• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Republicans

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Disagreeable said:
You're so dishonest. Bush didn't propose a "voluntary" departure from Social Security. And it's not the "old"; it's the only Social Security plan we've ever had. Anyone in this country can open up an IRA with their own money. You can leave it to your kids if you want. You can invest it in lots of different things. I've had one ever since Congress passed the law. It did very well during the Clinton years, by the way. And with the cost of gasoline and other things skyrocketing, I'm thinking about taking some of the interest out. Don't whine and cry and suggest that you're not allowed to invest for your own retirement. You can do that however you want. Warning, though: Enron.
Dishonest? In context could his meaning of the term "old" not mean antiquated? Of course it could and of course you knew that...dishonest indeed. Secondly you can never invest the money the government takes from you to put in social secutity. Of course you knew that. Dishonest indeed. Perhaps that is what "Dis" stands for .

The term "old" could mean a lot of things. Like how "old" your defense of the Bush Administation is getting.

I never said you could invest Social Security withholdings however you wanted. But obviously the American people didn't trust the Bush plan because it withered on the vine. I think most of them saw that he was selling us out to his croneys on Wall Street. Social Security is in trouble. With the political capital Bush though he had, he might have actually improved the program. But, instead, he chose to try to kill it. Didn't work. I honestly think that's the point where many people started looking at him differently and questioning whether he had their best interests or the best interests of big business at heart.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Check out the graph here: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
A better representation of our national debt is how it relates to our gross domestic product. Ie, debt related to income. And it's not pretty...

every major corporation in the US has a lot of debt - maybe 40-50 of total capitalization.
Our federal government hasn't been that low in 20 years...

but I haven't seen the democrats filibustering the senate to cut off funding for anything.

I don't think I get your point...

Like I said, someone needs to put on the brakes. But frankly, I'm not really expecting too much braking in spending from the Democrats. Are you? :???:
That's not really a Democrat thing, afterall. Republicans typically are the ones to slow wasteful spending. Part of the balance in our party system, afterall. (and, I would guess, also a part of why Clinton had that drop a few years into his administration when the GOP got Congressional control)

Most of the working people in the US have money owing on mortgages, automobiles, credit cards, etc. Do you have the same concern for them?

Yes!
Most economists (who know far more than I) are extremely concerned about the debt load most Americans are carrying, too.
 

Happy go lucky

Well-known member
Disagreeable I wonder how much of ones IRA or 401K is invested in petrolium? I bet some of your IRA is placed into that very market? If not you loss at the present time! :D :D Start investing in ethonol plants and you can retire in 10 years :D :D
 

Latest posts

Top