quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Looking at the demographics and the parties' platforms, the claim isn't so farfetched.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this was indeed one of the topics brought up in the "debate" the other night. its too bad everyone didn't get a chance to weigh-in. chris Christie believes in raising the retirement age, and doing means-testing.
mike Huckabee believes that social security can be wholly funded by a consumption tax.
if i am remembering rightly, rand paul, though he didn't mention it on stage---has said before he believes his tax system could eliminate the payroll taxes and still fully fund social security.
personally, i think id like to see social security phased out completely and have people be able to keep the money they earn and invest it for retirement as they see fit.
there'd have to be an awful lot of emphasis on investing and retirement education in the early high school years...and encouragement too.
and then someone would have to come up with the answer to the question, what do you do with the folks who perhaps didn't plan for their golden years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Looking at the demographics and the parties' platforms, the claim isn't so farfetched.

Thats the claim, its also the bullshit...... [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The main problem with getting rid of Social Security is in how pervasive it is in our culture. There are people who are banking on SS to fund their retirement. That means, they aren't doing anything on their own. If we got rid of SS and left it up to the people who earned the money, there would be a generation or two that would be fucked, before the post-SS culture took hold and people started taking care of themselves. In the meantime, though, things would go to shit.

I'd be more likely to support SS going the way of personalized retirement accounts, like W wanted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this was indeed one of the topics brought up in the "debate" the other night. its too bad everyone didn't get a chance to weigh-in. chris Christie believes in raising the retirement age, and doing means-testing.

mike Huckabee believes that social security can be wholly funded by a consumption tax.

if i am remembering rightly, rand paul, though he didn't mention it on stage---has said before he believes his tax system could eliminate the payroll taxes and still fully fund social security.

personally, i think id like to see social security phased out completely and have people be able to keep the money they earn and invest it for retirement as they see fit.

there'd have to be an awful lot of emphasis on investing and retirement education in the early high school years...and encouragement too.

and then someone would have to come up with the answer to the question, what do you do with the folks who perhaps didn't plan for their golden years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this was indeed one of the topics brought up in the "debate" the other night. its too bad everyone didn't get a chance to weigh-in. chris Christie believes in raising the retirement age, and doing means-testing.
mike Huckabee believes that social security can be wholly funded by a consumption tax.
if i am remembering rightly, rand paul, though he didn't mention it on stage---has said before he believes his tax system could eliminate the payroll taxes and still fully fund social security.
personally, i think id like to see social security phased out completely and have people be able to keep the money they earn and invest it for retirement as they see fit.
there'd have to be an awful lot of emphasis on investing and retirement education in the early high school years...and encouragement too.
and then someone would have to come up with the answer to the question, what do you do with the folks who perhaps didn't plan for their golden years.

The main problem with getting rid of Social Security is in how pervasive it is in our culture. There are people who are banking on SS to fund their retirement. That means, they aren't doing anything on their own. If we got rid of SS and left it up to the people who earned the money, there would be a generation or two that would be fucked, before the post-SS culture took hold and people started taking care of themselves. In the meantime, though, things would go to shit.

I'd be more likely to support SS going the way of personalized retirement accounts, like W wanted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Please back up your claim regarding party vs recipient.....

quote:

As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday Friday, the federal government's largest benefit program stands at a pivotal point in its history.

Relatively modest changes to taxes and benefits could still save it for generations of Americans to come, but Congress must act quickly, and even limited changes are politically difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this was indeed one of the topics brought up in the "debate" the other night. its too bad everyone didn't get a chance to weigh-in. chris Christie believes in raising the retirement age, and doing means-testing.
mike Huckabee believes that social security can be wholly funded by a consumption tax.
if i am remembering rightly, rand paul, though he didn't mention it on stage---has said before he believes his tax system could eliminate the payroll taxes and still fully fund social security.
personally, i think id like to see social security phased out completely and have people be able to keep the money they earn and invest it for retirement as they see fit.
there'd have to be an awful lot of emphasis on investing and retirement education in the early high school years...and encouragement too.
and then someone would have to come up with the answer to the question, what do you do with the folks who perhaps didn't plan for their golden years.

The main problem with getting rid of Social Security is in how pervasive it is in our culture. There are people who are banking on SS to fund their retirement. That means, they aren't doing anything on their own. If we got rid of SS and left it up to the people who earned the money, there would be a generation or two that would be fucked, before the post-SS culture took hold and people started taking care of themselves. In the meantime, though, things would go to shit.
I'd be more likely to support SS going the way of personalized retirement accounts, like W wanted.

I don't disagree it would take a generation or two in order for the paradigm to shift psychologically and in the meantime, lots of people would shoot themselves in the foot. that's why I posed the question of what do we do with them until everyone got their acts together.
by "personalized retirement accounts", are you meaning its still a government induced program in that its still "mandated" somehow, but it just goes to where each individual person wants it, as opposed to government coffers?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOCIAL_SECURITY_AT_80?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Meanwhile back on point from the ap

quote:

As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday Friday, the federal government's largest benefit program stands at a pivotal point in its history.

Relatively modest changes to taxes and benefits could still save it for generations of Americans to come, but Congress must act quickly, and even limited changes are politically difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Looking at the demographics and the parties' platforms, the claim isn't so farfetched.

Thats the claim, its also the bullshit...... [8|]

wanna see some really good bullshit?

ARTICLE 2
http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Texts/uk.html

How did queenie get jurisdiction over what we want to believe is the the land of the free he he he he he! [:-]

quote:

ORIGINAL: bossman777

And don't forget that conservatives give far more to charity than the supposed caring, loving, democrat. There's been plenty published on that in recent years. Check out http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0 for example.

The same is true even in giving of blood! "If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent."

It's pretty clear to me that political leftists (I hate using the term 'liberal' for leftists because they are anything but) are the stingy, selfish, greedy persons they like to accuse conservatives of being. They're truly only generous with other people's money.

quote:

The top priorities of the American Red Cross are the safety of our volunteer blood donors and the ultimate recipients of blood. On June 11, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability voted against recommending a change to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy of a lifetime deferral for men who have sex with other men. The FDA is responsible for determining donor eligibility requirements and the Red Cross is required to follow their decisions. However, the Red Cross does support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities. We will continue to work through the AABB (American Association of Blood Banks) to press for donor deferral policies that are fair and consistent and based on scientific evidence, while still protecting patients from potential harm.