White Christian America versus Everybody Else

[james&olya 1,121]

I liked the one I saw before that said "Keep your government hands off my medicare!"

[PMartin37 161]

Oxymoron anyone?

[james&olya 1,121]

Oxymoron anyone?

Not just 'oxy'!

[Teddy B 17,252]

Social Security and Medicare - two of the biggest socialists programs are by-and-large, doled out to seniors. Seniors, who on the whole, tend to lean more to the Right politically, while at the same time, militant about making sure they receive their socialist handouts.

Social Security and Medicare were both initiated by the Democrats and signed into law by Democrat presidents, Social Secusity was instilled under FDR and Medicare under Lyndon Johnson. Both programs have been perpetuated by the Deomocratic party since their inception, these are not Republican entitlement programs by any means. In fact the GOP has been fighting long and hard to privatize social security, but the Democrats refuse to do so, because that would make less people reliable on the gov't, again hurting their voter base.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Teddy B

[kytwell 179]

Social Security and Medicare were both initiated and signed into law by Democrat presidents, Social Secusity was instilled under FDR and Medicare under Lyndon Johnson. Both programs have been perpetuated by the Deomocratic party since their inception, these are not Republican entitlement programs by any means. In fact the GOP has been fighting long and hard to privatize social security, but the Democrats refuse to do so, because that would make less people reliable on the gov't, again hurting their voter base.

From 1937 (when taxes were first collected) through 2009 the Social Security program has received $13.8 trillion in income.

From 1937 (when the first payments were made) through 2009 the Social Security program has expended $11.3 trillion.

A net differnce of + $2.5 trillion.

I wouldn't say that it's a terrible program, what is terrible is the mismanagement and plundering of the funds. Could a private account make as much or more? most likely yes. Would most people voluntarily put money in it? most likely yes. Now for the ones that wouldn't do anything, what would we do about them? Until their is a viable option beside f'em, it will continue on as it is. In the meantime we should demand accountability from our leaders on the misappropriation of these(our) dollars.

[Teddy B 17,252]

See above. You might also want to remember that the single largest entitlement expansion in recent years was Medicare Part D - passed and signed into law in 2006 - without funding, of course - by the supposedly socialism and deficit hating GOP. But you really seem to fall for the RW propaganda, don't you?

Medicare Part D was part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and went into affect in January 2006. It was one of the few bi-partisan bills that has been passed in recent history, no party can solely take ownership of it.

I'm not sure why anyone would be against Medicare for the elderly, of all the people in this country that nedd and deserve help, wouldn't the elderly be at the top of that list?

I'm not sure what posts of mine you're referring to in which I have fallen for the right wing propoganda, but please feel free to point them out, I've only made 4 or 5 posts in the politics section, so they should be fairly easy to find.

[kytwell 179]

From 1937 (when taxes were first collected) through 2009 the Social Security program has received $13.8 trillion in income.

From 1937 (when the first payments were made) through 2009 the Social Security program has expended $11.3 trillion.

A net differnce of + $2.5 trillion.

I wouldn't say that it's a terrible program, what is terrible is the mismanagement and plundering of the funds. Could a private account make as much or more? most likely yes. Would most people voluntarily put money in it? most likely yes. Now for the ones that wouldn't do anything, what would we do about them? Until their there is a viable option beside f'em, it will continue on as it is. In the meantime we should demand accountability from our leaders on the misappropriation of these(our) dollars.

[Teddy B 17,252]

From 1937 (when taxes were first collected) through 2009 the Social Security program has received $13.8 trillion in income.

From 1937 (when the first payments were made) through 2009 the Social Security program has expended $11.3 trillion.

A net differnce of + $2.5 trillion.

I wouldn't say that it's a terrible program, what is terrible is the mismanagement and plundering of the funds. Could a private account make as much or more? most likely yes. Would most people voluntarily put money in it? most likely yes. Now for the ones that wouldn't do anything, what would we do about them? Until their is a viable option beside f'em, it will continue on as it is. In the meantime we should demand accountability from our leaders on the misappropriation of these(our) dollars.

99% of all gov't run programs would do better under a private for profit company. The US gov't was never set up to run these programs, nor was it ever given the power to do so in the constitution by the founding fathers. The one thing that the gov't does do well is also one of the few empwoerments it was given in the original constitution, and that is defense.

I think all people should be given a choice of whether or not they want to privatize their social security benefits or keep them as is and run by the gov't. and they reap the benefits accordingly.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1340199617[/url]' post='5465525']

99% of all gov't run programs would do better under a private for profit company. The US gov't was never set up to run these programs, nor was it ever given the power to do so in the constitution by the founding fathers. The one thing that the gov't does do well is also one of the few empwoerments it was given in the original constitution, and that is defense.

I think all people should be given a choice of whether or not they want to privatize their social security benefits or keep them as is and run by the gov't. and they reap the benefits accordingly.

I agree with you that people should have the option to manage their SS but you need not look further than 2008 to realize that half of the money in SS would have vanished in the financial crisis. The entire concept of SS was created after the 1931 crash precisely because some lost just about everything they had and the government stepped in to create a safety net so people would not end up destitute in their old age. Look at the recent financial crisis and you'll realize a great many people have lost half or more of their 401k.

The conundrum is that we could very well do away with SS but the question remains what will we do with our elderly that fall prey to the unfulfilled promises of unattainable profts? The answer is that we the people will foot that bill too, through taxes or other means.

The only way to guarantee that your money does not fall prey to unscrupulous financiers is through regulation, and you know where hat will lead while solving absolutely nothing.

I thoroughly agree with you but how do you put that in practice? In a free market society the only sure way to avoid risk is to play it as safe as possible and that in financial terms translates into modest returns. Putting SS in the hands of the private sector will not eliminate the risk of these investments. All you need is another crisis and everyone will be screaming 'bail out' . Unfortunately we all will be responsible for the bad decisions we make as individuals. In the end the monetary base is one and the same.

[^_^ 5,021]

...of all the people in this country that nedd and deserve help, wouldn't the elderly be at the top of that list?

No. A good % of the 'elderly' have a ton of cash so no, as a category, the "elderly" would not be at the top of that list.

[Dan J 277]

99% of all gov't run programs would do better under a private for profit company. The US gov't was never set up to run these programs, nor was it ever given the power to do so in the constitution by the founding fathers. The one thing that the gov't does do well is also one of the few empwoerments it was given in the original constitution, and that is defense.

I think all people should be given a choice of whether or not they want to privatize their social security benefits or keep them as is and run by the gov't. and they reap the benefits accordingly.

The problem with privatizing social security is that its not a retirement savings plan. You are not saving money for your future use. Its that the current workers are paying for the current retirees.

This has the advantage of not being at the whims of the market.

No one is going to get wealthy from social security. But something that should be seen as a compliment of a private retirement savings plan. Should the market fail to provide a return on the private savings, social security will provide sort of a minimal backup.

[^_^ 5,021]

The problem with privatizing social security is that its not a retirement savings plan. You are not saving money for your future use. Its that the current workers are paying for the current retirees.

This has the advantage of not being at the whims of the market.

No one is going to get wealthy from social security. But something that should be seen as a compliment of a private retirement savings plan. Should the market fail to provide a return on the private savings, social security will provide sort of a minimal backup.

No one is going to get rich on 401ks either. You are aware there's a pathetically low maximum amount one may contribute every year, aren't you?

As for being afraid of the market, you do have the ability to invest your 401k in cash if you so choose. But then you'd be somewhat of a schmuck.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I agree with you that people should have the option to manage their SS but you need not look further than 2008 to realize that half of the money in SS would have vanished in the financial crisis. The entire concept of SS was created after the 1931 crash precisely because some lost just about everything they had and the government stepped in to create a safety net so people would not end up destitute in their old age. Look at the recent financial crisis and you'll realize a great many people have lost half or more of their 401k.

The conundrum is that we could very well do away with SS but the question remains what will we do with our elderly that fall prey to the unfulfilled promises of unattainable profts? The answer is that we the people will foot that bill too, through taxes or other means.

The only way to guarantee that your money does not fall prey to unscrupulous financiers is through regulation, and you know where hat will lead while solving absolutely nothing.

I thoroughly agree with you but how do you put that in practice? In a free market society the only sure way to avoid risk is to play it as safe as possible and that in financial terms translates into modest returns. Putting SS in the hands of the private sector will not eliminate the risk of these investments. All you need is another crisis and everyone will be screaming 'bail out' . Unfortunately we all will be responsible for the bad decisions we make as individuals. In the end the monetary base is one and the same.

Nothing is fool proof, there will most definitely be problems with a privatized program, but in the long run it will be much cheaper to run and will most likely reap greater benefits. There will be times where the gov't will have to step in to make up for shortfalls during financial crisis, but the stock market has proven resilient and based on history will always bounce back.

[JohnR! 5,495]

1340202385[/url]' post='5465606']

you do have the ability to invest your 401k in cash if you so choose. But then you'd be somewhat of a schmuck.

Unless you did so between mid-2008 and mid-2009 in which case you're nothing short of a clairvoyant...

[^_^ 5,021]

There will be times where the gov't will have to step in to make up for shortfalls during financial crisis ...

When the financial boys fukc up, they fukc up big. We all saw that... they shouldn't call them shortfalls, they should call them hugefuckinglongfalls...

Unless you did so between mid-2008 and mid-2009 in which case you're nothing short of a clairvoyant...

If your time horizon is one year, you're a schmuck.