Is President Bush the Stupidest or the most Lying President ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pmetal

Why is it when someone wants to take personal responsibility, or wants to rely less on the government, that they are considered selfish, or greedy, with no regard to others?

So just because I want to keep more of my earned income, not just in my pocket, but away from the government, that automatically means I don't want to help others? Not the case. Not at all. But I understand that's the easiest argument to make.

On another note. 14% of my $70+k/yr and my wife's 80+k/yr, is quite a chunk of change, of which, if I'm lucky, I'll see 2% of that. Whereas, if I had that 14% in my pocket, I could invest HALF of it, get a better return and still have 7% to give to charities and whatnot.

But, that's just me. Maybe I'm just part of the "evil rich".

---

I agree with you, just so you know. I just want to see if I can translate cleetaneese to you.


SS is a collective pool and when you take out $$ from the top earners it takes away from the least in the long run. It was set up so that the majority of americans would have some sort of program to fall back on in their old age. So we could live in dignity. Well, dignity for the time it was created which meant a roof and food and not all the things we consider to be "needs" today.


It's socialist, but given the change in the make up of the family as we industrialized, the security of the elderly came into question more and more often. It's against our capatilist sytem, but it helps all of us in the end. It's a need, not an evil.

So if I prefer to take personal responsibility & don't feel obligated to help those that do not take the time to plan their future I must be greedy. (Ahh that's right, it's my responsibility to carry those who don't want to get off their asses). It's not like it takes all that much just to meet a standard of living that is acceptable ( and this is with a minimum investment...

Let's say you save a meager $100/month (starting at age 20) and want to retire at 65...At a 6.9% rate of return you would earn almost $370,000 over the 45 years.

If you take that and say you will live to, let's say, 85? that would pan out to 18,000 a year.

Not bad for a meager $100/month.


Now if you cannot manage to scrape up $100/month you are in really bad shape.

If you have 2 good arm, 2 good legs, and a head on your shoulders there should be no excuse in the world, unless you have a serious medical problem.

I am not in this world to support those that don't feel they need to work more than 8 hours a day in order to make it.

Granted, there are some ppl out there that are unable to function. However, when a person is "able" there is no excuse for them, nor is there any reason in the world for me to support them.

I love how both sides have admitted that Social Security is going to run out in the near future, but only one side has come up with an idea to help. Bush's plan is wrong! It's evil! It'll will never work! FINE! What's the right way? I'm listening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

I love how both sides have admitted that Social Security is going to run out in the near future, but only one side has come up with an idea to help. Bush's plan is wrong! It's evil! It'll will never work! FINE! What's the right way? I'm listening.

---

I've asked that of them before...I hope you have better luck getting an answer... :thumbs:

The best I can tell is that Cleetus doesn’t know that there's a problem, and techs knows there's one, but doesn’t give a damn because he's retiring in a few years anyway, so what does he care...

A) It will not ****ing run out you lieing stupid ****, there will be a ****ing shortage. Big ****ing difference, learn it, dip****

B) Sweet ****ing jesus you stupid ****ing piece of **** Sol, I know people can save on their own. What the **** happens in the pure hands off capitalist society when the people in charge of those accounts screw them up, what happens when whole segments of the population lose their entire savings when banks fold? We saw all this happen, the pure capitalist society failed.

Are techs or myself or webby or anyone else saying we need pure socialism or communism? Or are you just so trained to attack anything a liberal would say and convert it to the biggest, most scarey meas that you can think of?

Why is a world of greys, compromises, so wrong, so bad?


How many ****ing times does techs or myself have to ****ing say, yes, there is a problem, but privatization on something that is supposed to be secure, is the wrong ****ing way.

Bunch of short bus riding ****ing retarded dip**** ****s.

This has been a rant from a massivly spyware ****ed computer by cleetus, I hate these damn things.

Cleetus, you ask for compromise, Bush only proposes 4% to private funds, so in essence, 10% will still be going into SS. Sounds like the compromise was met a long time ago. Where were you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

Cleetus, you ask for compromise, Bush only proposes 4% to private funds, so in essence, 10% will still be going into SS. Sounds like the compromise was met a long time ago. Where were you?

---

Cleanindg this ****ing spy/mal/adware off my stupid ****ing computer, cause I went to the wrong ****ing place trying to steal music for the ****ing MILF.

Eight of the ten recessions since World War II have occurred during Republican administrations.

A recession at the wrong moment will kill your retirement funds. A recession at the wrong time will take away your ability to live a comfotable life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jitBob

Eight of the ten recessions since World War II have occurred during Republican administrations.

A recession at the wrong moment will kill your retirement funds. A recession at the wrong time will take away your ability to live a comfotable life.

---

Now which side is using "doom and gloom" scare tactics?


"you'll lose it all Marge, don't put your money where you want, let the government decide for you!!!"

please https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

Nobody is stopping you from going out to invest your money in a retirement fund.

Go for it, just don't expect the rest of us to bail you out, like we are still doing- bailing out the S&L scandals of the Reagan era.

We are still cleaning up Neil Bush and his friends' rape of the S&Ls and now you want us prepare to bail out George Bush and his friends try at round two?

Don't expect the FDIC to bail you out either. After all you do want a non-gov't funded retirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

Cleetus, you ask for compromise, Bush only proposes 4% to private funds, so in essence, 10% will still be going into SS. Sounds like the compromise was met a long time ago. Where were you?

---

SS rate is about 12.85. So 4 percent is about 30 percent. Thirty percent is a huge amount.
btw I will soon be posting a thread on why it is impossible for all but richest 3 percent of Americans to provide for their own retirement. You won't want to miss it.
A preview- If Bush gets his retirement destruction plan thru it is guranteed as DESIGNED to leave 18 to 25 million people ages 78 to 99 without ANY BENEFITS or RETIREMENT income at all. Bet you didn't know that. That will in effect have destroyed the American economy.
Bet you can't wait.

Oh god, more dooma nd gloom crap...Bush will eradicate old people! (It's his secret plan you know)

So you are saying that only the top 3% can provide for their own retirement...that is a pretty bold statement....with my current personal plan I am set to have around 1.4 million in 45 years, and I am in no way close to the top 3% lol....So please tell me how I am going to be forced to live in a cardboard box when I turn 78 :/

Oh god, more doom and gloom crap...Bush will eradicate old people! (It's his secret plan you know)

So you are saying that only the top 3% can provide for their own retirement...that is a pretty bold statement....with my current personal plan I am set to have around 1.4 million in 45 years, and I am in no way close to the top 3% lol....So please tell me how I am going to be forced to live in a cardboard box when I turn 76 :/


...cleetus...relax...Damn...

Hey Sol, not once have you answered to the fact that you are not the only one in the country. Not once have you answered the ideas that we might have downturns and people could easily lose their retirements without government protections. Why is it so hard for it to wrap your head around the idea that we are trying to find ways to protect everyone and find the best for everyone yet still try to retain the America that in the last century, with the increasing protection of the gov't, became the strongest and best economy and country in the world?

Our people makes us the best, and as liberals we want the best for these people so that we can continue to be the top dog. We aren't trying to stifle anything or anyone, just trying to help people out where in the past it was shown that there were too many areas that were either taken advantage of or were too big of risks that led to too many downfalls.

It is a 40 year projection that we will have problems, so many things can happen in those 40 years. Do we need to take that money out now, and force an earlier crisis, if there will even be one?

Why is it so easy for you to swallow your government forcing it's youth to die in a cause that wasn't even clear, yet to protect your elderly is so bad? Why is it ok for us to force our way of life on other nations after invading them, yet so wrong to make sure that our own people, our own citizens have health care?

Sorry, but looks to me like liberals like me, care more for this nation, are more American then you.

I will admit one thing. People are too stupid in this country and can't be trusted to do things on their own, so they need someone to do all the work for them so they don't screw up. Now go watch some TV dear while Mom does your laundry.