Rat in the Hat
Gold Member
- Mar 31, 2010
- 21,949
- 6,020
- 198
@ TM driving her post count.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SS doesn't need reform. It's needs to be abolished.
Right, well, sorry. That's not something anybody is gonna go for. When it comes down to it, no matter how irresponsible somebody has been, we're still gonna ensure a minimum standard of living. So let's be reasonable. Maybe you'd like it abolished, fine, but does that mean you're gonna oppose anything until you get everything you want? Or are you going to say "this is still shit, but it's much less bad than what we've currently got"?
You want to reform a ponzi scheme? OK, make it optional instead of mandatory.
it was a way that the monied people could contribute less to the retirement of the American people.
They want to kill SS and end pensions.
That is what has been going on here.
The republican party has been working on this for decades.
They want the American people poor and desperate.
that makes them plyable.
what it has done is made them unable to spend.
Right, so reform it. Maybe consider our Super framework.
What do you mean "what it has done is made them unable to spend"?
and every time we try the republicans block the progress because they want it dead NOT fixed.
The republicans have attacked the middle and lower classes for decades now and that is why are income has not risen.
They did the housing crash to make money and got a shit load from it.
they also made the people alot poorer and now they have no way to spend extra money because they have no "extra" money.
The right wants it this way.
they want the people desperate and plyable
Economy's real problem? The spenders can't spend. - CSMonitor.com
The earnings of the great American middle class fueled the great American expansion for three decades after World War II. Their relative lack of earnings in more recent years set us up for the great American bust.
Starting around 1980, globalization and automation began exerting downward pressure on median wages. Employers began busting unions in order to make more profits. And increasingly deregulated financial markets began taking over the real economy.
The result was slower wage growth for most households. Women surged into paid work in order to prop up family incomes which helped for a time. But the median wage kept flattening, and then, after 2001, began to decline.
Households tried to keep up by going deeply into debt, using the rising values of their homes as collateral. This also helped for a time. But then the housing bubble popped.
The Feds latest report shows how loud that pop was. Between 2007 and 2010 (the latest data available) American families median net worth fell almost 40 percent down to levels last seen in 1992. The typical familys wealth is their home, not their stock portfolio and housing values have dropped by a third since 2006.
Right, well, sorry. That's not something anybody is gonna go for. When it comes down to it, no matter how irresponsible somebody has been, we're still gonna ensure a minimum standard of living. So let's be reasonable. Maybe you'd like it abolished, fine, but does that mean you're gonna oppose anything until you get everything you want? Or are you going to say "this is still shit, but it's much less bad than what we've currently got"?
You want to reform a ponzi scheme? OK, make it optional instead of mandatory.
why do you want the vast majority of Americans to be poor in old age?
what was the state of American elderly before SS?
what did the Scotus say you moron