SS/medicaire...

[Railroad]

Well if you read the history of the writing of the Constitution you would find that the founders had hours of prayer before each days work.

I was happy to note that the Congress still begins its session with a prayer. I might find my cynical self wondering how many are actually praying and mean it, but it is still part of the proceedings. IMHO all of us need to be asking for God's guidance and support - no matter what the task or deliberation is.

 

[Larry Gude]

And that...

I was happy to note that the Congress still begins its session with a prayer. I might find my cynical self wondering how many are actually praying and mean it, but it is still part of the proceedings.

...is what blows my mind about people who hate and/or fear religious folks.

Our President says he prays, PRAYS at night for guidance.

OH MY...uhh...umm...God?

Guidance for what? Guidance to kill gays? Lock up subversives? Crash the DU's servers? Take over the globe? Sell the US to Halliburton? Make Michael Moore go on a diet?

No. Guidance to DO THE RIGHT THING.

 

[ylexot]

Well if you read the history of the writing of the Constitution you would find that the founders had hours of prayer before each days work.

Yes, I know that. However, they did not want the wording and the framework of the government to favor a specific religion. Starting off with "The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States" not only shows a very strong favoritism towards Christianity, it is a statement of exclusion of all other religions. That is just FLAT OUT WRONG! The Founders would not be pleased.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Yes, I know that. However, they did not want the wording and the framework of the government to favor a specific religion. Starting off with "The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States" not only shows a very strong favoritism towards Christianity, it is a statement of exclusion of all other religions. That is just FLAT OUT WRONG! The Founders would not be pleased.

Actually, I think many would be absolutely pleased in light of the goings on in the United States today.

As to the wording of the Constitution, the Constitution Party does not want to change it. Did you read down this far in the Platform?

The Constitution of the United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:

* That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness;
* That the freedom to own, use, exchange, control, protect, and freely dispose of property is a natural, necessary and inseparable extension of the individual's unalienable rights;
* That the legitimate function of government is to secure these rights through the preservation of domestic tranquility, the maintenance of a strong national defense, and the promotion of equal justice for all;
* That history makes clear that left unchecked, it is the nature of government to usurp the liberty of its citizens and eventually become a major violator of the people's rights; and
* That, therefore, it is essential to bind government with the chains of the Constitution and carefully divide and jealously limit government powers to those assigned by the consent of the governed.

 

[ylexot]

Actually, I think many would be absolutely pleased in light of the goings on in the United States today.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this part since they are dead.

As to the wording of the Constitution, the Constitution Party does not want to change it. Did you read down this far in the Platform?

That's all well and good, but what I said was "I thought I was going to like the Constitution Party, but the very first line turned me off." The first line is a line of exclusion. Exclusion is always bad in a government of the people. I will not support a group who believes in the exclusion of the populace (are non-Christians the majority yet?).

 

[Railroad]

...is what blows my mind about people who hate and/or fear religious folks.

Our President says he prays, PRAYS at night for guidance.

OH MY...uhh...umm...God?

Guidance for what? Guidance to kill gays? Lock up subversives? Crash the DU's servers? Take over the globe? Sell the US to Halliburton? Make Michael Moore go on a diet?

No. Guidance to DO THE RIGHT THING.

ABSOLUTELY. Guidance to do the RIGHT THING.

 

[FromTexas]

Since I am planning for my retirement in other ways, any SS income I get will be spending money. Everytime I get my check I will be the codger groping the girls at a the titty bar.

 

[vraiblonde]

Since I am planning for my retirement in other ways, any SS income I get will be spending money. Everytime I get my check I will be the codger groping the girls at a the titty bar.

Lapdance money

 

[alex]

I am trying to understand this and I don't have enough information to either support or reject this proposal so please bear with me here ....

The premise behind personal accounts is that SS will cost our kids and grandkids more to support us in our old age. But... and here is where I am confused... isn't this program going to cost over $200 trillion on debit that our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay off? If so, what is the difference?

Is this really going to make it easier on future generations? Aren't they going to have to pay for this one or another?

 

[Ken King]

I am trying to understand this and I don't have enough information to either support or reject this proposal so please bear with me here ....

The premise behind personal accounts is that SS will cost our kids and grandkids more to support us in our old age. But... and here is where I am confused... isn't this program going to cost over $200 trillion on debit that our kids and grandkids are going to have to pay off? If so, what is the difference?

Is this really going to make it easier on future generations? Aren't they going to have to pay for this one or another?

The premise is that doing nothing will result in the bankruptcy of SS somewhere around 2040. There are currently 59.6 million people over 55 and 83.8 million between the ages of 35 and 54 that will really place a major burden on the system when they become eligible for benefits (2002 numbers). We are also living longer which adds to the burden and when you have as many withdrawing as paying in it will take no time to bleed the account dry. We have to do something.

I see the President’s plan as the beginning of moving the government somewhat out of the business of taking care of us financially as we age and helping us take the responsibility of doing for ourselves (which I feel is how it should be) by providing safe instruments for us to invest in. I will gladly place up to 4 points of what I am currently paying in to create a larger pot of gold at the end of my rainbow even if it results in a smaller SS annuity (which will result in a lesser burden upon our children).

Honestly, I would like to see the program be even more bold and allow for us to have the entire 6+% that is being withheld from our pay for OASDI placed into private accounts and let us opt out of SS entirely. The employer portion could be retained to pay for those already drawing it and those that choose not to partake.

 

[FromTexas]

Lapdance money

SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY! SAVE THE LAPDANCE! (When I run for president, thats going to be my slogan)

 

[Larry Gude]

alex...

isn't this program going to cost over $200 trillion

I hope not. Perhaps you meant billion?

As far as the rest of your post, absorb Kens numbers for starters.

Social Security is a Ponzii scheme. The money people recieve in their monthly checks is coming from your and my paycheck, not from what they put in over the years. Your and my SS money when we retire will come from the same source, younger peoples paychecks.

The catch is how the number of people paying in to the system vs. those taking out has changed since FDR laid this egg over 70 years ago. There used to be 22 paychecks per retiree. Soon it will be roughly 2 paychecks per.
That means, obviously, that the people paying in will have to pay much, much more to cover the outlays.

Or cut benefits.

Or raise retirment age.

Or some combination.

Or, follow Kens recomendations which are the only ones that make ANY sense; give me half my payroll tax AND I release the government from owing me any SS benefits and keep the other half to keep the promise to people too old, say 45 and up who won't have time to save a decent amount.

For instance, if I, at 40, get to keep 1/2 my SS/Med payroll tax and I can earn 6% on my savings, I'll have, at 65, about the same amount of dollars IN MY SAVINGS, that SS would pay to me, in total, if I collected it until 80.

Think about that. I'll OWN it, I'll have it all at once and it can be left to my heirs.

And that's only keeping 1/2 my own damn money and that's relieving my kids and yours from paying a penny to me from THEIR paycheck.

No, imagine what a 20 year old can do? Or even 30?

Social Security needs to retire. the sooner, obviously, the much better. For EVERYONE.

 

[itsbob]

I hope not. Perhaps you meant billion?

As far as the rest of your post, absorb Kens numbers for starters.

Social Security is a Ponzii scheme. The money people recieve in their monthly checks is coming from your and my paycheck, not from what they put in over the years. Your and my SS money when we retire will come from the same source, younger peoples paychecks.

The catch is how the number of people paying in to the system vs. those taking out has changed since FDR laid this egg over 70 years ago. There used to be 22 paychecks per retiree. Soon it will be roughly 2 paychecks per.
That means, obviously, that the people paying in will have to pay much, much more to cover the outlays.

Or cut benefits.

Or raise retirment age.

Or some combination.

Or, follow Kens recomendations which are the only ones that make ANY sense; give me half my payroll tax AND I release the government from owing me any SS benefits and keep the other half to keep the promise to people too old, say 45 and up who won't have time to save a decent amount.

For instance, if I, at 40, get to keep 1/2 my SS/Med payroll tax and I can earn 6% on my savings, I'll have, at 65, about the same amount of dollars IN MY SAVINGS, that SS would pay to me, in total, if I collected it until 80.

Think about that. I'll OWN it, I'll have it all at once and it can be left to my heirs.

And that's only keeping 1/2 my own damn money and that's relieving my kids and yours from paying a penny to me from THEIR paycheck.

No, imagine what a 20 year old can do? Or even 30?

Social Security needs to retire. the sooner, obviously, the much better. For EVERYONE.

AMEN brother.. and look at the money you've ALREADY put into SS.. if we invested that money ourselves from the time we were 18, we'd be rich and retired already..

 

[alex]

Thanks Ken - as usual you broke down very well.

I understand what you and Larry are saying but what about people who are not savy investors? If you go with the personal accounts and they flop then what? Could they opt to stay in SS if they want? I am hearing that if you do this there is no guarantee on benefits. If that so isn't everyone basically forced to go towards personal accounts?

I have a 401K from a previous employer that does okay. Basically because I don't know that much about the market I hesitate to make what I consider risky investments. But since the end of 2004 I have lost 10% of my balance in that account - which makes me nervous as it is. I know when you invest in stocks it has to be for the long term as the market does have ups and downs. I also know that you should have your age in bonds so that as you get older you have more cash available --- but I still wonder. Am I in the right funds? Who should I trust? How much should a good financial planner cost me? Is it worth? Can I afford it or afford not to?

If these question are coming from me what about those who don't even know enough to ask these questions? My in-laws are wonderful, intelligent people but when it comes to a salesperson my father-in-law would give away the farm. My spouse and I are constantly having to keep on top of what they are doing with their money so they don't get robbed. They are not senile just not very savy about money. It makes you wonder how many others would be in a similar boat and would we eventually wind up bailing people out in their old age because of poor choices made from ignorance or shysters.

 

[willie]

Maybe this is where the Trillion figure came from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3319-2005Feb6.html
I really don't understand why the people that should be knowledgeable on this are still against the paltry percentage he wants to privatize. Maybe the Dems are right, the masses are ignorant so the politicians should do the math for us. How many of them have ever had real jobs and had to search for the best deal on purchases? I'm probably a bit naive but until a few years ago I thought the dems were just weirdo's that should move to Tacoma Park and leave the rest of us alone but they want us in submission. Socialism.

 

[alex]

I am not against this program at all. I just want to get all of the facts and the policitans and media are only putting out their side of the story. I don't want to see one program, that definitely needs fixing, be replaced with another program that is going to cause more tax dollars to fix down the road.

If the market is so good for people to invest in why doesn't SS invest in at least a part of their funds in it? Wouldn't the return eliminate the expected shortfall? Or is there more wrong with SS then the expected shortfall of funds?

 

[vraiblonde]

If the market is so good for people to invest in why doesn't SS invest in at least a part of their funds in it?

Because they're too busy "investing" it in welfare, foreign aid and pork bills. Remember Gore going on and on about the "lockbox" that he was going to put SS in so the greedy little politicians couldn't "borrow" from it?

The government isn't responsible enough to be trusted with our retirement money. They've already proved that. Not only that but, as someone pointed out in an earlier post, I want that money to be able to be transferred to my kids in the event of my demise. As it stands, you're just out of luck. But if it's yours and you control it, you can leave it to your heirs instead of to some stranger.

 

[alex]

Vrai - okay I see what you are saying. But.. and this is where I think the problem lies.. what happens to the person who doesn't understand how to invest? I see these people as ripe for the pickin' by shysters. Then they are going to go crying to their congress person to help them and we are back in the same boat as before.

 

[Ken King]

Vrai - okay I see what you are saying. But.. and this is where I think the problem lies.. what happens to the person who doesn't understand how to invest? I see these people as ripe for the pickin' by shysters. Then they are going to go crying to their congress person to help them and we are back in the same boat as before.

As the President said when he offered this up that those seeking highly protected invested funds there would be government bonds, which are very safe. For those willing to take a chance the remaining investments would be from funds/schemes similar to what Federal employees have with the Thrift Savings Plan. The TSP G-fund (government bonds and stocks) are such that you will never loose what you have invested and they grow at a slower pace then the other funds but are making more then the SS plan does. Those that don't have a clue can leave their money there and still be a heck of a lot better off then just relying upon SS to take care of them.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ditto that...

Those that don't have a clue can leave their money there and still be a heck of a lot better off then just relying upon SS to take care of them.

AND have the benefit of this being THEIR money.

There is SO many better things, than the system now, that can be done with that money.

A choice could be to have money applied to your mortgage.

To pay for college.

To be used as collateral to borrow money to buy a home or pay for schooling or start a business.