Yes, Virginia, there is another libertarian in Congress.

[Howey]

my body cannot keep up with physical exertion for any period of time anymore.

Chuck.I feel a smidgen of your pain.

the ponzi scheme is true in that thats where it started.. but the actual 'fall' of that pyramid was the sept '08 wall street failure.. when that happened, every one including states (and some countries) lost everything..

Yet they want you (and you, and you and even you!) to trust your money with them to invest in a post-apocapytical newly risen stock market. That's cool, but they want to do it (again) under the same rules as before...or in this age of deregulation, even fewer rules! I'm glad that at the ripe young age of 53 I won't be around in forty years to see the millions and millions of poor crowding the non-governmental-funded poor houses, clamboring for a bowl of rice or a sip of water to subsist one more miserable day in pain and suffering.

if anyone seriously wants 'reform' and there really is a SS crisis.. they have to start with current recipients.. anything less is just pandering to get votes and make believe..

WTF! (I almost typed BITCH! in there but we don't call names over here) 1. Repeat after me: "There is no Social Security crisis." Now go find a blackboard and write that phrase down 1000 times. As much as they want to convince the lemmings Social Security is at Defcon level 6, it ain't true. If they keep their greedy paws off it it, we'll have thirty or so years to come up with a reasonable fix to ensure solvency for future generations.

(and I don't mean starting with Chuck.. I mean starting with Warren Buffet. He and anyone else of a certain income level, should not get any retirement benefits like SS/Medicare.. and in the case of McCain, and vets of that kind of wealth, they shouldn't get VA benefits either. It doesn't hurt those kinds of people to lose their benefits, even if they 'earned' them.. because they have 17 homes,45 cars and billions in the bank.. but it does hurt Chuck or even Howie to lost their benefits just to keep Buffet and McCain on the gov't teet)

Oh. OK. I apologize for my previous outburst. The raging mo liberal in me hates, hates, hates! that any disabled veteran or retiree be denied their pension or disability. As I've stated before, they've worked all their lifes to make our country what it is today and safe today.

Yet, the reasonable mo liberal in me agrees, and has stated numerous times before, these people like Buffet and McCain don't need their Social Security and VA benefits. I cannot fathom Buffet waiting hours in his Medicare-approved Doctor's waiting room to get his prostate checked by a Doctor with WAAAAY TOO BIG HANDS (that's another story  ) or see McCain schlep to the local VAOPC to get his Alzheimer's medicine refilled and sit in the lobby nodding his head ever-so-slightly left and right focusing on nothing with his beady eyes for three hours while it is filled.

They don't have to.  Let them make the sacrifice. The Chuck's and Howey's and millions of others out there trying to live day to day on that proverbial cup of rice and sip of water have done enough. We've sacrificed already...just the 3% last year and 3% this year we didn't see in a Social Security COLA is near-devastating in these days of 4% inflation.

Let them, the rich who were never affected by a 4% loss here or there, sacrifice.

[ekg]

WTF! (I almost typed BITCH! in there but we don't call names over here) 1. Repeat after me: "There is no Social Security crisis." Now go find a blackboard and write that phrase down 1000 times. As much as they want to convince the lemmings Social Security is at Defcon level 6, it ain't true. If they keep their greedy paws off it it, we'll have thirty or so years to come up with a reasonable fix to ensure solvency for future generations.

ahem... please read again..

if anyone seriously wants 'reform' and (if) there really is a SS crisis

the 'if' was meant for both sections..

Oh. OK. I apologize for my previous outburst.

 

[Howey]

ahem... please read again..

if anyone seriously wants 'reform' and (if) there really is a SS crisis

the 'if' was meant for both sections..

 

I knew what you meant. I'm drugged out. Nappy time! 

[lil mike]

That's a statement we'll never agree on. I suspect the atonement of the poor and elderly will be at a far greater scale than the "rich". If Social Security is somehow eliminated, say for those Puffy's age, it will most likely be privatized into a "ponzi scheme" with the poor and elderly's finances being manipulated by the rich in the markets.

We see how that went before, huh? How many millions of people have worthless retirement funds now thanks to improper investment of their money by folks?

I suspect that you really don't know what a ponzi scheme is.

The debt commission came up with a plan to save social security for the next 75 years, using really some minor changes, including raising the age of eligibility of to 69 in 2060.  No one who is old enough to be out of onsies is going to be effected by that let alone Puffy, but still, Pelosi declared that "dead on arrival."  If we are unwilling to make small easy changes while we still have time to make them, we are surely not going to be able to do anything about medicaid and medicare until we hit the Greek borrowing wall.  By then, we'll be a broken country. 

[lil mike]

The problem arises when what the taxes are suppose to be paying for, start jumping ship to other areas.  When the penny starts to get thin, you can't ignore why it's getting thin.  I agree with lilmike, with regards to, that there has to be accountability.

But I'll disagree that SS can't work...it works quite well if it's coffers are left alone.  But it seems neither the Government, nor the potential for private investment, can ensure the stability and safety of the funds.  So perhaps, we need to look at other options down the road, that can negate the human greed equation.

There is a real face behind the argument and very real problem of over extension of funds and I hope it can become resolved without the sacrifice of the poor and elderly in the process.

I think SS can work, or at least be fixed.  Other countries, like Sweden, fixed their social security problems,  but I don't know what system could bypass human involvement.Simple changes decades ago would have made SS solvent for the foreseeable future.  If the program had indexed the retirement age to the life span, if Johnson had not stolen the surplus for general revenues, or as Robert Reich suggested, if the surplus had been invested in the stock market (yes even with the crashes of 1978, 2007, & 2008) it would have generated enough surplus that SS would be in the black as far as the eye could see.

But when have the country has their head in the sand and denies there is even a problem... well all we will be able to do is drive that puppy right over the cliff.

[Howey]

if Johnson had not stolen the surplus for general revenues

I take it you mean the "unified budget". The same thing Nixon used and every president after him until 1986. To say Johnson "stole" the funds is misleading.

[44nutman]

First I would like to say I am glad to see "The Rifleman" over here.

I agree with the Pauls stance on the budget. We can not run such a high deficit because the interest alone is killing us and we need to fix it.
The first thing on social security; the video of Paul "the junior" I posted he does not want to get rid of SS he just wants to raise the age which makes sense. If we had SS in 1776 you would qualify at age 40, because few lived to 60. People are living longer. He is not saying if due to injury/illness you can't collect early. He also was for slowly raising the age. He wants to cut the military as well, they maybe crazy but they also make a lot of sense.
I am seeing the arguments because it the wars killed our budget. Yes, I agree with that , and Paul the senior is always preaching isolationism. We need to do something with the budget before it wrecks our country, you can not continually spend more than you take in. That never ever works out. Yeah the Paul clan can be batshit crazy on some things, but I totally dig their ideas on the budget.

[Howey]

If we had SS in 1776 you would qualify at age 40, because few lived to 60.

So we should raise the SS age to, say....







119? 


We really need our own 789 over here.

[uselesslegs]

First I would like to say I am glad to see "The Rifleman" over here.

I agree with the Pauls stance on the budget. We can not run such a high deficit because the interest alone is killing us and we need to fix it.
The first thing on social security; the video of Paul "the junior" I posted he does not want to get rid of SS he just wants to raise the age which makes sense. If we had SS in 1776 you would qualify at age 40, because few lived to 60. People are living longer. He is not saying if due to injury/illness you can't collect early. He also was for slowly raising the age. He wants to cut the military as well, they maybe crazy but they also make a lot of sense.
I am seeing the arguments because it the wars killed our budget. Yes, I agree with that , and Paul the senior is always preaching isolationism. We need to do something with the budget before it wrecks our country, you can not continually spend more than you take in. That never ever works out. Yeah the Paul clan can be batshit crazy on some things, but I totally dig their ideas on the budget.

I agree with most all of what you said.  It's like that whacko uncle.  He has some moments of clarity that are surreal and then...they're flopping backwards, lighting their fart and you're like, "Jesus man, you just opened my mind, and you're gonna choke out a bung flame, wtf?"

[44nutman]

So we should raise the SS age to, say....







119? 


We really need our own 789 over here.

I think 70 is reasonable. I plan on working at that age(if not dead) even if it is part time. That is not unreasonable. My step-father is 63 and the dude travels a ton for his job. He is in Iraq, Columbia, all over the United States. He has a pacemaker and walks 3 miles everyday except when he is in Iraq, then he does his walking in the gym.

[lil mike]

I take it you mean the "unified budget". The same thing Nixon used and every president after him until 1986. To say Johnson "stole" the funds is misleading.

It started under Johnson.  Before then, Social Security was off budget.  Basically it's own account.  When SS is running a surplus, bringing in those funds hides the actual deficit.  That's why Johnson wanted those funds.  He wanted to hide the cost of the war. You may not consider that stolen, but that would put any corporate accountant in jail.  It's called, co-mingling funds.  So now, to the tune of about 2.5 trillion dollars, we are going to have to come up with money to pay back to SS from general revenues for several years. 

So once you start that, how do you stop as long as SS runs surpluses?  It covers up the size of the true deficit.

Hopeflully now that SS is pretty much going to be running deficits until about 2037 when it goes bust, we can take it off budget again.  Might as well have honest books before the program starts sputtering.

[Howey]

It started under Johnson.

[/quote]

Right. But that's not what you said. You said:

if Johnson had not stolen the surplus for general revenues

Without mention of subsequent presidents doing the same thing. Additionally, if the surplus had been "stolen", wouldn't the members of Congress all those years also been culpable? Cuz, ya know, they approved it. Or how about the Commission that recommended Johnson do it?

The Congressional Budget Impoundment and Control Act of 74 fixed this and established the modern system of budget reporting.

As far as this statement:

wanted to hide the cost of the war

Over and above the fact that that sounds eerily familiary, I cannot find any historical basis for it. As I said, a Commission recommended that Johnson include the funds.

[ekg]

First I would like to say I am glad to see "The Rifleman" over here.

I agree with the Pauls stance on the budget. We can not run such a high deficit because the interest alone is killing us and we need to fix it.
The first thing on social security; the video of Paul "the junior" I posted he does not want to get rid of SS he just wants to raise the age which makes sense. If we had SS in 1776 you would qualify at age 40, because few lived to 60. People are living longer. He is not saying if due to injury/illness you can't collect early. He also was for slowly raising the age. He wants to cut the military as well, they maybe crazy but they also make a lot of sense.
I am seeing the arguments because it the wars killed our budget. Yes, I agree with that , and Paul the senior is always preaching isolationism. We need to do something with the budget before it wrecks our country, you can not continually spend more than you take in. That never ever works out. Yeah the Paul clan can be batshit crazy on some things, but I totally dig their ideas on the budget.

before we raise the age limit (which I really don't like).. we should really do a 'net worth' limit. Sure, I'm socialistic for wanting to take from millionaires..   but SS was designed with the idea to take care of people who couldn't take care of themselves in old age.. John Kerry, who is married to the Heinz heir, will be able to care for himself..

so instead of making assembly-line workers work until they are 70.. let's go in a different direction.

[Howey]

before we raise the age limit (which I really don't like).. we should really do a 'net worth' limit. Sure, I'm socialistic for wanting to take from millionaires..   but SS was designed with the idea to take care of people who couldn't take care of themselves in old age.. John Kerry, who is married to the Heinz heir, will be able to care for himself..

so instead of making assembly-line workers work until they are 70.. let's go in a different direction.

Yup.

[lil mike]

Right. But that's not what you said. You said:

Without mention of subsequent presidents doing the same thing. Additionally, if the surplus had been "stolen", wouldn't the members of Congress all those years also been culpable? Cuz, ya know, they approved it. Or how about the Commission that recommended Johnson do it?

I think it's fair to say Johnson "stole" those funds.  Where are they now?  They're gone.  The money was spent.  I would also say it's fair to say that's true of all of the following Presidents, although to a lessor degree, since they inherited that fucked up accounting. 

It amazes me that liberals who should be supporting the integrity of these programs seem to have no problem with their funds being stripped down and made off with.  Even with new programs you guys seem to be on board with that.  It's really puzzling.

The Congressional Budget Impoundment and Control Act of 74 fixed this and established the modern system of budget reporting.

As far as this statement:

Over and above the fact that that sounds eerily familiary, I cannot find any historical basis for it. As I said, a Commission recommended that Johnson include the funds.

Include the funds where?