I know. Let's fix Social Security with a tax on the rich.

[rraley]

Social Security would be in perfectly fine shape today if Democrats and Republicans would have NEVER raided the Trust Fund. I believe that if we stopped the government from doing that now, it would be perfectly feasible.

I don't see how Social Security, which has made elderly poverty below the rate of poverty for the general population, can be considered misguided. I fear that if we just left it all up to the individuals themselves, who are inundated upon with requests to buy this, pay later, then our nation would be in the perfect position for having more indebted elders in poverty (and they would then get on the welfare dole). So, frankly, I would prefer President Bush's proposal for Social Security reform rather than get rid of it entirely or phase it out.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Social Security would be in perfectly fine shape today if Democrats and Republicans would have NEVER raided the Trust Fund. I believe that if we stopped the government from doing that now, it would be perfectly feasible.

But have you ever heard of a politician that once had the purse strings opened refused to put their hands in the purse? There have been a few, even in our time, but very few. Democrats have never seen a tax they didn't like. Republicans are not much better. With the two major parties, it is a matter of whether we get humongous out of control spending or big out of control spending. It is still out of control and will be as long as we have entitlement programs like SS and welfare. Neither should exist.

Germany is a huge social welfare state and is drowning in debt. Did you read or heard about this?

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

<script src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/NetGravity/mpu.js;sessionid=VVCEAF4LYMAGZQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC" language="javascript"></script> <script language=\"\&quot;\&quot;\&quot;JavaScript\&quot;\&quot;\&quot;\" src="http://ads.telegraph.co.uk/js.ng/site=news&spaceid=mpu&logstatus=f&transactionID=1111257225570&Section=news/international_news/europe/germany&view=details&xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml"></script>Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

... rest of story

We could get there.

 

[somdcrab]

 

[Charles]

Pull their feeding tubes and let them starve to death.

Very un-christian.

 

[somdcrab]

Very un-christian.

and you would know this how

post next time and date when you walk on water

 

[Ken King]

Very un-christian.

I guess the sarcasm dripping off of my comment missed you completely.

 

[Charles]

I guess the sarcasm dripping off of my comment missed you completely.

Your aim was OK, that sarcasm went both ways.

 

[Ken King]

Your aim was OK, that sarcasm went both ways.

Oh I know that, which is why your points didn't advance any deeper in to the red.

 

[somdcrab]

 

[Charles]

Oh I know that, which is why your points didn't advance any deeper in to the red.

That was the low IQ crustacean exercising his pincer.

 

[somdcrab]

That was the low IQ crustacean exercising his pincer.

 

[Charles]

Charles, we're alreay in violation of the Constitution and we already TAKE 15% of everybody's paycheck up to $90,000 gross.

Having said that, there are endless things we could do to 'enforce' savings.

It would be a simple matter of setting up a 'glide path' of 'here, Joe Dirt, is what you would have been getting for SS.'

The IRS already does an annaul fiscal checkup to make sure the feds got theirs, so, we do an annual checkup to see that you're saving OK.

People could put it in their homes. T bills. Anything.

Folks who aren't cutting it still can fall back on the old system. That's fine.

Most people will be out of the system and doing much better.

If the above was meant in seriousness then I wholeheartedly agree. The amendment guys answer of "nothing" is the wrong answer.

 

[somdcrab]

If the above was meant in seriousness then I wholeheartedly agree. The amendment guys answer of "nothing" is the wrong answer.

 

[somdcrab]

undefinedLMFAO

 

[Toxick]

The amendment guys answer of "nothing" is the wrong answer.

Sez u.

I agreed with him.

 

[Charles]

Sez u.

I agreed with him.

I hope you get crabs.

 

[somdcrab]

 

[Toxick]

I hope you get crabs.

Are you hitting on me?

Sorry dude. I'm married.

 

[Larry Gude]

Absolutely...

If the above was meant in seriousness then I wholeheartedly agree

It is WRONG to have extra Constitutional policies because we have an amendment procedure. It means there is no law, not really.

It is wrong to violate the Constitution as we do so often, such as mis-interpeting both the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Having said that, 'it is what it is'. One of the reasons for vehement opposition to SS reform that amounts to more than tinkering is because of the constitutional quicksand it rests on. Do to much remodeling and the whole thing may come down.

When we start saying 'hey, we can make people put their SS payroll tax into their mortgage or this or that' the legality is bound to come up, nevermind it may sound good.

It's no different than slavery or abortion; things many people wanted and NEED to be accepted as matter of fact because they cannot stand up to common sense or, this should scare everyone, the Constitution.

Getting things in place that have not passed Constitutional muster is hard work. But, if it won't pass the amendment process and you really want it, like FDR did, well, any port in a storm. He tried retiring the entire Supreme Court to get his way.

Imagine if today some politician said 'Look, we have SS, right? Everybodys for that, right? We have the right to choose, right? Everybody is for that. So, listen. Isn't food MUCH more important than retirement or abortion? I mean, you gotta live to even get to retirement and you gotta eat to live, right? So, here's what we do. We take 15% from everybody's paycheck and set it aside for food. We give people a monthly check for food, they take it to the store.
It's a minumum security blanket! Hoo ray!"

That's fine. IF IT PASSES Constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, nice idea, can't do it.

We all sit around and pretend that SS is OK. That abortion is OK. They're not. Not until they pass muster. In the mean time, they mean, again, there really is no law, only 'common knowledge'.

Think about it.

 

[ylexot]

Very un-christian.

Well, since you mentioned it...the Christian thing to do would be to take care of the person. Churches do that kind of thing. The Christian thing to do would not be building a massive government controlled system to take care of them. Charity is far more efficient and effective at the local level becuase it is easy to tailor it to suit the need. National-level charity is just stupid.