Ron Paul!

[grizzly97]

Hey, your retirement is your responsibility, you are smart and capable. Good for you. What happens if you like so many others end up with nothing, it happens for a variety of reasons some beyond their control. Should I pay you to stay alive even though you never participated? Do we let people die of starvation? I suppose it depends on a person's vision of what a society should be. Normally the words country and society indicate people united in some way.

Life happens. Noone can prepare perfectly for the unknown. Yes, some things are beyond people's control, I get that. Should you pay for me, heck no. Do we let people die of starvation? No. There are a TON of private companies that take care of people in that situation. It should not be gov run and force people to pay. They (gov) has proven time and time again, that they can't run programs for s***. The reason is, they have nothing to lose. Private companies do, so they take greater measures to do things correctly. I know what the words country and society mean, I fought for it, so don't preach to me about that. This country grew big and strong and took care of it's own for a very long time without gov doing it for us. We took care of our own, not because it was mandatory because the gov said so, but because Americans had hearts, wills, values and morals bigger and better than any gov! It was formed in order to have a small, non intrusive gov, not to make another massive one that they just went accross an ocean to get away from.

On another note, your idea about Alaska sounds good. I might settle for Colorado though. Not as far to go to get there. lol

 

[TRAINr]

Hadn't planned on voting to be honest. The more I research his ideas the more I'm leaning towards investing my vote in him.

 

[_CY_]

social security was never meant to be someone's only retirement income. it was meant to supplement, but instead it has become the only income for millions of seniors.

the system is stacked against folks reaching retirement age with their savings intact. with what's happened to our healthcare system. ONE major illness even with health insurance can bankrupt.

again... social security is NOT a handout... we've been paying for it all our lives and we have a right to collect on what we've invested into. the stock market tanked several times since it was suggested for folks to have an option of opting out of social security. thank goodness that was never implemented...

social security was meant as a safety net... not sole retirement income.

have not seen the debate yet, Ron Paul is still my favorite!

While I can understand people close to retirement want their money, they paid in and want it back. Totally reasonable. However, noone made a "deal" with the gov. The gov forces us to pay, and currently only "guarantees" 78% back. You don't even get the same amount you've paid in! IMO, it should be on a voluntary basis. I could do a LOT better investing/saving that money on my own. I personally plan on getting zero back from social security. My retirement is MY responsability, not everyone else's!

 

[cjjtulsa]

again... social security is NOT a handout... we've been paying for it all our lives and we have a right to collect on what we've invested into. the stock market tanked several times since it was suggested for folks to have an option of opting out of social security. thank goodness that was never implemented...

As I said before - it is a handout to many, and not a handout to most. But a large number of seniors are getting out way, way more than they ever put in. It's totally flawed.

As for the option of letting folks opt out and invest their own funds, if I remember right that was only going to be 10%, so that wouldn't have made much difference. And for those of us who aren't of retirement age - just think what we could have made buying low and selling high with those market corrections. Instead, most of us are looking at being forced to feed a system from which we'll never get to benefit.

 

[CHenry]

SS: Hijack

I like Herman Cain and sill support him all the way.

 

[Dave70968]

I have been paying in to the system all my life. As I get close to retirement, not knowing what the future holds, I want the government to keep their end of the bargain. If the system doesn't work as it should, it should be fixed not eliminated. I kept my end of the bargain, I am not asking for freebies, I paid in to it, they owe it to me.
And please don't give me the "If you depend on SS" line that some on this board like to repeat. What I depend on is irrelevant, we made a deal, I kept my part, I demand that the government keeps their part of the deal.

How do you propose we "fix" $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities with $15T of GDP?

 

[_CY_]

easy... cut off all the tax shelters and government handouts for MEGA corporations and super rich. then institute a value added tax (VAT) on all goods consumed. this would insure the over 50% of folks who pay zero tax pay their share.

leave alone the rich and middle class who is driving all the jobs and paying all the bills already.

if above was instigated our budget will be balanced quickly. but the chance of that happening is close to zero. the fortune 500 crowd knows how to control ultra right wing politicians by $$$$ ... just like radical left wants to preserve their votes from the 50% that pays no taxes by keeping all the handouts intact.

above is obviously oversimplified, but you get the gist....

Ron Paul is still the best pick out of what is the sorriest lineup on both sides in recent memory. too bad he's got about as much charisma as a brown paper bag.

How do you propose we "fix" $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities with $15T of GDP?

 

[RickN]

They could tax everyone that makes over 250 thousand a year at 100% and still not touch the debt let alone fund SS.

 

[Dave70968]

You really don't get it. $100 trillion in liabilities against $15 trillion in GDP means that if the gov't took in taxes every single dime produced in this country, it would take seven years to cover the debt. 'course, "every single dime" means that workers don't get paid at all, and we all starve to death. There's a limit to how much the government can take in taxes; historically, it's been about 19% (cite: http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o ). You simply can't get it much higher before people start altering their behaviour. Yes, you say eliminate all tax shelters. Great--people will decide that it's not worth it to put in the extra hours. The only way you consistently increase revenue (in actual dollars) is to grow the economy.

Right now, we're in the position of having promised more dollars than we can collect. You say you're owed what's been promised to you, and you're right--the country does owe it to you. Unfortunately, the country doesn't have it. We have a term for that: bankrupt. The country owes to you your share just the same as the bum who owes fifty grand in credit card debt, but in both cases, the debtor doesn't have--and can't get--the money it owes to the creditor. Welcome to reality; you simply can't have what you've been promised.

 

[_CY_]

quite obvious it's you that doesn't get it.
who cares about a scenario that doesn't exist and will never exist!

what I said was the eliminate tax shelters and handouts for the super rich, which includes all the MEGA giant corporates. especially all the MEGA oil companies who are directly responsible for the world's current economic recession.

You really don't get it. $100 trillion in liabilities against $15 trillion in GDP means that if the gov't took in taxes every single dime produced in this country, it would take seven years to cover the debt. 'course, "every single dime" means that workers don't get paid at all, and we all starve to death. There's a limit to how much the government can take in taxes; historically, it's been about 19% (cite: http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/the-remarkably-stable-amount-o ). You simply can't get it much higher before people start altering their behaviour. Yes, you say eliminate all tax shelters. Great--people will decide that it's not worth it to put in the extra hours. The only way you consistently increase revenue (in actual dollars) is to grow the economy.

Right now, we're in the position of having promised more dollars than we can collect. You say you're owed what's been promised to you, and you're right--the country does owe it to you. Unfortunately, the country doesn't have it. We have a term for that: bankrupt. The country owes to you your share just the same as the bum who owes fifty grand in credit card debt, but in both cases, the debtor doesn't have--and can't get--the money it owes to the creditor. Welcome to reality; you simply can't have what you've been promised.

another scenario that doesn't exist and will never exist. what I suggested was the super rich and folks that don't pay ANY taxes both start paying their share.

folks that make $250k are the backbone and drivers of jobs... they need to be left alone.

They could tax everyone that makes over 250 thousand a year at 100% and still not touch the debt let alone fund SS.