Pretty Panther said in another place...
many Tea Party candidates (and you yourself here on these forums) have professed their disdain for popular government programs such as Social Security. You have advocated the dismantling of a major proportion of government. That is a common theme among the Tea Party.
To which I have to ask, what on earth is "extreme" about dismantling Social Security? It is nothing if not "perfectly sensible".
...your Tea Party ideals are extreme, and when your candidates actually start speaking on national television, they appear loony at worst, and radical at best.
What's "loony" or "radical" about stating we are amassing colossally stupid levels of debt for no good reason? And that government is wasting unbelievable amounts of money? And that the federal government has expanded its own mission, purpose, activities, and controls FAR beyond its Constitutional limits, and as such consumes more of our total output than it has at any time since WWII, and is rapidly approaching that, and it needs to be scaled back?
What's "loony" about understanding the mind numbingly stupid bureaucratic jungle that was passed as Obamacare, and realize we desperately need to get rid of it before it wreaks havoc on both the taxpayers and the medical system?
As for Rand Paul, he backpedaled on his original comments about his opposition to the CRA after he saw the reaction. Of course he said he wouldn't repeal it. What else would he say if he wants to get elected?
NO, the problem is not what you think it is. The problem is that people desperately seek to have people believe UNTRUTH about why Rand Paul would have opposed the CRA and ADA, rather than have an intelligent conversation. Lies to advance a political agenda, in other words. Explain the ACTUAL Rand Paul position and statements on both, and the vast majority agree with HIM.
Repealing social security is one of the most sensible things on earth we could do.
First, Social Security consumes roughly 15% of everything you earn. When you reach retirement age, you do not own a single dime of it, and if you die, you can't leave it to anyone, it just goes back to the government. If you do live long enough to start collecting, the level of benefits is far below poverty.
So, let's just analyze it a little:
Future return on investment; Not calculable: Subject to the vote of Congress. level of Benefit: About 25% of middle class income. Equity: 0 Amount retained by estate if you die before disbursement date: 0
Actual cash value: Nil.
At the death of a spouse, benefit falls to higher of the two benefits.
Contrast that to:
Approach any financial planner, and ask them how to retire well off.
Save 13% of your income, with tax-free earnings, starting with your very first paycheck, and not stopping until you dont' work anymore. Typical values:
Starting income ( just start first job today): 25,000.
after 35 years of employment (today's dollars) 62,000
Approximate contributions: 210,000
value at 35 years, approximately 1.2 million
Spouse's savings, same time: 1.0 million
Value: 2.2 million in today's dollars.
value if you die at 35 years: 2.2 million
Income in today's dollars at retirement: 17,000 / mo
Benefit loss at death of spouse: none
Note, there's no adjustment here for inflation, but inflation increases your rate of return and your amount of contribution. Small losses of value due to inflation occur, but also assets held not part of retirment (home) will inflate, partially compensating for inflation.
If you choose to live only on the investment return income, you will continue to hold the entire principle amount, and can live indefinitely, with no loss of income.
What is required of you? Save less than you lose to Social Security, make simple changes in the level of investment risk as you approach when you wish to retire.
That's it. It is very simple, and it works.
For less than SS taxes, we could ALL be well off at retirement, including TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS more dollars available for investment and lending. Net benefit to retiree, economy, and country.
So, yes, getting rid of Social Security is the smartest, most sane, most carefully considered and rational thing to do. There are NO downsides, and lots of benefits.
Oh, and for the liberal trollers: You have to be beyond stupid to make bad investments for your retirement. It is less complicated than buying a car, to have a good return and moderate risk. liberal trollers shouting about wall street, greed, and other stupidity will be treated with appropriate contempt that dishonest politicians get.
I don't want to get into whether or not it's wise to invest on Wall Street. Right now I think it's a bad idea.
However SS soul not be the responsibility of government. It's simply a way for them to have control over our money and our lives.
Social Security is the carrot on the stick to get the human beings that live as Freemen to accept their government created strawman.
It is one of the benefits to consenting to become collateral for the national debt!
No, it's simply a way to keep unfortunate people from starving or begging in the streets in their old age.
There would have been plenty of money if they had used it for that.
But the claims when SS was being introduced were that the government would have a new unlimited source of money.
Oh no said FDR.
It will be used for those unfortunate people you mentioned.
Like every liberal before and after him he lied.
Can you say Ponzi scheme?
Bernard Madoff is doing 150 years for a lot less.
the entire dow jones could be bought with less than 10 gold coins.
well without going into detail , i'll just say that since 1940 the population has more than doubled. so wouldn't you think there be an increase just due to that alone?
She may have a point.
Integrity is a bit extreme for the scumbags serving now.
I've re-read your statement several times... I'm missing some cue. While I agree with your second statement, your first baffles me.
Right. It's perfectly acceptable to propose "second amendment solutions" to society's ills as teabagger Sharon Angle has proposed.
Need more evidence of tea-party lunacy? It's pretty easy to find.
The statements of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Angle, O'Donnel, Armey, and the rest of the teabaggers exist only in my "delusional mind". Wow! How ever does my mind get them to say such things?
I must be a real Svengali.
If you think any of them are lunatics, you are delusional.
It would be funny if there weren't people who fall for it - teabaggers putting out opininions like facts - ridiculous opinions at that. This is from
a recent CBS Money watch - based on a real poll.
"In a new poll, raising Social Security’s retirement age got a resounding thumbs-down as a potential solution to shoring up the system’s long-term funding shortfall. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll Americans were quite clear that their preferred solution is to have the wealthy do the majority of the heavy-lifting to fix Social Security. The only two proposals to garner a majority of public support involve raising the contributions and lowering the benefits for wealthier Americans."
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-p … althy/813/
LOL, that's becuase the media is so criminally complicit in failing to explain how incerdibly stupid Social Security is.
Just curious, why would you say that? Your view is extreme, as usual.
My Social Security check is deposited in my checking account every month. It's much more reliable than what the NY banksters offer to the losers in their casinos.
LOL, you have never financially analyzed social security? Never done the math?
Never compared it to intelligent alternatives?
Must not have. Otherwise, you, too, would be explaining how incredibly stupid the whole concept is.
This is from a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll, also this month.
"68 percent said they would oppose making major spending cuts in Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit, while 28 percent said they would favor cutting those programs. That included 61 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of independents.
Strong majorities support progressive solutions for addressing the federal deficit: 63 percent back lifting the Social Security cap on incomes higher than $107,000 a year; 64 percent would favor eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs; 62 percent would support a tax on excessive Wall Street bank profits.
Strong majorities also oppose common conservative proposals for addressing the budget deficit: 65 percent oppose raising the Social Security retirement age to 70; 65 percent oppose replacing Medicare with a private sector voucher; 62 percent oppose a 3 percent federal sales tax; 60 percent oppose raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67."
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/12/ … solutions/
That's ignorance talking. Give me and Dave Ramsey 2 hours with all those people and it will be 80% in favor of ending social security.
Polling ignorant people teaches you nothing, except that ignorance is all that keeps liberals in office.
man, don't you just hate it when people protest things they're passionate about?
I wish we could pass a law to shut them up!
(nice straw midget) I've never questioned the rights of teabaggers to spout their hateful nonsense.
Nor for you to post your hateful nonsense. I'm at a loss to explain why you complain about what does not exist in others, yet you display in Gargantua volumes.
Former House Republican leader Tom DeLay: ''There is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits, keep people from going and finding job. In fact there are some studies that have been done that show people stay on unemployment compensation and they don't look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out.''
CNN's Candy Crowley: ''People are unemployed because they want to be?''
DeLay: ''Well, it is the truth. And people in the real world know it.''
Nothing extreme here...
''This is Reagan country (applause). Yeah! And perhaps it was destiny that the man who went to California's Eureka College would become so woven within and inter-linked to the Golden State.''
—Sarah Palin, blundering on Reagan's education while speaking at a fundraiser at California State University-Stanislaus. Eureka College is in Illinois. (June 25, 2010)
''We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?''
—Sarah Palin, admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada's single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010
This is extremely easy.
What will my mind cause them to say next?
Rand Paul: Government should not regulate mine industry
By Matt DeLong
In a new profile in Details magazine, Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul is quoted arguing that the coal mining industry should be allowed to self-regulate without interference from the federal government. Here's a quote from a speech Paul gave recently at a coal facility operated by a subsidiary of Massey Energy, the owner of the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, where an explosion killed 29 miners in April.
"Is there a certain amount of accidents and unfortunate things that do happen, no matter what the regulations are?" Paul says at the Harlan Center, in response to a question about the Big Branch disaster. "The bottom line is I'm not an expert, so don't give me the power in Washington to be making rules. You live here, and you have to work in the mines. You'd try to make good rules to protect your people here. If you don't, I'm thinking that no one will apply for those jobs."
It's almost like Rand Paul has noticed that these mining mishaps seem to happen EVEN THOUGH there are already billions of regulations on the books.
It's almost like, EVEN THOUGH the Federal government illegally regulates an industry (10th amendment), those regulations still fail to achieve their goal...
Are we 10? Billions of regulations? Seriously, what a childish statement this is. How about the fact that the regulatory body involved with mining was practically dismantled during the Bush years? That is a fact. If either of you would get off of your asses and look something up for once, you would know that.
That's one of the smartest things said in years.
"I'm telling you that this works," the Republican candidate explained. "You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days, our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor. They would say, 'I'll paint your house.' I mean, that's the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I'm not backing down from that system."
Yep - this was the leading GOP candidate at the time with her answer to health care - trade chickens for open-heart surgery. Ya' can't make stuff like this up.
Sounds pretty mainstream to me;in sort of a grass roots way.
The Teatard woman in Delaware is running an anti-masturbation campaign. What could be more mainstream than that?
Well gosh darn. Now I feel like I'm between a rock and a hard place.
My unemployment benefits are about to run out in 2 more weeks.
I'd really, really like to get a job in a mine. But I've heard the ones near me have had some safety issues. Other workers have been sickened and even died. The local mine company owners have not really shown that they "make good rules to protect their people."
So I ask you, dear Tea Party Guru: What should I do? What would YOU do???
If I listen to Mr. Paul I will NOT apply because the conditions are not safe. But if I do not apply I will be condemned by Mr. DeLay as remaining unemployed because I WANT to be unemployed.
The Pauls don't believe in unemployment compensation, Social Security, Medicare, etc. The only thing they say that makes any sense is that we shouldn't be trying to police the world.
Ron came out loud and clear on Freedom of Religion and the politics of bigotry. (Credit where due.)
True. Ron Paul isn't all bad. His son is not qualified for the Senate.
What qualification does one need for the Senate?
I'm sure if he was a liberal democrat he would be the most qualified candidate ever offered up for political office.
That sounds familiar.
Oh yeah, that guy is the President now.
Knowledge of modern American history (post WWII) would be helpful. Respect for legislation passed with a broad GOP-DEM consensus and public support would be helpful also--e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rand Paul has publicly demonstrated his deficiencies on the above matters.
Also, Obama is more of a centrist Democrat. He certainly doesn't qualify as a liberal or progressive, or as you prefer, "leftist."
He certainly isn't a "Kenyan anti-colonialist" as Newt Gingrich claimed the other day.
Obama is the most ignorant president, by a factor of perhaps 20, of any president to date.
He knows nothign, and understands even less about ANYTHING of substance in this country.
Just another brilliant example of the amazing things our very own Ron Montgomery gets the TP (tee hee) folks to spout.
Ron -- what else you got under that Johnny Carson turbin???
Tomorrow I'm gonna have them advocate selling Alaska back to Russia and the middle third of America back to France since neither purchase was constitutional.
Can you imagine all of those bible-banging red-staters suddenly becoming French citizens?
I don't have any chickens. Do you think my ob/gyn would take my pet cat in exchange for birthing my baby?
even Beck told 'them' to stop dressing like statues of liberty and to kill the signs.
the republicans in congress don't know what to do with them.
And then move to it and leave the rest of us (including those with non-extreme, Conservative leanings) alone , and not having to look at, listen to, or hear about, them any more.
they very well might. And I might join them.
Wow! I'm gone for a day and look what you all come up with!
It was easy, wasn't it? LOL
I love the idea of giving the red states to France. Of course, now that France has kicked out all their gypsies, they have extra room over there. Which they'll need if they are to accommodate all of those American's flag waving, bible thumping, biggie-sized freedom fries guzzling middle Americans!
"What qualification does one need for the Senate?"
I know! I know!
You need to think masturbation is a bad thing and gvt can legislate it away!!
Forum Tea party!
There are many nuts in communist's thinking. Nobody wants to take away SS. We paid in it and government spent it for different programs. The SS is empty. Then one must print new money to get SS check. Its d evaluate $$
Tea party was born because of overspending, control and crisis. Also socialism is in our country. It is evil Empire. Can you not see? Did you skip history classes?
No one in home manage own household as government does.
If one says we should sell land to France, instead why you do not move there, or sell Alaska to Russians then move to Russia. That's more simple solution.
I probably will join TEA Party.
He knows a lot about stuff the baggers just don't grasp....like caring and compassion and thinking of somthing other than me me me me me.
When he speaks, we can be proud to hear it, instead of wincing and going, "did he really say that?"
Of course, now that we have the tea-bags, Bush-speak is back in full force!!
btw, Bill Maher is right...."Kenyan", "muslim", are republibagger-speak for the n word.
Plus, I like what Obama said today.."we will not allow the corporatization of the federal gvt."
WOW! Took the words right out of my mouth!
G.O.P. Insider Fuels Tea Party and Suspicion
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/us/po … amp;emc=th
Almost as sleazy as Dick Armey and David Koch.
you left several things out of your hub that need to be addressed. social security was set up at a time of extended families living under one roof. it was never meant to sustain the elderly independently but to provide a way of maintaining finacial independence for personal use. thought was never given to the idea that families would be spread apart to the point of the elderly being forced to actually living on ss.
the tea party was the only way the common people had to get the attention of the media and the politicians. it still is even though the media has found that trashing the needs and thoughts of the taxpaying workers. the answer to that from the tea party has been to tune the media out. newspapers are at the point of bankrupcy and still have not gotten the message. some news tv and radio are close to the same thing. the medias have disregarded the fact that we the workers pay the bills which also provide their paychecks. news is news, all the news. good bad and ugly, editorial is private opinion and can be disregarded or agreed with. to add editorial to the news is flagrant brain washing, like subliminal in video.
I see the 1st amendment is much less important to the "freedom" party than the 2nd.
Bunch of phonies. Is that too offensive? Well, I was called stupid....is that OK? OH, it was a teatard who said it, so that's fine.
by FatLibertarian6 years ago
After watching various Tea Party candidates struggling to name what they'd cut, I decided to come up with a plan that can unite both sides. We cut both the welfare and warfare state and greatly restructure our...
by OLYHOOCH4 years ago
A History Lesson on Your Social Security Card1934 - 1980With the elections just a little over 3 months away you'll soon be hearing some Democrats running for political office, warning how the Republicans...
by Ralph Deeds4 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security...
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
"The vision of getting something for nothing, or getting something that someone else has to pay for, explains why so many Americans are duped by politicians. A congressional hoax that's flourished for seven decades...
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more...
by Petra Vlah5 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.