Why I'm not voting for "W" (Resume)

[fallguy]

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:

1. How are we going to repay the deficit w/o raising taxes?
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)

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.

[fallguy]

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.

[Guest]

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]

You could take the SS money and stack it under your mattress and get a better rate of return that you are getting now....

[Guest]

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?

[DaveH]

It isn't really a matter of looking out for number one, as everyone would benefit from a privatized retirement plan. There isn't anyone in the Govt that really "cares" about your retirement fund... You are just a number (SS number to be exact). Put the individual in charge of figuring out what to do with our retirement money and I guarantee that someone will carefully be watching what that money is doing. I know I watch my 401k very carefully, because that is probably all I will have when it comes time to retire.

[Guest]

See..now this is what I was hoping would happen when I started these posts, actually get some good positive ideas. I'll be the first to say that spending needs to be decreased, unfortunately I don't see Bush (or Kerry for that matter) doing that in the near future. Kerry at least admits that he needs to raise taxes to sustain the spending, I'm not sure what Bush's plan is.

I agree w/ you dave, if I could pull out my savings from SS I would in a heartbeat, unfortunately if we do that w/o some sort of plan to pay for SS for those that have paid their whole lives and are counting on it to be there for at least part, if not all, of their incomes. Would you agree though, that some people MIGHT be better off w/ SS if they are complete idiots and don't understand the risk of stocks? That is why I suggested a 50/50 private vs. SS plan, to put some sort of learning curve in there for people who aren't following their investmentst the way they should. Maybe, after some serious education that could be a 100% private investment for those that opt to do so. This country is about choices, and some people will always feel more comfortable going w/ what has always been (SS in this instance) and are reluctant to change anything (ie. Most of North Dakota).

So, Dave, when I run for Governor, you want a spot in my cabinet? With you doing everything you think is "right" and me fixing everything that is "left" we could make a good team....LOL

[DaveH]

This sorta goes to my point above... if the people that have paid into SS actually had control over the money... I think there would have been hell to pay when they noticed that somebody (the Govt) started spending some of it.

I suppose you could leave SS in place for people to choose if they wanted. But then what happens 20 years down the road when then next generation of politicians spends that money again? (because nobody in the government really cares to watch money very closely).

I don't have much sympathy for the idiots... It's their retirement... it's their duty to learn how to manage their retirement money IMO. (I know, thats the cold hard conservative in me).

Sign me up for a cabinet position... by the time you get to run for governor I ought to have you converted to the "right" way of looking at things.

tjamz wrote:
I agree w/ you dave, if I could pull out my savings from SS I would in a heartbeat, unfortunately if we do that w/o some sort of plan to pay for SS for those that have paid their whole lives and are counting on it to be there for at least part, if not all, of their incomes. Would you agree though, that some people MIGHT be better off w/ SS if they are complete idiots and don't understand the risk of stocks? That is why I suggested a 50/50 private vs. SS plan, to put some sort of learning curve in there for people who aren't following their investmentst the way they should. Maybe, after some serious education that could be a 100% private investment for those that opt to do so. This country is about choices, and some people will always feel more comfortable going w/ what has always been (SS in this instance) and are reluctant to change anything (ie. Most of North Dakota).
So, Dave, when I run for Governor, you want a spot in my cabinet? With you doing everything you think is "right" and me fixing everything that is "left" we could make a good team....LOL

[STiSchucky]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/johnkerry-sb.html found this on ebaums...funny shit

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
I suppose you could leave SS in place for people to choose if they wanted. But then what happens 20 years down the road when then next generation of politicians spends that money again? (because nobody in the government really cares to watch money very closely).

I don't have much sympathy for the idiots... It's their retirement... it's their duty to learn how to manage their retirement money IMO. (I know, thats the cold hard conservative in me).

Sign me up for a cabinet position... by the time you get to run for governor I ought to have you converted to the "right" way of looking at things.
I'm with you on the idiots thing, however, the reality (of current politics anyway) is that they would just end up on the welfare system and we'd end up paying for it all over again...

I will say this, I am not quite middle of the road, but you could say that on a 4 lane road, I would be in the middle left lane. Not the far left...it's not like my car has a bad "Wellstone" and always veers violently left....

[DaveH]

I hope not, Wellstone veered violently into the earth.

tjamz wrote:
it's not like my car has a bad "Wellstone" and always veers violently left....

[Guest]

I hope this does't continue on forever after the Election; Otherwise I'll go Insane!!

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
I hope not, Wellstone veered violently into the earth.
True. To be honest, I LOVED those anti-wellstone ads, for no other reason than the humor. I did feel pretty bad after hearing the "you have a bad wellstone in your field" and then finding out his plane crashed into a field.

[Guest]

bluesrt4 wrote:
I hope this does't continue on forever after the Election; Otherwise I'll go Insane!!
Nah, it's actually quieted down the last two days (slowly)

[integra_gsr98]

From what I understand of SS, in 2014 the US will for the first time be short on SS money taken in, to SS money paid out, and in something like 2032, the US will not have enough employees available to even keep SS around, and/or have any prayer of it ever being near the black again.

[Guest]

you hear the same things I do. That is why I have a scaled plan (which I admit kerry doesn't) to allow some privatization now and more as time progresses. My question to you is what do we do if all the sudden everyone stops paying into SS and the people that rely on it and have relied on it being there their whole lives no longer have it available? There is a definate need to continually fund it (at least partially) for the next 20-30 years. George Bush had a plan to set aside 2 Trillion dollars of surplus that was acquired during the 90's to help offset that gap. He made it clear in one of his early speeches as president that he would do that. He didn't. That money is long gone. I know we had a recession underway when Bush took office. In fact, I think that is why he said he was going to earmark it for SS (could be wrong, going off what I remember here). Telling 75 year old people to go back to work won't always work either. They worked their whole lives to get to the point where they (thought) could retire and collect on what they've been paying into all these years, some physically are unable to go back to work.

I'm all for your plan of privatization. Make the numbers work for me, because right now I certainly don't expect to see SS when I retire...not in its current form. Thats why I fund both my Roth IRA and 401k to the max amounts every year. Have for the last 11 years (8 years for 401k, didn't have an employer that offered it until I was 21) and plan on being retired by 55 from non-political work. I'd be very happy if a plan was devised for the short term, mid term and long term to cover our commitments to people that relied on it. Give me a plan.

[Guest]

heh, after reading my last post, it sounds like I'm running for president...

[DaveH]

Well, first of all there is no real fund for SS, or any other government program. It all gets tossed into a big pile and gets handed out from there. You can do some accounting to see if the IN equals the OUT for certain programs, but as far as the actual money running out, that really isn't the case.

The solution is the same as in my previous posts... We need to reduce spending while growing the economy (which grows the tax base). We also need to change the peoples mindset on Govt programs. No more I need to get my piece of the pie mentality. This needs to come from the top, we need a president that needs to convince the american people that Govt programs are just to be used as a extreme measure, sort of a safety net. We need a president that says something like Kennedy did Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Once the american mindset is changed from the gimme gimme way of thinking we have now it will be easy to balance the budget, to run in the black, have a surplus, etc. Changing the mindset will not be easy. Too many slackers that don't want to work hard and still get their easy money from the govt. This mindset I blame mostly on the liberals, whose ideals were good, but whose programs were just terrible. GWB is really a little too liberal for my taste, but is the best chance we have for heading in the right direction (pun intended).

[Guest]

I agree on the need to cut gov't spending, there are too many programs out there right now that cater to people who are capable of working (at least some job) but choose not to because welfare pays better. There, now how many Dems will you hear say that? Some programs are good, some programs MIGHT need to be created to counter programs that are being ended. I'd much rather pay for someones education w/ tax money than pay for their entire lazy-ass life.

The other side of this is a quote I got from a buddy of mine who farms "Farming is the only profession you could be in the last 4 years, where no matter what you did, you couldn't lose money". That seems wrong to me.

[DaveH]

You couldn't lose money?

tjamz wrote:
The other side of this is a quote I got from a buddy of mine who farms "Farming is the only profession you could be in the last 4 years, where no matter what you did, you couldn't lose money". That seems wrong to me.