Somebody is going to get screwed.

[mrt144]

Grandpa should have saved up a portion of his income for the decades that he worked so that he wouldn't have to depend on anyone else or "lay in that ditch and die."

so you're admitting your solutions and ideology operate outside the realm of reality or what is actually happening in the nation. coulda shoulda woulda doesnt solve or help problems.

 

[Shadylookin]

This is what happens when the Leftists get their way and the nation becomes a welfare state.

leftists "conservatives" have controlled congress for more than a decade until this January. and guess who has had bigger deficits Bill Clinton or GWB?

 

[Little Raven]

This is what happens when the Leftists get their way and the nation becomes a welfare state.

I hate to break it to you, John, but Righties like entitlements too. Hell, one of the biggest entitlements in US history sailed through a Republican Congress and a Republican President.

Grampa votes, after all.

 

[JohnRM]

so you're admitting your solutions and ideology operate outside the realm of reality or what is actually happening in the nation. coulda shoulda woulda doesnt solve or help problems.

Sure it does. Those who didn't suffer and die. Those who did, live and propagate. It is called 'survival of the fittest'. The fact is that most people have to save for retirement on their own anyway. Social Security is never enough. If we slowly phase it out and eventually get people to be responsible for themselves, isn't that a good thing -- I mean aside from the fact that it you Leftists can't stand a self-reliant and responsible electorate?

 

[JohnRM]

I hate to break it to you, John, but Righties like entitlements too. Hell, one of the biggest entitlements in US history sailed through a Republican Congress and a Republican President.

Grampa votes, after all.

When a 'Righty' starts supporting big entitlements, he becomes a 'lefty'. A true conservative does not support such things.

 

[JohnRM]

leftists "conservatives" have controlled congress for more than a decade until this January. and guess who has had bigger deficits Bill Clinton or GWB?

Again, read my above statement.

 

[Red Door]

Sure it does. Those who didn't suffer and die. Those who did, live and propagate. It is called 'survival of the fittest'. The fact is that most people have to save for retirement on their own anyway. Social Security is never enough. If we slowly phase it out and eventually get people to be responsible for themselves, isn't that a good thing -- I mean aside from the fact that it you Leftists can't stand a self-reliant and responsible electorate?

Some people can't do this on your own. Hard to believe, I know, but take a look on the streets of any major city. Ask them how they got there, and 75% of the time, it's not drugs and alcohol that led them there. If we get rid of Social Security, it means that the poor won't be able to survive, but heck, they don't matter to you, because they deserved it by not saving the nothing they had.

 

[mrt144]

Sure it does. Those who didn't suffer and die. Those who did, live and propagate. It is called 'survival of the fittest'. The fact is that most people have to save for retirement on their own anyway. Social Security is never enough. If we slowly phase it out and eventually get people to be responsible for themselves, isn't that a good thing -- I mean aside from the fact that it you Leftists can't stand a self-reliant and responsible electorate?

and if we dont get enough people to be responsible for themselves... then what? Survival of the fittest is kinda silly given what humans are capable of good or bad, and what the definition of fittest is.

and calling me a leftist is a laugh. Im a realist and a conservative. But Im not an idealogue who lacks common sense and understanding and believes in the extreme application of good ideas.

 

[Little Raven]

When a 'Righty' starts supporting big entitlements, he becomes a 'lefty'. A true conservative does not support such things.

So do true conservatives support democracy? Cause there’s no way to prevent politicians from pandering to Gramps, regardless of party.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

And that somebody is gonna be me. Trust me.

 

[Rhymes]

It is hard to say how much a government has lost. There are things that can be paid next year, or the year after that. It al depends on how you do your maths.

not it doesn't, there is a specific way to do the maths, it's called GAAP. But somehow government entities always take eternity to apply new GAAPs even though public entities are required to use them. I could go on for pages about how it doesn't make any bit of sense.

The reason is simple, new GAAPs are generally more conservative so the government who's gonna make the changes is gonna see the country's balance sheet deteriorate, because it's gonna represent reality more adequately. And government auditing is far from looking independent.

Just here in Quebec, the general auditor made a report a couple weeks ago on how the Quebec government should start using new GAAPs released in .. 1998!

How can we trust the goverment if we can't even rely on the information available to us?

 

[mangxema]

Grandpa should have saved up a portion of his income for the decades that he worked so that he wouldn't have to depend on anyone else or "lay in that ditch and die."

Disability in the family kills just about any hope of a good retirement.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Sure it does. Those who didn't suffer and die. Those who did, live and propagate. It is called 'survival of the fittest'. The fact is that most people have to save for retirement on their own anyway. Social Security is never enough. If we slowly phase it out and eventually get people to be responsible for themselves, isn't that a good thing -- I mean aside from the fact that it you Leftists can't stand a self-reliant and responsible electorate?

I agree though Bush plan to privatise it was rather insane. With talking points which were not backed up by facts or any thing linked to reality.

Phasing out or rolling back will have to happen probably in the far future. For example the Iraq would have funded Social security for the next 70 years (approx)