It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The ATS BOWL, What Do YOU Want From Politicians

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




When it comes to politics, what are your main points?
What do you want to see from a politician?
What do you want to change/stay the same?


Politicians shouldn't be in gov.

I don't want to see politicians in gov.

The gov. should be run by ordinary people picked from the population
(lottery) and rotated every two years. Heads of state and the executive
branch have teams of advisers. Gov. for the people by the people.
edit on 2-12-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:02 AM
link   
What do I want from politicians...

The short one word answer would usually be: Nothing. Maybe couched with some colorful metaphors...but in essence...nothing.

In reality? They are there to do things that we either have no time to do, or interest in doing.

Fix roads. Deliver the mail in a timely fashion. Fix roads--did I mention that already?

What I most assuredly do not need from them is attempts to tell me that they know what I need better than I do myself. I'm clueless most of the time in that regard--how in the Hell do they expect to know better what I want or need?

Mostly just leave me the **bleep** alone. Fix the **bleepin'** roads, and stay the **bleep** outta everything else.

Oh, and maybe just for **bleeps** and giggles...secure the **bleepin'** borders? Then stay the Hell outta my business, and my neighbors.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:34 AM
link   
In no particular order:


Follow the Constitution.

Follow the Constitution.

And just to see if it works, Follow the Constitution.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
In no particular order:


Follow the Constitution.

Follow the Constitution.

And just to see if it works, Follow the Constitution.

I mean it is really that simple, but let's be real our constitution has been eroded and interpreted already.

So lets focus on the future



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

If I could applause you I would.

I can't argue with a word you said



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Vector99

Smaller government .
Better more efficient use of our tax money.

holy crap, did you just become a fiscal conservative?



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Just need someone to crack the whip on it. And trust me, the one that finally does it will draw a level of hate that will make Trump look beloved by everyone in comparison. That’s why it will take a non-politician President to do it. And one that is quick-witted enough to psychologically turn the tables every single time it is needed.

And while it would be a one man show, it wouldn’t be a one man job. It would take some very trusted advisors to signal when to hold back a bit. So as to not drop all the cards on the table at once. Tricky. And the hard part is they would have to b young enough to hold a second term in reserve as a threat to be back to fix it again.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Yep, JFK was assassinated for a reason



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99



It's actually their money, paid into the system, and no different than individuals paying into a 401k.


No, it's not. Yes that's how it is sold to the american people but that is not how it is run. The dollars people are receiving today are from the tax receipts of today, not from the dollars they paid into the system.



If we are to phase it out we would have to spend a ton of money that just isn't there


See you even recognize that this isn't actually their money paid into the system.



Social Security is actually one of the solvent branches of social care, and thats because legally it has to be.


But it isn't actually. As pointed out before if they took your money and held onto it, they'd have 290k to give back to you. That would be solvent. Instead they take your money and spend it. As of FY2020 (which we are now in) social security outlays will exceed social security income. IOW the government will be paying out more than they're taking in. It is inevitably insolvent now unless social security taxes are raised or benefits are cut.

The date of full on insolvency is in 2035, that's when they will no longer be able to pay it. Social security has a baked in mechanism to cope with this: a 20% cut on all beneficiaries payments. IOW if we don't start phasing it out for those not drawing it right now or in the next 20 years or so, everyone is going to suffer from it.



In a nation of 330+ million can you really ween away from a taxed program that provides an income for the otherwise un-employable?


I think you could but you'd have to message it right. You have phase it out so slowly that it's almost unnoticed and start telling people under 25 or 30 right now that they'll get nothing from SS.

I haven't run the exact numbers but you could run a regressive tax by age. The kids are going to have to pay for their parents addiction to other people's money. It is the parents who have been irresponsible and it's the kids that will have to clean it up. The kids need to suck it up and deal with it like adults and the parents need to admit to the fault and help where they can. It does no good to point fingers and deny reality, for either side.

So to make the pain more fair you implement a higher SS tax on people over, say 45, and a lower tax on people under 30. You can even tie the tax cut to self funding retirement accounts as I pointed out earlier.

Like all socialism, eventually you run out of other people's money so your question of 'can you,' is really moot. Eventually, if you don't do it responsibly, you have a crash that results in mass hunger. So the real question is, do you have the guts and fortitude to own up to your irresponsibility and fix it before it causes real mayhem?



I am for restructuring of social security, but not the elimination of it, because plain and simple people are stupid and will take an extra dollar a week over it going to retirement.


But the government is also stupid and spends the money rather than hangs onto it like they claim. Expecting government to manage your money because you're too dumb to is not a solution that yields positive results in the long run, as we're about to find out just a few generations into SS.

Social security started as a 1% tax but it goes insolvent so often that it's now up to 7.65%. It has had 20 increases in 75 years. That's not a sustainable program.

Now I could probably be convinced to adopt the Australian model (e.g. you contribute x amount of your income to retirement or you pay a penalty tax), but the current structure of SS is fatally flawed. I don't think you can "reform" or "restructure" it enough.
edit on 2-12-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash


Of course Ron was going nowhere in 12, his own son went and backed Romney.


And if his endorsement would’ve made the difference we would have been stuck with Romney. But at least he would’ve been better than Obama .

It’s politics if you’re in the game you’ve got to play them sometimes .


And after what Trump said about Ron, I've considered him an establishment puppet ever since.


Trump talks smack about everybody . That’s his style and apparently it works . Lol


But really, as entertaining all this has been, I still would prefer liberty as promised by our founding documents.


Rand Paul has pushed for state rights since his college days .

You should really look at him a little closer without the bias .

You can read all the articles talking # about him like his endorsement or he how he had to maneuver on the USA freedom act .

He ruffled a lot of feathers when he re-introduced his dad’s audit the fed bill. (All but 1 Republican voted in favor of it and all but 2 Democrat voted against it)


Stuff like that makes you wonder if that’s the reason the media stays on his ass .


Our judicial and executive and legislative branches have proven to me they don't understand natural rights or liberty, and to them it's all a big game with $$$ and ego-trips.


It’s not their fault it’s our fault.

We kept electing the wrong people they were all career politicians .

Until 2016 maybe you should get behind trump a little more .

The MSM crap’s on Trump just like they crapped on the Pauls.

There’s a reason for that .



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:04 AM
link   


What Do YOU Want From Politicians


Not a damn thing.

I want to be left alone.

I want my speech,my money,my guns, and my land LEFT THE EFF ALONE.

And the DEpolitization of film and televsion wouldn't hurt.

I want my reality break to be a break from reality.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm curious of the phase out social security, that is actually one of the socialistic programs our country has that I agree with, rest I agree with you on.

Why eliminate social security?


Normal investments, you pay $100k today for $200k in 30 years.
Social security, you pay $100k today for $110k in 30 years.

The ROI for social security continues to drop every year. It used to be about 6% I think now it's down to about 1%.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Secure borders, end to illegal immigration.

Balanced budget, start to decrease the debt rather than increase it.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If you're only doubling your money every thirty years you are getting a terrible rate of return lol... but it's still better than social security!



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Social security in it's inception wasn't flawed, and as you stated it was insurance policies that wouldn't be claimed.

However, we have increased lifespans, and SS never accounted for that, so we are stuck in a rut



Now I could probably be convinced to adopt the Australian model (e.g. you contribute x amount of your income to retirement or you pay a penalty tax)

That's exactly what SS is.

Not every individual is eligible for it. You have to pay in a certain amount to be eligible.

I think we have a major misunderstanding of how it works.

You pay in a certain amount, and by your numbers, 290k is paid in and 270k is redeemed, leaving a surplus.

That won't change, if anything the amount paid in will continue to exceed the recipients benefits because the eligibility to claim said benefits keeps changing.

When I'm finally eligible for it, I'll probably be 80, but with lifespans reaching into the 90's, well you have to make adjustments. The average lifespan when SS was conceived was 62. Now it's near the 70's, most people will live to be 70+

ATS crashed due to an invasive ADWARE, and my well thought out post became this,

F.U. ATS, fix your ad shizz



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




Social security in it's inception wasn't flawed, and as you stated it was insurance policies that wouldn't be claimed.


Wasn't flawed ?

Forced taxation of not only the employee,but employer.

Ontop of that it was never designed to be self funding. The entire idea behind 'safety' nets.

Medicare taxes being taking out of a social security check to pay for healthcare 'costs'

Then adding more insult create NEW taxes like the medicare surtax on capital gains.

Social Security is FLAWED as it gets.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So what do we do as a nation to ensure the elderly that live past their working age but have no retirement do to have an income?



edit on 2-12-2019 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




That's exactly what SS is.


The Australian model is that I don't have to pay SS tax if I'm contributing to my personal retirement account.



That won't change, if anything the amount paid in will continue to exceed the recipients benefits because the eligibility to claim said benefits keeps changing.


That's how they're trying to keep it solvent. Adjust the benefit side. But according to the latest analysis (I linked in my other post) they are taking in less than they are paying out starting in 2020. That's possible even with the 290k over your lifetime vs 270k paid out, because population growth has slowed and they didn't actually save your 290k, they spent it elsewhere.
edit on 2-12-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

They do what it clearly states on the benefit sheet.

SS IS NOT meant or intended as a persons sole means of income.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Either way you are paying a tax to ensure your retirement and be able to be a 70 yr old guy or gal that can basically live.

The Aussie model is a bit different in the mean that it won't guarantee you an income if you are left to manage the funds yourself, you might make bad decisions with it.

I don't see how that is better, you are being taxed the same, if not more, and you are relying on markets to benefit yourself. Market crashes, well buh bye, everything you had in it. Probably wishing you had that 1% guarantee at that point.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join