the beginning of this discussion, I stated that it's a shame that it's been framed as some sort of conservative idea, because that only caused many on the left to dig their heels in & not judge the idea on its merits alone, and instead turn it into a partisan issue.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
getting gov out of marriage/gay marriage rights
right to choose.....i'd prefer they choose life, but if they don't, that is their right
repealing the patriot act 1 and 2, NDAA, closing gitmo, etc.
HUGE right to privacy advocate

maybe you should pay a bit more attention to posts instead of blindly labeling others based upon what a majority may or may not support. Hell, you're even calling Thing a rightie and he is most certainly not.
Click to expand...

Sounds like things all Americans should support to me.
Certainly all Libertarians.
Didn't know freedom was only a lefty thing in your world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top