Hey GOP! If you don't broaden the party...

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Social Security system should not even exist. It's basically a program for forcing people to participate in a system to guarantee their security; particuarly when they are older. Nobody should be forced to participate in such a thing. I know that I, personally, would much prefer to have gotten the money I've paid into the Social Security system than to be eligible for the "benefits" it offers.

Not to mention the fact that it's a Ponzi scheme that can't be sustained indefinitely. The Social Security system is not a good thing. It was wrong to establish it.

are you trying 4 most uninformed and moronic post of the year?


because if you are...I am betting on the fastest horse here.

 

[JohnStOnge]

[
are you trying 4 most uninformed and moronic post of the year?


because if you are...I am betting on the fastest horse here.

No. First of all, it cannot be indefintely sustained. That should be obvious by now. It really is a Ponzi scheme.

Secondly it's immoral. People should not be forced to partcipate in such a program. You should not be forced by government to provide for your own retirement, etc. The Social Security System is a bad idea. The only question is one of how we extricate ourselves from it. We shouldn't even be talking about whether or not it should be phased out. We should be talking about how to do it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Matt, you've let Reagan and Bush Sr. off the hook. All the cold warriors were used to playing our allies as pawns in a proxy war.

Again, I agree with DevNell.

I think that Charlie Wilson put it best when he commented that our moves in Afghanistan were great, but we (messed) up the end game. For just a few more dollars, we could have built alliances in the sects that we fueled during their interactions with Russia, instead we turned our back on them.

Personally, I blame Congress more than anything on this matter, as it was a financial delegation opportunity that they passed on. Had the Congress of that time listened to what Wilson advised them, 9/11 may never of happened.

Fortunately, it appears that both Bush and Obama have learned from this approach. I have noticed that these two Presidents have placed considerable political and media attention on the need to "stay the course" so that we don't abandon people to create future enemies. I have complete faith that Obama will carry on Bush's policy here, as he is a great man that understands the need to help those that really need a leg up from the U.S.

 

[JohnStOnge]

By the way, another "nice" thing about the Social Security system is that we each have a number through which we can be tracked. Wonderful.

 

[Iriemon]

[
are you trying 4 most uninformed and moronic post of the year?


because if you are...I am betting on the fastest horse here.

No. First of all, it cannot be indefintely sustained. That should be obvious by now. It really is a Ponzi scheme.

It cannot be sustained with the conditions we have now. But kick the retirement age up a couple years, make it means tested, take off the SS tax cap so its taxed on all income and not just income below $100k; or some combination thereof and it can go on indefinitely.

Secondly it's immoral. People should not be forced to partcipate in such a program. You should not be forced by government to provide for your own retirement, etc. The Social Security System is a bad idea. The only question is one of how we extricate ourselves from it. We shouldn't even be talking about whether or not it should be phased out. We should be talking about how to do it.

If no one is forced to do it no one will do it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

By the way, another "nice" thing about the Social Security system is that we each have a number through which we can be tracked. Wonderful.

The number can be and is tracked, but we are not obligated by law to produce IT whenever some tool in an ill-fitting suit with a gun on his hip (or her ass) demands we do so. I was in a situation earlier this year where a police officer had to LIE in order to bring me in.

As Americans: We are not yet at a point where we must show \ID in order to travel within our own borders.

As an American: I will do all in my power (legal) to prevent fools like you from giving away our freedoms out of irrational fears and ideological nitwitticism

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[
are you trying 4 most uninformed and moronic post of the year?


because if you are...I am betting on the fastest horse here.

No. First of all, it cannot be indefintely sustained. That should be obvious by now. It really is a Ponzi scheme.

Secondly it's immoral. People should not be forced to partcipate in such a program. You should not be forced by government to provide for your own retirement, etc. The Social Security System is a bad idea. The only question is one of how we extricate ourselves from it. We shouldn't even be talking about whether or not it should be phased out. We should be talking about how to do it.

immoral? you are an idiot \AND a moron.

now how odd is that?

 

[JohnStOnge]

[Do you really think they have enough to pay off everyone they owe with inflation and interest added?

No. But that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to be forcing people to participate in the system. It doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to be implementing a Ponzi scheme. At some point, the bullet is going to have to be bitten.

 

[Yurt]

hindsight is 20/20 and toro is right, you cannot simply narrow this down to some transactions, you have to look at the overall picture. which clearly devnell has no interest in, his only interest is to say:

republicans evil

democrats good

 

[JohnStOnge]

[
immoral?

Yes. It is immoral to force people to participate in a system like that.

 

[William Joyce]

There are not enough, blue-eyed, blond guys and girls who go to church three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday to make up a majority for the Republican party...

So Republicans need to import the brown-eyed, black boys and girls who smoke crack three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday?

DevNell, there's already a party for that.

It's called the Democrats.

 

[xotoxi]

I don't know what is going to happen with the former Grand Old Party.

Old things die.

 

[manu1959]

If you don't broaden the party, there won't be much of a party left.

Listen to the Hyper-Patriots, Rush Boil-on-his-butt-draft dodger Limbaugh and Dick Chickenhawk-In-Chief Cheney and Karl Rove's new permanent majority will not only have been a pipe-dream (what was he smoking?), but the GOP will be right up there in the history books with the Whig Party and others.

There are not enough, blue-eyed, blond guys and girls who go to church three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday to make up a majority for the Republican party...]


the above is a direct quote right out of a former state party leader's sob story. hoooooooey!

first off you are delusional and hopeful....if i believe in the gop and what it has acomplished and i am the only one ...then it survives...and one person at a time i can rebuild what it once was.....just because you or others believe it is dead does not make it so....

 

[Shadow]

If you don't broaden the party, there won't be much of a party left.

Listen to the Hyper-Patriots, Rush Boil-on-his-butt-draft dodger Limbaugh and Dick Chickenhawk-In-Chief Cheney and Karl Rove's new permanent majority will not only have been a pipe-dream (what was he smoking?), but the GOP will be right up there in the history books with the Whig Party and others.

There are not enough, blue-eyed, blond guys and girls who go to church three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday to make up a majority for the Republican party...]


the above is a direct quote right out of a former state party leader's sob story. hoooooooey!

first off you are delusional and hopeful....if i believe in the gop and what it has acomplished and i am the only one ...then it survives...and one person at a time i can rebuild what it once was.....just because you or others believe it is dead does not make it so....

The more they keep blathering on and on about this just shows that they are actually worried about the opposite happening.

 

[WillowTree]

If you don't broaden the party, there won't be much of a party left.

Listen to the Hyper-Patriots, Rush Boil-on-his-butt-draft dodger Limbaugh and Dick Chickenhawk-In-Chief Cheney and Karl Rove's new permanent majority will not only have been a pipe-dream (what was he smoking?), but the GOP will be right up there in the history books with the Whig Party and others.

There are not enough, blue-eyed, blond guys and girls who go to church three times on Sunday and once on Wednesday to make up a majority for the Republican party...]


the above is a direct quote right out of a former state party leader's sob story. hoooooooey!

first off you are delusional and hopeful....if i believe in the gop and what it has acomplished and i am the only one ...then it survives...and one person at a time i can rebuild what it once was.....just because you or others believe it is dead does not make it so....

The more they keep blathering on and on about this just shows that they are actually worried about the opposite happening.

No it dosen't,, it means they are playing the "politics of ridicule"

 

[Newby]

I don't know what is going to happen with the former Grand Old Party. The problem with it is that it is currently dominated by religious folks who will not compromise on social issues and tax cut zealots who will not compromise on budet issues. And so the few moderates left are being outed.

By putting up McCain, one of the few more moderate voices (and even he was caving hard to the right to get the nomination) in a year when any Republican would have had a very tough time winning, the purists got a sacrificial lamb moderate with whom they could blame the ills of the party.

I expect them to put up a charismatic but very right wing candidate in 2012, someone like Palin. And unless the economy is still in the pits, that hard right candidate will be crushed. That will force a catharsis in the Republican party in which they may have to accept a more compromising view in order to survive as a major force in the political sphere.

Because I don't see a great religious right revival of the scope to propel them back, and while the boomers loved their tax cuts when they were earning, as they retire they are not going to support candidates who talk about cutting their retirement benefits. Eventually the GOP is going to have to adapt to these conditions or become a permanent minority.

Of course, if the economy still sucks, all bets are off. There is a reason the Murdoch outlets are doing the best they can to undermine confidence and economic growth.

Yeah with you guys for competition, we'll have a really tough time I can see. Most of the drivel that you posted here is straight off of the left wing blogosphere, and you people are sadly stereotyping what you think of as the 'GOP' completely and entirely wrong. It's going to be your fatal mistake, that is my prediction.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't know what is going to happen with the former Grand Old Party. The problem with it is that it is currently dominated by religious folks who will not compromise on social issues and tax cut zealots who will not compromise on budet issues. And so the few moderates left are being outed.

By putting up McCain, one of the few more moderate voices (and even he was caving hard to the right to get the nomination) in a year when any Republican would have had a very tough time winning, the purists got a sacrificial lamb moderate with whom they could blame the ills of the party.

I expect them to put up a charismatic but very right wing candidate in 2012, someone like Palin. And unless the economy is still in the pits, that hard right candidate will be crushed. That will force a catharsis in the Republican party in which they may have to accept a more compromising view in order to survive as a major force in the political sphere.

Because I don't see a great religious right revival of the scope to propel them back, and while the boomers loved their tax cuts when they were earning, as they retire they are not going to support candidates who talk about cutting their retirement benefits. Eventually the GOP is going to have to adapt to these conditions or become a permanent minority.

Of course, if the economy still sucks, all bets are off. There is a reason the Murdoch outlets are doing the best they can to undermine confidence and economic growth.

Yeah with you guys for competition, we'll have a really tough time I can see. Most of the drivel that you posted here is straight off of the left wing blogosphere, and you people are sadly stereotyping what you think of as the 'GOP' completely and entirely wrong. It's going to be your fatal mistake, that is my prediction.

What was the GOP's fatal mistake?

 

[sealybobo]

hindsight is 20/20 and toro is right, you cannot simply narrow this down to some transactions, you have to look at the overall picture. which clearly devnell has no interest in, his only interest is to say:

republicans evil

democrats good

Well it was true. Republicans were evil and Democrats, FOR WHATEVER REASON YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, were arguing for labor, for global warming, for regulations that protect us, to save the american auto makers, for gay rights, for stem cell research, against war, against torture, etc.

Yes, the GOP is evil. Gold star for you.

And it isn't the party, its the voters. If the base of the party are a bunch of evil pricks, the politicians will end up reflecting that.

And yes, the Dems will do the same thing, as we see them bending over for the healthcare industry and bankers, IF WE ALLOW THEM TO GET AWAY WITH IT.

See the difference? We will start making calls and sending emails voicing our displeasure with them when they fuck over middle class and poor Americans.

But what did you do when Bush/Delay/The GOP were fucking over Americans? You defended their every move.

So I don't hate the Republican party. I hate their followers.

 

[Newby]

[
are you trying 4 most uninformed and moronic post of the year?


because if you are...I am betting on the fastest horse here.

No. First of all, it cannot be indefintely sustained. That should be obvious by now. It really is a Ponzi scheme.

It cannot be sustained with the conditions we have now. But kick the retirement age up a couple years, make it means tested, take off the SS tax cap so its taxed on all income and not just income below $100k; or some combination thereof and it can go on indefinitely.

Secondly it's immoral. People should not be forced to partcipate in such a program. You should not be forced by government to provide for your own retirement, etc. The Social Security System is a bad idea. The only question is one of how we extricate ourselves from it. We shouldn't even be talking about whether or not it should be phased out. We should be talking about how to do it.

If no one is forced to do it no one will do it.

What the hell do you advocate, exactly? You're all about the government forcing itself on people in just about every topic I've seen discussed on this board. You believe in high taxes, every government social program in existance, keeping people working well into their 90's while at the same time trying to advocate for all of those 'poor' people out there who can't take care of themselves. How can you be a champion of elderly people while you sit here and advocate that people be forced to work well into their 70's in order to sustain a system that goes against everything this country was supposed to stand for? What if people don't want to have to work into their 70's, nearly to their death bed, in order to support people like you who believe that everything a person has should be given to the state to be used as they see fit? How can you, with any moral clarity, support what you do? How high should the taxes be in your opinion? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%? Or maybe you believe that people should just work and let the government take care of them? Assign them a house? A means of transportaion? Their food? Their healthcare? I would sincerely like to hear what your social philosophy is. Are you an advocate of full blown socialism? Communism? Based on your posts, you sure as hell don't advocate anything that was established via the US Constitution and individual freedom and liberty.

 

[Newby]

By the way, another "nice" thing about the Social Security system is that we each have a number through which we can be tracked. Wonderful.

The number can be and is tracked, but we are not obligated by law to produce IT whenever some tool in an ill-fitting suit with a gun on his hip (or her ass) demands we do so. I was in a situation earlier this year where a police officer had to LIE in order to bring me in.

As Americans: We are not yet at a point where we must show \ID in order to travel within our own borders.

As an American: I will do all in my power (legal) to prevent fools like you from giving away our freedoms out of irrational fears and ideological nitwitticism

So you're all about a nanny state when it comes to the government taking your money and basically throwing it away however they please, but you don't want them tracking you from state to state? What the hell kind of logic is that?