Taking our country back? I dont get it. Please explain

in that case, which no one believes would ever happen, yes, but also in that case the individual would have to surrender his account to the govt. Its a way for an individual to have a greater return on his money without any risk to him or the govt. I suggest that you do a google on the Ryan SS plan, you might learn something.

But I guess you continue to believe that the govt is an efficient manager of your money.

 

Bush moves to privatize Social Security

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-10-social-security_x.htm

 

But again, how does it save money on SS, if you can invest in a butterfly net factory and it crashs....and the Government STILL pays you the same amount of benefits it would if you never invested?

- - - Updated - - -

He's partially right....almost NO Republican would admit to wanting to destroy Social Security. That's political suicide.

What a person who wanted to destroy Social Security would do is....change it into something completely and radically different from Social Security...and still CALL it "Social Security".

BTW, is it cosmic irony or what, that in 2005 Bush (along with the brilliant Paul Ryan) were trying to pass a plan to get people to put their Social Security "partially" in the Stock Market....and two years later the Market crashs thus negating his entire argument?

 

Hmmm, I didn't see the word "destroy" in either of those, did you?

 

they put out some ideas for discussion. The SS system is going broke, something has to change or our kids will not have it when they are ready for it.

My fix is easy, collect FICA on all income, not just the first 106K------problem solved----------why haven't any "punish the rich" democrats offered this simple solution? Could it be that they don't want to pay FICA on their entire incomes??? Hmmmmm?

 

Social welfare programs mitigate the effects of povery so when addressing them we must address the causes behind poverty. While both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for much of the poverty in the United States the Republicans have to assume the lions share of responsibility.

The single most important reason behind poverty in America is racism which is predominately propagated by "white Christian conservatives" (i.e. social conservatives) which has been documented by numerous scientific studies. The denial of equality in opportunity based upon racism is unquestionably the single greatest cause of poverty. If a person, because of their race, is denied equality in employment then they have a far greater probability of being poor or unemployed. African-Americans, based upon unemployment statistics, are roughly three times more likely to be denied a job even when equally qualified when compared with a white person. Racism denies member of a race the ability to lift themself out of poverty.

Gender discrimination is also a major consideration. While this is hard to swollow the Christian religion does not advocate equality between the sexes and for millions of American men a woman is not considered to be their equal based upon Christian dogma. The woman is considered to be the servant of the man in marriage under Christian teachings and this disparity creates gender discrimination. No all Christians believe the woman is inferior but tens of millions do nad many men don't take personal resplonsibility for the welfare of their children after a divorce. They whine and complain about child support and generally don't provide enough support to keep the woman raising the child or children out of poverty.

We can also look at Republican tax policies as they favor the wealthy and corporations over workers and small business owners. A small business owner with $100K in net income pays a 37% effective tax rate and a corporation pays 22%. A worker with earned income of $100K pays 22% in income tax plus over 15% in combined FICA/Payroll taxation while a wealthy investor that expends no labor and has $100K in net income at all has a maximum tax rate 20% and may pay zero taxes based upon how that income is derived (e.g. if they own a paper corporation in the Caymen Islands they will pay zero taxes on that income).

Yes, I also find problems with the Democrats because Social Security is a welfare program that using money that would be better used to fund private investments that would grow personal wealth reducing poverty and eliminating the need for retirement welfare checks provided by Social Security today. It should be privatized but then Republicans refuse to address the transitional costs of privatization that would require about $1 trillion per year in new general taxation for 30+ years to pay the costs of the transition. Some Republicans (e.g. Paul Ryan) give lip service to privatizing Social Security but refuse to increase general taxation enough to pay for the cost of the transition.

Like many, conservatives and liberals alike, I'd like to see us spend less on social welfare programs and there is one way, and only one way, this can be accomplished. We need to reduce and/or eliminate the need for it. As it is right now we need to increase funding because the need is greater than the funding necessary to mitigate the effect of poverty.

 

Shiva

where is it written that the federal govt is responsible for taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not?

where is it written that the federal govt is responsible for equalizing everyone's station in life?

equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal results.

 

Interesting and thoughtful post. If one reads the propaganda put out by minority and feminist groups this does seem to be true. I began to have problems believing these things completely when I got more life experience and travelling under my belt. I am not saying your assertions are completely false I just know the situation is more complex than that.In other words "the white man" is not the root of all evil.

 

Equal protection under the law is protected by the 14th Amendment and that isn't happening. That doesn't mean just equal protection from the acts of the goverment but also that the government must ensure equal protection under the law for all Americans (citizens and resident) and the government is not only failing in this but actually imposes denial of equal protection under the law in some cases (e.g. taxation and civil rights such as marriage laws that prohibit same-sex marriage). Remember that the very purpose of our government, as expessed in the Declaration of Independence, is to protect our inalienable Rights from being violated by other people. If it wasn't for people violating our inalienable Rights there would be no rationalization for government.

So the US government has a responsibility to mitigate the effects of denial of equal protection under the law which is the primary reason for the increase in poverty in America. People seem to forget that fact. When our government fails to do this then it has an obligation to mitigate the effects of it's own failures in governing.

The US government makes no attempt to equalize anyone's station in life. There is no transfer of wealth through welfare programs because this assistance does not create wealth for those in poverty. A poor person is going to remain a poor person even when we provide a little food for them to eat to keep them from starving. We have not changed their "wealth" by even a dime nor have we reduced the wealth of the wealthy that are being taxed at a much lower effective rate than those that earn far less. I have used the example of Mitt Romney (because I know his effective tax rate) where I earned 1/100th as much income but had an effective tax rate double what Romney paid in 2011.

 

you are very confused, a civilization has to set its laws and morals based on the beliefs of the majority of citizens. Equal protection under the law does not mean that behavior that the majority deem unacceptable must be allowed.

as to tax rates, how can someone paying zero be paying a higher tax rate than someone paying 20% ?

and , yes its true that the poor pay a higher % of their income for sales taxes etc, so what? thats just life, rather than griping about it, how about trying to improve your station in life so that you too can pay income taxes?

- - - Updated - - -

No one ever promised that life would be fair, grow up and deal with reality. You can be whatever you work for.

 

The purpose of the founding of our country was to protect people's rights from government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't grant us rights, nor do they place restrictions upon us as citizens. Those documents restrict government - or at least they're supposed. People like you have obviously turned those founding principles on their head, and of course we now have a God-awful mess on our hands as a result.

The more the government meddles in the lives of the citizenry, the bigger the mess gets - which is somehow supposed to justify ever more meddling?? You're going to micromanage your neighbors life into a utopian dream??

How does it escape you that all you're really accomplishing is empowering government, destroying freedom, and bankrupting posterity??

Your lack of understanding of how government should properly be constrained places squarely in the middle of the ignorant masses.

BTW, you're bankrupt to the tune of $100's of trillions in case you didn't notice. Your beloved SS is in arears what?? $16 trillion?? Your beloved Medicare is in arears what?? $85 trillion?? You're beloved FedGov is obviously in arears $16.5 trillion and climbing at the rate of $4 billion/day... Prescription drugs?? $21 trillion...

Liability per taxpayer is over $1 million each.

Truly your beloved FedGov is doing a fine job with money it has already stolen from me, my children, and posterity.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Keep cheerleading for the leftist cause Shiva

 

That's because "destroy" ...destroys your political career. It's like if I wanted to destroy your car, but didn't want to get in trouble with the police, so I said I was going to take your car, remove the engine, hitch it to a horse, remove the tires and replace them with skids, take off the roof and turned it into a horse-drawn sleigh....

and then if the cops asked me I'd say "No, it's still a car...it's just be 'reformed'."

- - - Updated - - -

They have...Al Franken and other have.

And you're right...it fixes the problem. And no Paul Ryan "partial privatization" plan is needed....at all.

Thanks.

 

If you ask me, you should leave the Eighteenth Century and join the modern world. You don't seem a bit happy back there with the tax dodgers, do you?

 

who exactly are the "tax dodgers" and what laws have they broken? Compliance with the tax code is neither illegal or tax dodging.

If you think the tax code is wrong, then fine, but don't call those who comply with it tax dodgers.

 

Freedom was the same in 1800 B.C. as it is today - the principles of freedom are principles, get it?? Principles.

They are foundational truths - the fact that these truths escape you, and escape the majority, doesn't make them less true.

"The essence of freedom is the limitation of government". You do not believe in that fundamentally true statement; just as Shiva does not; just as Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Obama, Bush, FDR, Mussolini, Marx, Robespierre, Putin, et al, do not.

You say, "yes... let us use government for 'good'; we are wiser than some silly principle." Surely Hitler will lead us to glory and prosperity; Lenin will vanquish the evil land owners and bring us prosperity; Stalin is a man of steel and will protect us from the evil capitalists; on and on... your deliverer is always the next smooth talking snake oil salesman.

You deserve to be controlled by others.

 

Wow, I admit I'm surprised that you actually seem to believe that. The single most important reason behind poverty is racism? You wouldn't by chance be an academic would you?

 

Academics are famous for their misinterpretation of *racism*.

 

I leave the defintion of "racism" ....to white rightwingers and Southern Republicans who used to be Dixiecrats.

It's pretty much "Doesn't exist" or "Barely exists" or "It's mostly blacks hating us poor white people".

 

Did I have the freedom to own a machine gun in 1800? Did I have the freedom to watch porn on the Internet? Did I have the freedom to genetically engineer food on my farm? If I was a woman, did I have the freedom to vote?

 

I have heard esteemed professors state that "racism" cannot, by definition, be anti-white.

 

But as a 12 year old I was free to work in any sweatshop of my choosing.

 

Yes, seems right.

Consider this though- perhaps even the Democrats were better in the 1950's. I hear tell they were. I think something happened to the leftwingers. I think it had a lot to do with drugs. All this crazy crap, started coming down in the 60's I BELIEVE, the decade of increased drug use.

I may be wrong. Maybe liberals have always been on the wrong road.

And most accurately, the problem is caused by people who don't have God as a guidepost.

So more than anything, it's a matter of secularism being the enemy. It just so happens that the left fell for the promises of secularism.

 

Take back our country!

To the 19th century!

 

this is why the god party is dieing. you can't base arguments on your gut or a random thought. you can't base policy decisions on religious dogma. you barely different than the fundie muslim oppressors. you will convince no one and alienate yourself as an anti-intellectual.

here is what you look like:
"there is more gun violence now because people aren't praying enough."
"people are overweight and dieing because they haven't found their lord and saviour jesus christ."
"i think it had a lot to do with drugs." hahahahaha. some of the most successful people in the world have played with drugs but i'm sure you will find a way to warp it to make it fit with your beliefs because successful people are chosen by god and he wouldn't let drug junkies be successful...please...

we have come so far as humans but these unsubstantiated accusations are tearing us down. i am religious but am regularly embarrassed by people like you. you could use some re-education and a dose of reality from the real world.

 

In keeping with the spirit of transparency and disclosure as proclaimed by holy St. Obama, I must confess thar I did not take the time to read your post.

I will say, however, that -- in my opinion -- Dwight Eisenhower was the last president with balls. Everybody from Kennedy onward has been a joke.