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.

 

Bush's desperate attempt to ditch social security:

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Thanks for vote the Kidfinger...
I just hope the rest of America see's things for the way they are before it's too late.




posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
His claims that social security is broken beyond repair are spurrious at best. Social security does have many problems, but these relate to congress treating it as a slush fund instead of leaving it the hell alone.

The last thing I want is social security to turn into a 401K. We saw what happened to peoples entire 401ks when Enron went bust. And the stock market is hardly what I call reliable, the last thing I want is the govornment giving my money to corporate scum like Enron to entrust them with it. We are much better off simply making social security money off limits to congress and putting it in intrest earning bank accounts. 401Ks are no longer safe, and I dont feel like risking my retirement on the whims of cooperate America.

If you want to know what will happen when social security is privatized, look no further than the mess that happened with Chile.

www.socsec.org...



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
But Skadi, Haliburton would never pull a Enron, right? I mean, there will never be another Great Deprssion, will there?(oh wait, Bush created a economy equal to the GP, which was created by a rep/ president, later fixed by a dem)

What I like is the timeline project. You get a timeline from 1915 to today, and mark who was president, what party they were in, and what the economy was like. If you do it, you see the exact same pattern over and over and over.

Dem in power, booming economy, IE the roaring 20s, then a republican is voted in, and the Great Depression. But then a dem is voted in, and we become thee super power of the world! Rep down, dem up, rep down, dem up, rep down, rep down rep down, CLINTON!!!! UP UP UP UP UP! Greatest Economy EVER! Then Bush in power and we have the #hole equal to the GP called the American Economy Today.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Not true, James, as far as parties go. President Eisenhower, a Republican, presided over on of the greatest periods of prosperity in American History, although it could be argued that Eisenhower was originally a Democrat. And in the 60's, which was a period of economic decline, was presided over by Democrats. Also, the economy went to crap under Carter, and rebounded under Regan. However, I personally dont believe the President or the ruling party really have a direct effect over the overall economy. Clinton had the revolting habit of taking credit for the economic boom of the 90's, a miracle he had nothing to do with and no right to take credit for.

I also don't believe Republicans are a bad party per se, and have often had more respect for Republicans than I have for recent democrats, whom some, not all, but some, have degenrated into whiners. The Republicans degenrated into religous nuts when the Religous right took over what was once the common sense party.

So it has nothing to do with political parties, only the ethical standing of the administration in office. I would not trust my retirement in the hands of Haliburton or Heinz ketchup.

Bush did not start the economic downturn, that was occuring when Clinton was still in office. he has, however, through his faulty policies, aggrivated the situation and made it worse. And of the Democrats did not have the balls to interfere and take a stand, they are as guilty as the Republicans are.

But I highly disagree with your assesment of parties vs economic status, as there really isnt any correlation. if we were to do that, then I could call Democrats the war mongering party, since the vast majority of wars and militarty actions in the past century were started when democrats were in. (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Bosnia, Clintons airstrikes against Afghanistan, our involvement in Haiti, as compared to republican conflicts, such as Gulf Wars 1&2, Somalia, Grenada, and Panama).

I dont care who is in office, what matters is what they do.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
The only thing simple in all this is Democrats don't want people to have power over THEIR money. Under this plan If you don't want to invest in the market, you don't have to. Once again...simple.


The crap people will fall for!


Not sure if you're referring to me as a Democrat.. I wouldn't doubt it.
I'm not, btw.

Guess what? You ALREADY have power over your money. I guess you missed that, SOMEHOW.
It's certain members of this administration and their cronies (who stand to gain a percentage of YOUR $$) who have confused the soft minds among us on that.

Wise up. Otherwise you'll be giving a new percentage of your money away for no good reason - not to mention the fact that your money/future will be even less secure.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
Wrong! If you choose not to participate, nothing will change from the current system.


God they love people like you!


What part of YOU ALREADY CAN do what you want with your $$ don't you understand?!





[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join