Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by smokey1:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Unfortunately, all too many school kids have become all too accustomed to sorry dietary habits that will eventually lead to serious premature health problems for them, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. One of my grandchildren is on schedule for that kind of future, owing to bad eating habits formed early in life.
Give Michelle credit for at least trying to do something to avoid or reduce this future health catastrophe.
============
At least she tried? Doesn't it matter that her plan didn't work and a lot of tax dollars were wasted? Typical liberal thinking.
--------------
Bush "tried" for "Mission Accomplished," but did not get there, and his misbegotten warmongering cost us dearly in lives and treasure.
Yet, you would blindly support warhawk Hillary Clinton if she ran for pres. LOL
==========
My preferences would be Elizabeth Warren, then Bernie Sanders, and Hillary is more of a war hawk than I wish, but compared to the apparent contenders, Romney (again), Ryan who wants to end Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid to give more tax breaks to the wealthy, Rand Paul the Libertarian , and a host of dingbats, yess, I'll take Hillary any day over that bunch.
However, in the long run it is the party platform that I vote on, not the individual at the top.
It would be nice to have a politician that would stop screwing over young working Americans by forcing them into the Social Security ponzi scheme.
Young people would be much better off at retirement if they had to make MANDATORY contributions to their own private account as opposed to putting into some blackhole gov't program.
We need a candidate that believes in personal freedom across the board for Americans, not just in personal freedom on certain things.
The Dems that want gov't to control how a person saves for retirement or a business owner runs their business are no different than the repubs that want to control who can get married, what someone can smoke, or what a woman does with her body.
SS is not all about retirement. You should read, learn .
Nice retort. I know there are the disability components.
However, I am talking about retirement. Younger workers are screwed being forced into a program that generates money market returns over the course of their working career.
The working poor would have more money at retirement if they could contribute to their own private account instead of Social Security.
You are so indoctrinated into your beliefs that you are totally unwilling to discuss alternatives that could be better for everyone.
====
There is no law against private investment . I know, I saved, bought stocks, and invested in a 401k, so that argument has no merit.
The problem with the argument of privatizing SS,
I lost half of my 401k, most of my stocks quit paying dividends , anis that on occasion this country gets so dumb , they elect a Republican president, and then the whole thing goes to hell.d the economy got so weak that the Feds lowered the interest rate to damm near nothing so my CD's upon renewal get that damm near nothing returns, which started during the Bush reign of ruin.
I for one, am glad I still have the security of SS.
All that other sounds good, but the real proof is to go back and look at history before there was SS , and see what happens when the Coolidge s and the Hoover s get into power and there is no safety net. SS, and UI are about the only things that kept the Bush depression from becoming another Great Depression. People before the Great Depression could invest their retirement as they saw fit, and wound up not doing it. Had to load the jalopies and head for Cal to pick fruit.
SW,
The market goes up or down during Repub presidencies just like it does under Dem presidencies. In fact, the market actually does best when we have gridlock as opposed to complete control by 1 party across the board.
The first bolded part shows that you have no interest in a rational discussion. Bush did not cause the credit bubble and he did not make the stock market go down. If that is your rationale, then you have to blame Clinton for the tech bubble bursting. BTW, both notions are equally ridiculous.
As to the second bolded part, I have already explained numerous times that contributions to a private retirement account would be mandatory. So the "they won't do it" argument is not relevant. This system is working great in other countries.
Over the long haul stocks will generate more return. That is why it is better for younger Americans to be able to have a private account to go along with or replace their SS. I think a good compromise would be to allow a younger worker's SS be invested in mutual funds as opposed to locking them into a money market over their entire working career. As these younger workers become older workers then their investments need to switch to more conservative investments.
BTW, based on your age(your retired right?) you should not have lost 50% in '08. Without knowing your entire situation I would say that you were invested too aggressively.