Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Tea party leaders say they would ‘absolutely’ abolish Social Security.

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 17, 2011, 8:48 p.m. EST by Puzzlin (2898)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Let's get the trolls over here. This thread is your big chance to entertain the rest of us with your antics as you try to poke holes in something that is absolutely true. Many of us guess that you have sympathies for the Tea Party. May be true, maybe not. Let's see.

But here it is. If you have any tea party sympathy you must show here. If too many realize this truth I'm exposing here and become aware of it, it will bode well to the party. Your Tea Bagging Parties will most definitely be just a distant memory trivia question.

But just how do you defend yourself from the obvious truth. There's the link. The statements. The video. This is full exposure. Now it's just to see who wants chime in and where do we go. But, be forewarned, the light on this thread is blazingly bright.

I just want the confirmation so we understand it completely and confirming it here with this community of 99%ers. I am firmly in this movement and as many will attest we are just getting started. Awareness is spreading.

Also, let's get this truth right out in the open and let everybody we know about this. It is the epitomy of the Tea Bag Party itself. We need everyone knowing what is they are really about.

Here it IS:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/03/30/89337/teaparty-social-security/

Thanks in advance to all posters. And please, no name calling. Let's keep it clean.

449 Comments

449 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 7 points by internationalist (7) 8 years ago

The US deficit has been created by over ten years of tax cuts for the rich and from the carrying on of numerous military campaigns (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya etc) coupled with the off-shoring of US jobs that led to the destruction of US industry. The tax cuts directly benefited the rich, the wars were carried out to secure oil and other energy resources for the benefit of the corporations and the destruction of US industry and shipping off of jobs to cheap labor havens have been carried out for generating higher profits. Social security had nothing to do with creation of the deficit. When the tea party talks about abolishing social security, they essentially want to destroy the commitment of the US government towards the ordinary people. No more social security means no more spending by the government towards the old, poor and the needy. This will in turn mean that the tax dollars that get saved by abolishing social security can be robbed anew by the rich elite.

[-] 2 points by Restorefreedomtoall1776 (272) from Bayonne, NJ 8 years ago

Like Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens' story, Tea Party folks apparently want a good many people to die, which they will do if social security and other programs to help the poor and downtrodden are ended. Then, they can beat their chests, shout out a Tarzan yell and say, "We have solved the problem because I don't see any vagrants anywhere anymore." Yes, in a Tea Party World, all of those useless eaters (as Tea Partiers think of them) will be dead.

[-] 0 points by NightShade (163) 8 years ago

Help the poor ha! the only people that get on SSI are retards created by the catholic church for the sake that Abortion is bad. Folks that can't support themselves because an immigrate took their job. Not forgetting the useless families who rather have their child on SSI than actually help them financially.

The US is over populated, we had 150 million people living in the US in 1970 because of immigration and lack of contraception education that number has saturated by double.

[-] 0 points by booksgamesvideos (72) 8 years ago

That isn't true that people would be "left to die".

Even if SS was phased-out, the Medicare and Welfare and Food stamps programs would still exist. Folks would not die or starve from lack of government help. It's amazing how many of ye forget these other programs exist.

.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Internationalist,

Very good post. I could not have said it better and you said it for me. I agree 100%. This thread is accomplishing what I hoped for.

The tea party is exposed here and we are now seeing their true colors.

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

Social Security is NOT part of the annual budget, it is separately funded. Not one cent is spent out of the general fund on Social Security.

SSI, however is, but SSI is not Social Security, it is Supplemental Social Income. The only connection between Social Security is that the SSA administers SSI, with the SSA in place there was no need to fund a completely different agency or department for this purpose.

I am not replying as a TP supporter, I have little to no use for that particular party, I am replying to insert some facts about SS into this discussion.

[-] 1 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

"Social Security is NOT part of the annual budget, it is separately funded. Not one cent is spent out of the general fund on Social Security."

That had always been my understanding, but recently, I heard it suggested that when congress borrowed from (Raided!) the surplus in the Social Security trust fund, they arranged to repay the fund and that money comes from the general fund, and hence that is the reason that Social Security now contributes to general expense.

Is this true? Does anyone know for certain how this works?

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

That is the $2.8 trillion dollar debt the government has to Social Security Trust Fund, so yes that money comes from the general fund. The tricky part is that the interest that the trust earns is not paid into the trust but rather to the general fund and that is where the 'payments' are made from. If that is payments were being made, which I have not been able to ascertain.

[-] 2 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

Thank you. Very interesting. Sounds perhaps that if congress had left the SSTF alone, SS might be in pretty good shape. I've also heard it suggested that the immediacy of the crisis has been exaggerated for political purposes in that as it now stands, without modification, it can pay full benefits for an estimated 25 to 40 years, and slightly reduced benefits indefinitely thereafter. I'm neither an accountant of actuary, but I find it telling that most of those who bang the SS crisis gong use scare terms without ever going into any type of fairly simple quantification. Rather it's along the lines of "We have to get Social Security under control to control the deficit."

I smell a rat.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly right on. They try to blame SS for all the current problems we have in this country instead of focusing on real causes like stupid wars. They really do play the fear card constantly as they disguise their intention of abolishing SS by claiming they will fix it. Yeah they will fix it alright. It will be gone soon after.

Good post WatTyler!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

ANd yet more posts advocating the demise of SS. The TP crowd still thrives.

[-] 1 points by booksgamesvideos (72) 8 years ago

No.

There are too many retirees (the baby boomers) and not enough workers. That means SS is already paying-out more money than it collects, and it's only going to get worse.

The only way it could remain solvent is if you raised the tax from the current 15% (split 7.5% between workers + employers) to about 25%, and that would seriously hurt the low and middle income workers

.

[-] 1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 8 years ago

From what I have read, Social Security will break even by 1917. After that is is a losing propisition. There are several websites out there the can provide you with all the info you need to read regarding Social Secutiry. Just google "social security running out of money.

[-] 0 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

Robert Reich has said there is another way. He contends that if the cap on the amount of anual income liable to SS was lifted, SS would remain soluble indefinitely.

[-] 2 points by ubercaput (175) from New York City, NY 8 years ago

Reich and the SS? Wait...

[-] 0 points by booksgamesvideos (72) 8 years ago

The Reich may be right about the SS, but I still don't agree that raising the income liability would fix the shortfall in funds. The program has a fundamental flaw: It's a Ponzi pyramid. Ponzi schemes all collapse eventually (that's why they have been outlawed by the Congress through the FTC)..

I'd prefer an SS program based-upon merit like Welfare and food stamps. You only use those if you need them (below a certain income).

[-] 1 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

It sounds as if you have fundamental policy objections to Social Security, which is your prerogative. This different than your prior post that the current system would become insolvent. I was addressing the later issue, and explained that it CAN remain solvent via the method suggested by Robert Reich.

[-] 0 points by booksgamesvideos (72) 8 years ago

Reich is wrong.

Raising the taxation limit above $100,000(?) will bring additional funds, but it still won't be enough money to keep the SS solvent.

[-] 1 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

What's the math? Frankly, without offense, I tend to have greater confidence in Reich's projections than yours. The only objection I have to means testing is I would see it being used down the road as a wedge to doing aways with SS by those who wish to abandon it.

[-] 0 points by booksgamesvideos (72) 8 years ago

I haven't seen you post numbers either.

In 1950, each retiree’s Social Security benefit was paid for by 16U.S. workers. According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.

.

I'd say that's serious problem. Robert Reich not only claims SS can be made solvent, but also claims that Clinton had 2 years of budget surplus, even though there's no record that ever happened (Treasury.gov shows the debt increased every year). So please excuse me if I reject his math, since he's already demonstrated he's not good at it.

I also find it strange that we've had numerous people, even Democrats like Clinton and Gore and Kerry and Obama, saying Social Security is doomed (will pay-out more than it collects by 2015 or 2020). You mean to tell me ALL those people are wrong, except for one man??? That seems unlikely.

And again I must point-out that SS is a Ponzi pyramid. It's fundamentally flawed from its moment of birth, because all ponzi schemes eventually collapse upon themselves

.

[-] 1 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

I do not have the numbers, and with all respect, it seems neither do you. The arguments you put forward sound far more like rightwing talking points than factual rebuttal. For example: “Robert Reich not only claims SS can be made solvent, but also claims that Clinton had 2 years of budget surplus,”

This may be true, or not, and neither do you offer any proof that any such literal statement was made, or if so, the context in which it was given.

“even though there's no record that ever happened (Treasury.gov shows the debt increased every year). "

This is apples and oranges. Debt is in large measure a product of bonding and does not necessarily relate to current revenues and operating expense.

“So please excuse me if I reject his math, since he's already demonstrated he's not good at it.”

Assuming that all the assertions you offered are factual (Which I do not.) this assertion logically means that if anyone was ever wrong about anything then they must always be wrong about everything. That’s silly. The fact is that evidently neither you nor I possess the needed information and skills to make such pronouncements with reasonable, much less absolute certainty.

I’ve heard and read wildly disparate analyses from ostensible experts regarding Social Security solvency. This of itself tells me that these analyses are, at least in part, agenda driven. Much like the Ponzi scheme drivel. Until I’m convinced that I am in possession of sufficient facts, I will keep an open mind on the issue. You may do as you wish.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 8 years ago

You won't hear it on the news nor a politician speaking about it, unless maybe it's a Bernie Sanders sound bite, his webpage has some of the info, or did have, it could be the page doesn't have enough gig to hold information indefinitely, but there is information that is available online if one digs.

And yes SS can pay benefits for at least 25 years with the present arrangement, put the interest back and it'll be good for much longer without any decrease in benefits.

As I mentioned to another poster, with the 2+trillion debt owed to SS plus the accrued interest on that debt, and the remaining 2+trillion that is currently in the fund, it makes a pretty attractive target.

If you do a search for SS percentages you should be able to locate a page with the percentage of FICA withholdings since the inception of SS, the SSA webpage has some good stuff on it too, check out the FAQ.

[-] 1 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

Thank you. I'll visit Senator Sanders' page. I've often been impressed with his public comments.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago



Absolutely, he's one of the best there is!!!*





99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago


Absolutely, Bernie Sander's is one of the best there is!!!*


[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago



Absolutely, he's one of the best there is!!!*




[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago



..........................................We are Winning!!!





99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

The US deficit was created by the fact that our money is backed by taxation. It is not backed by goods which actually exist. It is backed by goods which WE will produce in the future, which will then be expropriated from us. If a man came to you and tried to trade you 100 pieces of paper he printed for goods you had produced, then told you that you could later exchange those pieces of paper for more pieces of paper which he would have taken from you in the first place through taxation, you would not trade with him. This is what our government is doing through the federal reserve, only they're not owning up to it.

[-] 2 points by internationalist (7) 8 years ago

You and I are saying the same thing. The ordinary working people in the U.S are paying their fair share of taxes. Its the rich who pay a disproportionately low share of tax compared to their income. This generates a case of deficit. Added to the fact is the destruction of american industry for the pursuit of higher profits leads to the situation with IOUs that you described.

[-] 2 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

We are not saying the same thing. I am saying that there is no such thing as a 'fair share' with reference to taxation. Our current tax structure taxes people for performing the activities necessary to their survival in a society based on the division of labor (Working to produce goods, trade of those goods, establishing centralized centers for the trade of those goods, etc.) It does not matter what percentage 'the poor' or 'the rich' pay in taxes because taxation (on such necessary activities) is a violation of the right to life (because of the requirements of the specific metaphysical nature of that life).

It was the fault of our founding fathers that they could not imagine a method of funding government other than taxes. Since the founding of this country, however, (and perhaps even before) there has been such a solution proposed. The government is given a legal monopoly on the use of force. (and if we are to ever establish a government which exists solely to protect individual rights, that power must be limited to ONLY the retaliatory use of force. The initiation of the use of force must be banned.) This means that there are certain services that only government is able to (legally) provide. Such services include things like the enforcement of contracts. I am not opposed to the taxation of contracts because contractual obligation is NOT a necessary aspect of life in a society based on division of labor; It is an optional one. It is a beneficial situation in some cases. Those who wish to benefit from a contract enforced by government can choose whether or not to apply for one. Thus, since such services cannot be legally provided by anyone except government, and are not necessary for life as a human being, the government should be able to charge for the use of it's (non-essential) services. In order to support the size and range of activities that our current government engages in, the tax placed on contracts would be prohibitively large. However, for a government which existed solely to protect individual rights (as was proposed in the declaration of independence), the tax would likely only need to be around 1-5% of the value of the contract. This would provide ample funds (if managed well) for the establishment and maintenance of courts, law enforcement, and military.

It is not the fact that 'the rich' pay a lower percentage of taxes that has caused our deficit. It is the fact that our government pretends that the currency it issues represents goods. Currency is supposed to represent goods. In other words, in order for currency to have objective value, there cannot exist more currency than goods represented by that currency and the currency MUST be exchangeable for those goods. When the federal government produces currency (via the federal reserve) and loans it out to us via 'the banks', that currency is not exchangeable for goods owned by the federal reserve. It represents what will be taken from us in the future (through taxation enforced by the government). You are being lent your own effort when you accept a dollar printed by the government-backed federal reserve. Given that government cannot tax 100% of the labor/goods/services that are produced and rendered, there can never be enough goods (owned by the government/federal reserve) to back the amount of dollars they print. Given that the government continues to spend money (which it does not have), it must continue to print dollars and must, therefore, increase this nation's debt (which really means this nation's government's debt).

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

Romney was one of those guys that did mergers on companies, cut the workforce and then sold the company for profit. He is not tea party. He is not anything.

[-] 0 points by internationalist (7) 8 years ago

Ya well I was not talking about the tea-party specifically. The tea party is a movement by the defenders of the existing authority and establishment. Romney is a part of the capitalist and corporate establishment. They have much in common even though they might not be in the same exact party

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

The establishment had what it wanted in the republican party. The tea party came about in opposition to both.

[-] 0 points by internationalist (7) 8 years ago

Sorry that is not true. The Tea party is supported by many republicans politicians and vice versa (Just look at how many republican politicians are active members of the tea party movement). There are some policy differences between the two movements but the differences are vastly outnumbered by the similarities. Above all both the tea party and republicans support market driven capitalism, and are in agreement over the defense of existing positions of privilege and power. I really don't want to argue anymore about this plainly evident point. I respect your viewpoint but I disagree completely. You won't find anymore replies from me on this obvious point. Thanks

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

Sorry but you are wrong. I was there in the beginning. What need would there be for conservatives to start a new organization if they were just fine with what they had? Capitalism would have allowed the banks to fail and that is what the tea party is about. The republican party is about the fascist system we have and bailing it out. The republicans have co-opted the tea party because it is popular. They are not true.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Capitalism sucks and "conservatism" is a plague upon the Earth.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-conservatism-really-means/

[-] 2 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

An economic system in which people exist free from force and coercion sucks?

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

If you honestly think that Capitalism is "an economic system in which people exist free from force and coercion"... You are BADLY misinformed.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. In other words: lots of "freedom" for rich factory owners, but no "freedom" for anyone else.

Force and coercion? It's EVERYWHERE in this society. (can you say tear gas canister?)

You think if it comes from corporations, it's any less forceful or coercive than if it comes from government?

You are a fool!

[-] 2 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

We do not implement Capitalism in our economy. We have what is referred to as a mixed economy in which some principles of Capitalism are included (property rights) and some measure of government control is present. You are right that under Capitalism the means of production are privately owned but wrong in equating this principle of ownership with freedom. Everyone has the freedom to engage in those activities which they believe will best affect their survival and happiness so long as they do not violate the rights of others. The amount of money (or goods) one owns does not effect their political freedom.

Perhaps I worded my above post poorly. What I meant was that under Capitalism, people exist free from economic force and coercion. In other words, they own what they earn and no one can take it from them without their consent, nor stop them from offering it if they choose to do so.

When governments (or corporations) initiate the use of force, they violate individual rights. However, people have a right to protect their property. If you come into my home and try to rob me (and a tear gas canister is the only thing I have laying around) I'm going to tear gas you (also assuming I have a mask).

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

The statement: "under Capitalism, people exist free from economic force and coercion" is deeply flawed.

Capitalism IS a form of economic force and coercion.

[-] 2 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

This is a response to what you posted two posts down from here. Limits on replys suck.

You are correct in your definition of Capitalism. Such a system would necessitate that government have no ability to interfere in the economy. Given that ours does, we do not have capitalism. It is this 'revolving door between Goldman Sachs and the Treasury Dept.' that is the implementation of this ability to interfere in the private ownership of the means of production. Government interference in the economy is what sucks. You provided the evidence for it yourself.

[-] 2 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

In reply to Metapolitik... That is not the way the separation of church and state works. By leaving the "church" or religious organization as off limits for regulation, it prevents the government from interfering in religious interests and practices. Your example is exactly the opposite of what you want. What you want is the corporate equivalent of a state church that imposes it's will on business to force them to conform to it's own standards.

The problem is not capitalism. The problem is corporatism, which is what we have in this country. Capitalism and free market economics is a LIBERAL ideal. If this country promoted creation of business and that any person with an idea can start a business and make that idea a reality, that would be capitalist. Instead, this country(and organizations like labor unions) make it economically impossible for small businesses to compete. The result is massive corporations who simply get bigger and more powerful because they have set up a system where it is nearly impossible to compete(see automotive companies). That is called corporatism and while it may be generally related to captialism, it is most definitely NOT free market.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Wrong!

We need separation of Corporate and State interests the same way we have separation of Church and State interests.

Then we need strong government to reign-in corporations, limit bonuses, close tax loopholes and (if necessary) nationalize/socialize all industry.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

What do you mean? Capitalism is a system in which government and the market are separate. Government (the legal use of force and coercion) cannot interfere in economic matters under Capitalism.

[-] 2 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Capitalism refers to a system in which the means of production are privately owned. Stating that we have a capitalist economy has absolutely no bearing on the nature of our government.

In this country - where money seems to corrupt and govern every aspect of our lives - government and corporations collude with each other all the time.

Just look at the revolving-door between Goldman Sachs and the Treasury Dept.

Capitalism Sucks.

[-] 1 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

@whisper... the answer is he does not understand what free-market capitalism is. He understands what Americans currently call capitalism, which is most definitely not.

[-] 1 points by WFCapitalist07 (24) 8 years ago

The "coercion" you're talking about exists naturally. If you can't provide for yourself then you die. The coercion in socialist economies is not. In socialist economies a ruling class forcefully seizes what belongs to one person and gives it to another. In capitalism people are free from force and coercion because they are free to fail or succeed on their own without governmental interference.

[-] 2 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

There has never been the "properly implemented" socialist economy that you speak of. If given enough power to do what you suggest it becomes authoritarian and that's when millions die. You realize that if you actually did live under such rule, the Occupy camps would not be tear gassed and beaten. You'd simply be shot and dumped into mass graves.

[-] 2 points by WFCapitalist07 (24) 8 years ago

There has to be a government though who decides who deserves to get money and how much and who deserves to pay and how much. In socialist systems the government's power is much greater than in a capitalist system. The government is who I meant by "ruling class". Stalin and all his cronies or Kim jong il and his would certainly constitute a ruling class to me.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

A properly implemented socialist economy does not allow for a "ruling class" as you put it and protects everyone equally under the law.

Social Democracy refers to the idea that people can self govern and prevent any one of their peers of amassing too much wealth or political power.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

They completely gloss over the whole coercion bit.

I think they're still trying to figure out what it means.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Absolutely!!! I agree 100%

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

OK you're right

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 8 years ago

Yep. --And yet some people still fall for the good old Haegelian Dialectic hat trick: Government only screwed up because it's not powerful enough.

We need MOAR MONIES!!!

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

Nixon took the US off the Gold standard.

[-] 0 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

You know all these things have been tried in the past. Backing every dime with gold means there will never be more money in the economy. If you think about it any currancy beyond the goods themselves is a leap of faith---paper, gold , silver , beads, shells, diamonds. The faith in the US dollar or any currency is based on past experience that it represents value, same as gold, cause you can't eat gold, it won't keep you warm you can't live in it or on it , it's shiny but that's about it. Right now if you gave me a choice between gold and dollars ----------I'd take dollars. Gold has gone up 6X the past few years and even though we have had the printing press running we have not even doubled the amount of dollars out there.

[-] 2 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

You wouldn't back every dime with gold. The 'dime' would be made of gold or whatever material you use as currency. The criteria for acceptable currency is similar to the following. It must be relatively scarce, durable, portable, homogeneous, divisible, etc. So long as everyone accepts it as a medium of exchange, it works. Now, large payments become difficult if you have to ship a huge pile of gold to whomever you're doing business with in exchange for whatever it is that you receive. Also, it is more convenient to use paper (or in today's world, digital) money. However, that paper and/or digital money must actually represent and be exchangeable for the goods it is traded for. This is what is meant by 'backing'. Gold doesn't have to be the standard, it is simply one that has a history of use. When someone prints paper money that doesn't represent goods they own, that paper isn't actually worth anything. It requires that the government force acceptance of the paper in exchange for goods.

In answer to the second sentence, As more gold is discovered and mined, there will be more money. There is plenty of gold left in the earth that hasn't been extracted.

"The faith in the US dollar or any currency is based on past experience that it represents value, same as gold..." This is true. It used to be the case that the paper was exchangeable for gold (or silver) that the printers of that currency (the government) owned. Now it is not and this is the problem.

Think again about whether you'd take dollars over gold. People will always desire luxury goods. They will not always desire a cloth rectangle with the U.S. seal of approval on it.

[-] 0 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

I remember the 1970's when gold spiked due to rising oil prices --------it overshot as all speculative investments do and crashed back down from $800 an oz to $300 then it stayed there for 30 years way less than inflation, it doesn't pay a dividend you have to pay to store it or worry about in your safe. I know this is the year of the gold bug and there's no arguing with gold bugs, and history is never enough to convince an enthusiastic speculator who has a million reasons why this time is different..

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

Are you dissing gold or the principle that money must be backed by something? I don't care about gold. What I care about is the principle of money.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

I'm not dissing gold--------------just the cult like mentality that caused the speculative spike. like I said before the value of an asset is dependent on faith in that asset weather it's gold dollars shells beads or just a couple of chickens your trading with your neighbor for corn ----------they are worth more corn if your neighbor has no chickens and wants chickens. All I meant was I don't see the difference weather it's gold or dollars as long as we have decided as a group to believe in the asset value.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

The medium itself isn't important (save for a few considerations. Obviously rocks wouldn't work well as money). It's what that medium represents that's important.

Look. If you tried to trade me a piece of paper that you had printed in exchange for goods I labored to produce, I would ask you why I should accept the paper. If you told me that I (or anyone else who I traded the paper to) could exchange it for something which you owned and you could prove that you had it and would hold onto it, I would then be able to determine whether or not I was engaging in an equitable trade. The paper would be money and I would know its value. If you told me that 'everyone had decided that it had value' I would ask, first, how did everyone decide this? And second, who determines its value?

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

well in capitalism the market decides the value. In communism the government does ----and then the black market decides the real value. I got my best lesson in why communism doesn't work on a trip to Burma (now Myanmar) The government had an exchange rate of 6 Kyat to the dollar and you needed paperwork to show that you had done exchanges. The black market rate was 30 every cab driver and merchant was working the black market a year after I left it went to 50. Apparently the sailors took the cash and brought back the western products that they loved. A twenty dollar bill was worth more than 4 5's because it's easier to hide. . Every meal in the gov owned restaurants was like waiting at the DMV no tipping allowed.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

Yes, and a 'market' is made up of people engaged in a specific activity: trade. In order for those trades to occur, the people must be able to determine the value of their own goods and those of others.

My point is that proper money does not depend on faith. It depends on evaluation. In order for one to evaluate a dollar, one must know what it represents and that the person who issued it will exchange what is represented (the goods) for the representation (the dollar).

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

And then the market will determine it's value.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

Well, if people decide to practice Capitalism in spite of government interference, yes.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

LOL good point, but the market still decides it's value even with the printing press cranked up on full volume. I sound like a "free market" ideologue here, I'm more of an historian, history does tell us there is some inevitability in the marketplace. I'd love to see wall street not allowed to play with the fed. There's a lot of money out there backing the Idea that wall street being able to gamble with money borrowed from retail banks or the fed is the "free market" I think it's a big welfare program for wealthy gambling addicts. If we only to one thing as a country about this financial crisis, I think we should force wall street back onto wall street and get their hands out of the taxpayer's pocket. Personally I think the tea party and OWS could agree on that.

[-] 1 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

Ok, but why should anyone have their hands in anyone else's pocket? It's not that 'Wall Street' has its hand in my pocket that bothers me, it's that anyone thinks they can put their hand in my pocket without my consent (and imprison me if I don't give it).

[-] 1 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 8 years ago

Under a gold standard with a flexible price system, as the demand for money goes up and the gold supply stays fixed (or grows slowly), the value or price of money would simply increase. Should this happen to an extreme, gold-backed pennies would then simply take the place of gold-backed dollars and gold-backed 100th of pennies would take the place of gold-backed pennies.

Also remember that whether or not you implement a fractional-reserve system is an independent decision of whether you use a commodity-backed currency (e.g. gold standard) or fiat (backed only by government promise). Gold would only determine the monetary base and the money multiplier as set by the reserve ratio could still be changed.

The main advantage of gold over fiat is that with fiat, government controls the money supply and, as it has a lot of debt, has a strong incentive to create inflation. It is also much more prone to asset bubbles, one of which was the source of the financial crisis we just saw.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

I doesn't change any of our fundamental problems. We are not energy independent ---------so would we really have any gold left or would we have spent it chasing oil the same way we ran up debt and created inflation chasing oil. If china can make stuff cheaper and America does not have the will to do anything about it China ends up with all the gold just like they are ending up with all the dollars. The source of the asset bubble that destroyed our economy was the repeal of Glass Steagall , the CFMA and the use excessive leverage. If you can implement a fractional reserve system with a gold standard and you are going to let the free market determine leverage --------------you have not solved one problem. you have the same setup as now, and in 1929 the potential for an over leveraged asset bubble that will burst and take down the economy like it did in 1929 when we had the gold standard. What we had from 1933 till 1999 was Glass/Steagall

[-] 1 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 8 years ago

The field of economics missed the crisis exactly because it is so polarized into two camps: one that looks solely for market failures (New Keynesians, Institutionalists, Post-Keynesians, etc.) and one that looks just for market failures (New Classical, Monetarists, Austrians, etc.) My reading of the financial crisis is that, like most phenomena in the political economy, it was neither 100% government failure nor 100% market failure.

Wall Street definitely bears a large portion of the blame for the creation of derivatives such as CDOs, which made it harder for investors to ascertain the risk level of sub-prime mortgages and thus invested too much money into them. I do favor regulations that limit leverage and improve transparency.

However, where did all this money come from? The Fed under Greenspan created it. So I think the Austrians are correct to criticize the Fed for feeding the bubble, as a too-quickly-growing money supply was a necessary (albeit not sufficient) ingredient for this asset bubble.

A gold standard -- even with a fractional reserve system -- would allow less government control of the money supply only via the required reserve ratio for banks, and this is a crude instrument at best. Like currency devaluation, it would be a very visible policy move with large economic and political ramifications, so it would have to be used rarely and with much explanation as to why it was necessary. Governments would no longer be able to inflate away its debt or feed asset bubbles so easily.

There are other ideas along similar lines, such as a Fed not controlled by people but governed strictly by rules such as the Taylor rule, inflation targeting, or nominal GDP targeting. Modern macro seems to be favoring these over ideas like the gold standard, but I'm not the person to ask why.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

The fed under Greenspan deserves the blame. They created the CFMA and repealed Glass / Steagall You are right about the polarization, it creates an environment where nothing gets done and allows wall street to keep their deregulated hands in the till. The lack of transparency and over leverage certainly contributed. I think we can agree on those points and that's a huge step to % 99 of America agreeing on something ---------if only 97% had any idea what we were talking about

[-] 1 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 8 years ago

Yeah. If only OWS and the Tea Party could unite. I think there's a lot of common ground on dissatisfaction with how the two-party oligopoly has handled the crisis and a lot of other issues, like the high degree of corporate influence upon our politics. Free-market conservatives opposed the bailouts as much as the liberals did.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

Get wall streets gambling addiction away from public funds in banks and insurance companies. history has shown that wall street will always use to much leverage in an up market, wall street will always come up with derivative products that are potentially dangerous, the word derivative alone implies excess leverage. Do we want this crap tied to our bank accounts? our annuity funds? insurance companies?our kids futures? Do we really want wall street in our banks requiring constant monitoring ? Do we really want to live in system where banks have huge off the books side bets ? I just don't call what we have now the "free market" A giant welfare program for wealthy gamblers maybe, but not a free market.

let the people fund elections not corporations. I would think those 2 ideas would appeal to the rightly angry middle class.

[-] 6 points by powertoothepeople (280) 8 years ago

I pledge to keep this post on top til someone of the TP persuasion answers you.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

.

; D

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

: )

I just am beside myself. It is always interesting to see these things evolve.

Thanks, stay tuned...

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Careful what U wish fer..............oooops

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago


The Koch Brothers heavily fund the TP Baggers


[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

The Tea Paty is not any more "over and done" than OWS. I have barely heard about OWS in the news for several months but the movement is still strong. There are still thousands of Tea Party groups around the nation holding meetings every week,

They have had similar problems that OWS has. Because they are a leaderless social media based group, the media shows you the extremists in the group. They are the 99% and mostly care about bail outs, spending, overseas spending, jobs, out of control government.

The problem is the media will find the extremists like someone saying Obama is not a citizen. Kind of like they kept showing the OWS protester shitting on a police car. That sells stuff newspapers. Showing a bunch of Tea Party folks at a town hall is boring.

And as for the topic of this post, many of the tea party folks are seniors on social security. They know it changes have to be made but they certainly do not want to eliminate it.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Blah Blah Blah.

The Tea Party is DEAD

It's called Denial Joe!

And it's also called Mitt Romney.

: )

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

To the point of this post there were never any leaders.

As for Mitt Romney the progressive, you place too much importance in the executive branch, The Tea party does most of it's work at the local, county, state level and congressional districts.

You think because they are not camping in the park and fighting with police that they are gone?

There are a dozen events this weekend.

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/events/

http://tea-party.meetup.com/

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

wtF - TeePee

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Tea Bagging Philosophy 101


The Tea Party chose the atheist Ayn Rand as their philosopher. Tea party Members wave copies of her Book "Atlas Shrugged" and carry signs with the name of one of the characters from that book at every rally.

To understand the Tea Party you must take a long hard look at Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand idolized the industrial and business tycoons of her day. Rand's likes and dislikes mirrored those of her tycoons.

Ayn Rand despised Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance and all other social safety net programs and she wanted all those programs abolished. The Bible says, "As a man thinks, so is he." And the same line of thought applies to organizations.


[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 8 years ago

She also ended up on social security and medicare ----------------she was an odd bird who defended a brutal sociopath who murdered and dismembered a young girl in a failed kidnapping plot. Kind of like what wall street in bed with the banks did to the US economy

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

demicapitalist,

Thanks for the update. Interesting that she railed against SS and then took it. That's Hypocritical with a large H!!!

Can we say, "Actions speak louder Words."

She said it ALL!!!

[-] 0 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

why do we keep talking about ayn rand? as a constitutionalist i have never heard any of my mor elibertarian leaning friends ever mention her. if anything, we view her as very flawed and hypocritical. she had a few good ideas and thats about it

[-] -1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

why do you make prejudiced statements about all tea partiers?

All women belong in the kitchen. All blacks are 1/3 of a person. All mexicans should be deported. All homosexuals go to hell.

If these statements are offensive to you, then realize that your prejudiced statement is offensive as well. Additionally, the same will be said about you because of your affiliation with OWS

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The truth hurts I see. Well I suggest getting that narrative blearing in your head to chill and start finding out how recognize the real truth for your self. And you need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. He's hateful.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

I hear Rush Limbaugh and all other liars on msnbcfoxcnn but i don't listen to them. they're illegitimate.

If you see the truth as you suggest then I can go listen to jihadists, nazi's and kkk sons of bitches elsewhere on the internet. I don't need to hear it from you. If you want to stop stereotyping then we can have a conversation and I'll tell you what you don't know about the tea party.

First off the tea party is not the republican party and people like me allowed Obama to win because McCain doesn't stand for tea party principles. Neither does Romney and I'll throw my vote away again if I have no other choice. So understand that! Tea partiers have a problem with the republican establishment just the same as many on the left do.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Essentially Tea Party Baggers do vote for repugs. But their little bagging party will be over once they get crushed in 2012. People have grown sick of them.

The debt ceiling fiasco they caused was the beginning of the end for them and their kind.

[-] 1 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

Increasing the debt ceiling is like handing your keys to a drunk. You can hope they make it home in your car ok... but the likelyhood is much higher that they won't. We need to start paying down our debt... and the debt to gdp ratio should have set off alarm bells around the country. Instead it was a blip on the radar because we "always raise the debt ceiling". Again, back to the analogy of the drunk, this is like the drunk promising you he will make it home just fine in your car because he "always" makes it home.

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "freedom"?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SIMPLE:

Nothing left to lose.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

so you agree that we should bankrupt the country for our kids and the next generation and the government should spend money on fraud, waste and abusive programs.

You want to continue borrowing $ billions per day from China so that eventually China will own this country. Then you will get the communism that you want. You want the government to keep spending on wars and Solyndra and Fast and Furious so that we can get people killed.

You want the government to keep spending on prisons and spending in the justice department so they can invent new crimes and we can enslave more people even though we are number 1 in the world already.

You want the collapse of this country so we can have a new dark age.

[-] 0 points by cugir321 (2) 8 years ago

If occupy wall street fails it will be because of people like you. You think 2 wrongs make a right. You are no better then Jon Corrizine, the MF Global thief....or congress who thinks they can inside trade when we can't. Or Bank of America who thinks they can take their bad derivatives and shove them down the throats of Americans. I am an ex-democrat....I'm sick of people like you. All these things are happening under a democrat admin with republicans looking on! The same financial theft was happening under a republican admin with democrats looking on! You think playing your little democrat / republican game will cure the economy. They are all thieves! You belong with the people stealing from us.

[-] 1 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

Yep. Republicans and Democrats have run this country for years and we get the same results with different labels.

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Hey Hey Ho Ho

The Repelican Party has Got To Go!

Hey Hey HoHo

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Now that's a song I can join in on:

Hey Hey Ho Ho

The Republican Party has Got To Go!

Hey Hey HoHo

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

---------------I say abolish the Tea Party!!!--------------------------

The Tea Bag Party abolitionists need to be abolished!!!

[-] 2 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 8 years ago

Look at Gingrinch's plan.

They want a pseudo privatization of SS where Wall Street gets to play with the money, knowing full well that the government will never, ever allow the SS accounts of the entire nation to be wiped out by a market crash.

In other words a full and implicit backstop.

That's what "get rid of Social Security" means to them.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly correct my friend. Generally, they dislike this thread because they want to abolish SS under the pretense of fixing it. If we ever buy that load of crap we will have gutted the system and it will surely die.

Their narrative is so intense on this subject that if you were to take a poll, the TP would believe that SS is in dire straits now of total collapse. This is one tactic for them to run in and "fix" it for us. If we believe the lie, what more lies may we believe. The truth always dispels these myths. They adhor the truth!

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by PepperGirl (13) 8 years ago

would privatizing SS allow the people to prosecute for illegal use of the funds? unlike when the government has used it all up and no one can do anything about it.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The track record is quite bleak on any prosecution of these greedy thieves called the Wall Street Banksters. This was huge factor in what ignited this OWS movement in the first place. SS is not in trouble, this is a myth perpetrated by those who's ultimate goal is to abolish SS. It doesn't go into the red until about 2040 and then it will only be slightly underfunded. A reduction of benefit, not poof it's gone.

If we care about the old people in this country we'll make sure it's fully funded. Plain and simple.

[-] 2 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thank You!

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

If they get their way and take my social security away from me then they better be prepared to cut me a check for all of the years I paid into it for my retirement.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Absolutely! There will be a revolt. Many people now depend on it, and many in future will also depend on it. It is an entitlement.

Thanks barb!

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

Hi Puzzlin, No doubt it would be massive revolt but the fact of the matter is there are a large number of people that paid into it and didn't live to retirement. The government should not have ever been allowed to borrow from Social security and Medicare ever.

We would have a surplus of money if they had left it alone.

[-] 1 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

Longer lifespans and lower rate of reproduction means that eventually there will be more people collecting than working. Sorry, but eventually this gravy train ends. The question is whether you have prepared for it or not. I say the cut off is 40, everyone over 40 keeps it, everyone under 40... who should have seen the writing on the wall here at least 10 years ago... loses it. And just to be clear... I would be in the category of those who lose it. But I've also been preparing to lose it since entering the workforce.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

I am 48 and I see it as still being threatened of losing it. You are right when you say longer lifespans and a lower rate of reproduction for whites anyway is a problem. But it would not be a problem if our government was not allowed to borrow from those funds and then add it to the deficit so we pay it over and over again in taxes back to our prepaid fund.

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 8 years ago

That sounds familiar... where did I hear that before?

Oh yeah that's right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY4WlxO6i0&feature=related

Well at least he made people laugh at the time.You know, before they got fucked.

RIP social security.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

George Carlin was great and had a way of verbalizing what many were already thinking!!!

[-] 2 points by mjbento (74) 8 years ago

the tea party are gop fanatics, they defend the 1% at any cost meaning for them no one should pay tax, especially the 1%. 2nd, they believe that concerning labour laws, it should be free market. They can hire or fire you at any time, without any reason. 3rd, the state should stick out of social security, education and health or translated: no public hospitals, or schools or social help. You're on your own: if you're successful millionaire you live, get the better education, get the good jobs, everyone likes you; if you're an average person, you die in society, you don't get education, you don't get a job, you don't get any kind of support to make a living; nobody cares about you.

That's how they think.

[-] 1 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

Just wondering... why should a business owner not be able to fire you? If business turns bad and they have to maintain all their staff, the alternative is going out of business, so no jobs for anyone. Businesses do not exist to provide people with jobs.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So true my friend! Well said!

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 8 years ago

Let's put it this way: As others have noted before, Social Security is not much more than a Ponzi scheme -- it presumes endless growth. But what happens when it tops out? Failure. It probably should be abolished. We don't (or shouldn't) need government to be our compulsory "life advisor". Inform us of the dangers, and then let us make the choices.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

dreamingforward,

Listening to Rush Limbaugh, I can tell. He calls America a nanny state because we don't cruelly just let those die who don't have health insurance. God forbid, we treat everyone and just don't let people die. He hates that. He wants these days over where we save a precious life not just if it has insurance. He sees it simplistically they don't have health insurance and they beg for their life ONLY when they realize the consequences of their decision. But that's too late, you didn't pay the premium. He says let them die. Don't treat or save, just die. Too bad. He sleeps like a baby at night. Or like Ron Lawl, "just let him die" mentality. Same way, see another post I have here about his campaign manager who also met a cruel due his poor decision.

Yeah, your right. You show just how much people in this country don't care. No compassion for others. It's getting worse as time goes on. It's very selfish and no wonder GREED is cherished.

Don't worry Dreamer, we won't turn your pockets out for money. We'll just go and die quietly and get out of your way. You won't even know we were here.

Have blessed life. : )

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 8 years ago

Puzzlin, you miss my intent, and perhaps the intent that is present within life in general. I never listen to Rush Limbaugh except to laugh, mostly. And I believe that capitalism is immoral for America which doesn't have rights to this land. Further, I think compassion is a good thing, but yet it can't be forced. But:

1) there is no stable way to create a compassionate government when the constitution limits you to 8 years.

2) There's no way to create a social security system predicated on endless growth -- YOU have face that FACT, and find the alternative.

2) People die. That's the fact of it -- you will never get rid of it NOR should you. Should I pay for you to pamper your grandmother to the tune of 10 million dollars? It's a slippery slope upwards that becomes unpayable. There's nothing wrong with spending 10mil to keep a loved one alive, it's the expectation that makes the problem. That expectation turns an otherwise pure act into a business or "moral" TRANSACTION.

There's more, but I have to go for now....

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

dreamingforward says,

"People die. That's the fact of it -- you will never get rid of it NOR should you."


That's your opinion, and not a fact. The fact is people die. But the rest is opinion. We shouldn't "get rid of it NOR should you".

On really now, so when did you lose the instinct live, to survive?

Or are you supposing that sometime in the future you'll lose this instinct?

Do you believe assisted suicide show be legal?

[-] 2 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

assisted suicide should be legal....its my body, my choice

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 8 years ago

I'm going to give you some inside information. If you are suffering from a loved one that is dying, either you are failing or s/he is failing. Just like in your own body, cells die (or are killed) when they stop serving the whole. Now what is that whole? Well, that whole is all the values within mankind that are eternal: Truth, Justice, Love primarily. Fail at any one of these and you will die. Succeed at them and....?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

BiLL Clinton quote:

You can stand up and say anything and nobody rings a bell if the facts are wrong. There’s no bell ringing. It’s crazy, we’re living in a time when it’s more important than ever to know things. And not just to know facts but to put them in a coherent. sensible pattern. And we live in a time, if you just want to talk about the economy, where the model that works for economic growth and prosperity is cooperation. But the model that works in politics is conflict.


This is how the tea bagging party works, getting people angry by stoking the flames of discontent. They thrive off of division and anger fueled by their hate for Obama and democrats in general.

[-] 1 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

Wow... you literally can not see yourself in this substituting Bush and republicans can you?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

Thank Bill Clinton for the housing crisis:

http://news.investors.com/ArticlePrint.aspx?id=589858

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Really?

Who did you vote for Aries?

Last I checked Bill was prez when the country was really creating jobs. The economy was thriving under him.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

the economy was thriving under GWB too 5% unemp . but since you listen to the left wing hysterics you'd never know that.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Did he create 25 million jobs like Clinton did?

(Didn't think so.)

Oh yeah, Bush tried the gutting approach to SS, as well. How did that work out?

(Oh, nowhere.)



[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

ah - reagan - clinton & no - the country was already at full employment under bush - he managed to not let the downturn in 2001 not turn into a total collapse like this prez is doing. So how sis S.S. doing now? it nees to be reformed into an option not a forced mandate like everything else the feds are trying to do. Is this a free country or what?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yes, we live in free country. As a citizen we all have obligations to the social contract we were born into. You have to obey those mandated laws, like not murdering, stealing, paying taxes, and burning down people's houses. When your sick, starving, or out on the street, as a reward for entering the social contract by virtue of birth (not a choice) we won't let you die on the street. It's about, we the people united in the cause of a better world for all of us. NOW if you refuse this social contract then leave the country and stop your useless whining.

And by the way SS is just fine, you and your tea bag party friends attack it as a strawman for all our financial problems because you and your friends would be the last to admit what really happened under Bush. So you can't blame for what Bush really did us since you voted for him you would defend him even if he was the devil himself (your narrative would never allow you to blame him for anything). He squandered our American Dream by entering us into totally two useless Wars that I'm sure you applauded at the time. (Seems you take your narrative very hard and believe it.) We spent trillions of dollars there, in deficit, and we're not done yet. Could that be why we have such a high deficit. I know you are incapable of admitting that.

Look, I already know you want sorely to gut SS so this can be a self fulfilling prophecy for you. But you standing in the cold and you will never have your way with it. Never! You want it gutted so later you can say, hey look I told it was unworkable, now kill it. Told you so.

Still with the tea bagging party Aries? (If not you should join them, you and them are on the same page.)

You've posted enough here that we know just where your coming from. You are in agreement with TBP principles as we can clearly see.

You and the TBP will NEVER dismantle SS. PERIOD

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

If social security is not a choice - we are living under tyranny. have it your way.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You really do need to study government more. We don't live in a tyranny. Most Americans overwhelmingly don't believe it either. So, you and your opinion, are out on a limb that can easily break.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

ok - soft tyranny - for now...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Good rewind : )

[-] 2 points by Owsjim (29) 8 years ago

I'm not a teaparty person, but there's no social security in the future when we get into a 1 trillion dollar defecit each year. As for cutting from social security.. I believe Obama has already secretly took a piece of the pie away from it.

So to my undertanding, the tea-party doesn't want to cut from social security but leave that option for the individual. They would first want to take a hack out of military spending first.

But yeah to address the social security question.. there won't be one in 20 years at this pace. We're taking a big gamble that the future generation of young ppl such as those of us in OWS will work double as hard to get back into surplus. However, if things stay the same, get ready because all the jobs are going to China.

People think we can have all these programs but haven't you heard... we're 15 trillion dollars in debt. China's looking good right now.

Right now the concern of the tea-party is... in 20 years, we're gonna get screwed over if Washington continues to go 4 trillion more into debt every 2 years.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The deficit was not run up because of SS. Stop blaming SS for the deficit. This is a republican talking point.

So you offer no defense either. It still stands.

Tea party leaders say they would ‘absolutely’ abolish Social Security.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

the two things that make up 90% of the budget are social security & medicare. military is 4% & 6% for everything else. you tell me where the budget deficit is.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

That is complete LIE. Don't you think we know how to check facts unlike you?

The military clearly is 20% of the total budget. Those wonderfully useless Wars Bush entered us into drove that cost through the roof, to the tune 2 trillion dollars and rising. That was done off budget and added directly to our deficit. The 2 trillion is more than the entire budget of USA for one year.

Check your facts! You may be entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Here, I'll help, here's a simple pie chart that might want to read before just winging it with your made facts to bolster a losing argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png


By the way, you lost which everyone will easily notice, so just step away and save what little dignity you have left. Many here already know your narrative, so don't be so coy. Try embracing the truth it will help you from playing the fool. Don't squirm around defending the indefensible any more it's really ugly to watch

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

your just plain incorrect. I understand if you just want to blame Bush for all of your problems. it fits the profile. good luck to you .

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Did you even take the link?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

MYTH #1: Defense spending is the main driver of America’s growing debt and deficit.

FACT: The main driver of America’s growing debt and deficit is domestic spending—especially entitlement spending—and not defense spending.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/11/Defending-Defense-Setting-the-Record-Straight-on-US-Military-Spending-Requirements

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Why won't you tell us your a Republican? Ashamed?

No answer must mean your ashamed since obviously you don't want to answer!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

I am consider myself a conservative Libertarian if you must put a label on me.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So you love the Tea Party, don't you? (You must)

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

yup

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

That is an outright LIE! We spent 2 trillion on those crazy Wars. What's that to you chump change. Not even close to the cost of SS which is paid for separately and it is not the cause of the debt crisis. So we should sacrifice SS so you and your cronies can start more Wars. Who do you want to attack next, Iran? I'm guessing since you get your news form the Heritage foundation, a republican think tank, you must have much more money than most. SS is chump change so you selfishly want it gone. This is GREED

Aries, are you a Republican? (Don't be shy, tell us)

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

Ok - 2 trillion on the wars fine. Where is the other 13 trillion in national debt coming from? I dont want social security gone - I want people to have the choice. A free society should have choice not force.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

During the presidency of *George W. Bush*, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008, That's where it came from and here's the link which proves it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt


You may be entitled to your opinion (when you do it with respect) but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

ok - 15 trillion minus 5.7 trillion = 9.3 trillion - where did that come from?

[-] 0 points by Owsjim (29) 8 years ago

I just told you. I'm not blaming SS.. I'm saying tea party people would want to cut from the military first before social security.. which is not what Obama has done. He cut a (small) peice from SS and put it into the military while racking up a 4 trillion dollar defectit over 2 years. At this rate, we'll be around 55 trillion dollars in debt in 20 years from now. Their main point is... there won't even be a social security because the U.S would be bankrupt.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I think you BSing me. They clearly intend to end SS. This military cut back talk is coming not your fearless leaders but just you.

[-] 1 points by Owsjim (29) 8 years ago

I'm not BSing you man.

The word "abolish" taints the picture slightly but has some truth to it. If for example you're talking about RonPaul... he wants to cut back on the military in order to save Social Security for the baby boomer generation, but he wants to leave open for the younger people to opt out and use alternative ways, and so yes in that way he does want to "abolish" Social Security but just not with our older generations. He simply believes that Wall Street guys don't need further social security benefits and that there are alternative methods of security at retirement.

But RonPaul's top agenda is to balance the budget so that the U.S. won't be bankrupt in 20 years, which means making massive cuts.. the largest of which would be the military. This is what makes him unpopular among neo-conservatives like Bill O'Reilly and why he got boo'd in some of the GOP debates.

[-] -1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And ron lawl would by no doubt also abolish Social Security. I'm sure he's on record saying that, even though politicians like him like talking out both sides of their mouths. We know his intention.

But not unusaul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich have this habitual habit of flip flopping in rapid succession as it suits their purposes and audiences.

It depends on the timing and place to what truth serves the moment.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

he is not been known to talk out both sides of his mouth at all. even jon stewart said he is the only politician that they cant find dirt on when it comes to double talk

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 7 years ago

Oh - Halliburton - No!!!

I mean - OH - Hell - No!!!!

They wouldn't go after a Cheney cash cow. Cut Military Spending? Why - what would all of the profiteers do then? Beg to be let into the Big Oil scam?

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

Most folks I know get only an average of $1300 a month in SSI. That is nothing! A huge program for only $1300 a month!!!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Oh really, it's based on how much they contributed. I will have substantially more unless the program is gutted and put on death watch.

The Tea Party WANTS to ABOLISH Social Security.

This is not acceptable!!!

Let's marginalize them before they marginalize US.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

If we don't get rid of social security poor people can't be really poor.

Social security violates poor peoples freedom to have no money......

Poor people don't need money because they are poor.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

True Freedom, ey?

Funny how we can characterize these things as good or the exact opposite bad but saying the same thing essentially.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

This issue is still current as long as the TP has any power in politics. We should rid ourselves of this menace but it still does exist. They've been kept largely in check but we need to keep after them until CHECKMATE!!!

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

Fine get rid of it, but I want back every dime I put in with interest, compounded from the day I paid it. If I don't get it I am going to war.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Social Security is not a investment scheme. It is a safety net. Your last statement shows you may not understand this fact.

This is a fact, cash it in!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Sanatorium says he's for the gutting method. Out on the stump today. The Repugs coddle the Tea Party Baggerts.









..........................................................................................................................................................................

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

< looking down, kinda sheepish >

.

And please, no name calling.

.

< stubbing toe in the dirt >

.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

Tea bagger officially are now our Enemy

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I've got your back Zoom!

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

We have given Tea bagger alot of chances,I think is the time to consder them part of wall street period

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

TBP do support no new taxes for the rich. OWS obviously exists because of the ever-expanding inequality and this will not stand. Clearly the rich need to start paying up. TBP thinks just the opposite and will let to give more tax breaks to the rich. Paul Ryan is a TBP darling. So is Eric Cantor.

SO, yes, I agree, we fight them too!!!

[-] 1 points by WatTyler (263) 8 years ago

My understanding is that The Tea Party was organized and bankrolled by the health insurance industry in the run-up to the rather lame health care reform that was enacted with the hope of reversing it.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

LoL

You are making me into a hero, do you realize this???

Wow, did you ever step in it this time!

I usually don't talk to you trolls. But I just felt you were going to give a gift but this is magnificent!!!

Thanks!!!

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 8 years ago

Excellent! I never liked being the security on a surety bond held by a rich chinese man anyhow.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yet another for abolishing SS. Thanks for yet another vote bolstering the claim that your Tea Bagging Party leaders make: Abolish SS Now.

I got your vote!

[-] 1 points by ScrewyL (809) 8 years ago

Did you just refute me?

Or did you say you prefer to be the property of a chinaman?

I'm confused. I thought you were against corporate corruption.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

LOL ! No name calling ? Didn't you just engage in that and thus encourage others follow your lead ? If you want rational and respectful discourse, you have to follow your own advice. Anyway....

I am not a Tea Party member, but in their defense, I would remind folks that the statements of a couple of their members doesn't mean all Tea Party members subscribe to those beliefs. In a similar vein, I would hope people understand that OWS represents far more than the statements of any one of our members.

I think the comments made by the leaders are meaningful and worthy of examination from the perspective of where the Libertarian views ultimately lead if adopted in their entirety. The people who were being interviewed were artfully lead to expose the wide implications of their philosophy by the the interviewer. I think that's good. I have been trying to do the same here in regards the followers of Ron Lawl who like to focus on one or two of his talking points without considering the whole spectrum of policies implied by his support of unregulated libertarianism.

P.S. Please spread the shopping guidelines we compiled from a forum post and hosted at http://bit.ly/DoYourBit where they are more accessible and sharable via social media. We need millions on board if we are to have an impact. No ads, no profit, no agenda but to help change Corporate America.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Not just two people, who claim to be Tea Party Bagging Leaders, subscribe to abolishing social security. Jim DeMint, SC Senator, big TPB supporter, agrees to it fervently. Also, I know many random TBP people I have personally spoken to (politely) have also expressed their wish to see America free of any safety net for our seniors. Generally, the TPB majority scoff at saving the system. And, as evidenced right here in this thread, many come to defend the TPBs like you. Some here have chimed in calling for abolishing SS.

In fact Rico, This thread is like a magnet here. They don't want to talk human rights, truth or justice, they want this. Heavy narratives!!!

Why do you think this thread is so popular around these parts?

And, WHY not Human Rights, truth & justice, or even what's good about OWS? Why aren't those subjects popular?

Is it just me, or am I right that negativity flows well here, and cursing is defended, admired, and defended. Is it just me?

Should I be open to the insults?

Thanks for the post Rico!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Granted, we're all learning in these forums just why our media may have descended into silliness; The controversial and negative posts are the most popular.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Rico, you hit that nail right on the head. As we both know, sensationalism sells, and sells big. If want to get into the nuts and bolts of specifics on something that can enlighten us but requires a deep effort at understanding first, forget about it. First will come the yawns and then the nodding off isn't far behind.

I have always found that this is main reason that most of time, since I know many subjects very well, I seem to be in the role of teacher most times. I don't mind, but it's an upward battle that usually is lost unfortunately. Not that it's not worthy. It is, usually much more so. But there it is, this reality we must not ignore.

Nice to see you around Rico. You write well and you do seem to give great effort to see these subjects from both sides. That's very noble and humbling. You have my respect sir!

Good for you! Good Luck my friend!

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Agreed. My wife and son both tell me "you'll never change anyone's mind on the Internet." I have, however, seen a few people shift and several have said "Wow ! There's a lot more to this than I thought !" Those type responses, though rare, are what keep me going. "Social facts" (my son's term for facts that fuel our passions but are not traceable to objective evidence and which become popular only through repetition on twitter, etc) often dominate discussion, but in my opinion, we need only convert a few to start thinking deeper to break the cycle of repetition; only one person at the table need speak up in discussion to slow the spread of social fact. I have been able to help just a few understand the depth of some of the topics discussed here, and I hope those few will help break the cycle. That's my hope, and it keeps me going. We can't give up, or we are lost.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Rico, are we on the same wavelength or what? My wife told me the same thing. If I inspire just a few precious folks here, it helps!!!

Something else I have often thought as well is this: If the cause is worthy then popularity isn't what's important. It is the principle. I fight because of what I'm fighting for. And that is far greater then any of us puny humans around here care to think or do.

If everyone is wrong, then no one is right!!!

That and humble pie will straighten us out so we can continue this fight.

Thanks again Rico!

[-] 1 points by belltor (60) 8 years ago

tea party may have been grass roots for an instant then Koch brothers, carl rove types have with the help of establishment main stream media taken over the movement MSM will paint tea partiers as true americans and OWS as domestic terrorists that is were we are establishment owns it all, the politicians the media, the courts checkmate

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

Social security sucks..Look at europe..You get paid more not to work than work in many cases working family's need help to survive..The last thing i want is to be dependant on an evil empire for survival.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, USA, is becoming an Evil Empire?

And Europe is already Evil?

Did I get this right, it's confusing?

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

Europe and US are evil empires as is NATO.. They occupy and wage war and have murdered in more countries than most evil empires have..And they lie and deceive to manufacture consent. They cheat and steal all the resources and arm train and fund terrorist orgonisations of which they have helped create... Some of their strongest allies are the most oppressive regimes on the planet which promote the most extreme racist homophobic less tolerant world view imagined..

[-] 1 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

This entire argument is based upon the literally insane idea that the government is somehow less corrupt than a corporation. Politics is built on corruption... I wouldn't trust one of them any more than I would trust Bill Gates or George Soros.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And I certainly would never trust Corporations since ultimately they are driven purely by profit.

Government is the people's best shot at the moment. We need to be much more involved in our politics and government to insure we get a responsive government.


The most sacred of the duties of a government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.

-- Thomas Jefferson, note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

i am no neo con tea party person...constitutional libertarian who actually knows what hes talking about here....but why are we forced to pay social security? why cant we decide for ourselves? or am i too stupid to decide for myself? i rather take that money and invest it....maybe a percentage at the least. i am knowledgeable enough..invest in some gold, silver, copper....that stuff has been going up for 100 years

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SS is a safety net for old people.

Not an investment scheme to play craps with.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

i thought ss was mine for old age? its my money isnt it?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by OregonRuts (61) 8 years ago

Social Security is an assault on young people. It's older people, who vote in droves, securing their golden years on the backs of young workers.

It now depends to some extent on payroll taxes being paid by undocumented workers, who cannot apply for retirement benefits. Robbing Peter to Paul.

If SS were privatized, and the money collected in payroll taxes were invested in a person's own name, at death, his estate would still have that pot of invested money. If a person dies a day after retirement under SSI, his investment is gone. Example: let's say dad's benefit is $1200/ month. That would be about 3% of $450000 in your private account. Thats a fairly realistic rate of return. How hard would it be to get to $450000 by age 65 if you start putting money away at age 22? Right now including your employers portion too, about 13% is taken by the State to fund today's retirees. If you make an average of $40000 over your 43 years of work, you would have about $200000 if you just stuck it under your mattress.even a crappy annuity would have you well over $450000 by age 65. If you and your spouse were killed in a shuffleboard tragedy, your kids would get the $450000. Now as it stands, your retirement would vanish.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SS is not an investment scheme.

It is a Safety Net Period

Invest in your 401K, that's your investment. Social Security is not a Casino Game. Read up and try to understand what safety net means.

[-] 1 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

Read up on Ponzi Scheme and see what that means.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It's an investment scam, nothing to do with social security what-so-ever.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Im not tea party persuasion, but I did support them (until they decided to back the Republicans instead of doing their own thing-ps-my biggest fear with ows is just this)

That being said, destroy SS now, or watch it become destroyed due to not having enough money.

We are 15t in debt. That is insanity. They only thing keeping our dollars up is the ability to kill anyone at anytime (pretty sick, eh). This domination wont last forever, the world is letting us bleed out from the inside.

Destroy it now, or watch it die anyways in a few years. Doesnt matter, its freakin history.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

They call social security Ponzi Sceme

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Simply because they want to destroy it. It is the only reason to characterize it as such

[-] 2 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

That is what i called the enemy within

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It is. But to understand why, look at the anger fueled hate they have. It's the lack of compassion in action. They say compassion but again, look to the actions.

[-] 3 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

They changing the USA to corporation and they doing the same to other countries.,we have been fooled for so long.,Iam glad the people wakeup

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The hope is, once awakened, we don't play the fool anymore. Never!

Thanks for your post!

[-] 1 points by Idaltu (662) 8 years ago

The problem with the tea party is that they are trying to use 18th century tools to fix 21st century problems. However, it is a bit like trying to add apples and bananas when comparing them with OWS. The Tea Party is in fact a POLITICAL party wheres OWS is not a political party. While they may be able to join forces to take back control of our government the Tea Party supporters would think they have a victory if congress and the white house were all Tea Party types. They do not comprehend that the problem is not who is in power but rather that all political factions are owned by Wall Street regardless of who is in power. There really is only one solution and that is a Constitutional Convention that revamps the structure of government itself.

[-] 1 points by cugir321 (2) 8 years ago

A Constitutional Convention can be very dangerous....it can include things you don't want. I agree it's all parties!!! Both parties and administrations are surrounded by the same Goldman Sacks, JP Morgan, BOA types. Just look at the treasury secretaries. We need a revolution. I get sick of the people pushing the we're the better party thing. They're losers. Hopefully they'll be the first to starve in hyperinflation.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

People and Supporters of Conservative Groups and foundation........

Edwin 'Ed' Meese III Thomas S. Monaghan James Piereson Chester E. Finn T. Kenneth Cribb Richard M. Scaife Paul R. Roney Steve Forbes Vonda Holliman Edwin J. Feulner Alejandro A. Chafuen Michael S. Joyce Robert P. George Holland H. Coors Richard H. Fink

Walton Family Foundation Ave Maria Foundation John Templeton Foundation Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation John M. Olin Foundation Sarah Scaife Foundation F.M. Kirby Foundation Smith Richardson Foundation Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation Gilder Foundation William E. Simon Foundation Carthage Foundation David H. Koch Charitable Foundation Earhart Foundation William H. Donner Foundation

The Heritage Foundation National Rifle Association of America American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research National Bureau of Economic Research Focus on the Family US Chamber of Commerce Young America's Foundation American Family Association The Cato Institute Center for Strategic and International Studies Leadership Institute Fund for American Studies Washington Legal Foundation Institute for Justice Intercollegiate Studies Institute

[-] 0 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

cato center actually does good work....look at their work with the aclu in terms of fighting against the silly drug war and protecting civil liberties

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

RufusJFisk52...The Cato Center was form by the Conservative movement, with financial resources from the Koch brothers organizations. There where many other conservative groups involved also.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

yes but have u seen the good they do? the koch and soros boogeymen arguments that totally dismiss certain centers or publications is crazy

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

RufusJFisk52...No good could ever come from the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute is an anti-regulation libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. . Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

so the anti war and anti drug war stuff they put out is no good either?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

rufusJFisk52....The Drug war is a complete failure , it's done just the opposite...Cops now wait for the Drug dealers to sell their drugs before raiding them......It puts cash in the hands of the cops, legally.....Cops also concentrate on users to boast their drug arrests , so they get more Government money , and put users in jail!.....Cops are negligent in pursuing serious crimes because they waste manpower on going after drug cases, ether users or dealers.........There have been cases where felonious assault cases have not been followed up on by Cops in Chicago, because they had the manpower looking for drug users. Our Prisons are full of common drug users instead of violent criminals...SO YES ITS A COMPLETE FAILURE.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Yanno, the Tea Party needs OWS far more than the OWS needs the Tea Party. Any time that a post comes up that states how much there is in common between the two groups, I want to call BS.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

Internationalist,

Wonderful post and you really drove it home well.

This part bears re-post here:

"Social security had nothing to do with creation of the deficit. When the tea party talks about abolishing social security, they essentially want to destroy the commitment of the US government towards the ordinary people. No more social security means no more spending by the government towards the old, poor and the needy. This will in turn mean that the tax dollars that get saved by abolishing social security can be robbed anew by the rich elite"

Many of the tea bag sympathizers in here are running scared on this subject. They are back peddling as fast as they can, but they can never escape this truth. I've heard them say that about Social Security many times myself. When they are blunt they;ll tell you, hack it up and kill it. No more safety net. Gone!!!

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

QUOTE:

Republicans in the House and the Senate, together with the 29 Republican state governors are using every dirty tactic against the people of America in order to destroy numerous government programs designed to benefit people while, at the same time, they are working nonstop to further the interests of the wealthiest of Americans. Or we might say, take from the poor and give to the rich. They appear to be reverse Robin Hoods and that is really ugly.

They don't even try to hide what they're doing; they make it clear to anyone who will listen that they want to eliminate Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, aka the leading executioner in America, in his total ignorance, calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme. If these agents of Corporate America have their way they will transfer the massive funds from these so-called entitlement programs into the accounts of Wall Street to add to their already obscene profits.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Excellent post ComeTogetherNOW. This will help many here see how the repelicans try to whitewash these issues and act as if they really want to fix them. What a bunch of BS!

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

The tea party is flaming out and has become irrelevant. Their five minutes of fame are over and good riddens.

We're just are waiting for the death notice.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

LOL.................

So true, it's becoming more apparent day by day. They really dispise Mitt Romney and look who the repugs are going to put up to run.


Tea Party OVER!!!!

[-] 1 points by NappyIsGone2012 (2) 8 years ago

just like the ows goons!!!!! Established 2011 deceased in 2012

[-] 1 points by coolnyc (216) from Stone Ridge, NY 8 years ago

I hate the way OWS is generalized as unemployed drug addicts and I think we do a similar disservice to the Tea Party contingent of 99%. Sure some are the haters (blacks, Jews, gays . . .) but others have a true concern about the debt problem, and we're the first of us raising the alarm that the status quo was taking us down. Now I'm not an idiot and I understand that the movement got hijacked by the Kochs and 1%, but if we are truly 99%, we have some Tea Partiers among us, and I think they probably also recognize that there is a political graft problem and other core issues of OWS. POINT IS, we need to differentiate between "Tea Party" and those who may march under that banner. They are patriots too. And we need them.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Well, truthfully, I would take their moaning about the deficit a little more seriously if it wasn't just more of the same partisan politics. We didn't hear a peep out of them while Bush was running up the deficit fighting two wars along rich fat cat tax cuts and lied us into the Iraq War. Not a whisper, nothing. Not a peep.

Then Obama gets in and all of sudden nothing's right, he caused the recession, the stimulus created zero jobs, and on and on. It's rabid. A pack of lies. Reagan ran up one hell of deficit in his day , bush Sr continued. Clinton reduced it past zero and left a surplus to Bush. A democrat handled the deficit problem.

The Tea Party cries almost solely because it's a democrat in the White House, everything's his fault. The Just say NO repugs they support are there friends. They never want to raise taxes on the rich, ever. The Tea Party endorses the extreme right wing repugs admantly. They are an arm of the repug party just like Faux news. No doubt about it.

So, no, the Tea Party are extremists mostly, who are out to destroy all our social safety nets, and if they ever gain more power, which I don't see happening, the country will decline even further. We will see dead bodies in the streets not just people holding signs for food if they have their. There actually is nothing about them I like quite frankly.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

u are right about not taking 99 percent of republicans seriously about debt and deficits....they spent like sailors ever since reagan and have actually created a much bigger govt than any democrat ever has. but i do despise both parties minus maybe sanders, kucinich, nader, Ron Lawl...at least they are honest and can work together

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Bernie Sanders is definitely a Politician fighting for the little guy!!!

Keep an eye on him and he will give it straight!!!

Thanks for your post!

[-] 1 points by coolnyc (216) from Stone Ridge, NY 8 years ago

I agree but if OWS becomes proxy for Dem and Tea Party for Rep then what happened to 99%? Stalemate again. The corrupted political parties live on fighting about the inconsequential and we are where we began. There are principled patriots in both camps that recognize that our system of government has been undermined by a system of institutionalized graft. We should join to fight that fight. Our differences can then be worked out afterwards.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

At some point, less than year, we all need to go out and vote. Obama will allow the tax cuts for the rich expire, the repugs will not. The Tea party, if the repugs win, will fight to end SS as we know it. Their tactic will bew to gut it and that when in it's death throes kill it off. Then we will revert to the old days when they had poor houses. You die when you die, minimal medical for the old. Just die quietly out of sight.

This is reality. If the OWS does not translate to political power it will not effect any change.

You got the stage now. Repeal Glass-Steagall, yes, FDR put that in, the repugs deleted it, the dems will re-instate with every repug fighting the effort. The repugs don't want Unemployment Insurance, the dems have to fight tooth and nail to keep it. Minimum wage, the repugs always fight that. They would prefer abolishing it completely. Maybe then American laborers can compete with Chinese labor. Hell, we could put American labor back to work for 80.00 a week-- full time. If they want to work a 100 hours a week we should allow it, pay them an incentive, say $200 a week. They could make 200 a week, we could get unemployment to 0. A job for everyone. Hell we'd all be poor but at least we have jobs. When we're too old to work. Die quietly so we can ignore you.

It all translates to politics. If you don't vote then complaining means nothing, just a bag of hot air.

[-] 1 points by cugir321 (2) 8 years ago

Hey idiot...here's the vote to get rid of glass-steagall.

Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Both parties are thieves! Quit trying to prove that the democrat's are looking out for anyone!

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It was a back room deal to appease the De-Regulation happy Repugs. Point well taken. It was a dem sell-out. One I'm not proud of either. But the Repugs pushed and leveraged hard to get it. The dems thoughtlessly and regrettably made the deal with those devils.

Again, kudos, for that point. But, next time, don't call me an idiot again!

The Tea Party, however, still wants to abolish Social Security!

[-] 1 points by lowlyarchitect (5) from Hartford, VT 8 years ago

Sheesh, I would love to keep the 15.3% of the net earnings paid every year (for the past 37 years) to a now defunct social security system program whose funds have been used for whatever other purpose Congress wants except its' intended purpose - would't you?

[-] 1 points by Socrates469bc (608) from New York, NY 8 years ago

This forum is to trolls as fly traps are to flies.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You got it. The forum here is in a severe on-going infection. I think more trolls come in as others find out how wonderful this place is for their wares. It's a shame really since many leave because of it. I'm almost over it myself. It won't long until I will leave here.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

it's amazing you have such insight yet you are so divisive. like public restroom poetry.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Are you a parrot?

I mentioned this divisiveness as something bad. So, you call me divisive. Try being more creative next time.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 8 years ago

lol, ok so you weren't knocking the tea partiers?

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

the same is being said about OWS. For the tea party, the critics say that the KOch brothers are tea partiers. That doesn't mean all tea partiers are like the Koch brothers. If you follow that line of reasoning then you are racist,sexist,ageist and all other forms of prejudice and bigotry. OWS apparently is funded by George Soros, the media reports. Who cares? I don't.

What is OWS? A large group of people who have become aware that crony-capitalism is robbing the country and they are trying to end this crime. Who has a problem with that? Only s fraction of 1% and their media.

The tea party is people who have become aware that the government is bankrupting the country and leaving no future for our kids and they are doing something about it. Who has a problem with that? Only those who benefit from this unjust system and their media.

Then you get the fools on both sides that buy the crap that the media puts out. They know that the media lies yet they still believe them on this.

[-] 1 points by FrankieJ (86) 8 years ago

You're too smart for this forum. Please leave before the stupid rubs off on you..

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

haha maybe i can help someone else then.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

The word tea bag just does not hurt. It's kind of like the Blacks in the 70's calling Whites "Cracker". Just does not hurt. Social Security should go away. Why should the Federal Government be America's retirement fund? Also, Fema needs to go away. Why should the Federal Government be in the insurance business? The United States Post Office should go away. There are thousands and thousands of postal workers that deliver tons and I mean tons of junk mail every day. And we pay these folks high wages and the best health car in the world. Way better that the regular Fed employees. Try this, I did, colllect all your mail for a month. Save all the junk mail. You will be blown away!!! And if you are green, think of all the trees! Post Office is an American waste.

[-] 1 points by powertoothepeople (280) 8 years ago

The Post Office was instituted by the founders. It is explicitly planned for in the Constitution.

It is not a waste for the millions of small businesses that use its services and it pays for itself. It receives no taxpayer funding.

Congress is intentionally imposing red tape to make it unprofitable so that they can hand services over to Fedex. Do you think Fedex is going to carry our letters for 45 cents? Not hardly. Costs will go up for package handling too. The USPS is efficient, convenient and reasonably priced.

Fedex flies Congressmen around in its private planes in order to curry favor.

Perfect example of the kind of corporate/govt corruption this protest is about:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSXNIOa3MEyo&refer=us

[-] 2 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

The PO is efficient!!!!!!! I see the tons of junk mail delivered to my house every day! I stopped by the mailmans truck the other day and his truck was filled with junk mail!!!!! Give me a break. It will go away. And it should not cost the same to mail a letter across the street and to arizona! That is just dumb.

[-] 1 points by powertoothepeople (280) 8 years ago

Well I use the Postal Service for my business and so do millions of other small businesses and it is efficient and cost effective.

Too bad you get so much junk mail, maybe check into getting your name off all the mailing lists:

http://www.directmail.com/directory/mail_preference/Default.aspx

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/cards/preventSellLists.shtml

http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Rid-of-Junk-Mail

[-] 2 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

No, my point is that millions of American get tons of junk mail. Not just me. The PO does not work. Should go private. They get the best health in the world. Get $20.00 per hour to start to drop mail in a box. Get rid of them. It is bull!

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You are the typical tea bagger. I will just let your words stand here on their own.

You want dismantle government and eliminate any programs that can help others. You have no compassion for others and just want to greedly hoard your money away selfishly so **you** can be happy. If others are or not doesn't concern you. Your worried that you can't keep all your money for yourself. It sickens you that they may use your taxes for people who may otherwise starve. Because you view them as lazy do nothings.

By the way I don't need your advice thank you.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

No advice,, I just think the Federal Government should be small.. Leave stuff to the states. The Post Office is a waste! Tell me it is not. Tell me they do not deliver a ton of junk mail. Why should a guy make $20.00 (to start) per hour for dropping junk in a box?? Tell me. Teach folks to save money, don't do it for them. When a person lives near where hurricanes always come , they do not move because they know that FEMA will rebuild them. Nothing to do with keeping my money. Just common sense. And I know many ypung people who live with their parents and are lazy do nothings.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Your common sense seems to me to be more like arrogance.

Some day you may need help. You'll accept if you can get it but it would make you a complete hypocrite.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

Man you are calling me a hypocrite before I am a hyprocrite! One of the reasons the US is in the terrible shape it is in is because gives away too much for free. It spends more that it takes in. If Denny's gave away free hambergers Mon-Fri, they would go belly up in six months. The US just keeps printing money. Now we are up to 15 trillion in debt!!! One of the ways we can help stop this is by doing away with the giant home owners tax break. That is just stupid. And just not fair to renters. A middle class loop hole that needs to go away.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So let's just finish the destruction of the middle class is what I hear you say. You don't say anything about the rich being on the gravy train though do you? Let's balance the budget on the backs of the poor & what's left of the middle class and give even more tax breaks for the rich.

Your narrative leaks onto these pages. Watch Sean Hannity spew lately. He agrees with you completely. The middle class are just whiners looking for a free handout, lower taxes, screw them. The repugs are your friends, they cater to the rich. I'm sure that warms your heart immensely.

[-] 1 points by sinead (474) 8 years ago

Okay let's put a little perspective on these two people..... Dana Loesch is a journalist and political pundit with a radio program and Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian politician, and also has a radio program.

As a Libertarian it doesn't surprise me that Root would like to do away with Social Security..... as that falls within the political beliefs of Libertarians.....

And Loesch? She may sit as a member on the national leadership team of the The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition and speak at events for that entity she does not speak for the many different organizations that work under the name of The Tea Party.

I'll wager to bet if the thousands of Americans that say they subscribe to the Tea Party, were asked the same question Larry King asked Loesch and Root their answer would be a whole lot different.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Not really, it's either kill it now, or the slow death method by gutting first

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Here's a summary of the video link I posted on this thread:

Dana Loesch, a tea party organizer from Missouri, and another tea party organizer, Wayne Allyn Root, joined King for the discussion…. King noted that programs like Social Security are mandatory and asked if the tea parties would like to “do away with” that program as well. Both tea party organizers enthusiastically said “yes, absolutely” and added that a compromise would be at least privatizing the system:

KING: Would anyone turn away Social Security now? Would you do away with it?

LOESCH: I would, yes.

KING: You would?

LOESCH: Yes, absolutely.

KING: Would do you away with it, Wayne?

ROOT: I’d certainly like to abolish social security...

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

The only thing I have to say that is positive about the Tea Party is that they managed to get their own people elected in 2010. OWS has gone national and as such can be one of the few grass roots movements that can field its own candidates for the House and Senate. The civil rights and environmental movements did it too to some extent. Just as the Tea Party co-opted the republican party OWS could run candidates in democratic primaries. Win some seats and maybe scare the democrats into doing something positive.

As far as Social Security goes, it's going to be gone before I get there without some kind of overhaul.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And here's how the TP Baggerts did it:

The Billionaire Koch Brothers who have continue to undermine our political system with their filthy money:

The brothers have backed a foundation that has trained thousands of Tea Party activists. The Tea Party, a popular movement whose name stands for Taxed Enough Already, has grown into a potent force in national politics. Sixty representatives of Congress, out of a total of 435, identify themselves as Tea Party members. Virtually every Republican candidate for president -- including Texas Governor Rick Perry and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann -- has solicited the group’s support.


Oh yes, Michele Bachmann, a Tea Party Bagging darling........

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

koch's are no better or worse than george soros or giant unions....you can go after lots of wealthy other than them as well

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ok, I'm put you down for two wrongs make a right.

Thanks for Voting : )

[-] 1 points by MikeInOhio (13) 8 years ago

Come on! Do you really think the answers are that simple?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

MikeInOhio :

What answers?

(I have one answer, it's the link above, take it!)

[-] 0 points by MikeInOhio (13) 8 years ago

That's exactly what I am talking about.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Good, you agree. Some people think they are entitled to their own facts. But it gets really difficult to defend as the exposure comes.

Let Light shine forth onto the truth.

[-] 2 points by MikeInOhio (13) 8 years ago

I agree. Apparently you and I have different levels of consciousness.

[-] -3 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Well, we know they are... we can't continue to view our government as the repository of the world's wealth. We can't expect the world to pay our bills indefinitely in the form of "loans." And if the direction of Social Security will be towards continued "reform," then we might as well cash the program out now.

[-] 0 points by MikeInOhio (13) 7 years ago

Indeed!

[-] 1 points by Phanson (-6) 8 years ago

You are the tea party and this is a pretty cheap shot - nonetheless, anticipated. - a former friend and believer of OWS.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Phanson:

So, the truth is a cheap shot?


[-] 0 points by Phanson (-6) 8 years ago

One man's truth is not necessarily the truth. You know this.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Phanson:


Did you see the words coming out of his mouth. Facts are facts last I checked.


[-] 5 points by powertoothepeople (280) 8 years ago

It's like trying to nail jello to the wall sometimes, ain't it?

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly. It is comical in a way. But there it is. This is what the tea party stands for. I have heard some of these tea partiers in person telling me that Social Security is crap and it needs to be abolished. I have paid in all my life and they want to deny me the entitlement. I am entitled to it I paid into it. It's my money not a hand-out.

The tea bagging days are closing fast!

[-] -2 points by Phanson (-6) 8 years ago

What exactly is all of your life?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Your point?

[-] -1 points by Phanson (-6) 8 years ago

What is your address? I want to have some cheese and whine delivered to you.

[-] -3 points by Phanson (-6) 8 years ago

Yes. I watched it. It's not the entire message, that's all. You and the tea party are basically cousins, once removed.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Phanson:


Tea party leaders say they would ‘absolutely’ abolish Social Security.

Did you hear and see that part?


[-] -3 points by Phanson (-6) 8 years ago

The sooner you figure out your firm position, the better off you will be. The nonsense is distracting.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

: )

Here's my firm position:

Tea party leaders say they would ‘absolutely’ abolish Social Security.

[-] 1 points by seeker (242) 8 years ago

Social security is great news for the corporate banking empire that buys the bonds and property speculators..In fact all kinds of speculators..

I personally not a t bagger..

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

There are no Tea Party leaders any more than there are OWS leaders.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The Tea Party is OVER!!!!



: )
: )

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

The shame of it.

England, cutting corporate tea taxes to undercut the colonies. In full cahoots with East India Trading ltd.

You'd think they would understand, but they don't.

They keep watching the Disney Corp. version.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

LoL. Yeah, what was all that tea party crap anyway.

The bubble burst. Back to Reality!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

A chance to wear silly hats........:)

And display inane signs.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So surreal it was. Well, I guess the finally joined the coffee club : )

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yeah, they were wisked away in the middle of the nite.

Vanished without a trace. Darn!!!



.................................................................................................................................................................................................

[-] 1 points by NappyIsGone2012 (2) 8 years ago

OWS goons, established 2011 died 2012

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Wake UP!!! When that alarm goes off better run and hide, pretend it's not happening.

It's called denial, embrace it, it's your only choice left.

[-] 0 points by KahnII (170) 8 years ago

Kill social security. As it stands now especially with the age increase that's coming, I'll end up paying more into that govt sponsored ponzi scheme than I'll get out of it, so fuck social security.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thank you so very much for making my point that these Tea Bagging Leaders do speak for you all. and your not a rarity but quite common. Such a good point. So, you folks really are out there. You must be young and feeling immortal. It wouldn't such a shame that when your old no one will care about you. You reap what you sow. Keep sowing these seeds and you will have it. Multiplied.

Mark my words, you will get old much sooner than you ever thought!!! AND----You will not escape it and you shouldn't. Especially you. It will teach you very well. You must have come to this planet for this lesson.

[-] 0 points by Tinhorn (285) 8 years ago

Don't get rid of SS just cut it down to a realistic and sustainable level. Let people opt in and out of it and take personal responsibility for their own financial futures if they so chose. Why are those unreasonable ideas?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ok, another for gutting SS along the way to abolishment.

Thanks for voting.

[-] 2 points by theprof (21) 8 years ago

Opt in/out destroys it. All the young people see the end coming and opt out, making the end come faster. Same with the single payer health care. The program can start out however you like but eventually it will be mandated and eventually it will bankrupt the country.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

When we had a system more like what you propose, the poverty level among the elderly was both high and severe. Social security reduced suicide among the elderly by 40% according to research I've seen.

It is one thing to be responsible for things you can control. Lay offs, recessions, lack of available jobs, stock market crashes - all things you cannot control, and all can leave you old and destitute.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

What's the problem. Social Security is ok - as long as it is an option and not force. The use of force is what all socialist marxist policy is about. forced soc sec, forced public ed, forced extreme regulations - all in exchange for votes. they tell you we will give you this or we will give you that - and you drink it up . It's pathetic. It's all about the government giving different groups free stuff taken from another group. Well guess what - that stuff isn't free!

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, American Citizens should be able to opt out of being citizens?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

so social security is equated with citizenship whoa ! So because the government passes a law that forces me to participate in some ponzi scheme, so they can secure votes that has bearing on my citizenship? What if they passed a law requiring every other male gets a sex change - please - put down the crack pipe.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ponzi Scheme?

What are you Rick Perry?

Do you realize the definition of Ponzi Scheme?

You and Rick Perry need to put down both your pipes! Unless of course you and Rick can somehow change the definition of Ponzi Scheme.

Your may be entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

Hey - just keep it optional & we will have no disagreement. You can choose S.S. all you want - and I will choose what's best for me. Just Like Chile is doing now since their S.S. system failed as ours is doing. All the OWS can choose S.S. no problem.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It is a safety and NOT a test to see if people are responsible enough to plan their own retirement. We tried that and they didn't do very well at all. That's why SS was started to get the old people off the streets and not let them just die there. Compassion. Empathy.

By the way, what percentage of Americans do not utilize their 401K plans NOW?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

not my problem. keep it optional - live & let live. Not live & impose your view on everyone. Private Charity takes care of the poor. Government redistribution is designed to create dependency to get votes. Wake up !

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So we should look for handouts. We should become good beggars.

That's our wake up call?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

no - you should get some skills that are in demand. Plenty of people do the right things in life & don't need handouts. Social Security has created dependency on government. Local charities hold people accountable to make the effort. If you want to be a drug addict loser the charity will see that & cut you off.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You know, I do think ultimately we are dependent on each other for what's best in this world. We don't do this alone!

Government is about We The People after all!

Your narrative playing in your head drowns out the truth about this world.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

individual freedom to interact with each other in a free marketplace. Government is to enforce property rights, personal safety & national defense & individual rights as outlined in the bill of rights period. The government should act as referee - not one of the players on the field as has been the case.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, when we send our troops to invade a third world nation, we are acting just as a referee?

Or, rather, are we a player on the field?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

What makes you think I support the war? We shouldn't have gone to Iraq, however, unlike BHO - GWB got overwhelming support from both houses of congress before going in. Also 26 countries on board. BHO doesn't even bother going to congress, and had 13 countries on board for Libya which has no vital U.S. interest at stake. lead from behind - I call that following.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You said the government should merely act as a Referee. This is what I'm responding to. When America acts in any WAR should we just be a referee? Answer this question please.

Did I say you supported the War(s)? (No, I didn't)

Feeling Guilty, are You? Freudian Slip?

[-] 0 points by OccupyNot (23) 8 years ago

Effin morons

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

LoL

[-] 0 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 8 years ago

I support a lot of what I think OWS stands for, such as ending corporate personhood, increasing transparency in campaign contributions, publicly funded campaigns, and reinstating Glass-Steagall.

I oppose a lot of other things OWS seems to stand for, such as more progressive income taxes, and Social Security. I see the financial crisis as being both caused by market failure and Wall Street as well as government failure and the Federal Reserve. As I understand it, Social Security was irrelevant, and so it shouldn't be a litmus test for whether you're with OWS or not.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Any politician that steps out and says they will eliminate SS has committed political suicide. Plain and simple. We just have to oblige them at the polls.

[-] 0 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 8 years ago

Yes, SS is popular, but only because a lot of people are being paid money by it. The way SS is structured is inherently unstable. If life expectancies increase and birth rates decrease -- as they are likely to do so -- the ratio of number of workers per retirees decreases. The Baby Boomer generation weakens the system even more.

Furthermore, much like high deficits, it acts as a huge intergenerational transfer of wealth from young to old. I don't see how this is fair. Sure, the previous generation gave us a lot of progress, but they also left us a lot of social problems as well. The next generation has yet to contribute, and yet they are being heavily penalized financially just for being born later?

I think OWS should focus on issues that transcend two-party politics, things that both parties get seriously wrong, like corruption in our campaign finance system, the high degree of corporate influence upon politics (free-market conservatives hate it when firms tilt free markets), reforming our two-party system to be multi-party by changing from plurality voting to proportional representation, and corporate governance (if you think our democracy has flaws, look more closely at how boards of directors are selected).

To focus on supporting Democratic ideology will doom OWS to be little more than an angrier Tea Party.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Well, news flash, the Tea Bagging Party is NOT OWS.

[-] 1 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 8 years ago

Duh. What I was trying to say in fewer words was this. Just as the Tea Party has become little more than a pro-Republican grass roots movement, OWS is in danger of becoming merely a pro-Democrat movement. Only angrier.

(i.e., what hchc is saying below)

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So if you don't want political power, how is it ever possible to change gov???

Look up the word **politics** first before you reply so you don't step in it.

[-] 1 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 8 years ago

Power and influence comes in many forms.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

In this country their called politicians. They lay the law of the land. This is the peaceful way of change. We need to vote for the candidates which will represent this change. Or we get none of it.

[-] 1 points by perfectlyGoodInk (12) 8 years ago

That would help, but it's also possible to influence and/or pressure the politicians that are already in office regardless of party. That's easier if you have a broader and non-partisan movement.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Very true. We need to do both. Good point!

Thanks!

[-] 0 points by newearthorder (295) 8 years ago

What are we voting for again? Zombies, sheep, and parrots.

One thing for sure is true....You always know a big war is getting ready to begin right after you hear 2 or 3 people say we should cut the defense budget.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

Why should the US government be in charge of peoples savings? That is what banks and credit unions are for. Why should the US Government have FEMA? That is what the insurance system is for. We need small Government not huge Government. We need to stop spending.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So you blindly trust the insurance companies who have profit as their only incentive?

Aren't the CEOs who sit at the top of those insurance companies 1%ers?

The pentagon spends a huge chunk of our money, let's chop that to the bone first before going after our grandparents who paid their money into SS. How bout that?

Why do you think they call SS an entitlement mandoddy?

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

OK, Social Security needs reform. But I really do think the Fed Gov needs to get smaller. Everything they touch fails and loses tons of money. FEMA and the Post Office are both billions in the red. They need to go private because the Gov sure cannot do it.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So I'll put you down for the gutting approach. Gut SS and then mercy kill it later.

Got ya!

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 8 years ago

Did not say that. It needs to change. I think everybody knows that. Boomers keep getting into it. I think it will run out. I think we need to go to a different savings system. Something like the Federal Gov's Thrift Savings Plan or TSP. Really a good system. the Gov went to it 30 years ago and dropped their old pension system that cost way too much.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Critics of Social Security have long perpetuated the myth that the system will eventually go bankrupt. It's time to dispel that claim once and for all.

http://prospect.org/article/there-no-social-security-crisis-0

Read up Mandodod and you will begin to understand that you are only repeating a narrative that has been repeated so many times you begin to believe it as true since so many repeat the same lie over and over. Well, news flash, it's myth of mythical proportions. Please do read the article. It will broaden your scope of knowledge.

Good Luck!

[-] 0 points by TheTrollSlayer (347) from Kingsport, TN 8 years ago

Myself i believe that they the government wants to do away with it because they screwed it up like everything else by so called borrowing. It has 2.5 trillion in government iou's because of such. Do away with social security and lose 2.5 trillion in government debt to social security at the same time. Now, they say privitize it, i say here we go again.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Starting useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost right about 2.5 trillion.

What do we have to show for that investment?

[-] 0 points by WolfThom (90) 8 years ago

There are also progressive Tea Party leaders...the christian Humanist and Democrat Lyndon LaRouche....for example...

http://www.larouchepac.org

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Progressive?

I have thought of TBPers as regressive. Dismantle gov types. Abolish SS.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

The Republican Contract with the Tea Pary...

  1. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform)

  2. Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether

  3. End Medicare as it presently exists

  4. Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil

  5. Repeal Wall Street Reform

  6. Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes

  7. Abolish the Department of Education

  8. Abolish the Department of Energy

  9. Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency

  10. Repeal the 17th Amendment

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Tea Party FAIL

Where did it go?

hmmmmmmmm...............................

[-] 0 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

dept of education is useless....i am a teacher and i know how useless it is

affordable healthcare act is blatantly unconstitutional.....that's a fact, and its a terribly written bill anyway that only benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor

17th amendment i can see being repealed....read up on the founders vision as to why they created two houses

the govt has already protected oil companies by capping damages they cause

phasing out SS or letting it be optional is not a bad idea at all....shouldnt we have a choice? or am i too stupid?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

RufusJFisk52..........For being an Educator your mighty IGNORANT, Social Security has a surplus and is invested in "US Treasury Bonds" The safest investment in the WORLD! You blieve that the American People would be better off repealing the 17th Amendment, and allowing state congress's to appoint the Senators. That is a piece of logic that escapes me..I wonder how the Wisconsin and Ohio Congress's would do with their choices. You being an Educator is no excuse for being so stupid.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

surplus...it's all IOU's my friend. If all seniors demanded what was owed to them tomorrow they would not have it for them because we borrowed against it. I have no problem with how a state chose its representative to send to congress.....the founders were trying to balance state and federal power and having the states congress choose the method for choosing was fine. And I in PA have no business how others in aniother state conduct their business as long as the obey natural rights theory and the constitution of the us.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

RufusJFisk52...On SS your repeating Republican lies, there is a surplus of 2.6 trillion Dollars...I know the States of the US have already spoken on how they want their Senators Chosen. No matter what you may or may not have a problem with. Again whether you approve or not the US federal Government through the commerce clause controls state to state activities.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Oh my god that does it! That is the enemy of all humanity!

[-] 0 points by offmybrain (23) 8 years ago

I want to own my social security money in my own private account.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, how much have you saved for retirement so far?

[-] 1 points by offmybrain (23) 8 years ago

outside of SS about 1.2 million

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Well, then that explains your view. I have less than 1% of that 1.2 mil with maybe 15 years of work life left. I worry every day about being outsourced so I hope I have all 15. I have been a design engineer for manufacturers in this country for almost thirty years (manuf has been in decline for decades now). I have worked very hard all my life. I'm an engineer and make a little better than average in wages. But not management level. I work for them.

I'm so glad you made it though. You are living the American Dream, many of us have and are missing it. And I now I understand that---- why if you made it, why can't everybody else make it right? This a natural human feeling.

Your not some superman, you just an average joe who worked hard, made some good decisions and was lucky enough not to meet up tragedy along the way (which is destroyer of even the best laid plan.)

Really. It's nice that someone can make it. There's just others would love to make it too. We have to have some compassion for them. Social Security was never meant as some investment scheme rather it's intention was a safety net.

As the boomers retire because they flat out can't work anymore they will need that net my friend. I'm sure most will. I already know I need it.

So, I don't agree with making Social Security an investment. And truthfully many use this ploy as a way to lure people into accepting a gutted system.

401K retirement plans are severely lacking as well. You are by far one of the few that was able tuck away more than a million. It yours and no one will ever take it from you, you earned it. I haven't given up yet. The last 15 I'm told is when most really save much most. Children grown, all that. I'm still in excellent health so maybe I can still have something. Survival.

Anyway, thanks for your post! And you making the American Dream is nice to you. We are all dreamers. We can find inspiration there.

Good for YOU!!!

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

Okay, accepted.

Now, where can the Tea Partiers be found to dispute their strategy for removing the elderly safety net?

Are they as accountable as OWS towards developiong strategy to meet needs?

If so, we are in trouble because the only way to see the OWS demands met is with an article V convention, and NONE amongst their many, many leaders will discuss it.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

That a very excellent question. I'm sure we can find where they hang out. And go there and play devil's advocate. Of course, they are dwindling away and by the end of 2012 they will fade to black. And not a moment too soon.

Good idea. I will research that let you know. Unless you beat me to it.

Thanks!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by WolfThom (90) 8 years ago

There is also anpther Tea Party member and leader, the moderate and progressive Democrft LyndonLaRouche with Lyndon LaRouche Movement and his news from EIR, beside the Mainstream Media...

http://www.larouchepac.com/

Michael C. Rupperts Peak Oil Blog

http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Peak Oil and 9.11.

Michaehl C. Rupperts "Crossing the Rubicon - the decline of the American empire at the end of the age of oil"

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Oh darn you mean we will run out of oil. Then how will we destroy our world. We'll have to find another pollutant. : )

[-] 0 points by leoneo (76) 8 years ago

I have paid Social Security for over 30 years now and I can tell you up front that I would not be upset if it did just go away. Maybe that's because I figured out along time ago through the guidance of my parents that if you want anything in life, you work hard and you can achieve it. Or maybe it was the lesson on saving money from an early age that has helped make me secure in the knowledge that I will be ok without handouts. I don't know maybe just me.

[-] 1 points by powertoothepeople (280) 8 years ago

Social Security is not a handout, you are paying FICA taxes to fund your retirement.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So you pay for something but somehow believe rationally that your not entitld to it. Sounds more like brainwashing.

Also, Michele Bachmann agrees totally with you. She says, if you don't really expect it even after paying for it, you should NOT get it. It would be like getting a gift and as your parents taught you gifts are not good for you anyway. Besides you may die before then and, here again, no loss for you, you not expecting much anyway. At least your strongly convicted about.

And, please, don't back slide, if you need help, don't ask unless you earned it first. If you run out of money just find a nice ditch somewhere to live in. This country is done helping those who can't help themselves. This is your solid logic played back for you. Reap what you sow. Be the solution not the problem.

Right? LoL

[-] 0 points by WolfThom (90) 8 years ago

I have a suggestion: GET RID OF THE FED (Federal Reserve Bank of the USA) and the income tax!

The Fed gets the income tax! Against a vampiric state bank, that is in reality a syndikate of Private bankers...Chase Manhattan Bank, Morgan Staley, Kuen Loeb, Goldmann Sachs....Rockefeller and Rothschild...

[-] 0 points by technoviking (484) 8 years ago

why are we paying for someone else's retirement anyway?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Who's retirement are you paying for?

Could you try to be clear?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by averagejoel (25) 8 years ago

I wouldn't mind if they did away with it. Obviously they would have to pay back all of the people that "invested" in it when they decided to abolish it and therein lies the problem. Question answered I think. That wasn't so hard. P.S. not affiliated with any party. I have a question. Why would this sounds like a bad idea to anyone. Aside from the obvious that I alluded to above.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Averagejoel,

You join whisper in the admission that you both want to abolish Social Security.

[-] 0 points by averagejoel (25) 8 years ago

I guess. Sure. Why not. I'm not sure it was a whisper.... Ha, I didn't see there was a username whisper here. Good stuff!!

[-] -1 points by averagejoel (25) 8 years ago

I feel like you are making some strange list. If so, don't misrepresent me. If you do I guess I will have to ignore it and go to work. At my job. that I enjoy. Very much.

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

I believe that money for Social Security should not be forcibly taken out of my paycheck. If I want someone else to save my money and return it to me later, I will invest in a high-yield CD or in the stock market or in some other program of my CHOICE. It is not right that anyone should claim to have a right to what I have produced.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SO then you agree with your leaders that SS should be abolished.


Thanks for your vote. No surprise coming from you whisper.

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

I do not who you are referring to as 'my leaders'. This is my own opinion and I am responsible for it. But yes, I believe that Social Security, in its current form, should be abolished. Forcing people to deliver what they have earned into the control of someone else is a violation of individual rights.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Now, a second confirmation. You are a loyal tea bagger Whisper.

Now we all know

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

why do we keep acting like social security is something so fantastic? its not exactly the first or second amendment. whats wrong with being able to opt out? am i evil for saying i choose not to be a apart of it? seems pretty paternalistic for someone to say i dont have that right...but someone else has the right to force me to pay in

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, would you advocate doing away with taxes altogether since none of us really like paying them and we are FORCED to do so?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Say that money was given to the people to do with as they please. How many do you believe would invest it wisely, and how many do you think would squander that money, leaving the society to pay for their mistakes. Also, before you answer, remember the housing bubble we just witnessed.

[-] 0 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

I don't agree with the premise that the TEA party's agenda is to abolish the Social Security program. Sure a pair of whackos on the Larry King show said that's what they want, but so what? Plenty of whackos on this message board have said crazy crap too, should i consider that crazy crap the agenda of OWS as a whole?

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

What part about Tea party Leaders didn't you get?

[-] -1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

That pair of folks on Larry King were the leaders then? Ok, i disagree that that pair of folks are the TEA party Leaders.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Walking it back...disagreeing with your leaders....hmmm

Many tea baggers have chimed in here on this thread to agree already, your too late, cat's out. We know that's what they want, you can't cover for them.

Your leaders weren't breaking away from the party when they said the wanted it abolished, they were bringing the party together under this mantra.

[-] -1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

My leaders now? Whatever.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The Tea Baggers have not been keeping it a secret that want to abolish SS/

They openly say this, as I have already proven.

And it's not the first time or last they will say it. It seems you have been embarrassed by your leaders. Your doing this dance back. How cute!

[-] 2 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

"My leaders" again? Strange since I'm not a TEA party supporter. In fact i have a lot of sympathies with the motivations behind OWS. Unfortunately, as the OWS movement continues to define itself, it seems to be veering more and more to the left instead of sticking to things that 99% can truely agree on. Kind of sad that independent thinking people get branded as TEA baggers really.

Puzzle on this puzzlin... what you're doing in this thread diminishes support for the OWS. I don't think you care about that too much though. My guess is that your real concern is seeing Obama re-elected more than anything else.

About social security, your not interested in a real discussion about it... just alarmist mud throwing.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Still walking this back. SO, then why do you defend the Tea Baggers if you really don't support them? You say they don't want to abolish SS. But their leaders and followers have been saying this all along and they continue to say it since the inception of this bagging party. I have offered indisputable proof that they in fact did say exactly this. The link is there for you. Check it out.

If you don't support them, why do you defend them?

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

I didn't defend them, i disagreed with the premise of your overly simplistic strawman of their point of view. Why don't you state your true goals here... get obama re-elected... that's what you want, right? I think you're a shill for the democratic party and have less business being here than i do honestly. Puzzle on that.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So now the Truth is called a simplistic strawman. You want to run me in circles because you don't know what a logical fallacy is.

Look I'm done. This isn't a debate. Debate yourself.

[-] 1 points by michael4ows (224) from Mountain View, CA 8 years ago

truth is, i'm glad to be done with u too

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Good, go find someone else to run in circles over your falsely mistaken fallacies. I'm sure you have purpose and motivation for doing that.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

I agree with the basic concept of the tea party which was to get the government to stop bankrupting the country and I am a fiscal conservative and would like to ged rid of a few bureacrats and agencies that are infringing on my freedom and rights. That is me speaking for myself. I can't speak for other tea partiers and they don't speak for me.

Some people like to point to a few fascists that consider themselves tea party and then say that tea partiers are fascists. This is prejudiced and nonsense. First, there are 2 components of fascism: 1) corporations and 2) the government. The tea party would get rid of one of these components almost entirely so there is no way "they" can be fascist.

Maybe some are anarcho-capitalist. I am a moderate libertarian and wouldn't eliminate all government. My guess is that I would get rid of about 70% of it. I don't have a problem with social security, though.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ok, so your fine with abolishing Social Security since you never mention it in your post. Am I right?


[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

no I mentioned it.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Oh, you added it. Good for you.

[-] -1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

I think it should be privatized with incentive offered to people that put more than a certain percentage into their social security.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SO, you have cast your vote for the gut it first approach. Then go in for the kill when the pool of blood is everywhere.

Anybody have a piece of cardboard I can write a message on?

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 8 years ago

Way to be a sheep. Let me guess, wikipedia?

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Well, first of all Wayne Allyn Root is quite wealthy. Dana Loesch, also does well financially, and she is too young to care about Social Security.

But if anybody believes that the Tea Party taxpayer, as a fiscal conservative, wants to see his or her Social Security or Medicare benefits cut, they're seriously misguided.

This is the Tea Party usurped and there's been much discussion about that here.

[-] -1 points by socal63 (124) 8 years ago

I don't understand why my post was closed. Several disliked my opinion, so my post no longer displays. Here is what I wrote:



Social Security is a horrible investment. Let those that have contributed collect what they are due. Stop future contributions and allow the public to be RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN FUTURE. When you have worked for 30+ years and see what you have to look forward to in Social Security benefits, it is depressing. Do some math and see what you could do if you put 6.2% of every dollar that you've ever earned into a retirement account. I would have done much better than Social Security will pay.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

Socal63...SS is Invested in US Treasury Bonds, The safest investment in the world.

[-] 0 points by socal63 (124) 8 years ago

You are mistaken. Social Security is part of the general fund and is not protected. Besides, did you do the math? 6.2% of my earnings would have provided more than Social Security will. And, it would be mine to hand down if I don't live long after retirement.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

soocal63... No you are mistaken and You should do some research, or read the article closely. No where does it say that SS money is not held separate from general funds and deposited in US Treasury Bonds, which it is......... Also SS is funded to 2036 when changes in funding will be needed. The amendments established a trust fund for any surplus funds. The managing trustee of this fund is the Secretary of the Treasury.

The 2011 annual report by the program's Board of Trustees noted the following: in 2010, 54 million people were receiving Social Security benefits, while 157 million people were paying into the fund; of those receiving benefits, 44 million were receiving retirement benefits and 10 million disability benefits. In 2011, there will be 56 million beneficiaries and 158 million workers paying in. In 2010, total income was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion.

[-] 1 points by socal63 (124) 8 years ago

Technically you are correct and I was wrong in stating that SS is part of the general fund. Thank you for the polite dialogue (it seems hard to find in this forum) However, please read this portion of a Forbes article dated 7/13/11:


"Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036. So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?

The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted. And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling." Full article - http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/


And, I still contend that my money would be MUCH better invested by me. I began paying into SS at the age of 16. Should I be happy to collect a few hundred dollars each month when I'm 62?

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

socal63...Do you really think you personally could get a better return and security than US Treasury Bonds?, Oh and by the way when the Government borrows money from SS they use US treasury Bonds as collateral, that's what Charles Krauthammer leaves out. It wouldn't go well with his argument. The Chinese Government with all the investments in the world to chose from, selected US Treasury Bonds for their Multi-Trillion dollars of investment. I think the average American would not be as smart an investor as you, so US Treasury Bonds , The safest Investment in the World, would most likely be a good pick. Collect a few hundred dollars at retirement? where did you come up with that figure?

[-] -1 points by journey4word (214) 8 years ago

yea. you do make it sound as though they wouldn't replace it with something else. at least privatizing it.

so, not exactly what they said but, as long as you are using bits and pieces of statements to gain support you'll fall on your ass.

Me I wouldn't vote for any of the Tea Party leaders, I don't think any are running and this, Even if this post were accurate, is a non-issue.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Wake Up! The Tea Party Baggers are definitely going to first gut SS and then abolish it. I personally know some of these folks and their not shy about their intent. Many are Libertarian who are totally against any gov program to help people.

Just ask them and they'll tell you how much they hate SS. Just ask. Don't whitewash.

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 8 years ago

do you know any of them? I do. no I'm not a member but know as in personally Know. maybe it's because the ones I do know are drawing SS now. but there are boat loads of them that age.

seems strange to me that any of them would want to hurt themselves, and even stranger that you or anyone else could believe they would.

just my thoughts

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 8 years ago

journey4word...You don't need to know a Tea Bagger, all you need is to listen and read their talking points. Repeal the Affordable Care Act (Health Insurance Reform) Privatize Social Security or phase it out altogether End Medicare as it presently exists Extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and big oil Repeal Wall Street Reform Protect those responsible for the oil spill and future environmental catastrophes Abolish the Department of Education Abolish the Department of Energy Abolish the Environmental Protection Agency Repeal the 17th Amendment

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, you never heard the mantra that those who are collecting now are ok. It's only for those who may be 15-20 years out from collecting SS who they want to hack off at the knees. Like Michele Bachmann says, they aren't really expecting to have it anyway. SO, just don't give it to them, No surprise. They'll take their medicine and comply to the world order of greed. Americans have much less compassion these days. As many them say, if you didn't make in this society, tough! Go away and be quiet, we don't want to hear your belly whining. They worked too hard for what they got and they want to keep it all. No sharing. Dismantle the government.

TPB are Rugged individuals. For those who freely made bad decisions, didn't get the right kind of job, go find a ditch to lay in, and expire there, just get your grubby hands out of my pockets. We have no care for you. These are your friends journey4word/

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 8 years ago

mnnn, nahhh. I don't know anyone that harsh.

I could understand your hate towards someone like that, but I think you'd be hard pressed finding one.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Really, I have much experience with this. There are plenty like that. I think your just being naive. It comes out of selfishness. and there's no short supply of it. It's natural for people to be selfish. Sharing is a learned behavior requiring structured discipline and good upbringing. We don't care for others typically, we learn to care. One day someone picks you up with their love and you begin to realize it.

But, what I see, is a world that cares less and less. It's motivated by greed and selfishness. All for me, none for you, mentality.

It reflects in our politics, the tea party is a symptom of it. As the tax rates are the lowest in decades and NOW they're fed up, can't take anymore, taxed enough. It's quite ironic and telling. I like to think their extremists and most aren't like them.

But, it makes you wonder. Doesn't it?

Where are we really headed. Bad vibes in the air, who knows. If this forum is a reflection of the real world, we're in for a very bumpy ride.

The divisiveness is quite alive and kicking in here. I believe it's encouraged since they allow the obvious insults to continue here unabated. This hurts people and many pan it off as no big deal. This is a mistake. Personally my patience is thinning and my posts are getting more edgy. It's wearing into me which is why I will step off soon.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 8 years ago

no, I think those people are telling YOU that YOU can't have a hand out and YOU can't have assistance Probably because they see YOU are able to do this yourself. For yourself.

Welfare wasn't designed to be handed out to anyone who Wants it, anyone who just decides they don't want to work or be productive. Welfare isn't for the Lazy it's for the needy. so YES I can see why they would tell YOU no and Probably do it harshly and Probably why you have seen it so Often.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So no unemployment insurance, you propose to eliminate that as well?

[-] 0 points by journey4word (214) 8 years ago

Ohh unemployment compensation is a make-over MUST. lol.
but again, I don't hear anyone wanting to "get rid" of it.
and you'd be misleading yourself to keep naming important spending programs as an excuse for excessive liberal overboard spending.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

There are those who want UI gone. Ron Lawl is one, and the rest of libertarian crowd essentially. I hear them constantly yelp for it. They live for it.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by kcuFamabO (0) 8 years ago

BS most of the Tea Party are near retirement age and paid into it most of their lives.

Think Progress? Pleeeassse.

Soros Flying Monkeys

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

That you find this interview from over a year and a half ago to be some kind of shocking revelation is hilarious. Glad you're catching up anyways.

Seems like the majority of people surveyed believe that Social Security is in a "crisis" and fear that without major overhaul, the system will fail. Tea Party people might just realize that.

The first two links below are 1) to the 2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees revealing how fast the system is failing and 2) a survey taken by SocialSecurity.org. Please shine your bright light on the facts!

http://www.socialsecurity.org/zogby/fullreport.pdf

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51476.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/13/bloomberg-poll-privatizing-medicare-and-social-security-on-the-table/

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Oh really, so what your saying is the tea party from a year and half ago have completely done a complete turn around. Think again. They built the tea party on those ideas and they have no attention to drop it. None.

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

That isn't what I said. Try again. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So you don't agree with Tea Bagging Party NOW.

Can you make up your mind???

justthefacts does an unique dance back, oh, so cute!

Dance! DANCE! dance! he-hawwww.....................

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

So, you DO have a reading comprehension problem.

First, like OWS, there are many voices and many agendas in the Tea Party. Not all groups agree on all of the same things, and not all members of all groups believe/think/feel the same ways. Stop trying to cookie cutout people in other groups if you don't want it done to YOUR group. In other words, the two people in the video may be leaders of individual groups, but they aren't my leaders and they don't speak for me.

Second, I agree with the vast majority of people that SS needs a MAJOR overhaul because in it's current form, it is simply mathematically unsustainable. IF, I agreed with the idea of "abolishing" Social Security, and I'm not saying I do, I would want it replaced with something more viable and agreeable to the American public.

Now. Everyone here realizes that you are desperate to paint the Tea Party as vile, horrific, cruel people who could care less about the poor or the elderly etc. Point is, you keep screaming that everyone else is "NOT entitled to their own facts" when all you can present is YOUR OWN VERSION of the facts. You got nuthin and your constant attempts at straw man arguments and diversionary tactics only proves that.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Here's some more facts:

The KOCH brothers fund the Tea Bagging Party:

Charles and David KOCH have supported the Tea Party, a loosely organized group that aims to shrink the size of government and cut federal spending. These are long-standing tenets for the Kochs. In 1980, David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket, pledging to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve System, welfare, minimum wage laws and federal agencies -- including the Department of Energy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Those are facts, not mine, their yours and everybody who has a discerning taste for the Truth even it's bitter.

ANd, justthefacts, why do you have to scream, take a deep breathe, relax!

There ya go :-)

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

fbi and cia need to go...see no problem with that. The crimes of both agencies are endless.....just google it and you will find hunderds. Fed Reserve too.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 8 years ago

Compared to where the money comes from that is funding OWS, THE Koch brothers look like Amish dairymen.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Did you catch the part about:

The Koch Bros "pledging to abolish Social Security"

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

social security isnt exactly the bill of rights my friend...at least the koch's support repealing the patriot act....dont make soros or the koch's out to be giant boogeymen..they also support ending the war on drugs

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Like Pete Dupont???

Another rich fat cat.

[-] -1 points by Happierbanker (23) 8 years ago

Not saying I am for abolishing it today but didn't the human race survive for centuries before SS came into existence?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yeah, and we also had slavery not that long ago.

What's your point?


You don't want to abolish SS today, how about tomorrow, would be soon enough for you?

Or maybe you could give us year to get our affairs in order.

[-] -1 points by Steve15 (385) 8 years ago

That's because they are clueless about history and think watching the news is educational

[-] -2 points by airplaneradio (50) 8 years ago

Now that's interesting. The Tea Party is leaderless yet two people who got media attention all of the sudden are supposedly making demands that are taken as truth. But when OWS people do it, whether its on the forum or on a YT video, its always considered bunk because "no one speaks for the leaderless movement". Ain't that something? Anyway, I'm not a TPer or OWS or anything. I don't vote nor do I care about the corrupt government corporatocracy that's getting more powerful and I don't even live in that shithole of a country anymore for those reasons. Honestly, if I was there, I'd be fighting to dismantle and hit the reset button on everyone and everything because its rotten to the core.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, the Tea Party is leaderless. You are an outright liar!

Your are NOT entitled to your own facts, just your misguided opinions.

Too bad you decide in your backwards logic that your vote doesn't matter so you don't vote. Either that or your just too tired. But hey you'll fight to end successful programs that help people. For that you'll fight like heck.

I guess it just makes you mad to see others getting help. Whewwww. : (

[-] -1 points by airplaneradio (50) 8 years ago

I'm worry. I wish I spent my time just blindingly agreeing with everything that you said so you'd feel better about yourself and your thoughts and ideas.

Well the vote doesn't matter. I take it from a former president who said it himself:

"Presidents are selected, not elected" -FDR

Furthermore, I'm far removed from it. I don't live in America anymore and I don't really care what happens to that dark cesspool of madness anymore. Besides, how would I fight like heck to end something if I'm not involved, not voting, nor even in the country to do anything about. Sense, you make not. But then again, from all of your delusional responses to everything and everyone who disagrees with you even in the slightest gesture, I am not surprised you seem deranged.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I am deranged for the recognizable Truth that usually is known by it's self evidence.

But, hey, when you have no argument all you can possibly muster up is this name calling. You have no rational argument. The Tea Bagging Party wants to abolish Social Security. It is clear, they said it out of their mouths. It was video taped.

[-] 2 points by airplaneradio (50) 8 years ago

Using bold letters doesn't make any difference. Incessantly repeating something doesn't make it any more truthful. Insults don't change anything. Being deranged (or pretending to be) isn't cute.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And neither are you, cutie

[-] -2 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

OMG, two people affiliated with the TEA Party said they would abolish SS! That must mean that every member is against it. So by that logic, the OWS crowd has a lot of explaining to do as there are many crazy ramblings on this forum.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The majority of Tea Baggers totally agree with their leaders who say this mantra over and over.


You're doing the dance back too I see. Cute!

[-] -2 points by solidarity1 (25) 8 years ago

I don't know what the tea party thinks, but I think that SS should be privatized or at least have a privatization option if you choose to manage your own funds. I don't understand why someone would "try to poke holes" in the statement. I think they have a logical stance and I support abolishing SS or privatizing it. You're not going to make a counter argument? You're just going to say that the tea party is wrong?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, you'd like Social Security privatized to turn it into a casino game like the way wall street has been run before the tax payers bailed them. But I would guess if we the 99% lose in our casino game we won't get bailed.

But ultimately, you support abolishing it, like a two step process, gut it, and then some years later go in and abolish it.

And then we can have those poor houses like they did before SS.

I don't want to live in that future, sorry, we will continue to fight your idea of this bleak future where we're all free, free to die quietly, and not bother the rich with our suffering. So they can continue ignoring our plight.

[-] 1 points by solidarity1 (25) 8 years ago

Got it. People's futures are bleak if they have to manage their own money. You have an interesting and depressing viewpoint.

[-] 2 points by powertoothepeople (280) 8 years ago

Well, when I hear "privatize" I do not think it means the same thing as "let people manage their own money".

Privatize means some private entity would be "managing" the tax inflow, the investing of the funds and the payouts instead of the government,

If the system is going to be abolished (which I don't support) but if it is going to be, then I do want to mange my own money and be in control of it 100%.

I don't want to continue being taxed and have some private middle man replacing the government middle man and making decisions with that money.

[-] 2 points by solidarity1 (25) 8 years ago

When people speak of privatizing SS they usually don't mean they want a different middle man. They usually mean that they just don't want government acting as a middle man. I would LOVE the opportunity to invest all the money I've put into SS :(

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Oh really, since pensions already are pretty much a thing of the past which gave people a retirement benefit.

How many today have really taken charge of their retirement funding since now they are completely free to so? 5%, 10%

So, people given the chance to plan their own retirement will rise to the challenge, right?

But they did not do so, did they?

So, what do you propose, leave them in the street?

(Social Security is a safety net for these folks, which you will happily take away)

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

but it is my money right? how can you keep harping on this strange right to force people into a safety net is they do not want to? Have you ever heard of freedom? if it is voluntary it seems pretty moral to me, sure lots of people will opt in. why are you scared if i choose to opt out? im pretty good with investing i trust myself. By the way....i get paid under the table and dont contribute much in taxes....would you call the cops on me and have me arrested?

[-] -2 points by smartguy (180) 8 years ago

Get back to us when you attempt to cash out.

[+] -4 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

Let's see, one group proudly displays the American flag, the other desecrates it. One group proudly says the pledge at rallies, the other taunts the police. I could go on, but why....soon enough, A child having a tantrum will tell me what the 99 demand/want.....and in the course of this wet-eyed rebuttal remind me that I have no intellectual capacity to go against the Canadian movement....

[-] 5 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Joyce:


SO it stands:

Tea party leaders say they would ‘absolutely’ abolish Social Security.

You offer no defense.


[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Joyce,

Do you understand the purpose of this thread?

How does you post have any relevancy to the premise of this thread?

[-] -1 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

Per the rules, this is an open forum.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And what does that mean to your open mind Joyce?

[-] 0 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

Puzzlin, I'm not trying to inflame, yet, this post strikes me as otherwise.......no?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Joyce, I have absolutely no idea what your trying to say.

If you would like to clarify it would be fine but I really am intently focused on the purpose of this thread which is to expose the Tea Party for what it is.

Nothing more, nothing less. The truth based on indisputable facts.

Did you take the link?

[-] 0 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

So, help me...while OWS wants to move beyond politics as usual, I'll attack a movement of fundamental principals that in an uneasy way, parallel OWS and attack it. The sad reality, there is no "cure all" available that will satisfy 100%.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

68% of Americans want to tax the rich NOW. I'm with them. OWS is largely with them in even higher percentages.

Democracy works, we'll run with it.

[-] 2 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

what if 68 percent wanted blacks enslaved? you are not familiar with natural right theory and the constitution are you? Democracy is no good thing....2 wolves and a sheep vote on whats for dinner

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Read your constitution. We do have inalienable rights!

Taxing the rich is not one of those.

[-] 3 points by powertoothepeople (280) 8 years ago

So they wave the flag while they do away with Social Security? Yes or no?

PS = post the proof that Occupy Wall St desecrated the flag. That never happened as far as I know.

[-] 2 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

who cares if they desecrated the flag.....if they did that it glorifies it as much as desecrates it....the flag stands for total free expression...even to desecrate it...and if anything that is the real glory of the flag

[-] -3 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

And this is somehow un-American by your narrow definition (SS reduction in the face of extreme budget decisions) .....I know, that old war machine sucks out a great deal but, we all sleep well....yet, we just made that up- the terrorists boggy man.....come on, you can do better my little progressive....and since the technocratic age loves All things video, thereby passive......screw tit for tat...everyone can provide his/her "empirical" evidence via whatever.....that's where all of you fail.....you have the gift of goggle without being able to render a true analysis void of passive help......you love the answer without knowing how you arrived at it.......................ah, red cheeks abound......let's dance......try..........

[-] 5 points by powertoothepeople (280) 8 years ago

What in god's name are you rambling about?

Is this the "baffle em with bullshit" defense or what?

Do you or does the Tea Party want to do away with Social Security or not?

It is a simple yes or no question.

No, I don't care to dance but you're doin' a helluva job tapdancing around the issue.

[-] -3 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

You refuse the parallel quid pro quo as though every answer is a simplistic/black-white.....I lean right though would hardly equate with the T.P.....SS should remain for all......i get my SS statements of projected-future payments and remain hopeful that it will be there for me. I am more hopeful that the liberal (not in the political sense) flinging of shit on both ends will end......sorry you can't keep up with the polemic.......

[+] -6 points by socal63 (124) 8 years ago

Social Security is a horrible investment. Let those that have contributed collect what they are due. Stop future contributions and allow the public to be RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN FUTURE. When you have worked for 30+ years and see what you have to look forward to in Social Security benefits, it is depressing. Do some math and see what you could do if you put 6.2% of every dollar that you've ever earned into a retirement account. I would have done much better than Social Security will pay.

[-] 1 points by MrX (61) 8 years ago

When I do the math should I include the 6.2% Employer contribution or will that be dropped as well ?