Quote :

"Like?"

Your mom.

2/1/2010 10:41:31 AM

Quote :

"^ The "it-can-always-be-worse" school of thought has to stop."

It could always be better as well. I wouldn't mind living in Denmark.

2/1/2010 10:47:58 AM

Quote :

"because, like the rest of us, the government needs to learn to live WITHIN ITS MEANS. as long as they keep asking for more and we keep giving, blindly, they will always take. further, the government uses your tax money to fund programs to build their own political base. I would be a lot more apt to pay an increase if I saw exactly what the money was going for, if the tax increase funded something specific then went back down when it was paid for, and if EVERYONE paid an income tax in the first place."

Personally, I think it'd be great if taxes actually scaled with government programs that were implemented. Then people would feel the impact of these "feel good" programs that supposedly help society. When the cost of government spending increases beyond the revenue it's taking in through taxes, there are only a few options. One is to raise taxes to account for this difference. That's not popular among voters. The other is to cut spending to match the revenue coming in. That, also, is not popular. The final (and most destructive) option, which happens to be the one our government has chosen, is to increase government spending at a faster rate than the increase in tax rate, and borrow/create money to cover the difference. The politicians love it, because they can promise (and deliver) all of these free goodies, without ever having to pay the political consequence of raising taxes. The long term consequences are devastating, though.

2/1/2010 10:58:09 AM

Quote :

"Your mom."

I guess that's what I get for debating with an idiot.

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2010 11:01:20 AM

Sure is. That'll learn ya.

1) Search through the top most exported jobs
2) Find one that a 12 year old could do or someone willing to work for $5/hour
3) ???
4) Profit

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM. Reason : -]

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 11:13 AM. Reason : Data input and tech support comes to mind]

2/1/2010 11:04:26 AM

there is a lot of jibber-jabber in this thread, so I just came to post:

Quote :

"because we already pay a fuckton of taxes already"

Most of them so hidden you have no clue you pay them.

2/1/2010 1:46:46 PM

^This.

2/1/2010 2:07:13 PM

Quote :

"perhaps wealth should be taxed... to the point where becoming wealthy is no longer an advantage, and we can all live in a happy society where everyone is truly equal."

I really hope this was a joke. Just what America needs, more reasons for people to not try to excel in life. If people think that giving what are some of the laziest people in the world (Americans) more reason to just do average or below average is a good idea then why don't you move to a socialist country. Our constitution was based on capitalism and capitalism is what made America great.

We would not have such a huge hurdle to overcome if they would stayed more close to the capitalistic nature of the constitution. For example stop trying to control behavior by giving free money in cash for clunkers. Stop giving money and buying the car companies. Let GM and Chrysler die. This would result in less money leaving the Goverment and the other car companies would flourish from less competition.

2/1/2010 2:35:36 PM

Quote :

"perhaps wealth should be taxed... to the point where becoming wealthy is no longer an advantage, and we can all live in a happy society where everyone is truly equal."

this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Why would you punish those who are successful? Why encourage mediocrity? How is it equality for someone to spend 10 years getting several degrees, spending thousands of dollars to do so, then taking a career as a professional in a field that requires expert knowledge and techniques, is risky, and improves society but is robbed by the government who takes his earnings and benefits and gives them to a high school drop out behind a cash register, a job which requires little knowledge, skill, or technical expertise and has virtually no lasting impact on the masses.

2/1/2010 2:42:05 PM

^^, ^

2/1/2010 2:49:53 PM

Quote :

"the highest tax rate in the US was >90% until 1964 and it didn't drop below 70% until the reagan years, so bitching about 35% being too high seems a bit silly"

The top tax bracket nowadays is a lot lower than it was in 1944. Back then it was like $3 million in today's money.

Today the top bracket is about $370K.

2/1/2010 2:54:12 PM

I guess sarcasm doesn't translate very well on the internet.

2/1/2010 2:58:46 PM

I wish they would allow each tax payer on there tax return to say items they are willing to let there taxes pay for specifically for certain areas.

Your total tax doesnt change but you give a percentage in which you want to go to certain things.

That way on my federal return I can say how much I want to go to national defense and that I don't want any of my money going towards welfare.

Similarly, for state tax I would like to be able to say how much I would like to go to different referendums for say 540 to complete etc.

Obviously some of the money would have to come off the top for administration costs etc but just the idea of giving more power to the people giving money to the government than some bureaucrat making all of the decisions sounds like something I would like !


Along with the same welfare thought I wish we had government jobs that we made welfare people do. For example when you meet with your welfare officer they discuss what you will be doing for the free wage you are earning until you can get back on your feet. Items like picking up trash on streets, painting over graffiti, helping renovate public buildings, planting flowers, cutting grass, etc etc.

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 3:25 PM. Reason : Welfare]

2/1/2010 3:19:40 PM

^I doubt anybody would give money to welfare if that's the case.

2/1/2010 3:21:51 PM

Someone has to believe it and want to give money for it , otherwise how did it get voted in? If the people who wanted it in are not willing to give money for it then get rid of it all together. If it looks like people are not going to give money because they don't like the idea of giving people something for nothing then maybe they would revamp it where they had government things they had to do in order to get the check. Then maybe people would be more willing to give if they see its people who are trying to work and earn money but just cant. Its amazing how giving people more power has its own way of adding checks and balances.

2/1/2010 3:30:18 PM

the only people who would believe in it are the people getting free checks every damn month.

2/1/2010 3:32:05 PM

Well those people are out numbered, they are not the ones who voted welfare in.


Because of where I am from in Eastern NC I despise welfare. Too many examples of people on welfare with rims and extravagant things that a lot of working people cant buy. For me again if there is going to be a welfare program I expect them to be picking up trash on the highway every day, or other jobs to get that check.

2/1/2010 3:39:26 PM

i believe in it

my sister was on welfare and food stamps for a short period of time

she got pregnant and married a piece of shit that beat her up. she left him and had nothing. she lived in "government subsidized" housing and used food stamps. but she used it as it was intended. to get through a difficult time and get back on her feet.

she went on to graduate from college with a 4 year degree and has her own place in chicago working full time, paying taxes and being a productive member of society.

2/1/2010 3:40:45 PM

govt. needs to get a better grasp on unemployment, welfare, and disability. sure there are people that actually need it but the majority abuse it.

also, lets make all drugs legal and tax the heck out of it.

2/1/2010 3:45:12 PM

^^ I am sure that your sister had some ability that a welfare office would have been able to come up with something for her to do to earn that money. She could have been a free tutor for struggling kids, free local art class, helped coach a softball team. All examples of things that a local welfare officer could place welfare people to do in order to get there checks

2/1/2010 3:57:35 PM

Quote :

"^I doubt anybody would give money to welfare if that's the case."

this guy would:

Quote :

"perhaps wealth should be taxed... to the point where becoming wealthy is no longer an advantage, and we can all live in a happy society where everyone is truly equal."

along with the rest of those who believe in redistribution of wealth, socialism/istic economies, giving to the poor, etc.

It burns me up to see well-off to wealthy to rich people claim that more tax dollars should go to the poor or that taxes should be raised to give more money to the poor. If you believe in this, then you should be giving your money away to the poor first. Don't claim the poor needs more money, then expect the money to come from me while you just sit on your ass. Live the life you believe in then try to convince others to join you.

2/1/2010 3:58:03 PM

wdprice3 is a right wing nut job


and my cuzin


and my friend

2/1/2010 4:03:42 PM

Nancy Pelosi spent about $200k on liquor this year for her airplane parties. She spent about $2 million this year flying her and her family around in air force one while they got drunk on taxpayer liquor. That cuntdyke is exactly the reason NO ONE should want more taxes.

Are you insane? I like having a job and income. Keep raising taxes until we all get put out of work and we look like fucking Haitians?

2/1/2010 5:15:43 PM

^^lol

2/1/2010 5:27:57 PM

Quote :

"just raise taxes on the rich. they're the ones with all the money and benefiting most from society. "

People complain because we have morons like this ^ who want to discriminate and want to take more from what someone earned simply so they can benefit and/or pay less.

Considering medicaid, insurance for the poor who pay nothing for it, covers braces and people working who take home less bc they fund that program cannot afford to put them on thier own kids...something is wrong.

2/1/2010 5:54:08 PM

I don't know why I bother but here it goes

Quote :

"how about a lifetime cap on the years you're allowed to be on welfare so people don't use it as a lifestyle"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanf

Quote :

"TANF was created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act instituted under President Bill Clinton in 1996. The Act provides temporary financial assistance while aiming to get people off of that assistance, primarily through employment. There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime (some states have instituted shorter periods)"

Quote :

"or giving prisoners a bill for their room & board & an opportunity to work it off"

So you want to take a bunch of ex-convicts and give them even more of a reason to resort back to crime? Hey buddy you need to get a job so you can pay off your prison bill, it'll only take about 10 years or so at $5 an hour. Hey, why are you robbing that bank?

Quote :

"i dont think you understand that there are a lot of people out there who don't pay taxes because they don't make enough. but these people get all the benefits the rest of us get (sometimes more)"

That would be the point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare

Quote :

"i say no taxes, no voting rights. fuck, felons aren't allowed to vote [depending on the state] at least we got that one kind of right."

Goodbye social stability! This one takes me right back to 1850.

Quote :

"1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote."

Here's an idea, how about only those with 3 brain cells to rub together qualify to vote (sorry 90% of the posters in this thread). I love threads full of privileged college students/graduates whining about how terrible and unfair life is. In other words...

2/1/2010 6:08:58 PM

The poor people are ruining this country!!!!!!!!!!!

2/1/2010 6:40:09 PM

He mentions a cap on welfare and you mention a program. Not the same thing. Most of which just simply went onto disability roles and put thier kids on it too for ADHD for an extra 500/month per kid. Simply awesome.

2/1/2010 7:07:22 PM

Quote :

" luckily my state doesn't tax my income and fyi this doesn't include the sales tax i (and anyone living in a state w sales tax) pay on everything i buy "

You are paying higher sales tax (which you can't write off you federal returns) rather than income tax (which has federal tax benefits). Also, higher sales tax can depress the economy and lead to losing money to (particularly bigger) items being purchased out of state. These are practical reasons against relying on sales tax, other than the philosophical argument against regressive taxation.

But it is a tradeoff that makes no practical sense in nearly every scenario, with the possible exception being a very tourism-heavy economy or one driven by retirees that make very little income...

2/1/2010 7:18:47 PM

Quote :

"He mentions a cap on welfare and you mention a program. Not the same thing."

Oh wow, eyedrb is here to bless us with his wisdom! Is it not the same thing eyedrb? Let's take 10 seconds to check the internet...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act

Quote :

"The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-Florida) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it". PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which had been in effect since 1935 and also supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program of 1988. The law was heralded as a "reassertion of America's work ethic" by the US Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill's workfare component. Some criticized the bill as a reinstitution of workhouses and believe the new system has been ineffective in getting people out of poverty. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005."

So let me get this straight, a republican congress replaces "welfare" with "limited duration welfare with restrictions", a move praised by the US Chamber of Commerce, and yet here we are still 14 years later listening to republican's bitch about "poor people sitting around collecting welfare".

The problem isn't "welfare", the problem is half-wit degenerate mongoloids like eyedrb.

2/1/2010 7:23:48 PM

^^hello Florida.

2/1/2010 7:33:50 PM

Look, I despise abuses of welfare as much as any other fiscal conservative, but it's not welfare that you should be giving a shit about. It's such a drop in the bucket that it's all but inconsequential compared to tons of other things.

Medicare and Social Security are 800-lb gorillas. Subsidies for everything from agriculture to Amtrak are a big money waster, too. Oh, and interest on our staggering national debt.

...oh, and not to mention the administrative costs of taking money to do things that the federal government is not supposed to be able to do to begin with, then returning it to the states...it would be more efficient for the states to just keep the money to begin with.

2/1/2010 8:52:53 PM

"entitlement programs"

2/1/2010 8:57:18 PM

Quote :

"it's not welfare that you should be giving a shit about. It's such a drop in the bucket that it's all but inconsequential compared to tons of other things."

ding ding ding ding

2/1/2010 8:59:30 PM

the best way to eat an elephant is...

one bite at a time

2/1/2010 9:23:31 PM

Quote :

" Quote : " luckily my state doesn't tax my income and fyi this doesn't include the sales tax i (and anyone living in a state w sales tax) pay on everything i buy " You are paying higher sales tax (which you can't write off you federal returns) rather than income tax (which has federal tax benefits). Also, higher sales tax can depress the economy and lead to losing money to (particularly bigger) items being purchased out of state. These are practical reasons against relying on sales tax, other than the philosophical argument against regressive taxation. But it is a tradeoff that makes no practical sense in nearly every scenario, with the possible exception being a very tourism-heavy economy or one driven by retirees that make very little income... "

margoal,

One can write off sales taxes (state and local) on federal returns, you just can't write off both state income and sales. So for states that have only sales taxes, it's a no-brainer.

Also, just how much do you know about the state budgets of Texas (tourism & retirees, not so much) and Florida vs. NC? You're entitled to your opinion, but don't act like this is settled just because you don't know a lot about it.


[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 10:44 PM. Reason : ehh]

2/1/2010 10:43:12 PM

I agree cash, entitlements are the problems just not welfare.


and scott in your rush to demonstrate just how big your wee wee is, you missed where I said most went on disablity (or got relabeled). Also, just a quick search on the internet:

"the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 will reverse the welfare-to-work provisions that Bill Clinton signed in the 1990s and again base federal grants to states on the number of people signed up for welfare rather than at a flat rate.[16] One of the experts who worked on the 1996 bill said that the provisions would lead to the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in American history."

"Critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the reason for the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls in the United States in the 1990s wasn't due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, due almost exclusively to their offloading into workfare, giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient."

2/2/2010 9:11:18 AM

Quote :

"and scott in your rush to demonstrate just how big your wee wee is, you missed where I said most went on disablity (or got relabeled). Also, just a quick search on the internet: "the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 will reverse the welfare-to-work provisions that Bill Clinton signed in the 1990s and again base federal grants to states on the number of people signed up for welfare rather than at a flat rate.[16] One of the experts who worked on the 1996 bill said that the provisions would lead to the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in American history."

I'm not here to discuss "how big your wee wee is" (although, if this is how your mind works that may explain a few things). I'm here to discuss issues, so let's get to that. Instead of addressing my above point you make an unsubstantiated claim of people "switching to disability" and then botch a copy/paste of a few sentences referencing hackneyed articles that claim this will be "the end of welfare reform". Let's find out how the stimulus act will end the republican welfare overhaul.

Just in case you're interested (you aren't), the full details (from http://tinyurl.com/ykksme8):

$5 Billion allocated to fund 80% of the increase in welfare expenditure over each state's baseline welfare expenditure, expires October 10, 2010.

Permanent TANF change? No
Funding of existing welfare expenditures? No
Change in TANF rules/eligibility? No
Change in eyedrb opinion? No
eyedrb brain function? No

Do you care to embarrass yourself further?

2/2/2010 9:43:45 PM

Thank you for the link. I might not be making myself clear. Why do you doubt that people would not be tempted to move onto disablity? I think reform is a great idea and, honestly, worked to a certain extent. However, its pretty naive to assume that people wont look to continue thier lifestyle. Many simply moved onto disablity or just became pregnant again.

This is where the incentives were (for some)

"A significant proportion of each year's SSI awards to disabled people aged 64 or younger go to TANF/SSP recipients"

"For both states and the individuals involved, it is generally financially advantageous for adults and children with disabilities to transfer from TANF to SSI. States gain because the federal government pays for the SSI benefit, and states can then use the TANF savings for other purposes. The families gain because the SSI benefits they acquire are greater than the TANF benefits they lose. The payoff to states from transferring welfare recipients to SSI was substantially increased when Congress replaced AFDC with TANF in 1996. States retained less than half of any savings achieved through such transfers under AFDC, but they retain all of the savings under TANF."

"The incentive for TANF recipients to apply for SSI has increased over time as inflation has caused real TANF benefits to fall relative to payments received by SSI recipients."

"The consequences of welfare reform and TANF operations for persons with disabilities and the demand for SSI is a long-standing matter of concern to the Social Security Administration as well as to policy analysts outside the agency"

"An average of 677,000 (SSI)awards were made per year for all ages under 65. About three-fourths of these awards (514,125) were to working-age adults (ages 18–64). Awards to children and adults increased by 24 percent and 11 percent, respectively, over the 2000–2003 period. TANF does appear to provide important intermediate support for children and adults who later receive SSI"

"Our analysis indicates that the incidence of SSI awards among TANF recipients has been much greater in recent years than it was during the early 1990s (Table 6). Award rates for children rose from an average of 0.92 per month per 1,000 child TANF recipients in 1991–1993 to 1.28 per 1,000 in 2001–2003. The change was even more dramatic for adults. On average in each month of 1991–1993, 1.55 TANF-linked SSI awards were made per 1,000 recipients. By 2001–2003, the average rate was slightly over 4 per 1,000 per month." (even thought totals went down in both periods)

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n4/v66n4p21.html

I hope that helps scott

As for the stimulus, here is a heritage article (I know), but it has some good facts mixed in with the bias.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/economy/wm2276.cfm

[Edited on February 2, 2010 at 10:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2010 10:34:23 PM

Quote :

"Many simply moved onto disablity or just became pregnant again."

From your article:



1993: 14,007,000 welfare recipients, 17,992 welfare recipients receiving SSI

2003: 4,833,000 welfare recipients, 10,331 welfare recipients receiving SSI

Do we continue?

2/2/2010 10:54:01 PM

So thats all you got out of that article? I even cut and pasted the points for you about people moving onto disablity roles and what the advantages are. haha

Oh and this one:
"Our analysis indicates that the incidence of SSI awards among TANF recipients has been much greater in recent years than it was during the early 1990s (Table 6). Award rates for children rose from an average of 0.92 per month per 1,000 child TANF recipients in 1991–1993 to 1.28 per 1,000 in 2001–2003. The change was even more dramatic for adults. On average in each month of 1991–1993, 1.55 TANF-linked SSI awards were made per 1,000 recipients. By 2001–2003, the average rate was slightly over 4 per 1,000 per month." (even thought totals went down in both periods)

You are now just trying to ignore my point all together. Which is fine. If you care to "discuss issues" then there is info you requested concerning my point.

I suppose it would be another stretch for you to consider that as unemployment drops so do the numbers of people seeking assistance.



http://www.ppionline.org/upload_graphics/Welfare_by_the_Numbers/slide3.gif

Last one for the night, scott. I enjoyed it.

2/2/2010 11:18:21 PM

And just for the record. TANF is not the same thing as Welfare. It is simply one in a host of programs that make up different aspects of welfare. (my original point)

When people talk about cutting welfare, I believe they mean cutting back on spending to most of the programs that benefit people who choose not to work. IE cutting the incentives to not be productive. I mentioned medicaid paying for braces while most insurances you pay for dont cover them.

2/2/2010 11:36:43 PM

It's saddening that I have to spell this out for you, but what you've just conveyed to me is that you don't understand numbers.

Your claim: TANF recipients moved in large numbers to social security disability (SSI) after TANF reforms.

The facts:

Quote :

"1993: 14,007,000 welfare recipients, 17,992 welfare recipients receiving SSI 2003: 4,833,000 welfare recipients, 10,331 welfare recipients receiving SSI"

Over this 10 year period TANF persons receiving disability SSI actually decreased by 42%. The reason the ratio of SSI recipients per 1000 TANF recipients increased is because the denominator, total TANF recipients, decreased even more, 65%.

Not that any of the above even needs to be said, SSI disability recipients associated with TANF are literally .2% of all TANF recipients. The fact that you're trying to make some point about TANF reforms not mattering because "they all went on disability" is laughable.

Which still of course doesn't even address my original point, which is that this thread is full of idiot's trashing "welfare", who have no idea what they're talking about.

Quote :

"And just for the record. TANF is not the same thing as Welfare. It is simply one in a host of programs that make up different aspects of welfare. (my original point) When people talk about cutting welfare, I believe they mean cutting back on spending to most of the programs that benefit people who choose not to work. IE cutting the incentives to not be productive. I mentioned medicaid paying for braces while most insurances you pay for dont cover them."

Translation: I've been proven factually incorrect on every point so far, so I'll just keep changing the parameters of the debate so I don't have to acknowledge my mistaken positions.

[Edited on February 2, 2010 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2010 11:43:04 PM

It's never just been about "welfare" specifically. Social Security and Medicare are the things that have to be dealt with. Government policy has nurtured a culture of dependency. There are a huge group of elderly people that depend on SS and Medicare for their lives. So, now we're in this predicament where it's either Grandma dies or we get crushed under our own debt. If we were going to phase out entitlements, it needed to start 15 years ago. We don't have 15 years to do it this time, though. That is the harsh reality that no one, myself included, wants to face, but we either face it or there will be dire consequences.

2/3/2010 8:43:10 AM

^I think you can start phasing out the plans, by moving younger generations into private accounts. Continue to pay current retirees with the employers portion, phase down reimbursements past a certain age, increase the age to get it. Stop putting these funds in the general fund would have solved this problem, but politicians just cant help themselves. I think the best thing for SS is private accounts that then can be willed to your family, thus building real wealth over time. The govt could then cover a difference up to a level.

The medicare thing might take care of itself. There is about a 40% reimbursement cut looming, it keeps getting pushed back. Once that hits, a lot of doctors simply will drop the insurance. Making people pay for most routine care out of pocket. (this is a good thing) Im not sure what hospitals will do, but im guessing they will have no other choice but to take the lower payments. I think rural hospitals will close and the bigger ones can make it up in volume. Who knows.


As for scott, I showed you what the incentive was to move to SSI, financially to the person and the state, and even showed you the govt conclusion that after reform the amount of people shifting from TANF to SSI increased. I dont know what else I can do for you. But thanks for your input.

"Our analysis indicates that the incidence of SSI awards among TANF recipients has been much greater in recent years than it was during the early 1990s"

2/3/2010 10:01:27 AM

I don't want higher taxes b/c I don't think I receive benefits fitting the taxes I already pay.

social security needs to be removed from the 'one big pot' method to a 'you pay into your account attached to your SSN' it becomes a forced savings plan that the government runs and invests/subsidizes keeping up or slightly passing inflation. past a certain age you will be allowed access to the money.

but that makes too much fucking sense so they won't do it.

[Edited on February 3, 2010 at 1:06 PM. Reason : s]

2/3/2010 1:04:19 PM

Quote :

"As for scott, I showed you what the incentive was to move to SSI, financially to the person and the state, and even showed you the govt conclusion that after reform the amount of people shifting from TANF to SSI increased. I dont know what else I can do for you. But thanks for your input. "Our analysis indicates that the incidence of SSI awards among TANF recipients has been much greater in recent years than it was during the early 1990s""

Repeating a statement that's been proven incorrect doesn't make it any more correct. This is the funny part of internet debates. You (apparently) got into medical school and I know you read what I wrote and on some level understand that your earlier claims are wrong, yet you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong (much less change your mindset on the issue at hand).

It would be funnier except for the fact that this is the major fundamental problem the US faces. Forget social security, healthcare, welfare, etc. All of those "problems" are only problems because the government is so dysfunctional that the actions needed to fix the problems are impossible. Why so? Because the majority of americans are idiots like eyedrb.

We have a person who made it through college and medical school arguing till he's blue in the face a point that with 2 minutes of internet research can be proven factually incorrect. If he's mailing it in for whatever reason, what hope do we have for the "average" american sitting at home watching fox news to understand and support good solutions to the problems we face. The government is only dysfunctional to the extent the population at large allows it to be, and unfortunately it is allowed to be very dysfunctional.

2/3/2010 5:59:22 PM

i like that more and more people are agreeing that we dont need taxes. where is the law that says we have to pay taxes? not in teh constitution? private business does everything better. which is better, a barnes and noble or the library. BARNES AND NOBLE!

private busnesses need to get politically angry and involved before we are just forced to pay money to support liberals and their voters (welfare).

2/3/2010 6:32:36 PM

Quote :

"social security needs to be removed from the 'one big pot' method to a 'you pay into your account attached to your SSN' it becomes a forced savings plan that the government runs and invests/subsidizes keeping up or slightly passing inflation. past a certain age you will be allowed access to the money."

the problem is where would they get the money to pay out the social security benefits right now? The government spent all the social security money the baby-boomers generation put in instead of saving it for right now.

2/3/2010 9:35:22 PM

^I think you could continue to put the employers portion towards the current retirees. So basically our generation would only get half the money. THe amount that collects wont be enough to cover the current retirees so you need to raise the SS cap, raise the age of retirement, cut benefits by a percentage, and have the govt cover the rest. Better draw out those IOUs on a short term basis than an infinite one.

I think the best thing would be allowing your money to be willed to your family, thus building real wealth over generations.

2/4/2010 9:16:57 AM