Why I'm not voting for "W" (Resume)
-
and about the other economy issues with me saying why the govt just cant make up 330 000 000 000 dollars, was just a shot in the dark to see what the real reason was.
-
Okay; I also posted this in another thread, but it serves more purpose to this thread so here's a copy/paste
I hate the media.. They exploit everything for ratings.. Any1 notice how the beheadings happened after the media made a big deal about how we treated our POWs not so friendly, yet the media doesn't exploit that the people were punished and how severe.. Crazy huh? The media wants things to look bad becuz ppl seem so interested in it all the time. This is my opinion (all of it; some others may think differently) Anyways has any1 seen the beheading vids? Makes me feel sick man, I'd want to shoot them A-hole's too! Where do Copy Cat criminal's come from? Media; they want to top what the media brags about..... My opinion.. Every1 should read cold hard Facts before they Vote, not listen to the media or other's opinion's.. -
I saw it...totally disgusting, yet very sad at the same time..Its a shame YelloEvos gf thought it was "awesome"...:/
-
It's not so bad "muted" and when u only glimpse it.. But it's still horrid... Unmuted and watching it w/ eyes wide open makes ya wanna puke.
-
RX8ownage wrote:
I saw it...totally disgusting, yet very sad at the same time..Its a shame YelloEvos gf thought it was "awesome"...:/EWWWW...........
-
I agree, the media has made things worse there and elsewhere. I never did watch the beheading(s). Have no desire to either. Saw a few pics of before/after, that was enough.
-
Hey Kirk, since neither of us is going ot pursuade the other and we just keep going round and round and round, what do you say we just agree to disagree and end this endless squabble. I'll be the Democommie and you can be the Neo-Con
-
tjamz wrote:
Hey Kirk, since neither of us is going ot pursuade the other and we just keep going round and round and round, what do you say we just agree to disagree and end this endless squabble. I'll be the Democommie and you can be the Neo-ConActually if your a true Kerry supporter your a Demosocialist
-
yeah, but kirk prefers democommie, so I'll compromise
-
tjamz wrote:
2. How are we going to fund the Social Security shortages of the future that were somewhat caused by us using the surplus that had been set aside for Social Security (Bush promised that 2 trillion would be set aside for SS...it's spent, I understand why it was spent, I just want to know how we are going to repay it. That's all)Privatize it. Let the people decide where their SS money goes.
-
So are there any Ralph Nader supporters in here????
-
Agree'd 100%. If I could get out of SS right now I would in a heartbeat. Put that $$ in a fund where it would actually have some growth, and where you know what you got when you retire.
integra_gsr98 wrote:
Privatize it. Let the people decide where their SS money goes.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
integra_gsr98 wrote:
Privatize it. Let the people decide where their SS money goes.
I'm in favor of that IF we can find a way to pay for the babyboomer generations SS benefits that they have contributed their whole lives for. The only semi-fair way to do it, IMO, is to have those between 60-65 be able to put 5% toward privatized SS, those 55-60 put 10% towards private, 50-55 put 15% to private, 45-50 put 20%, until we reach a maximum of 50% toward private and 50% toward the current system. I also think that people should be able to opt to NOT privatize their SS. What happens if the stockmarket crashes when you are close to retiring and you lose 70% of your investment? Some people don't want that risk, some people aren't smart enough to manage their retirement savings to avoid risk at those ages. That is why I like the idea of 50/50 private/current to help offset a little risk. Just my take on things. -
IMO, the first flaw in this is that we have to pay it back.... Heck, none of the countries that own us billions of dollars ever plan on paying it back!
Ok, seriously now... to pay off some of the deficit (I'm not so sure that running in the red a little is a bad thing), we have to do 2 things. Lower spending and increase income (duh).
To lower spending all we need to do is elect people who will actually do this. This is a tough sell tho, because everyone wants there piece of the federal pie... which is why we have left leaning Dorgan, Pomeroy and Conrad in our mostly conservative state of ND. They have a fair amount of seniority in their respective offices, and are good at getting federal $$ for the state. This sort of We need ours needs to stop, and we need people who actually look at the big picture.
To increase federal income, the easiest way is to boost the economy. Get businesses and people making lots of $$, and in return the federal tax intake increases. In general, you can raise taxes also but I believe that just takes $$ out of peoples pockets and in the long run hurts the economy.
Social Security is a dead dog and should be scrapped, it's just another tax on people. The people who are currently using it need to be paid, as they are relying on it. The transition will not be easy.
tjamz wrote:
I actually agree with a lot of what the republicans are stating here (mostly Dave and Matt), BUT the only questions I have are:- How are we going to repay the deficit w/o raising taxes?
- How are we going to fund the Social Security shortages of the future that were somewhat caused by us using the surplus that had been set aside for Social Security (Bush promised that 2 trillion would be set aside for SS...it's spent, I understand why it was spent, I just want to know how we are going to repay it. That's all)
The only answer I can think of is taxes...not just for the rich, but for all of America. Regardless of who is in office, taxes will have to be increased somewhere to pay off our foreign debts.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
tjamz wrote:
I actually agree with a lot of what the republicans are stating here (mostly Dave and Matt), BUT the only questions I have are:- How are we going to repay the deficit w/o raising taxes?
- How are we going to fund the Social Security shortages of the future that were somewhat caused by us using the surplus that had been set aside for Social Security (Bush promised that 2 trillion would be set aside for SS...it's spent, I understand why it was spent, I just want to know how we are going to repay it. That's all)
The only answer I can think of is taxes...not just for the rich, but for all of America. Regardless of who is in office, taxes will have to be increased somewhere to pay off our foreign debts.
I believe the best way to get rid of deficit is to have a strong economy. If you compare the deficit to our GDP, it won't take that long to pay it off. That's how Reagan took care of it. He cut taxes etc and the booming 90's are what we saw in return. I do think that Bush does have to control his spending. (he's spending like a democrat) The Social Security is a big problem that Bush wants to face with privatizing a portion of it. That's the way the goverment plan has it set up, so what not SS.
You have to remember that when Bush came into office we were well into a recession. Then all the corporate scandals. Then 911 happened, which hurt our already fragile economy even more. Given the circumstances I think he's done ok with the economy and even better with the war on terror. It's always easy to make decisions in the rear view mirror like Kerry is doing right now. But with the potential of another attack maybe even worse than 911, I think Bush did the right thing with the info he had at the time. -
tjamz wrote:
I'm in favor of that IF we can find a way to pay for the babyboomer generations SS benefits that they have contributed their whole lives for. The only semi-fair way to do it, IMO, is to have those between 60-65 be able to put 5% toward privatized SS, those 55-60 put 10% towards private, 50-55 put 15% to private, 45-50 put 20%, until we reach a maximum of 50% toward private and 50% toward the current system. I also think that people should be able to opt to NOT privatize their SS. What happens if the stockmarket crashes when you are close to retiring and you lose 70% of your investment? Some people don't want that risk, some people aren't smart enough to manage their retirement savings to avoid risk at those ages. That is why I like the idea of 50/50 private/current to help offset a little risk. Just my take on things.It's not going to go in high risk investments. Anything is better than the gov return on SS right now. Hell a triple A rated bond would be a better return, and insured.
-
fallguy wrote:
It's not going to go in high risk investments. Anything is better than the gov return on SS right now. Hell a triple A rated bond would be a better return, and insured.2 words....
Junk Bonds
-
DaveH wrote:
You could take the SS money and stack it under your mattress and get a better rate of return that you are getting now....
which mattress brand yields the highest interest Dave?
Dave, I totally agree with you, I am extremely young and invest a good portion of my disposable income to known good returns. However, currently I have no control over my SS as you state and I know for a fact nothing will be there for me in the end. I do know that my SS is helping people out who pioneered some economic forms and that grant me the opportunities that I currently can recieve, but I still wish I had some form of privatization, you gotta look out for #1 right?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login