You cannot help the poor by giving more tax cuts to the rich

[DiamondDave]

That's what the boys at FOX and Heritage.org keep telling you.

Cutting wasteful spending? Absolutely. Cutting needed services that people have been paying into all their lives? No fucking way.

What about weening off those forced contribution services??? As stated before.. I am in my 40's and would gladly give up all I have put in if I could not have to contribute to SS any more, and rely on my own investing for my retirement future

I wouldn't be opposed to that Dave... as an option, not as policy though. I'll admit it... I am not an investor, I wouldn't even know where to begin. So for people like me, the better option would be Social Security. But as an option? yeah, why not?

And that is one of the biggest things I have about SS... it is not the job of government and it is MANDATORY forced contribution or participation.... I have said it so many times, if it were so great, why the hell is it forced?? People would be flocking to voluntarily participate

 

[DiamondDave]

SS is constitutional. End of story. National health insurance is constitutional. End of story.

You're an idiot.. end of story

 

[Vanquish]

Bush and Reagan created 93% of the National Debt.

Truth is hard for Neo.

ReaganBushDebt.org

And you know what's amazing??? Reagan's "outspending" the Russians is part of the lovely conservative myth that Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. "Outspending" = debt guys.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS is constitutional. End of story. National health insurance is constitutional. End of story.

You're an idiot.. end of story

Show us the SCOTUS opinions that state them unconstitutional.

Your opinion, folks, does not mean anything other than you are pissing in your short pants.

 

[MikeK]

And that is one of the biggest things I have about SS... it is not the job of government and it is MANDATORY forced contribution or participation.... I have said it so many times, if it were so great, why the hell is it forced?? People would be flocking to voluntarily participate

The answer is twofold; human nature and the vagaries of the national economy.

Most people don't plan effectively for their retirement because human nature is such that until they reach age fifty most people do not truly believe they will get old and by then it is too late to start planning. But a more pressing need to impose FICA is such unforeseen events as the Great Depression which left millions of seniors unemployable and destitute -- i.e., homeless and eating out of garbage cans.

So the best answer to your question is, Social Security is "forced" because it needs to be and it makes sense for the vast majority of Americans. If you don't believe that, ask your own parents' or grandparents' opinion on the matter. If they do not need or are not eligible for Social Security then you and yours are on the other side of the issue and you should make that clear at the outset of any discussion of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MikeK is right on, DiamondDave just left out.

 

[Vanquish]

Yeah. I hate to say it but human nature is such that people hope for the best and don't always plan as they should. Even when they do, they don't stick to the plan. Even when they stick to the plan, emergencies and accidents happen.

It's forced because if it wasn't you'd have tens of millions of people penniless and without support.

 

[Rev.Hellh0und]

We don't belong in Lybia. We don't belong occupying any countries. But when they come home, then what? We are in a mess and cutting defense is only part of it.

So where are the massive protests? Perhaps you can point me to all the anti-war outrage....

 

[Meister]

We don't belong in Lybia. We don't belong occupying any countries. But when they come home, then what? We are in a mess and cutting defense is only part of it.

So where are the massive protests? Perhaps you can point me to all the anti-war outrage....

Oh....that? It's different now, the dems have the White House.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's amusing about the progressive's latest attempt to demagogue this issue is that if they WERE to take all of the rich's money and cut all of the Defense Department's money it STILL wouldn't be enough to pay for the unfunded entitlement programs that they refuse to change.

Wake up kiddies...what is now being thrown against the barn door by this Administration and people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is nothing more than grade A bullshit. We either cut entitlements or we become the next Greece. It's really just that simple.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is silly about the reactioaries' latest attempt to demagogue the issue if we WERE to not make the rich pay taxes and if we cult all the entitlement programs we still would not be able to pay for government.

You all better wake up. Massive spending cuts in defense, eligibility and means testing reform in SS, and fair tax revenues across the board, including the wealthy, are essential.

 

[asterism]

What is silly about the reactioaries' latest attempt to demagogue the issue if we WERE to not make the rich pay taxes and if we cult all the entitlement programs we still would not be able to pay for government.

You all better wake up. Massive spending cuts in defense, eligibility and means testing reform in SS, and fair tax revenues across the board, including the wealthy, are essential.

Sounds good to me, especially the FairTax part.

 

[Oldstyle]

"It's forced because if it wasn't you'd have tens of millions of people penniless and without support."

Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at explaining how our nation survived from 1776 all the way up to 1935 without Social Security? The fact is that during the majority of US history, Americans were able to survive quite nicely without the nanny State we presently find ourselves in. How is it POSSIBLE that we were able to do that?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You can not help the poor by bloviating on an internet forum..... When there are needs just outside your front door.

 

[Oldstyle]

Gosh, could it possibly be that we prospered because we rewarded hard work and achievement? That we DIDN'T reward sloth?

People used to want to come to America for the opportunity to succeed...now way too many want to come here for the opportunity to live off the public dole.

 

[Claudette]

"It's forced because if it wasn't you'd have tens of millions of people penniless and without support."

Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at explaining how our nation survived from 1776 all the way up to 1935 without Social Security? The fact is that during the majority of US history, Americans were able to survive quite nicely without the nanny State we presently find ourselves in. How is it POSSIBLE that we were able to do that?

Some folks forget the fact that we survived quite well till 1935 without SS or Medicare.

We did it because Americans were hardworking, independant and self reliant.

Apparantly those traits aren't in evidence much today.

 

[Wiseacre]

Bush and Reagan created 93% of the National Debt.

Truth is hard for Neo.

ReaganBushDebt.org

And you know what's amazing??? Reagan's "outspending" the Russians is part of the lovely conservative myth that Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. "Outspending" = debt guys.

You realize that Chris's assertion that the GOP created 93% of the nat'l debt is absurd, right? Hell, Obama by himself is good for at least 4 trillion so far, plus Clinton for another trilion or so. By the time Obama is done with his 1st term, he will have raised the debt by 6 trillion, I don't see lib/dems factoring that in.

And BTW, Reagan had to deal with democrats who lied to him. They promised him they'd cut spending in exchange for raising taxes, which he did but they didn't. So spare me the bullshit about repubs being responsible for most of the debt. It's both sides, 50-50.

 

[Avatar4321]

"It's forced because if it wasn't you'd have tens of millions of people penniless and without support."

Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at explaining how our nation survived from 1776 all the way up to 1935 without Social Security? The fact is that during the majority of US history, Americans were able to survive quite nicely without the nanny State we presently find ourselves in. How is it POSSIBLE that we were able to do that?

Some folks forget the fact that we survived quite well till 1935 without SS or Medicare.

We did it because Americans were hardworking, independant and self reliant.

Apparantly those traits aren't in evidence much today.

Then it's time we fix America. And we start by reinstilling those traits in us, our friends, our children, our neighbors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"It's forced because if it wasn't you'd have tens of millions of people penniless and without support."

Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at explaining how our nation survived from 1776 all the way up to 1935 without Social Security? The fact is that during the majority of US history, Americans were able to survive quite nicely without the nanny State we presently find ourselves in. How is it POSSIBLE that we were able to do that?

You have no idea what is poverty, do you? That is a comment from you that ranks with the stupidity of a bigrebnc or a rottweiler or one of those idiots. Every time we think the far, far right has said something that cannot be beaten, they lower the bar yet once again.

 

[Oldstyle]

"You have no idea what is poverty, do you? That is a comment from you that ranks with the stupidity of a bigrebnc or a rottweiler or one of those idiots. Every time we think the far, far right has said something that cannot be beaten, they lower the bar yet once again."

I notice that you shied away from trying to explain why it is that the US not only survived but prospered between 1776 and 1935 without Social Security. Instead you resorted to insults. I'm not surprised by that, Jake. I mean how "could" you explain the success of America before the invention of the Nanny State?