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

#1. THe only liberal solution seems to be one of two replies...
-"Let's dump more money into it"
-"We have a better plan" (of course they never outline that plan)

Social security was NEVER meant to be a long term plan. It just wasn't ever stopped. there are plenty of ways you can invest your money that are reasonably safe. Hand-holding everyone is not the way to go, it leads to a lifetime of dependance, not independance. You push this plan like we are going to completely eliminate SS. (which I would not mind) THis is not the case. A percentage will be available for you to choose whether you want to leave it in the incapable hands of the goverment, or in our own hands.

It's not like you are being force-fed to do this, unfortunately you think that wealthy americans (that have worked hard to get where they are) need to donate even more to the goverment to help people who are too lazy to get off their rear-ends & work.

Perhaps you are incapable of managing your own finances, but I am capable & willing to manage my own.

And on a side note, what we are doing in Iraq is going to be better in the long run. I was in the Navy & served my time, and would gladly go back in if I am recalled.

WE cannot leave the world as it is. If we ever plan to move beyond petty dictators, human rights violations, mass graves, children's prisons, torture chambers<<---real tortuer, where they kill you, not keeping a person awake for 36 hours.)poverty, disease, etc...We need to take action.

We cannot allow what was happening in Iraq to continue happening elsewhere. While the top oficials hoarde all fo the money, building palaces & taking in cash from the oil for food program (with the assistance of corrupt UN officials) people are dying.

If you really want to help, look at the world and admit that these problems need to be dealt with harshly for our world to ever prosper.

Terrorists need to be eliminated
Ruthless dictators need to be removed from power and dealt with.


...I could go on forever, but I alreay know eht you are going to say


-THe rich need to help the poor by paying more taxes
-Goverment needs to provide everything we need, including healthcare, car, house, job (unless you are too lazy), retirement fund, and a lolipop.

-Terrorists are misunderstood rebels fighting for their "just" cause (It couldn't be because we are taking away all their money and power)

-Terrorists ar not bad people, we can talk to them and they will be nice and leave us alone

-we do not need to be proactive in the war on terror, and in the event we are hit again we need to apologize because we must have done something to deserve it

-we need to open all borders and let whoever wants to come in to our country to work here, get DL's & SS...


------------------------------------------

Let me tell you, if it saves just one american life, I condone agressive tactics for getting the information out of a subject.


I do NOT condone anything that leads to permanent damage

...But if it takes a few volts of electricity or 36 hours without sleep to save an emerican life I am 110% behind it.


Remember, we have to be right every single time to stop attacks, the terrorists only have to be right once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolApathy

#1. THe only liberal solution seems to be one of two replies...
-"Let's dump more money into it"
-"We have a better plan" (of course they never outline that plan)

Social security was NEVER meant to be a long term plan. It just wasn't ever stopped. there are plenty of ways you can invest your money that are reasonably safe. Hand-holding everyone is not the way to go, it leads to a lifetime of dependance, not independance. You push this plan like we are going to completely eliminate SS. (which I would not mind) THis is not the case. A percentage will be available for you to choose whether you want to leave it in the incapable hands of the goverment, or in our own hands.

It's not like you are being force-fed to do this, unfortunately you think that wealthy americans (that have worked hard to get where they are) need to donate even more to the goverment to help people who are too lazy to get off their rear-ends & work.

Perhaps you are incapable of managing your own finances, but I am capable & willing to manage my own.

And on a side note, what we are doing in Iraq is going to be better in the long run. I was in the Navy & served my time, and would gladly go back in if I am recalled.

WE cannot leave the world as it is. If we ever plan to move beyond petty dictators, human rights violations, mass graves, children's prisons, torture chambers<<---real tortuer, where they kill you, not keeping a person awake for 36 hours.)poverty, disease, etc...We need to take action.

We cannot allow what was happening in Iraq to continue happening elsewhere. While the top oficials hoarde all fo the money, building palaces & taking in cash from the oil for food program (with the assistance of corrupt UN officials) people are dying.

If you really want to help, look at the world and admit that these problems need to be dealt with harshly for our world to ever prosper.

Terrorists need to be eliminated
Ruthless dictators need to be removed from power and dealt with.


...I could go on forever, but I alreay know eht you are going to say


-THe rich need to help the poor by paying more taxes
-Goverment needs to provide everything we need, including healthcare, car, house, job (unless you are too lazy), retirement fund, and a lolipop.

-Terrorists are misunderstood rebels fighting for their "just" cause (It couldn't be because we are taking away all their money and power)

-Terrorists ar not bad people, we can talk to them and they will be nice and leave us alone

-we do not need to be proactive in the war on terror, and in the event we are hit again we need to apologize because we must have done something to deserve it

-we need to open all borders and let whoever wants to come in to our country to work here, get DL's & SS...


------------------------------------------

Let me tell you, if it saves just one american life, I condone agressive tactics for getting the information out of a subject.


I do NOT condone anything that leads to permanent damage

...But if it takes a few volts of electricity or 36 hours without sleep to save an emerican life I am 110% behind it.


Remember, we have to be right every single time to stop attacks, the terrorists only have to be right once.

---

Social Security was never meant to be a long term plan? Show me ONE historical reference. You are just making that up.

You may be quite capable of managing your finances? Who cares except you (in the sense of the country)? The Bush plan is nothing about " managing your finances". It is about eliminating a system that is necessary and provides not only for the security of individuals and of this country with a plan that even at best BANKRUPTS the government and our country.

And about your other stuff, you keep mixing up issues with 30 year old slogans like, "THe rich need to help the poor by paying more taxes"
NO ONE has ever said that in this forum, I'm pretty sure. We have said things like necessary governmental services should be funded by a progressive income tax. My rationale? I am paying for the interstate highway system which I almost never use but people who earn dividends from McDonalds are getting the benefit. There is a correlation between how much you earn and how much governmental services you use. The rich should pay there fair share.

And once again no one ever says how they can assure they will have enough retirement money to live on if they live past 77.

btw how much will it cost you to shop at walmart when senior citizens are shoplifting every thing in sight? Or how will your kids protect themselves from disease when homeless senior citizens are rampantly ill?

2nd btw I noticed we are doing nothing about the other ruthless dictators. Let me know when you start a volunteer army to liberate Cuba.

Social security wasn't ever meant to be a long term plan. Itwas implimented after the great depression (1935) and took effect around 1942 in order to provide ppl that were at retirement age with "security" that when they retired the goverment would be there to help them.

It was never properly designed for loing term-effectiveness. Eventually people would have to mature (or so people thought) so that the goverment would not have to provide a monthly handout....


Any yes, it's a 30 year old sloagan, and it's still front and center in liberalism...Liberals want the rich to pay more and more because they are successful. There isn't any point in working hard & being successful if all of hte rewards you reap are getting paid out to some guy that decided he didn't need to save because he was too busy partying to think about his future.


I have absolutely no concern for anyone who does not have the sense to save some money for retirement. You may think I am cynical, but I am not. The hard reality is that unless we take a hard line like that we will always be plagued by prople that dno't want to work, but expect goverment handouts.

I think between my medical benifits & the estiated 1.4 million I save by the time I retire (even if I lived to be 100 that would be around $50,000 a year once you factor in interest)...So I guess I will not be one of those poor senior citizens stealing at wal-mart. (btw I did not even factor in my SS & m wife's....So what, I would be taking around 70,000 a year if I lived to 100....I think I can manage on that.



As far as dictators & cuba are concerned, all I can say is that we are sworking on it one dictator at a time....FYI FIdel Castro is by no means as ruthless as Saddam was...


I would say more but I am tired & I have to be up for work in an hour so I can pay for ppl that don't want to get off thier butts and work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolApathy

I have absolutely no concern for anyone who does not have the sense to save some money for retirement. You may think I am cynical, but I am not. The hard reality is that unless we take a hard line like that we will always be plagued by prople that dno't want to work, but expect goverment handouts.

---

It also sounds like you have absolutely no compassion or understanding of or for the weak, used, abused and/or undereducated in a society that rewards the supposed strong.
Sometimes I wonder about people like you. Where did society go so wrong as to produce people with no empathy whatsoever. When you let the dregs of society alter your feelings about the whole, I have to wonder, if there were any feelings there to begin with. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

It also sounds like you have absolutely no compassion or understanding of or for the weak, used, abused and/or undereducated in a society that rewards the supposed strong.
Sometimes I wonder about people like you. Where did society go so wrong as to produce people with no empathy whatsoever. When you let the dregs of society alter your feelings about the whole, I have to wonder, if there were any feelings there to begin with. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

---

Well put TripleRLtd.

And I would add that there is a difference between a safety net and a handout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

It also sounds like you have absolutely no compassion or understanding of or for the weak, used, abused and/or undereducated in a society that rewards the supposed strong.
Sometimes I wonder about people like you. Where did society go so wrong as to produce people with no empathy whatsoever. When you let the dregs of society alter your feelings about the whole, I have to wonder, if there were any feelings there to begin with. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

---

It is what I keep saying to him, "what about everyone else?" What about those in the same society as you?

Rather sad

I have no problem with Social Security. I'm just not relying on it to bail me out when I retire. I've been putting money away since I was 22 to make sure I'll be OK.

It's the welfare system that I think needs a serious overhall. That's where you have a major problem of people taking advantage of the government. If we cut out some of the useless parts of the welfare system and injected that money into SS, I think we'd be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

I have no problem with Social Security. I'm just not relying on it to bail me out when I retire. I've been putting money away since I was 22 to make sure I'll be OK.

It's the welfare system that I think needs a serious overhall. That's where you have a major problem of people taking advantage of the government. If we cut out some of the useless parts of the welfare system and injected that money into SS, I think we'd be fine.

---

Exaclty no problem with that. Many people don't understand that Lib's don't like waste either. We like to give a helping hand so that people can get back on their feet and do their own work again, but waste and free loaders were never meant to be a part of our help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

I have no problem with Social Security. I'm just not relying on it to bail me out when I retire. I've been putting money away since I was 22 to make sure I'll be OK.

It's the welfare system that I think needs a serious overhall. That's where you have a major problem of people taking advantage of the government. If we cut out some of the useless parts of the welfare system and injected that money into SS, I think we'd be fine.

---

I thought we did do a lot to fix the welfare system under Clinton?

and btw solapathy 70,000 a year will be like how much in 50 years? Like 5,000 now? (just guessing). And SS was NEVER meant to be temporary. You are thinking about welfare which was supposed to be temporary help for people but became a lifelong check until Clinton put a one time five year limit on it.
SS was meant as permanent. Look it up.

Having the government take money from you and re-distribute it to others is not "compassion" or "thinking of your fellow man". Being forced to contribute to a "charity for the poor" is not compassionate. Taking your own money and giving it to charity or someone in need is the best way to show compassion to others. It's kind of foolish that people think that Sol is not compassionate or thinking of others when his view on government is different that yours. He might be a big contributor to charity with his own money.



Side note:

I agree that there needs to be programs that help people out (short term), but not to the extent where they rely on government to live. In a perfect world, this would be done by private and religious organizations instead of government having to impose a tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zil

Having the government take money from you and re-distribute it to others is not "compassion" or "thinking of your fellow man". Being forced to contribute to a "charity for the poor" is not compassionate. Taking your own money and giving it to charity or someone in need is the best way to show compassion to others. It's kind of foolish that people think that Sol is not compassionate or thinking of others when his view on government is different that yours. He might be a big contributor to charity with his own money.



Side note:

I agree that there needs to be programs that help people out (short term), but not to the extent where they rely on government to live. In a perfect world, this would be done by private and religious organizations instead of government having to impose a tax.

---

Nice point about compassion. But what the heck does it have to do with SS?

Um, SS is my money, kept securly until such time as I can take it out, guaranteed and secure.

SS is by no means "your" money...The goverment uses the money you pay in now to keep up with the people they are paying out to now.

Zil illistrates my point, I have compassion for others, redistribution of money I am forced to pay every time I pay taxes as an independent contractor is not what I consider charity (isn't that my money anyways)

If an individual WANTS to donate to a fund, using part of their pay to a goverment institution for safe-keeping until thier retirement that should be a choice they have. The key word is "choice" I don't want to be forced into this system as we have been for so many years.


I donate money every year to charities that assist people that are down and out.

I am not referring to welfare, that is a completely different issue. I am talking solely about SS. If I want the option to invest "my own money" as cleetus put it (eventhough it really is not our money, as our retirement will be paid by those that are working once we retire) I should have that option. I should not be FORCED to donate my money to a fund that is for my own retirement that is provided by the goverment. I should be allowed to invest MY money as I see fit.

Unfortunately some people are not responsible enough to manage their own retirement, so the goverment feels the need to continue deducting pay from my income in the event I am too irrisponsible to manage my own money.


Some of you think that we should continue to hand-hold everyone as if they are children. Come on, you are a grown person, take some responsibility.

Bush is making progress on our system. I want to be able to invest a portion of the money that the goverment is taking from me. All I see from you guys is "worst case Scenarios" that predict doom and gloom to anyone who daers invest their money.



-I feel compassion for people, I just don't feel financially responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TripleRLtd

It also sounds like you have absolutely no compassion or understanding of or for the weak, used, abused and/or undereducated in a society that rewards the supposed strong.
Sometimes I wonder about people like you. Where did society go so wrong as to produce people with no empathy whatsoever. When you let the dregs of society alter your feelings about the whole, I have to wonder, if there were any feelings there to begin with. https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2005/03/1.gif

---

...Compassion is one thing, financial responsibility for others is quite another.

I have plenty of empathy, which I show in my charitable donations & my work in the community every year. However, I do not feel sad or responsible for the people whom I have seen that have no desire to better themselves or take responsibility for their choices in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolApathy

...Compassion is one thing, financial responsibility for others is quite another.

I have plenty of empathy, which I show in my charitable donations & my work in the community every year. However, I do not feel sad or responsible for the people whom I have seen that have no desire to better themselves or take responsibility for their choices in life.

---

And I agree with you on the first sentence.

But are you under the mistaken belief that SS has anything to do with the rest of your post? It doesn't. No one gets something for nothing. (well, the first people who received payments did back in the 30's).

SS is around because it is impossible for 97 percent of people to save for their retirement. This is because no one knows how long they will live.
Try imagining it this way. In order to prevent masive numbers (tens of millions) of people from becoming penniless before they die the only way to run a private retirement plan would be for EVERYONE to only be allowed to take out of their funds each year an amount equal to one thirty-third of their savings. Just in case you live to be a hundred. Even then who takes care of the 100 plus year old people?
So how much will you need to save to provide for 33 years of retirement? It is impossible to save that much.

The fact that so many people have such a false impression of SS and the difficulties it faces are a tribute to our lying or stupid President.