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.
Originally posted by spliff4020
So, basicly more of the same. "We're Broke!!"----"We're FINE !!!" I am totaly lost. Why cant the government put more money into it, if thats what it needs? Wouldnt that $350 million come in handy, or perhaps, the $80 billion and counting in Iraq help out? I'm not saying use THAT money, but, if we got money for all that, why not none for SS? Don't our citizens come first?
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
A couple of things here:
1) The government has plenty of money, which does not all come from taxes.
What money would that be? Granted there is some from sale of things like land and rental fees but those are a tiny fraction of the federal budget.
Originally posted by Ritual
Totally against.
Private social security is a joke. It is going to become the biggest fraud's in history.
The government needs to keep control over these things, because they have to uphold the responsibility. Privatize it and you get the Social Security firms skipping country and you are screwed.
Plus long drawn out court cases when they dont pay what they should, etc etc.
This is a bad idea. Bush is an idiot. He should just stick to going through the motions, and pretend like he has a clue about how to wage war.
Bush if your reading this, dissapear to the unnoficial white house you made for yourself with the armadillos for four more years, and hope that there isnt equal idiots running in 2008 that you and Kerry were.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I guess tariffs might be considered taxes, but I mis-spoke. I meant that all are not income tax (which is what I thought you were saying).
My mistake.
I have actually been trying to find out where the government gets it's money, and in what percentages from those many sources for some time now.
It seems impossible.
Originally posted by Kahuna
I say make people responsible for their own retirement again. Let me invest where I see fit and if I risk it all on lousy investments then let me live in the street.
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Originally posted by Kahuna
I say make people responsible for their own retirement again. Let me invest where I see fit and if I risk it all on lousy investments then let me live in the street.
That's an interesting idea. But, you know some will be moaning they lost their $$. Some will be moaning some crook took their $$. Some will be moaning they couldn't save enough with their measly wages. And some lawyers will probably make $$ off these souls.
And asssuming somenew and better plan could be devised for the future? When does it go into effect? When would the cutoff age be?
What about all of the Americans in their 50s and older who will count on SSI, even if they have other income. Their extra income was meant to subsidize SSI, not replace it.