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.

 

Greens protest Obama Administration proposals that would dismantle Social Security, public housing

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
www.gp.org...


The Obama Administration's current plans to roll back Social Security and mortgage off all public housing amount to privatization schemes to dismantle public services, said Green Party candidates and leaders.


President Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is expected to recommend cutting Social Security for future retirees, and the president himself has said "everything has to be on the table." The commission is stacked with conservatives hostile to Social Security.


The Obama Administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted legislation to Congress (PETRA, the Preservation, Enhancement and Transformation of Rental Assistance Ac) that would privatize public housing and allow the new owners to impose 10% above the market rate in the rental fees for poor tenants, to be covered mainly by taxpayers.


Democrats? What is that? Don't you just mean Republicans with a different name?

I am so sick of Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans, the Congress and every other of the pieces of crap in our state and national governments all hell bent of subserviance to the Corporations at the cost of the lives of our troops and Americans.

I don't know about the rest of you but I am voting Green this november. They even made it mandatory that none of their candidates take any donations from big business.




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Wow privatising public housing and slowly dismantling social security would be steps in the right direction. Therefore, I doubt Obama will have any part of it.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by Misoir
 


Wow privatising public housing and slowly dismantling social security would be steps in the right direction.


Dismantling social security? What a great idea! Let those old folks that lost all their retirement in the crash just starve. They were so stupid to think their companies were honorable and secure their retirment. They deserve what they get.

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


If you look in the area where you quoted what I said you will see the phrase "slowly dismantling". Meaning slow in order to phase the system out over time.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The writing is on the wall. Entitlements are unsustainable, Social security needs to go back to its original design, helping the elderly in the last years of life, not a bunch of drunks and drug addicts collecting SSI disability.
If the boy wonder Obama is willing to touch the third rail it shows you how much trouble we are in.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Also, what needs to be done as SS is phased out is to start to gradually raise the retirement age to 75.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Indeed we live in very sad times. It does'nt matter who you vote for because in the end you always get a "lets destroy every possible public institution so we can privatise it" republican.

And what happened to the small parties? How come nobody other than their mother knows anything about them? Is the blackout intentional? Of course it is!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by whaaa
 


Also, what needs to be done as SS is phased out is to start to gradually raise the retirement age to 75.


Nah...80 is better since people are living to the age of 83!

Better yet, give ss benefits to the surrviving widow and if both are dead give it to the children. "A government by the people, for the people"



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Ok, we can do 80 if you want.

What is 5 years in either direction?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I'm not going to act like I know what's best for everyone or that I have all the facts, but I personally believe that putting public housing in the hands of private organizations could go horribly wrong. I'd only be in favor of it if there were very strict guidelines that had to be followed to insure that people already down on the luck aren't take further advantage of.

But of course we wont be anywhere near the room these discussions take place so it looks like we have to trust the same people who have proven they can't get things straight.

Thanks Washington.


Unseen



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Unseenmonument
 


Dude, they have been privatising public housing around here for the last 10 years. The goal is to mix them with others so you dont have one huge group of crime in one area like a housing project. Seems to work well and the people get better places to live.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Three Legs
 


Propaganda is in control of Uncle Sam. Sheepels can be convinced to be in their interest to raise the retirement age to be 100 after all manipulation of data is part of their magic. We all want to help uncle sam to balance the budget. Let us pass on our pay cheque to them for spending it. In fact we should thank them for doing so. Rob us for health, for gas and transportation, for homes, any thing that belong to us, rob us. Uncle sam doesn't need to blind fold us and we don't need FEMA Camps because we will not fight uncle sam.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by Unseenmonument
 


Dude, they have been privatising public housing around here for the last 10 years. The goal is to mix them with others so you dont have one huge group of crime in one area like a housing project. Seems to work well and the people get better places to live.


I think you're confusing privatization with gentrification. You're right about one thing; there's less crime in the ghettos because they let the gangsters move in next to you. Which of course means more crime in your neighborhood. Don't wonder why your property values plummet or your local school is going downhill. Thanks Freddie, Fannie!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by Unseenmonument
 


Dude, they have been privatising public housing around here for the last 10 years. The goal is to mix them with others so you dont have one huge group of crime in one area like a housing project. Seems to work well and the people get better places to live.


I think you're confusing privatization with gentrification. You're right about one thing; there's less crime in the ghettos because they let the gangsters move in next to you. Which of course means more crime in your neighborhood. Don't wonder why your property values plummet or your local school is going downhill. Thanks Freddie, Fannie!


The same jewish house flippers that defrauded the banks and brought us this financial crisis? You make $400 a week...ah, no problem we write down $700!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
The whole point of Social Security in the first place was that the masses, the proles, couldn't manage their money and would not save up enough for retirement so government run by the elite had to come in and take money out of people's paychecks, setting it aside and saving it so the masses would have money when they reached retirement age.

What happened? The elite did the exact thing they accused the masses of doing, they mismanaged the money.

Cut all the defense spending, end all the wars including the drug war and the government would be overflowing in cash and would have no reason at all to keep taking money out of social security and replacing it with IOUs.

It's all a con job by the elite to rip off the masses.

The elite have been trying to force the masses into serfdom and slavery since the beginning of recorded history. It is a never ending battle they have waged against the masses with the masses only occasionally awakening to it and rebelling in an attempt to take back some freedom for themselves.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
And yet, You will always have the poor with you.

Should they 'eat cake'?

The USA continues to give aid to foreign countries and 'police' or 'organize' their wars and activities at the cost of billions upon billions potentially trillions of dollars.

And yet, your president does not want to take care of his own?

Isn't there a hefty price to be paid for that kind of out right neglect?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I wonder when Obama will roll back all the benefits given to retired Pollies and high ranking public servants???

Now that would be "Change we can believe in "



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Elliot
 


What would be his punishment? Oh right we elect a Republican. That is sooo much better.

Do you want a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich?

Well what's different?

One is a Giant Douche and the other is a Giant Douche too, but he just wanted to change his name to Turd Sandwich to make you think you have options.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three Legs
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Ok, we can do 80 if you want.

What is 5 years in either direction?


Considering the elderly have a difficult time getting hired even in a growing job market; just where is it you propose them to find employment at, considering we're around 20% unemployment (the real numbers, not the figures issues via government propaganda) and continuing to loose jobs at an alarming rate? In addition, I don't see programs out there to assist the elderly as far as learning new skills or job training. So again; what do you propose they do? Hmmm....with all the new WALMARTS opening up on virtually every corner, maybe they can all be greeters
Ah...but that's where OBAMACARE comes in....now it all suddenly makes sense. WE'RE JUST GOING TO EUTHENIZE THEM, RIGHT????




[edit on 6-6-2010 by Morgan Le Fay]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Morgan Le Fay
 





now it all suddenly makes sense. WE'RE JUST GOING TO EUTHENIZE THEM, RIGHT????



that would be my guess, so can we at least have the money we paid into SS, to bury us?




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join