Skip to main content

the official GOP platform:
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Education.htm

highlights:

To get our schools back to the basics of learning, we support initiatives to block more Department of Education funding to the states

Recent audits show that 22% of all federal programs are ineffective or incapable of demonstrating results.


69 separate programs, administered by 10 different agencies, provide education or care to children under the age of 5.


Nine separate agencies administer 44 different programs for job training.
23 separate programs, each with its own overhead, provide housing assistance to the elderly.
With so many redundant, inefficient, and ineffective federal programs, it is no wonder that the American people have so little confidence in Washington to act effectively when federal action is really needed. (they want to do away with these programs)


here they say;
Of the $3 trillion spent annually, only one-third is reviewed each year during the budget and appropriations process. The remaining $2 trillion automatically goes to interest.

but then they say:
Because the problem is too much spending, not too few taxes
(it sounds to me like we are paying too much interest in our war debt)


The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not to ensure equality huh? how do you protect equal rights without ensuring equality?)

We call for the repeal of all mandatory minimum wage laws.


We support the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education.


We call for the elimination of the U.S. Department of Energy

We call for the elimination of the Federal agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).



Because official Washington does not even know how much land it owns, we call for a national audit of all federally-owned properties as a first step toward returning unnecessary properties to the American people.



Washington must take the lead in forging a partnership with America’s best run businesses.


workers will not be able to depend on Social Security as part of their retirement plan. We believe the solution should give workers control over, and a fair return on, their contributions. No changes in the system should adversely affect any current or near-retiree. Comprehensive reform should include the opportunity to freely choose to create your own personal investment accounts which are distinct from and supplemental to the overall Social Security system. (the privatizarion of social security, which means if you dont have the disposable income to invest or your investments are bad, you starve when you retire).
Saved from WHAT? LOL...Not being bukakke'd with STUPID on a weekly basis?- road puppy
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Ronnie,
It is the latest, I looked myself.

tcf:

Streamlining the DOE is not eliminating it. Its is bloated and does no good throwing money at the problem. Obama has fared worse with schools than Bush did.

The rep have always said SS is going broke. That is a fact. Bush brought up the idea of private accounts to supplement, shot down. The dems always claim the reps are going to 'do away with SS', that is false.


quote:

The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not to ensure equality huh? how do you protect equal rights without ensuring equality?)


You have the right to work and save and make things better. So does everyone else. You and everyone else DOES NOT have the right to steal from another guy who makes more than you so you both are equal. That is a hard concept for loberals.

quote:
workers will not be able to depend on Social Security as part of their retirement plan.

No, they won't, unless you want to steal from another program somewhere. I don't know your age, but I have no expectations of SS being in force when I hit 65. I have a 401K which is doing well, and I am paying off my debts as best as I. If you really think it will be around in 20 years or so, I have some swamp land in Florida foryou.

This platform means nothing. No candidate bases their campaign on it. How about you post the DEM one as well? We can compare.


PS: You left out OSHA, which reps called for an overhaul in 2006. Never happened.
B- how much do you expect to have in your 401k when you retire? How long do you expect to live after you retire? How much higher do you think prices will be at that time?

if you have $500,000 in your 401k when you retire, and you fell you will live another 20 yrs that makes your income $25000 a yr. Or $2083 per month. thats not a bad income now, but double to triple all your basic need costs, add all the medical and medicine costs that come with age. At 50 my wife and i's medicine costs are almost $800 a month with excellent insurance.
i had a good 401k building up and a nice stock portfolio going into 2001, it (401) lost over 90% and never really recovered. the last year it has started coming back a little but is still down over 70% from 2000. i sold all my stocks at a loss.

what happen if you live longer than 20 yrs? from that point on you will have no income.
quote:
Originally posted by tcf531:
B- how much do you expect to have in your 401k when you retire? How long do you expect to live after you retire? How much higher do you think prices will be at that time?

if you have $500,000 in your 401k when you retire, and you fell you will live another 20 yrs that makes your income $25000 a yr. Or $2083 per month. thats not a bad income now, but double to triple all your basic need costs, add all the medical and medicine costs that come with age. At 50 my wife and i's medicine costs are almost $800 a month with excellent insurance.
i had a good 401k building up and a nice stock portfolio going into 2001, it (401) lost over 90% and never really recovered. the last year it has started coming back a little but is still down over 70% from 2000. i sold all my stocks at a loss.

what happen if you live longer than 20 yrs? from that point on you will have no income.


Missed the OSHA in the first post. No matter. Have you ever seen an OSHA manual? The thing is a foot thick. I had to deal a little with it for a small business I worked for. It is a nightmare of wasted regulations that do little if anything to help safety. Anybody who has ever seen one can tell you that to actually follow all the rules would require you to wear a HAZMAT suit 24/7 and have 100 keys to all the things you are required to have locked up. Your home would never pass.


My 401k was constantly growing until the fall of 2007. Then I lost half. However, it is back above what it was to start with. Obama did nothing to cause that. I was lucky enough to pick stocks that would do well in good times and bad. So maybe I just got lucky. I get meds by generic if at all possible or use alternatives. I have been lucky on that as a well. SS will not keep going until I hit 65. It can't. When FDR started it, there were about 10 workers for one retiree, now its going in reverse.
It needed to be overhauled when the retirement force began to exceed the worker force. Some where around the 50's, government needed to start thinking about it. It didn't. Government needed to stop borrowing from the fund to 'balance' the other books. LBJ was the first and they all continued to do so. That was the reason Clinton had a supposed surplus, he just moved funds around and borrowed from Peter to pay Paul.

So you are right, without my retirement pay and my 401k, I will be destitute as will millions of others.
No, it wasn't part of the health care section.
Why would the reps deny a cut to seniors? That doesn't even make sense.

It would be a lot better than Obama's one time $250 that helps them out for one month.

Found some info,
The republicans are not to blame for this one. Go figure.


http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/23525.html
Obama's Income Tax Cliff for Senior Citizens

by Mark Robyn

Editor's Note: The Obama campaign responded to the issues raised in this Fiscal Fact after its publication, specifying that the plan to exempt seniors making under $50,000 from income taxation would include a phase-in of tax liability to avoid the cliff effect. See this Tax Foundation press release for more details.

Fiscal Fact No. 140

In recent months the Presidential candidates have been busy crafting and promoting their tax plans. In an effort to reduce the tax burden on America's seniors, Barack Obama has said that he will eliminate all income taxation for senior citizens making less than $50,000 per year. Putting aside the debate on whether this is a good policy, it might be worth exploring how such a policy would be implemented. It sounds simple enough: if you're a senior and your income is less than $50,000, then you don't pay income taxes (note that the threshold is for total income, which is greater than taxable income). But what happens when your income crosses that threshold? Obama's plan does not address this question, and it turns out to be an important question.


From PolitiFact.com: "President Obama’s campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar.

“It wasn’t part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn’t in Obama’s first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it’s not part of any proposed legislation that we can find.

“On Tax Day, Obama gave a speech in which he talked about his other tax promises and how he wants to reshape the tax code to make it simple and more efficient. But he never mentioned his promise of curtailing the income tax for seniors.

“The Obama administration has done other things for seniors. Thanks to the stimulus bill, for example, everyone who gets Social Security benefits will receive a $250 check from the government in May. But the bold promise to end taxes for seniors if they make less than $50,000 seems to be forgotten.

“We asked the White House about it, but got no response. If this promise is ever revived, we’ll revisit our ruling. But for now, this is a Promise Broken.”
Last edited by b50m

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×