DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:23 am**

Well, it would seem that the proverbial lines in the sand are being drawn in the GOP primary. We have Romney saying we should keep Social Security (SS) and let the feds keep handling it. We have Perry saying SS is worse than a ponzi scheme, needs to be completely revamped and the states should manage it. Now I agree with Perry that SS is a giant ponzi scheme (we are dowm to about 1.75 workers to support 1 retiree) but I'm not sure if the states should individually manage SS for their citizens. So how do the rest of you feel about this? Scrap SS and start over? Tweak it a bit but keep as is? If the vote was just between Romney and Perry, who would you vote for based solely on the SS issue?

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:22 am**

It is hard to decide how the Fed should manage any one program when they are all funded off of one big pile of revenue that is consistently less than the total of all their programs cost.
So even if you find the perfect recipe for SS you are building that house on a foundation about as unstable as they get.

In fact, if not for the Fed's ability to print their own money at others expense and use unlimited firepower to stop their opposition they would have been 'out of business' decades back!
I guess if by turning it over to the State you also mean the Fed stops receiving that portion of the revenue and instead it goes to the State then you might think it can't be any worse but the States lack of a treasury to 'borrow' from would just have the States realize the programs inevitable failure that much sooner...

I'm afraid we are headed for a cultural revolution in a harsh and painful way and it is probably a few generations off so in the meantime the status quo is going to continue to steer us down the road toward that fate because those with the ability to change our course are either too fat and happy still to see the problem or too invested in leeching personal gain from the system the way it is.

If I was running China or Russia or any country with the means to fight a long war and had the funds to do so I'd start investing in america, not to aid us but to stake out claims of ownership, so when we were ripe for the taking they could come in under the guise of protecting their investment...kind of like a foreign bank coming to foreclose on the country with the intent to own the place and fend off any outsider that wants to tell them they can't.

The greatest country in the history of the world could in fact become a tiny blip on the timeline of civilizations and the history teachers in these parts that teach that lesson will probably be doing it speaking Mandarin...

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:47 am**

Will Robinson wrote:The greatest country in the history of the world WILL in fact become a tiny blip on the timeline of civilizations

This will happen no matter what in the grand scheme or chaso of this universe. Oh and fixed it for ya.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:27 am**

Heh, I think it's becoming painfully obvious that everything eventually has an end, what's that got to do with SS and presidential candidates

. So far they sound like ideas thrown out at a party. One calls it a ponzi scheme the other wants to give back "state rights". Both so far are full of ★■◆● and using talkiing points to see who can make the crowd cheer louder. I think this helps them to know what to say next

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:56 am**

The problem with SS is that the government raided the fund, it was doomed from the moment congress got their hands on it. No matter what they do now, they can't make up for the lost investment returns potential that the original fund had.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:19 pm**

hand-wringing over SS is ridiculous. All you have to do is update the ceiling for collecting the tax(something that has not kept up with inflation at all) to an income level of, say, $250K, and problem solved. Damned near permanently.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:40 pm**

Krom wrote:The problem with SS is that the government raided the fund, it was doomed from the moment congress got their hands on it. No matter what they do now, they can't make up for the lost investment returns potential that the original fund had.

Yep. And it's not going to help in the long run either if Obama gets that nice little payroll tax cut in he wants in his Jobs Bill.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:49 pm**

We should all go back to living in extended families, and reduce SS to a program for the truly needy.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:56 pm**

What if you don't have an "extended family"? Not everyone has a "family" to take care of them in a time of need. I sure don't anymore.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:00 pm**

Then that would qualify you as “truly needy”.

(assuming you aren't rich, or something)

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:02 pm**

Honestly Spidey hit the head on the nail I think. Families should take of their own before anyone else has to.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:08 pm**

So how do you take care of only those that don't have a family and need help? Won't that create resentment? Wouldn't that put a lot of excessive burden on charities? Last I heard, a lot of churches were a little short of cash.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:53 pm**

callmeslick wrote:hand-wringing over SS is ridiculous. All you have to do is update the ceiling for collecting the tax(something that has not kept up with inflation at all) to an income level of, say, $250K, and problem solved. Damned near permanently.

Why have a ceiling at all? Why is it that the government harvests funds from everyone to supposedly enable them to dish some out to retired people but the poor and middle class pay an extremely higher percentage of their income toward that part of the tax revenue than the wealthy.
If a guy that earns 30,000 a year has to give up 7% toward that fund every year then let the wealthy give the same percentage of their earnings instead of only giving up a fraction of a percent! Equal burden for all taxpayers.

It's not like they can say we all pay into an account in our names so the first $200,000 is all that needs to be taxed to maintain the accounts. That is a complete illogical line of crap. They took that money and moved it into the general fund so they could use it to sell pork for votes!
You either tax us all fairly or you take my contribution and treat it like it really belongs to me...put it in an account with my name on it that only pays me or my family.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:04 pm**

Spidey wrote:We should all go back to living in extended families, and reduce SS to a program for the truly needy.

yup, and bring back the horse and buggy, while we're at it.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:04 pm**

One of the basic failings of the funding of SS…most of the income of “rich” people is not through a payroll.

SS was supposed to be an “insurance” program…ROFLMAO

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:05 pm**

Spidey wrote:One of the basic failings of the funding of SS…most of the income of “rich” people is not through a payroll.

SS was supposed to be an “insurance” program…ROFLMAO

there is probably some fairness in that observation, as well.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:08 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:We should all go back to living in extended families, and reduce SS to a program for the truly needy.

yup, and bring back the horse and buggy, while we're at it.

Well it was all of the government “safety nets”* that destroyed the extended family in the first place.

*Traps

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:12 pm**

Spidey wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
Spidey wrote:We should all go back to living in extended families, and reduce SS to a program for the truly needy.

yup, and bring back the horse and buggy, while we're at it.
Well it was all of the government “safety nets”* that destroyed the extended family in the first place.

*Traps

traps?

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:31 pm**

Spidey wrote:Well it was all of the government “safety nets”* that destroyed the extended family in the first place.

*Traps

How the hell is that? Are you implying that "safety nets" destroyed extended families? That's a stretch.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:43 pm**

Something did. I remember just back in the 70's, we had a family get together every weekend. All 7 brothers and sisters, their children and all the cous's

. Was normal to see that going all the way down the road for the most part. I think it was AL Gore and his internet

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:15 pm**

Well, my parents divorced back in those "good old days" of the 1960's when I was young. I only have one sister from that marriage and a step brother from a subsequent remarriage. My real father died later on when he was 39, my sister has her own problems and doesn't make a lot of money, my brother is lazy and I wouldn't count on him to flog a dead horse and my step dad doesn't really like the 2 step children, my sister and myself, because we are "not of his blood". I couldn't count on any of them for help. There is no family alive on my husband's side either. Some family I've got. Most of it fell apart after my mother died in 2000. She was the family glue.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:17 pm**

You sound like glue yourself.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:20 pm**

What, all sticky and sweet?

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:21 pm**

Lol. Well, I'm a unifying force of nature myself

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:31 pm**

I'm harder to clean off though. There's always a residue left.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:36 pm**

Depends on the cleaner. DO you have any evidence to support a change?

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:59 pm**

No, I’m not “implying” it…I’m stating it straight out.

For one thing, the great “safety nets” are why grandma is living out her lonely existence in some inner city. And don’t deny it…I can point out dozens of them!

Without "safety nets" a society could not behave this way. I don’t know…but some of you sound like you want to create a society where you don’t have to feel any guilt…plenty of safety nets, no personal responsibility.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:06 pm**

I think the "safety nets" were put in place from downright guilt. We got robbed in 1913 and it's just took this long to realize it. What are others thoughts on the idea of limiting the FED to ONLY creating a stable currency and having no other power to influence the economy? That may be a step in the right direction to get most of the decision making power back into the hands of elected officials.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:56 pm**

Spidey wrote:No, I’m not “implying” it…I’m stating it straight out.

For one thing, the great “safety nets” are why grandma is living out her lonely existence in some inner city. And don’t deny it…I can point out dozens of them!

Without "safety nets" a society could not behave this way. I don’t know…but some of you sound like you want to create a society where you don’t have to feel any guilt…plenty of safety nets, no personal responsibility.

OK, what would you do with all the poor and sick grandmas, or grandpas for that matter, with no families to care for them? There are quite a few of them around in this country too.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:59 am**

Spidey wrote:Then that would qualify you as “truly needy”.

(assuming you aren't rich, or something)

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:22 am**

Along the lines of family taking care of family:

The traditional idea is that you have enough kids that one (or several) of them is able to take care of you when you age. If for some reason you don't have kids that can help you, you look to extended family, and if that doesn't pan out your stuck.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:17 am**

flip wrote:Something did. I remember just back in the 70's, we had a family get together every weekend. All 7 brothers and sisters, their children and all the cous's . Was normal to see that going all the way down the road for the most part. I think it was AL Gore and his internet

I remember, back in the last week, having a family get together every weekend. Something must have destroyed that... oh wait. No. It still happens.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:11 pm**

Yeah? How's yo mom and em doin?

You have a knack to completely miss the point of most posts I've noticed, Don't know why, so, How's the weather where you live?

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:45 pm**

Spidey wrote:
Spidey wrote:Then that would qualify you as “truly needy”.

(assuming you aren't rich, or something)

Too many 'truly needy" that aren't "rich" and not enough family help to go around in this country now, because even the rest of the family is poor.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/doe ... 28330.html

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:45 pm**

snoopy wrote:Along the lines of family taking care of family:

The traditional idea is that you have enough kids that one (or several) of them is able to take care of you when you age. If for some reason you don't have kids that can help you, you look to extended family, and if that doesn't pan out your stuck.

unfortunately many Families don't even attempt to take care of each other. makes them the lowest of the low IMHO

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:22 pm**

Spidey wrote:No, I’m not “implying” it…I’m stating it straight out.

For one thing, the great “safety nets” are why grandma is living out her lonely existence in some inner city. And don’t deny it…I can point out dozens of them!

in a city the size of Greater Philadelphia, you can find 'dozens'? Astounding proof, I'm sold!

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:22 pm**

Lol Slick…you funny…

How the hell would I go about pointing out these people on a citywide basis…I was talking about the few square blocks around my house.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:39 pm**

uh-huh

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:16 pm**

Well, I really wouldn’t expect someone so enamored with government, to accept the possibility of some unintended consequents of the great and awesome social programs.

Posted: **Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:43 pm**

Spidey wrote:Well, I really wouldn’t expect someone so enamored with government, to accept the possibility of some unintended consequents of the great and awesome social programs.

Similar to my expectations that someone ready to blame government for any possible evil will simply make up facts to fit their silly view of reality. As I stated to Krom, elsewhere......yeesh!

DescentBB

Sand Art

Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art

Re: Sand Art