Looks right

[Xavier_Onassis]

Now you are claiming that I was somehow a part of the media propaganda team opposing Juniorbush. What he proposed were rather minor modifications. I didn't think they were in my interest, and I was not in favor of them, but my point is at present that any attempt to change SS to an investment scheme that depends on the random fluctuations of the stock market will surely be defeated.

Most of this country does not think that SS is a Ponzi scheme, and many are totally unaware of what a Ponzi scheme is. A majority of Americans do not like th think abiut anything involving mathematics. They  will gladly pay H & R Block $60 just to file a 1040 EZ form.

[sirs]

LOL....The deflections just keep flying.  No, I never claimed or even implied anything in the least.  What he proposed WERE minor, but the left, including yourself, portrayed anything and everything that was being considered as some effort to tear down all of SS, with the added goal of throwing everyone in the street.  Notice, that has nothing to do with putting you on some staff for the NY Times   

Whether most of the people do or don't believe that SS is a Ponzi scheme misses the reality that it, and what the current administration is doing with our current debt shell game, functions just the same as one.  Most of the people didn't want Obama to unilaterally circumvent current immigration law, and you seem ok with that.  Most of the people didn't want Obamacare in the 1st place, and you're perfectly ok with that one as well. 

But you're right in one respect.  The less transparent and more tortuous the actions of Obama and the Democrats, as espoused by Gruber, the better, so as to keep the electorate as ignorant as possible to what their true intentions & actions are

[Xavier_Onassis]

Being as Barak Obama was elected twice by the American people, I question your statement that people don't want him as president.

White people like you may not like him, but you are not actually running the show, are you?

You have at no point demonstrated that you know diddly about economics, either.

[sirs]

Cite to me ANYWERE, where I claimed or even implied that the people didn't want him as President, when he was elected...twice.  YOU just made that accusation, and you'll never be able to back it up.  You know why?  Because I never made such a claim.  But there you are, pathologically deflecting, yet again.  Taking policies and actions that the people factually and overwhelmingly DON'T support, and trying to make that about Obama as President himself.

If it weren't so transparent, it'd be laughable the effort.  Once again, it has nothing to do with my race or his race.  It has nothing to do with me personally or what I can or can't do personally.  This latest tangent was highlighting a window of reality, where when Bush was in office, his mere minor modifications being discussed, were vilified by you and your ilk as trying to literally destroy SS.  But now, many years removed, the truth of what they really were, mere minor modifications, were all they really were

[kimba1]

well getting rid of social security means that people who are against SS will also not get refunded all those withdrawel from their paychecks also.

ever notice legally speaking the U.S. government has not document stating money taken for  SS is owed back. it`s all assumption. meaning by all right the government can keep all that money.

[sirs]

Yep.  Just a "promise".....kind of along the lines that we could keep our Dr. and Insurance, if we liked it

[Plane]

No one is going to abolish Social Security.

True , I don't think it will be abolished , I think it will crash in a totally predictable , unplanned manner.

Juniorbush spent months trying to make minor modifications and no one was interested.

Mores the pity.
Reagan modified the deal, Clinton modified the deal, reducing the amount owed .

The best that can be done is to make the reduction gradual , perhaps every third president.

What Bush failed to do was create a section of SS that would be in the control of the investor , and it would actually be invested. I would have liked that.

The solution in this country has always been that when Americans have fewer children, we compensate by admitting more immigrants. I don't think that FDR intended Social Security to be funded by the same amount of contributions forever.

Isn't this a nasty trick to play on them?

One of the things that FDR did not anticipate was a large increase in longevity, as hygiene and medical care have improved.

This might indeed be the best contribution of Obamacare , if it manages to halt the growth of longevity that has sapped the strength of Social Security , the SS system might last longer. If Obamacare reduces availability of medical care enough to return the ratio of old to young to 1935 levels , the Social Security System might return to viability.

[sirs]

No one is going to abolish Social Security.

True , I don't think it will be abolished , I think it will crash in a totally predictable , unplanned manner.

BINGO!!

[Xavier_Onassis]

That will not happen unless the Republithugs make it happen.

[Plane]

That will not happen unless the Republithugs make it happen.

No.

No one will ever even propose the end of Social Security, but the crash will not be prevented.

Our birth rate is down , our unemployment rate is a little high, we are going to run low on employed children.

What could possibly be done to prevent it?

If the solution is to bring more young into our system, how far can that go?

If it isn't infinite , then it will run down.

Once we have absconded with most of the talented youth of the world , we will owe all of them a retirement also.

Your suggestion is just another way to delay the totally inevitable collapse, putting it off longer by involving more people to eventually be disappointed.


I don't think that the Social Security system will last until we have kidnapped all the youth of the world, a lot sooner than that the youth we have already will learn to make most of their living off the books and a few years of high unemployment will cause a tax revolt , mostly of the young and lowly paid.

[sirs]

That will not happen unless the Republithugs make it happen.

Republicans have nothing to do with it.  It's called unsustainable mathematics.  But nice to see how the blame is already in place

[Xavier_Onassis]

It has been clear since the very beginning that the big money guys who rule the GOP want Social Security to fail. They want it to fail, they could give a damn about the poor and the middle class. They just can't get elected with out pretending that it is all about using "opportunity" as some sort of bait to lure the less bright Americans into theoir trap. Just as the Plantation owners got the po' White trash to fight and die for the Confederacy: there was a lot of cheap land, just get you some slaves and clear the land and plant cotton and you can be just like us.  What were the odds? One in thousand.

People make it in this country DESPITE the Oligarchy, not because of it.

[sirs]

No, it hasn't been clear, in any way, shape or form.  If nothing is done to reform it, it will fail....period  It wasn't designed to incorporate our growing population of increasing retirees.  It was just assumed there'd be enough folks paying into the system.  That is simply an enviable truth & basic math, as there won't be enough folks paying into SS to pay out to those who already have

And no amount of trying to blame Republicans, will alter that reality

[Xavier_Onassis]

They will raise the age at which people can collect SS and they will raise taxes. This is not a poor country. 1% of the people own over 40% of everything. The solution is simple.

[sirs]

See?....how can you blame Republicans for its imminent failure, when you yourself recognize it needs reformed.  Your solution has literally no chance of passing politically, nor is it fair, but without some form of reform, it will fail.  And nothing the GOP does will bring that about.  It'll happen all on its own