More Republican Party hilarity...

[thikdik]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Are you fucking kidding me? Maybe if you stopped watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh full time, you'd actually learn something. Remember the long lines in Ohio in 2004, because inner city polling places were given fewer voting machines than white, suburban precincts? How about minorities who were sent letters threatening them with arrest if they attempted to vote, or who were challenged by poll-watchers while attempting to vote?

But Rush is the Truth The Way and The Light.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

It wasn't in 2004. And it isn't now, for that matter.

Go back and look again.

Right now the Gov is a Dem and the houses are split State House Rep, Representatives Democrat.

The number of voters in Ohio has been declining for decades, the problems in 2004 were a direct result of that. The number of machines was not reduced.

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=Kimiko;3673515]

Are you fucking kidding me?

I love it when you talk dirty to me...

Maybe if you stopped watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh full time, you'd actually learn something.

This has nothing to do with anything at all..I have you to keep me on the straight and narrow.

Remember the long lines in Ohio in 2004, because inner city polling places were given fewer voting machines than white, suburban precincts?

In fact, according to the Dispatch, Damschroder's own records show large numbers of voting machines were not deployed on election day despite frantic requests from inner city poll workers. According to the Dispatch, Damschroder's office received 32 calls from precinct judges requesting more machines, not one of which was filled. Only nine of those calls came from suburban precincts, while 23 came from the Inner City.Through it all, Damschroder insisted in a Dispatch interview that, “From our perspective, there are (thousands of) stories of people who stood in line and voted.”

http://www.freepress.org/departments...ay/19/2004/930

You are talking about one isolated instance,where a republican did not want to ask for more machines and defends his position, and it does not tell us how many machines were requested.

How about minorities who were sent letters threatening them with arrest if they attempted to vote, or who were challenged by poll-watchers while attempting to vote?

In recent years, many minority communities have tended to align with the Democratic
Party. Over the past two decades, the Republican Party has launched a series of “ballot
security” and “voter integrity” initiatives which have targeted minority communities.
At least three times, these initiatives were successfully challenged in federal courts as
illegal attempts to suppress voter participation based on race.http://archive.fairvote.org/righttovote/PFAW-NAACP.pdf

It's ok for the Democrats to do this shit, but when the republicans do it,,you cry foul.

The fact that this is known to be a common problem and is STILL occurring today highlights how ridiculous it is that this technology has been approved for use by election officials.
As one youtube commenter points out, “If ATM machines were this hinky no one would EVER use them.”
In a day and age when millions of Americans use sophisticated touch screen technology in their front rooms to order their groceries without a single glitch, why is the touch screen technology used for voting in an election so woefully inadequate?
Some of the voting machines have also previously caused much controversy due to a lack of a paper trail to verify how users voted.
The machines made headlines during the 2008 primaries when huge disparities between votes cast on Diebold electronic voting machines and actual hand counted tallies emerged in New Hampshire. Confirmed votes for Ron Paul were not even counted in some districts, with Hillary Clinton benefiting from clear evidence of widespread fraud.
As we reported at the time, the contract for programming all of New Hampshire’s Diebold voting machines, which combined counted 81 per cent of the vote, was owned by LHS Associates, whose owner John Silvestro had gone to great lengths to deflect accusations that the machines can easily be rigged.
After purchasing a Diebold 1.94w machine, the same system used in New Hampshire, a computer repair shop employee picked at random by election watchdog Black Box Voting was able to zero in on the system’s vulnerable memory card within just ten minutes. Hacking expert Harri Hursti testified in front of the New Hampshire legislature that the machines were wide open to fraud.


http://dprogram.net/2010/10/26/elect...lipping-votes/

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Go back and look again.

Right now the Gov is a Dem and the houses are split State House Rep, Representatives Democrat.

The number of voters in Ohio has been declining for decades, the problems in 2004 were a direct result of that. The number of machines was not reduced.

The governor elect is a Republican, and the governor in 2004 was a Republican.

And if the number of voters in Ohio has been steadily declining and the number of machines was not reduced, how do you explain the long lines?

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

The governor elect is a Republican, and the governor in 2004 was a Republican.

And if the number of voters in Ohio has been steadily declining and the number of machines was not reduced, how do you explain the long lines?

That year, it was due to a 24% increase in voter registrations.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

The governor elect is a Republican, and the governor in 2004 was a Republican.

And if the number of voters in Ohio has been steadily declining and the number of machines was not reduced, how do you explain the long lines?

The democrats got the inner city votes out, there was an increase of over 24% in the precincts that had the lines.

Now Kimi try to use some logic here, if the Democrats were disenfranchised, why did they win the Governors race in 2004?

This whole claim is bullshit, you got beat, face up to the facts that your policies are not so appealing.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Then why did congressional staffers SAY it was hypothetical?

If they go back to 2008 spending limits, they cut $100 billion.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

If they go back to 2008 spending limits, they cut $100 billion.

The promised to cut $100 billion. Many times. But of course, they didn't mean it.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

The promised to cut $100 billion. Many times. But of course, they didn't mean it.

Has the budget passed? Has the spending limit increase been voted on?

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by ElCasanova

What I find funny, is this article is all about a failed campaign promise. Should we start listing all of the failed campaign promises that Obama has achieved? Lets just call it what it is, hype to get elected. All politicians do it. They have great and wonderful ideas, and then when it comes time to realize it is not possible, then they change their mind.

And as the article stated, even though it is bad to go back on a campaign promise, this was one that was better off being changed. Due to the fact that a lot more people would have suffered. So in the benefit of the US, this is a good thing.

There's a wiki for that

http://obamawatch.wikidot.com/

[ElCasanova]

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

There's a wiki for that

http://obamawatch.wikidot.com/

I personally hate anything wiki, but I got another website that does just the same thing, and unbiased, or so it seems.

http://politifact.com/

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by ElCasanova

I personally hate anything wiki, but I got another website that does just the same thing, and unbiased, or so it seems.

http://politifact.com/

A better link because I'm an Internet professional:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/


I'm not sure how it helps your case, though? If anything, I think it shows the success of the propoganda campaign that says Obama broke a lot of his promises when that is not the case.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Resident of Maryland

A better link because I'm an Internet professional:

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Aren't you a little old for this? Maybe that, among other things, is why it comes across as so forced...

[runequester]

Get out of Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

Close corporate tax loopholes.

Legalise and tax weed.



Viola. We now have enough money to pay for things like roads, bridges and fire fighters.

[stumbler]

VIDEO: When Pressed, Republicans Can’t Name Any Spending They Want To Cut


http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/...-no-idea-cuts/

[stumbler]

In his first interview since being sworn-in as House Speaker, John Boehner struggled to identify budget cuts that could be made to reduce government spending. The one-on-one with NBC News' Brian Williams aired on Thursday night.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_805576.html

[wantsomefun]

and no, I can't site it, but the gist of it was this: the average American trusts the used car salesman with the madras sport coat and the damp cigar butt far more than he trusts his elected officials.

So, here we go again.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by stumbler

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_805576.html

Dont underestimate Paul Ryan, he has spending cuts in his plan, and many may not like them, but it needs to be done.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Dont underestimate Paul Ryan, he has spending cuts in his plan, and many may not like them, but it needs to be done.

Just can't wait to cancel your mom's Social Security check, can you?

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Just can't wait to cancel your mom's Social Security check, can you?

Are you resorting to fear mongering now, Kimi?

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Just can't wait to cancel your mom's Social Security check, can you?

Is that what they are wanting to cut, because I have not heard that at all.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

Is that what they are wanting to cut, because I have not heard that at all.

Paul Ryan has proposed it. So did the Deficit Reduction Commission, of which he as a member.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Are you resorting to fear mongering now, Kimi?

Do you seriously believe that ISN'T part of the right-wing agenda? It has been for decades.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Paul Ryan has proposed it. So did the Deficit Reduction Commission, of which he as a member.

They have never proposed to cancel Social Security benefits,, Paul Ryan has proposed a plan that is;

H.R. 4529, A Roadmap for America’s Future,At the outset, it is important to note that the Roadmap makes no changes to Social Security for individuals 55 and older. Individuals 55 and older will remain in the current system and will not be affected by this proposal in any way. They will receive the benefits they have been promised, and have planned for, during their working years. What the Roadmap does with respect to Social Security is preserve the benefits that those at or near retirement have planned their lives around, while also guaranteeing that these benefits are there for future generations.
As currently structured, Social Security will not be able to fulfill its promises to future retirees. Without reform these individuals will face substantial cuts in benefits in the coming decades. The Roadmap assures the solvency of our existing Social Security system by providing workers with the voluntary option of investing a portion of their FICA payroll taxes into personal savings accounts. Individuals under 55, if they want to, are able to choose whether to stay in the current system or begin contributing to personal accounts.
Under the Roadmap, those who choose the personal account option will have the opportunity to begin investing a portion of their payroll taxes into a series of funds managed by the U.S. government. The system would closely resemble the investment options available to Members of Congress and Federal employees through the Thrift Savings Plan. Individuals who choose to invest in personal accounts will be ensured that every dollar they place into an account will be guaranteed, even after inflation. With the recent market downturn, individuals must be assured their retirement is secure. By guaranteeing the dollars put into an account, individuals can be assured that a large-scale market downturn will not cost them their Social Security personal accounts.



http://paulryan.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=12227

Try again,my dear.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's

They have never proposed to cancel Social Security benefits,, Paul Ryan has proposed a plan that is;

Try again,my dear.

Not cancel benefits. Just reduce them. That's the first step. Do you deny that conservatives have always been opposed to Social Security, going back to 1935?

[ace's n 8's]

[QUOTE=Kimiko;3676932]

Not cancel benefits. Just reduce them. That's the first step.

There is no evidence of reductions in SS benefits under his plan..This is what you said initially;

Originally Posted by Kimiko
Just can't wait to cancel your mom's Social Security check, can you?

This was my reply to you on your comment;

Originally Posted by ace's n 8's
Is that what they are wanting to cut, because I have not heard that at all.

The you state this;

Originally Posted by Kimiko
Paul Ryan has proposed it. So did the Deficit Reduction Commission, of which he as a member.

I submit a link that tells you that you are wrong with your assumptions, then you come out with this;

Originally Posted by Kimiko Not cancel benefits. Just reduce them. That's the first step.

You my dear, are really reaching into thin air to cover your assumptions.

Face it babydoll, the republicans are not as evil as you want to portray them as.

Do you deny that conservatives have always been opposed to Social Security, going back to 1935?

Nevertheless, on Aug. 8, 1935, the conference report — the final version of the bill that melds together changes made in the House and in the Senate — passed in the House 372-33, with 81 Republicans voting in support. The next day, the bill was passed in the Senate 77-6, with 16 Republicans supporting the legislation. So Social Security did pass with Republican support.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Not cancel benefits. Just reduce them. That's the first step. Do you deny that conservatives have always been opposed to Social Security, going back to 1935?

Yes

[footlovva]

Originally Posted by umpire2

"Please buy my book to make me richer (you fucking fools...)"

Attachment 1306592

If the black guy had done anything to turn any of this around, we wouldn't be having this talk.

[footlovva]

Originally Posted by thikdik

But Rush is the Truth The Way and The Light.

Rush is a hot headed fruit. All he does is scream about things that will scare most Americans, to get ratings.

[Resident of Maryland]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Not cancel benefits. Just reduce them. That's the first step. Do you deny that conservatives have always been opposed to Social Security, going back to 1935?

I don't think you realize that we've always been at war with Eastasia.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Yes

Where were you, tenguy, when George Bush was telling anyone who would listen that Social Security was "bankrupt", and pushing for what he was pleased to call "privatization"? Were you in favor of that?

Why do you think Republicans pushed for the payroll tax "holiday" in the tax cut extension? Could it be that they wanted to turn around at some point in the future and make the "bankruptcy" claim all over again?

They don't often come right out and say they want the program eradicated, because that constitutes political suicide...so what they do is try to chip away at it, and convince an entire generation of young people that the program won't be there for them in the future. Why do you think they do that?

[tenguy]

[QUOTE=Kimiko;3678026]

Where were you, tenguy, when George Bush was telling anyone who would listen that Social Security was "bankrupt", and pushing for what he was pleased to call "privatization"? Were you in favor of that?

Yes, I firmly believe that taxpayers should have the right to invest their earnings in retirement accounts as they wish. However, the call for privatization never actually happened, it was a call to allow partial seperation of retirement fund investment.

Why do you think Republicans pushed for the payroll tax "holiday" in the tax cut extension? Could it be that they wanted to turn around at some point in the future and make the "bankruptcy" claim all over again?

No, I do not think that, that is your paranoia talking.

They don't often come right out and say they want the program eradicated, because that constitutes political suicide...so what they do is try to chip away at it, and convince an entire generation of young people that the program won't be there for them in the future. Why do you think they do that?

Isn't this a strawman argument Kimi? Because, I do not think that they do that, it is just an attempt by the liberals to frighten senior citizens.

[stumbler]

Five House controversies from Week 1: Did Republicans break promises?

House Republicans swept back into power this week promising to fix how the institution functions. Speaker John Boehner called for a renewed focus on the Constitution, more openness and accountability, and resolving 'honest differences through a fair debate and vote.' Here’s a look at the Republicans' first week back in charge.


1. The Constitution, gently abridged

As a first act of the new Congress, nearly a third of House members, both Republicans and Democrats, joined in the first-ever reading aloud of the Constitution on the floor of the House. But Republicans omitted some passages, such as a formula that counts slaves as three-fifths of a person, a requirement that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, the amendment banning “intoxicating liquors” as well as the one repealing that ban.



2. Not sworn-in, but still voting

Two GOP lawmakers, Reps. Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania missed their swearing in on Jan. 5 yet still participated in floor votes and committee work – a violation of the Constitution. (The lawmakers had been attending a $30-a-head event in the Capitol in honor of Mr. Fitzpatricks’s swearing in.)



In a first, Congress voted Friday to nullify the first five votes of Congressmen Sessions and Fitzpatrick in an effort to fix the error. The vote was 257 to 159, with 27 Democrats voting along with Republicans.


3. Constitutional authority (specifics not required)

Republicans launched a new rule requiring that all bills must include a statement of constitutional authority. For many tea party activists, that means limiting legislation to the specific powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, and is a key element of their push in the 2010 campaign to scale back the size and scope of government.



But in a caucus meeting on Tuesday, Republicans rejected bids to make lawmakers cite specific authorization in the Constitution to meet this requirement, not just general clauses, such as the “general Welfare” clause in the Preamble.


4. 'Kicking the can down the road' on health-care savings?

In a bid to rein in deficits, Republicans revised the rules of the House to require that new spending – but not new tax cuts – be offset by spending cuts.



“Our spending has caught up with us, and our debt soon will eclipse the entire size of our national economy,” said Speaker Boehner, addressing the House on Wednesday. “No longer can we kick the can down the road.”
But Republicans did not offset the costs of a proposed repeal of health care reform in the bill they took to the floor for a procedural vote on Friday. The independent Congressional Budget Office – in past years, the last word on the cost of a bill – estimated that repeal would cost $230 billion over 10 years.



GOP leaders said that that estimate was based on false assumptions. Democrats said that rejecting the CBO estimates in favor of partisan estimates sets a dangerous precedent. Rep. Peter Welch (D) of Vermont told Republicans on the rules panel that “the promises you made during the campaign [and] the rhetoric you relied upon impel you to come up with an offset for the $230 billion.”


5. Openness and transparency? Says who?

GOP leaders opened the week with a surge of openness and transparency. Exhibit A: television cameras in the typically reclusive Rules Committee, which decides which amendments will be allowed on the floor for votes.
Not all members of the committee – known for its unpredictable, late night hours and tiny, press-unfriendly hearing room – welcomed the change.


“There are people who came in here today that would not have been here but for the fact that we’re on TV,” said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D) of Florida. “I saw people come in here and play to the cameras, and I tell you that you will see that more and more.”
Cameras or not, Democrats were not pleased by the work that went on in the rules committee this week.



Despite Boehner's promises that there would be more opportunity to amend and debate legislation in this Congress, the rules committee decided to send the measure to repeal health-care reform to the floor with only one amendment and without any hearings – despite nearly 12 hours of back-and-forth and a crush of witnesses proposing amendments at the rules meeting.



“Not a single hearing has been held on this reform package,” said Rep. James McGovern (D) of Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, during Thursday's hearing. “We’re rushing something to the floor, but not a single hearing has been held.”



Democrats allowed no open rules or amendments in their last two years in the majority. Boehner says the minority can expect more open rules in the future.



The floor debate on repeal of health-care reform will begin on Tuesday, with a vote no sooner than Wednesday. That fulfills a GOP pledge to allow members three days to study the text of a bill before having to vote on it. In recent years, members often saw massive bills just hours before having to vote on them. The health-care reform repeal bill is two pages.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ently-abridged

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

Isn't this a strawman argument Kimi? Because, I do not think that they do that, it is just an attempt by the liberals to frighten senior citizens.

Right, it's the liberals who are frightening senior citizens. Not conservatives saying that the system is "bankrupt". I mean, those are just the facts, right?

[Kimiko]

[QUOTE=tenguy;3678124]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Yes, I firmly believe that taxpayers should have the right to invest their earnings in retirement accounts as they wish. However, the call for privatization never actually happened, it was a call to allow partial seperation of retirement fund investment.

I submit that it was a call to allow Wall Street to benefit from Social Security dollars, and put Americans' retirement at risk.

[stumbler]

A quiz:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...itution-A-quiz

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Right, it's the liberals who are frightening senior citizens. Not conservatives saying that the system is "bankrupt". I mean, those are just the facts, right?

That is pretty much correct. The SS system is headed for insolvency, the cost to maintain it in the black, will soon outpace the ability to raise enough revenue.

So I'll ask you, do you have a supplemental retirement plan? Do you see your FICA taxes as a good personal investment? What would your retirement plan look like if you had invested half of the FICA taxes privately?

Personally, my retirement plan took a hit, BUT it is still far greater than the amount I put in, plus interest (historical saving bank interest). Today it is back above 2007 levels, with no additional contributions.

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

I submit that it was a call to allow Wall Street to benefit from Social Security dollars, and put Americans' retirement at risk.

The last and only public trust the conservative/Republicans have not been able to subject to looting by their wealthy friends in the private sector. Just before the tax payers have to bail them out again.

[CountryKisses]

Kimiko your an idiot.....

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by CountryKisses

Kimiko your an idiot.....

Thank you for that cogent, insightful, well-thought-out contribution.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by tenguy

That is pretty much correct. The SS system is headed for insolvency, the cost to maintain it in the black, will soon outpace the ability to raise enough revenue.

Not true. All the government has to do is pay the SS trust fund what it is owed. Then, with a few minor fixes, the program will be solvent indefinitely, paying full, promised benefits.

So I'll ask you, do you have a supplemental retirement plan? Do you see your FICA taxes as a good personal investment? What would your retirement plan look like if you had invested half of the FICA taxes privately?

I do have a supplemental retirement plan, and I did invest it privately. What it looks like now is one thing. What it looked like 18 months ago is another. If I had had to rely on it to put food on the table back then, I'd have been very worried.

Personally, my retirement plan took a hit, BUT it is still far greater than the amount I put in, plus interest (historical saving bank interest). Today it is back above 2007 levels, with no additional contributions.

Then you're lucky and/or smart. But that isn't the point. The Social Security program is a safety net, an intergenerational contract. It's not a 401(k), and there are good reasons why it's not. It's not about whether you get out of it what you put into it plus interest. It's about being there for you no matter what.

[hotjohn4321]

I have been around for awhile and actually been an elected official that levied taxes and set budgets. I have come to the following conclusion when it comes to the human beings in this country.
1. The ONLY fair tax is the on YOU pay.
2. The Only good government programs are the ones that serve ME.

I have found that greed rules all. Greed for money, power and control of others.

When people use to come to me to complain about their taxes I would ask what they wanted cut and surprisingly it was never a program they used.

They use to always complain about the money spent on welfare and I use to ask if we should just cut them off and let them starve. Well that was not what they wanted. I read all the time about people wanting to do away with government programs but I never see an real proposals in detail.
There is to much magical wishful thinking about how to cure the budget problem.
I am to old to get into the fight any more so I am just going to keep my head down and my powder dry.
But you folks keep at it please I do enjoy the posting.

[Kimiko]

Originally Posted by hotjohn4321

I have been around for awhile and actually been an elected official that levied taxes and set budgets. I have come to the following conclusion when it comes to the human beings in this country.
1. The ONLY fair tax is the on YOU pay.
2. The Only good government programs are the ones that serve ME.

I have found that greed rules all. Greed for money, power and control of others.

When people use to come to me to complain about their taxes I would ask what they wanted cut and surprisingly it was never a program they used.

They use to always complain about the money spent on welfare and I use to ask if we should just cut them off and let them starve. Well that was not what they wanted. I read all the time about people wanting to do away with government programs but I never see an real proposals in detail.
There is to much magical wishful thinking about how to cure the budget problem.
I am to old to get into the fight any more so I am just going to keep my head down and my powder dry.
But you folks keep at it please I do enjoy the posting.

Those are very good comments. We seem to have created a political environment in which people think they can just cut taxes with no consequences (at least to themselves), and nobody ever has to be specific about what programs will be cut. Ultimately, the programs that get cut are the ones that actually help ordinary people. And that's because the programs that DON'T help ordinary people are supported by some very wealthy and powerful special interests.

[mt692007]

Originally Posted by Kimiko

Those are very good comments. We seem to have created a political environment in which people think they can just cut taxes with no consequences (at least to themselves), and nobody ever has to be specific about what programs will be cut. Ultimately, the programs that get cut are the ones that actually help ordinary people. And that's because the programs that DON'T help ordinary people are supported by some very wealthy and powerful special interests.

so true............

[hotjohn4321]

Sorry forgot to mention, Kimiko is not idiot, not always right but certainly not idiot and a little better informed than most.

[ace's n 8's]

Originally Posted by hotjohn4321

Sorry forgot to mention, Kimiko is not idiot, not always right but certainly not idiot and a little better informed than most.

She's not an idiot at all, she has an altered view on how we need to live our lives, 180 degrees from my views.

[tenguy]

Originally Posted by hotjohn4321

I have been around for awhile and actually been an elected official that levied taxes and set budgets. I have come to the following conclusion when it comes to the human beings in this country.
1. The ONLY fair tax is the on YOU pay.
2. The Only good government programs are the ones that serve ME.

I have found that greed rules all. Greed for money, power and control of others.

When people use to come to me to complain about their taxes I would ask what they wanted cut and surprisingly it was never a program they used.

They use to always complain about the money spent on welfare and I use to ask if we should just cut them off and let them starve. Well that was not what they wanted. I read all the time about people wanting to do away with government programs but I never see an real proposals in detail.
There is to much magical wishful thinking about how to cure the budget problem.
I am to old to get into the fight any more so I am just going to keep my head down and my powder dry.
But you folks keep at it please I do enjoy the posting.

You obviously have lived through some interesting situations, may I ask, in general terms, what elected position(s) did you hold? Was this in a municipality, if so, what was the approximate population?

Your observations of how taxpayers want to pay less by cutting programs that do not benefit them seem to be a bit one sided. It appears that no one complained about the wasteful practices that most bureaucracies develop as they grow.

[tenguy]

[QUOTE=Kimiko;3689708]

Not true. All the government has to do is pay the SS trust fund what it is owed. Then, with a few minor fixes, the program will be solvent indefinitely, paying full, promised benefits.

Read the following linked article and then tell me all is okay.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/29/news...urity.fortune/

I do have a supplemental retirement plan, and I did invest it privately. What it looks like now is one thing. What it looked like 18 months ago is another. If I had had to rely on it to put food on the table back then, I'd have been very worried.

But it is a potential future source of retirement income, right?

Then you're lucky and/or smart. But that isn't the point. The Social Security program is a safety net, an intergenerational contract. It's not a 401(k), and there are good reasons why it's not. It's not about whether you get out of it what you put into it plus interest. It's about being there for you no matter what.

It's the "no matter what" that concerns me. There is no cash, there are only treasury IOU's, money owed to the SS system that was used elsewhere. When the time comes to pay those IOU's the funds will come from the sale of treasury notes, it goes straight to the deficit.

[CountryKisses]

There was no point in saying more that was all the facts anyone needed.