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.

 

POLITICS: Personal Accounts Tank in Polls, GOP Says

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

It's funny. The guy who made the plan, Roosevelt, didn't think privatization was a bad idea, but a necessity.


You are SO wrong.
Meia Matters: Distorting FDR: Bennett and Hume claimed father of Social Security system wanted privatization
James Roosevelt Jr: Hume's "outrageous distortion" of FDR "calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation"




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   

What planet are you from? You have to pay the federal tax, right? But that's your money, right? And why aren't you allowed to use drugs? It's your life, after all.

If you drive a car, you MUST get insured against liability. Just in case. Of course, by your logic, this is wrong -- you take a gamble with your nest egg if you are sued for damages, so why and who cares?


Drugs, and insurance are completely different matters. You can cause phsyical or economic harm to others by doing it, unlike someone doing something which simply affects themselves.

I'd prefer a world where we didn't need any government. That's unrealistic, and probably won't happen. We need a government ultimately to protect people from direct threats posed by other people. Meaning someone can't come and steal or kill you. At the same time, our government should not be able to try and protect people from themselves. People should be able to make whatever dumb decisions they want as long as they don't hurt other people.


Not having the ultimate safety net will mean that a fraction of the population will be destitute. This we can't allow to happen.


We can't allow people to make mistakes? You know, it's always funny hearing liberals talk about their economic programs. You complain about big brother government when Bush passes the Patriot Act, yet support telling other people how to spend their hard earned money, and force them to give charity to poorly run government programs.


There are how many people w/o medical insurance in this country? One example what happens when things in essential services go private. Now, if you don't have that insurance and your wife has a kidney problem (hopefully curable), what the heck do you do. Many working people cannot afford it.


And in nations with free healthcare the systems become so bogged down that people can't get the same quality service they get from private healthcare.

So yea, you give everyone the service, it's just a very watered down service from what most people would get through the private sector.


You are SO wrong.
Meia Matters: Distorting FDR: Bennett and Hume claimed father of Social Security system wanted privatization
James Roosevelt Jr: Hume's "outrageous distortion" of FDR "calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation"


I'm wrong, huh? It sounds like Roosevelt was calling for the exact same thing Bush is now. People can take some of the money they pay to Social Security and instead put into private accounts.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Kudos to Boxer, Pilosi and the rest of the misinformation Democrats for muddying up the waters enough to kill any chance of reform.


Who's running around the country muddying the waters with misinformation? :shk:


Q: "How is the new plan going to fix Social Security?"

"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost
drivers. For example, how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the
table. Whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price
increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being
considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers,
affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get
what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has
been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look,
there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are
calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of
prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise
based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that
would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how
fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that
growth is affected, it will help on the red."


That's mah boy Bush!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
I guess it's easier to insult Bush instead of giving an actual argument...



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I guess it's easier to insult Bush instead of giving an actual argument...


If posting his exact defense of how his plan to save Social security will work is perceived as an insult, you have bigger problems than Bush bashing.

Or did I accidentally stumble into the Nacy Pelosi bashing only zone?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   

If posting his exact defense of how his plan to save Social security will work is perceived as an insult, you have bigger problems than Bush bashing.


He said there was no way not to change the amount of benefits everyone gets without going into huge debt, and he was right. Just because he said it in a dumb way doesn't mean anything.

And if someone bashed liberals or Democrats in this thread, they actually explained their reasoning.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join