|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 14, 2010 21:07:56 GMT -8
Agree on 20% disagree but can compromise on 30%, will never see eye to eye on 50%, That is why we vote. Too bad only 30% voted in the June primaries. Think more would have if people were that pissed off as seen on FOX News. Plus millionaires and life time politians won. No outsiders....
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 15, 2010 17:47:24 GMT -8
To cut spending you would then have to cut Social Security, Medicare and Defense. Three things most Americans do not want cut. Tough situation to be in for any President. Quite so. Let's imagine that you have a tooth ache. You just keep taking pain pills day after day after day until the pain is too much and your jaw starts to swell. "What can I do?" you ask when you finally go to the dentist. "Well," says the dentist, "we just have to pull that tooth, and, with the infection this bad, we may have to pull other teeth as well." Now, who in his right mind would want to be faced with the alternative of dying (which is a very real possibility if you do nothing) or removing several teeth and maybe undergoing oral surgery as well. Do you start looking for scapegoats? Won't do you any good if you do, your unsavory situation remains and you must accept the fact that you are about to go through tough times, both physically and financially. (By the way, a relative and a business associate have both experienced this very scenario within the last few days.) Okay, here's the deal. The untreated toothache is in the current situation represented by the terrible problems brought on by the unwise decisions to tell everybody that they will be a net beneficiary of taxpayers' money confiscated by the government. And that means entitlements such as Social Security. SS could have been set up on an actuarial basis in 1935, each citizen with his or her own account into which the worker and the employer would contribute money. Instead, the brilliant brain trust of FDR set up a Rube Goldberg contraption (i.e., payments out of current tax receipts) that was bound to fail as life expectancy increased and the birth rate declined. God save us from the do-gooder progressives who are utterly convinced that they know what is good for the American people. Oh, yes, let's not forget to thank God for the out and out crooks who manage to get into office. Yes, any President is going to have a tough time solving these problems. He or she is going to have to start by telling the American people that they have been lied to for the past four generations. Lied to when they were told that "somebody else, some fat cat with more money than you is going to pay, not you." Furthermore, a President who makes the problems worse by blowing up the national budget is going to have an even harder time. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 15, 2010 19:34:05 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity; what makes an electric car "green". "Green" is nothing more than a marketing slogan. BP advertised itself as a "green" oil company. How's that workin' out for you? Solar, wind and EV's are OLD, antiquated technologies. They've been around forever and have never been successful in the market place for some very good reasons. They don't work for the most part. It takes a particularly skewed view of reality to think these goofball ideas will ever be viable or valuable in any meaningful sense without the heavy hand of government forcing them down our throats....for our own good of course...cuz da' peeples iz stoopid. In my view, although I was not asked, an electric car would be green if it was a plug in electric only car that was recharged with solar photovoltaic panels only. It would have to be totally biodegradable, too. Just dig a hole and dump in your old Sparky Two-Door, pour some dirt over the thing and sing a little Earth song as it becomes an eco-friendly part of our planet!  AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 15, 2010 19:50:05 GMT -8
. . . . . . Republicans would never let the US negotiate with drug companies to lower their price. They sold out to that industry so we will never see low drug prices here like they have in Canada. ... Well, you have articulated one of the most notorious liberal misunderstandings out there. The government is going to "negotiate with drug companies"? Right, just like the Godfather "negotiates" with the owner of a business he wants to take over. "I'm makin' you an offer you can't refuse!" For some reason, many on the Left simply cannot appreciate (or are unwilling to admit) that when the government "negotiates" it gets what it wants. And usually on its own terms. It would be more honest to say that the government would dictate the prices it wants to pay the drug companies. And the govt. would not care whether those prices are such that the companies would either go out of business or be unable to do much of the research that has given us all manner of wonder drugs. And just what are the companies going to say? "Thanks, but no thanks"? Pretty soon the government figure out a way to bring charges against the companies or tightens the regulatory noose around their necks. Can we at least be honest and call things by their correct names? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 15, 2010 21:21:20 GMT -8
USA pays the higest $$$ in purchasing pharmacuticals then any other country in the world! One thing funny about Republicans is that they say they will save you .25% in taxes but then you end up paying more for your drugs, oil, etc...
Then you look at your 401K and see a 40% loss and then notice that your home values dropped 30%.
I would rather pay the .25% tax increase and vote democratic and save my after tax savings then lose it all to greedy wall street corporations.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 16, 2010 12:54:00 GMT -8
USA pays the higest $$$ in purchasing pharmacuticals then any other country in the world! One thing funny about Republicans is that they say they will save you .25% in taxes but then you end up paying more for your drugs, oil, etc... Then you look at your 401K and see a 40% loss and then notice that your home values dropped 30%. I would rather pay the .25% tax increase and vote democratic and save my after tax savings then lose it all to greedy wall street corporations. Oh! Where do you begin explaining and trying to educate one who thinks like that? Maybe first, I would ask a question. What do you think caused the 401K and the Real Estate bubble problem? If Barney Frank and liberal ideas is not part of your answer you are beyond help. |
|
|
|
Post by sdtosf on Jun 18, 2010 21:16:35 GMT -8
Bush killed America
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 19, 2010 10:01:46 GMT -8
I am so sorry for you! You are beyond help or a pretty good troller. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 22, 2010 9:24:40 GMT -8
I am so sorry for you! You are beyond help or a pretty good troller. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 22, 2010 9:35:04 GMT -8
Just wanted to showcase that when conservatives bash the Democratic President that they only do so because they are sore losers. They say it is their freedom to do so which I support. However when the Dixie Chicks say one thing against Bush, the right wing political machine pulls them off the air and then that is followed by death threats from the right. Sarah Palin is good at driving the hate message against people that do not have similar views to herself. She rivals Hitler in making good citizens angry against a people or cause that does not fit the right wing party views. Obama is doing a great job. Following Bush is like following Chuck Long in Aztec football. It will take a couple to a few years to get things going in the right direction. How old are you?  |
|
|
|
Post by theMesa on Jun 22, 2010 11:49:32 GMT -8
I was thinking the very same thing!!! Being an Independent, I ,at first, thought this topic was a lead in to some political jokes, some tongue-in-cheek political humor only to find out that this guy was serious!! Really, how old are you and where have you been since the internet became popular??
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 22, 2010 18:05:08 GMT -8
To cut spending you would then have to cut Social Security, Medicare and Defense. Three things most Americans do not want cut. Tough situation to be in for any President. Quite so. Let's imagine that you have a tooth ache. You just keep taking pain pills day after day after day until the pain is too much and your jaw starts to swell. "What can I do?" you ask when you finally go to the dentist. "Well," says the dentist, "we just have to pull that tooth, and, with the infection this bad, we may have to pull other teeth as well." Now, who in his right mind would want to be faced with the alternative of dying (which is a very real possibility if you do nothing) or removing several teeth and maybe undergoing oral surgery as well. Do you start looking for scapegoats? Won't do you any good if you do, your unsavory situation remains and you must accept the fact that you are about to go through tough times, both physically and financially. (By the way, a relative and a business associate have both experienced this very scenario within the last few days.) Okay, here's the deal. The untreated toothache is in the current situation represented by the terrible problems brought on by the unwise decisions to tell everybody that they will be a net beneficiary of taxpayers' money confiscated by the government. And that means entitlements such as Social Security. SS could have been set up on an actuarial basis in 1935, each citizen with his or her own account into which the worker and the employer would contribute money. Instead, the brilliant brain trust of FDR set up a Rube Goldberg contraption (i.e., payments out of current tax receipts) that was bound to fail as life expectancy increased and the birth rate declined. God save us from the do-gooder progressives who are utterly convinced that they know what is good for the American people. Oh, yes, let's not forget to thank God for the out and out crooks who manage to get into office. Yes, any President is going to have a tough time solving these problems. He or she is going to have to start by telling the American people that they have been lied to for the past four generations. Lied to when they were told that "somebody else, some fat cat with more money than you is going to pay, not you." Furthermore, a President who makes the problems worse by blowing up the national budget is going to have an even harder time. AzWm When Social Security was set up and the retirement age was put at 65 few lived to that age. A big part of the problem has been that as life expectency increased the retirement age did not. If the retirement age had gone up with life expectancy it would be around 75 or so. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 22, 2010 19:11:27 GMT -8
Quite so. Let's imagine that you have a tooth ache. You just keep taking pain pills day after day after day until the pain is too much and your jaw starts to swell. "What can I do?" you ask when you finally go to the dentist. "Well," says the dentist, "we just have to pull that tooth, and, with the infection this bad, we may have to pull other teeth as well." Now, who in his right mind would want to be faced with the alternative of dying (which is a very real possibility if you do nothing) or removing several teeth and maybe undergoing oral surgery as well. Do you start looking for scapegoats? Won't do you any good if you do, your unsavory situation remains and you must accept the fact that you are about to go through tough times, both physically and financially. (By the way, a relative and a business associate have both experienced this very scenario within the last few days.) Okay, here's the deal. The untreated toothache is in the current situation represented by the terrible problems brought on by the unwise decisions to tell everybody that they will be a net beneficiary of taxpayers' money confiscated by the government. And that means entitlements such as Social Security. SS could have been set up on an actuarial basis in 1935, each citizen with his or her own account into which the worker and the employer would contribute money. Instead, the brilliant brain trust of FDR set up a Rube Goldberg contraption (i.e., payments out of current tax receipts) that was bound to fail as life expectancy increased and the birth rate declined. God save us from the do-gooder progressives who are utterly convinced that they know what is good for the American people. Oh, yes, let's not forget to thank God for the out and out crooks who manage to get into office. Yes, any President is going to have a tough time solving these problems. He or she is going to have to start by telling the American people that they have been lied to for the past four generations. Lied to when they were told that "somebody else, some fat cat with more money than you is going to pay, not you." Furthermore, a President who makes the problems worse by blowing up the national budget is going to have an even harder time. AzWm When Social Security was set up and the retirement age was put at 65 few lived to that age. A big part of the problem has been that as life expectency increased the retirement age did not. If the retirement age had gone up with life expectancy it would be around 75 or so. Glad this was brought up. I was at an insurance seminar a few years ago and one of the speakers said that some insurance companies were looking at underwriting policies for newborn female babies to live to.....120 years. Americans are living longer and retirement has to go up too. I will even go on to say that government has to follow suit with their emplyees. Unless you are sick or diabled, you don't begin to get any payments until retirement age. We cannot afford to be paying people all those extra years. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 22, 2010 19:12:34 GMT -8
Quite so. Let's imagine that you have a tooth ache. You just keep taking pain pills day after day after day until the pain is too much and your jaw starts to swell. "What can I do?" you ask when you finally go to the dentist. "Well," says the dentist, "we just have to pull that tooth, and, with the infection this bad, we may have to pull other teeth as well." Now, who in his right mind would want to be faced with the alternative of dying (which is a very real possibility if you do nothing) or removing several teeth and maybe undergoing oral surgery as well. Do you start looking for scapegoats? Won't do you any good if you do, your unsavory situation remains and you must accept the fact that you are about to go through tough times, both physically and financially. (By the way, a relative and a business associate have both experienced this very scenario within the last few days.) Okay, here's the deal. The untreated toothache is in the current situation represented by the terrible problems brought on by the unwise decisions to tell everybody that they will be a net beneficiary of taxpayers' money confiscated by the government. And that means entitlements such as Social Security. SS could have been set up on an actuarial basis in 1935, each citizen with his or her own account into which the worker and the employer would contribute money. Instead, the brilliant brain trust of FDR set up a Rube Goldberg contraption (i.e., payments out of current tax receipts) that was bound to fail as life expectancy increased and the birth rate declined. God save us from the do-gooder progressives who are utterly convinced that they know what is good for the American people. Oh, yes, let's not forget to thank God for the out and out crooks who manage to get into office. Yes, any President is going to have a tough time solving these problems. He or she is going to have to start by telling the American people that they have been lied to for the past four generations. Lied to when they were told that "somebody else, some fat cat with more money than you is going to pay, not you." Furthermore, a President who makes the problems worse by blowing up the national budget is going to have an even harder time. AzWm When Social Security was set up and the retirement age was put at 65 few lived to that age. A big part of the problem has been that as life expectency increased the retirement age did not. If the retirement age had gone up with life expectancy it would be around 75 or so. Glad this was brought up. I was at an insurance seminar a few years ago and one of the speakers said that some insurance companies were looking at underwriting policies for newborn female babies to live to.....120 years. Americans are living longer and retirement has to go up too. I will even go on to say that government has to follow suit with their emplyees. Unless you are sick or diabled, you don't begin to get any payments until retirement age. We cannot afford to be paying people all those extra years. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 23, 2010 8:51:13 GMT -8
All good arguments regarding the raising of the retirement age. One thing needs to be kept in mind. Corporations are continually forcing their older workers out the door. This is especially true in the high tech industry. How many on this board have been in the position of trying to get a job when they were over 55? It is almost impossible. Before the retirement age can go to 70 there needs to be a massive shift in corporate attitudes towards the older worker.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 23, 2010 12:41:28 GMT -8
All good arguments regarding the raising of the retirement age. One thing needs to be kept in mind. Corporations are continually forcing their older workers out the door. This is especially true in the high tech industry. How many on this board have been in the position of trying to get a job when they were over 55? It is almost impossible. Before the retirement age can go to 70 there needs to be a massive shift in corporate attitudes towards the older worker. That idea plus getting Social Security out of the hands of Congress and on a cash basis rather than an accrual basis. The uncertainty of an unfunded liability hanging over the heads of taxpayers adds to the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 23, 2010 13:15:09 GMT -8
All good arguments regarding the raising of the retirement age. One thing needs to be kept in mind. Corporations are continually forcing their older workers out the door. This is especially true in the high tech industry. How many on this board have been in the position of trying to get a job when they were over 55? It is almost impossible. Before the retirement age can go to 70 there needs to be a massive shift in corporate attitudes towards the older worker. That idea plus getting Social Security out of the hands of Congress and on a cash basis rather than an accrual basis. The uncertainty of an unfunded liability hanging over the heads of taxpayers adds to the problem. Are your federal pensions funded? If not, then they are also a problem for taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 23, 2010 16:06:02 GMT -8
That idea plus getting Social Security out of the hands of Congress and on a cash basis rather than an accrual basis. The uncertainty of an unfunded liability hanging over the heads of taxpayers adds to the problem. Are your federal pensions funded? If not, then they are also a problem for taxpayers. Exactly! My Military Pension is as you say. It would be much easier for the taxpayer to swallow if the structure was different. I wonder how to do it and still have an attractive program. It is well worth looking into. My FERS Civil Service program is much more like I would like to see. It is a modest pension coupled with a pay as you go Thrift Savings Plan funded out of current receipts by both the employer and employee. It seems even the Federal Government could see the wisdom in changing the structure of Federal Civil Service towards more cash than accrual. It is still a problem, but much smaller than CSRS (Civil Service Retirement) and with a better payout to the Civil Service Member. Social Security is the third leg of FERS that was not part of CSRS, but that can be reformed if Congress will ever get the will to do it and make it on sound legs. I get a good pension, but it could be much better for both me and for the taxpayer with some hard work by Congress. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 23, 2010 17:35:48 GMT -8
They've raised full benefits (of at least medicare) to at least 67 with those born after 55 or so ---- so, the answer, of course, is that the younger generation needs to pay and work into their 70s?
George Wallace's classic joke fits here like a glove.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 24, 2010 12:32:13 GMT -8
They've raised full benefits (of at least medicare) to at least 67 with those born after 55 or so ---- so, the answer, of course, is that the younger generation needs to pay and work into their 70s? George Wallace's classic joke fits here like a glove. That is only part of the answer. A start, but only a start. We need to take the cap off earnings, further raise the full and early retirement age and get the fund on a solid cash basis and not unfunded liability of future generations. That means it has to get out of the hands of Congress. |
|
