Medicare Premium Record Increase

[Secretariat]

These guys are amazing. It hits seniors next year AFTER the election. A record "tax" increase on the elderly...But the wealthy still got their tax cut.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040904/ts_latimes/medicarepremiumstojumparecord17

[JustMissed]

If slickster John Edwards and his shyster trial attorney buddys would stop their lawsuits, maybe the poor old folks wouldn't have to pay an increase in their MC insurance premiums.

I forget how many millions that slickster John Edwards made in one year but it was more than obscene.

It's all his fault.

JM

[betchatoo]

John Edwards found a market for his services and then provided the needed service. That is free market capitalism. Are you telling me a Republican opposes this?

[Tom]

Originally posted by betchatoo
John Edwards found a market for his services and then provided the needed service. That is free market capitalism. Are you telling me a Republican opposes this?

Then don't go balming the effects of his actions on Bush. Edwards may hve acted legally, but he is still a shyster and he is far more responsible for high health care cost than Bush is.
You guys can't play both sides of the same argument, although that is Kerry's trademark.

[sq764]

A dem lover at my work constantly harps on the medicaire costs, but also criticizes Bush for wanting to cap malpractice lawsuits..

Ironic, isn't it?

[Lefty]

Medicare was fatally flawed from time of inception. Don't now blame the Repubs for what the Dems did.

[JustMissed]

Besides slickster John Edwards picking the pockets of poor old folks so he can live a big life style and wear $500 suits......

What about his buddy lying John Kerry wanting to put a $.50 a gallon gas tax on everyone including the elderly and the poor.

Think about the old people that are still drive their old gas gussler Buicks, Chevys & Fords because they can't afford a new car.

Heck, when they fill up at the gas station lying John Kerry would be picking their pocket for an extra $10. They couldn't even afford to buy gas to go to the doctor.

And what is lying John Kerry going to do with that $10 he stole from the old folks?

Knowing his liberal voting record he would probably give part of the money to Jesse Jackson and Julian Bond so they can buy new furniture for their "porch" and give the rest to the National Organization for Women's program to teach young girls how to geld their husbands.

Hell of a program you DemLibs got going for you.

Can't wait to see the rest of the "plan".

JM

[Secretariat]

gotta love you guys...the Shyster Edwards is reponsible for Bush raising the Medicare premium....priceless...I guess there were no shyster lawyers around for the last 20 years...

I gotta tell ya, I currently have a father in law in the hospital right now, and I am personally thinking of filing a suit after he almost died from overmedication and mismedication. In fact four other doctors at the hospital have attested to that fact...I wish there were some shysters like Edwards around to represent my father in law.

But the crux of the article is the way Bush does it. If so urgent, Why not make the medicare premium immediate and have seniors begin to pay their record increase effective immediately, or might that not be too welcome at the polls by our seniors....

Priceless....

Or maybe we should just ask our seniors to give up their medicare..after all this was part of the Great Society under Johnson...let's get rid of it..privatize it...let's see how the seniors go for that....but let's do it honestly and charge them BEFORE the election

What a gutless coward this man is....the Commedia Del Arte has a name fro him..El Capitano....the braggart who runs away when confronted with real danger

[JustMissed]

1. Medicare Part B premiums historically change in January when the social security benefits change.

In 2003 the premium was $55.70; $66.60 in 2004. They increase every year under every administration.

2. You may be in luck with your malpractice case. I understand slickster John Edwards will be out of work in 60 days and will be looking for new clients.

JM

[kenwoodallpromos]

Slowing down the rise in medical costs is the only solution to increases.
Increasing the labor available by more training and education; and pre-screening all civil lawsuits for legality and probable winning will help.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
These guys are amazing. It hits seniors next year AFTER the election. A record "tax" increase on the elderly...But the wealthy still got their tax cut.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040904/ts_latimes/medicarepremiumstojumparecord17

Sounds like a good time for another tax rebate, eh?

[Lefty]

Doctors are fleeing Vegas because of astronomic malpractice insurance. And this not the only place. Thanks Dems for refusing to put a cap on malpractice suits.
Sec, could idea about privatization. Now if the Dems would only agree to it. Course it's so messed up now we could only do it for the young; sooner the better. Medical savings Accts!

[Secretariat]

Lefty,

We've been though this before about privatization. answer me one thing.

If we start Medical Savings accounts for the young, how will current Social Security recipeints be paid?

And JM, this rise is a record setter, and it is being done after the election. Kerry should have a field day with this one.

"A Record Medicare Preimuim increase on seniors while off shorers, out sourcers and the wealthy 1% get huge tax breaks. Typical Bush."

[Lefty]

sec, don't really know, prob have to apportion it some way, not for me to figure out, but current system will ultimately fail so why not try another tact?
And quit blaming Bush for failures of dems. And when I posted long ago that I along with other poor people I got benefits from tax cuts I was derided and pooh poohed by libs on this board. You paid taxes you got a tax cut; rich got more becausethey paid more. Stop the class warfare; another tired and specious argument.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, don't really know, prob have to apportion it some way, not for me to figure out, but current system will ultimately fail so why not try another tact?


Well, Lefty, I appreciate your honesty. You don't know. You don't set up a system based on "don't knows". Currently, the Soc Sec money coming int ofed coffers pays current recipients. You've said discretionary spending is out of control with Iraq, so how would you fund this privatization scheme. Before you implement something, you better have an exit strategy, unlike Iraq. Otherwise you'll be leaving a lot of retirees on welfare.

[Lefty]

Hey, sec, the govt not paying me to figure it out but sure some brght bulbs can. The current plan instituted by dem dimwits will ultimately fail so why not try something else? That's what I dislike about dems, willingness to stay with failed prgms and pour more and more of taxpayers money dn the rathole.
Sure, i know it's a Ponzi scheme currently and all Ponzi schemes ultimately collapse undfer their own wght.

[kitts]

Somebody once mentioned here the perfect solution to Social Security problems. Enroll every member in Congress in Social Security and take away their nifty benefits plan. Things would be fixed pronto!

[Derek2U]

Yeah that would go a long way kitts. I guess Cheney was
covered for all his stents. Seriously, I don't know why these kinda
things still are allowed; ditto for IRS-Treasury dept workers too.
The list of handOuts is great.

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Currently, the Soc Sec money coming int ofed coffers pays current recipients.

Actually, SS has run an enormous surplus over the course of it's life...continues to run one today. BOTH parties have boned us...at any time they could have very easily transitioned the surplus into something like savings accounts.

That money hasn't disappeared...it is "owed" back to SS by the federal government...so essentially there is right now an enormous surplus in SS..on paper. So how do you pay for the transition? The answer is...we already have.

[Tom]

Anyone ever stop to wonder just what our elected congressmen and senators have been doing all theses years? Isn't is THIER jobs to take of this sort of thing?
TERM LIMITS is a step in the right direction. Get new blood in congerss, people wanting to serve our country and no those just there for a proift. We are represented by a large body if criminals and they need to be put out of office today.
Other than Bush, I will vote against every single incumbent and urge everyone else to do the same thing.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Other than Bush, I will vote against every single incumbent and urge everyone else to do the same thing.

Other than every single incumbent I will urge everyone else to vote against Bush.

[Lefty]

Knute Gingrich and the 94 congress brght term limits up for a vote: 80+% of Repubs voted for it. The Power hungry dems kept it from going through.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by chickenhead
Actually, SS has run an enormous surplus over the course of it's life...continues to run one today. BOTH parties have boned us...at any time they could have very easily transitioned the surplus into something like savings accounts.

That money hasn't disappeared...it is "owed" back to SS by the federal government...so essentially there is right now an enormous surplus in SS..on paper. So how do you pay for the transition? The answer is...we already have.


Thanks Chick...tell that to Lefty..apparently the Ponzi scheme has run a surplus...The problem Chick is that Congress and Pres's have already spent that surplus, for other things....so it is going to be contigent on future generations to make up what has been taken from it...this is waht Gore was talking about with the lock box idea, but people just made fun of it....if the surplus had been put into it, we wouldn't nned to be talking about such absurd ideas as privatizing SS as has caused such problems in Chile.

[chickenhead]

there are two ways to pay for it...either raising taxes or cutting spending..I believe Greenspan has been harping on this for some time at great length. There are no silver bullets.

You are more informed than I am on Kerry's plan to fix SS...could you explain it to me? I haven't heard much about it.

[Buckeye]

Cradle to grave. Let the Govament take care of us all. They can do it! What do us individuals know?

[chickenhead]

I would be more than willing to consider a country with no SS....but so long as there exists some form of mandatory savings program...I would like it to work.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by chickenhead
there are two ways to pay for it...either raising taxes or cutting spending..I believe Greenspan has been harping on this for some time at great length. There are no silver bullets.

You are more informed than I am on Kerry's plan to fix SS...could you explain it to me? I haven't heard much about it.

If you have Adobe Acrobat which can read PDF files you can read it from their site:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/seniors/toolkit.pdf

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
If you have Adobe Acrobat which can read PDF files you can read it from their site:

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/seniors/toolkit.pdf

I read nothing of any specifc nature. Only generalities like "work to...." and "continue to support....."
Could you point out page numbers and paragraphs where a specific detail is outlined?
Thank you for your support.
:p

[chickenhead]

They say they won't raise taxes and they won't cut benefits.....ok, so I know what they won't do.

So how are the going to pay for it?

Then I read there is enough money in the trust fund for 40 years...this is a gross oversimplification...there is actually zero money in the trust fund....there are a pile of "IOU's" from the federal government. This means if we are going to rely on the fed to pay that money back....either that money needs to come from spending cuts elsewhere....or tax increases elsewhere...or combination of the two.

So what is his plan again?

[Lefty]

sec, do you know who the first pres was to raid SS? Hint: Not a Repub. Still a Ponzi scheme. If you don't blve it, look up Ponzi Scheme. If FDR had done it right, seniors would be living the life of ease. But he didn't and a lot of us didn't prepare correctly either...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by chickenhead
They say they won't raise taxes and they won't cut benefits.....ok, so I know what they won't do.

So how are the going to pay for it?

Then I read there is enough money in the trust fund for 40 years...this is a gross oversimplification...there is actually zero money in the trust fund....there are a pile of "IOU's" from the federal government. This means if we are going to rely on the fed to pay that money back....either that money needs to come from spending cuts elsewhere....or tax increases elsewhere...or combination of the two.

So what is his plan again?

Kerry has guaranteed what he won't do. What is off the board. That's a signficant pledge which the current Pres has not made.

Basically, he lists growth and fiscal discipline below. He also will be rolling back the tax give-aways for those making over 200,000 a year which he announced awhile back. Will that get it all done? No. But it is the begining of fiscal discipline. Kerry voted for a balanced budget amendment in the face of previous deficits. We've got to get those deficits down and Kerry knows that unlike our current Pres who keeps balloning them with larger and larger budgets and more discretionary spending.

The SS problem will not turn around in one year, but if Kerry can begin to expand the prospects via growth, and fiscal discipline and retrieving some of that tax give away money for deficit reduction we may have a chance. Corps will be in this for profits, not for seniors. Privatization is just too risky as it proved in Chile.

I've put what Kerry has listed below.

"A Plan to Strengthen Social Security
Social Security Is A Lifeline For America's Seniors. 45 million Americans count on Social Security. Social Security represents 38 percent of the income of the elderly and lifts tens of millions of seniors above the poverty line. Currently, the poverty rate for seniors is 10.4 percent. Without Social Security it would be about 50 percent.

Social Security Faces Challenges - But They Are Manageable. Under current law, Social Security is projected to be solvent through 2042. Current law revenues would be sufficient to pay 73 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2042.

The Three Pillars Of John Kerry's Approach To Strengthening Social Security:

Grow the economy. The Kerry-Edwards plan will jump-start growth today and invest in stronger long-run growth. A larger economy will be in a better position to pay for an increasing number of retirees.

Restore fiscal discipline. Social Security is part of the broader fiscal challenge facing America. The Kerry-Edwards plan will cut the deficit in half and restore fiscal discipline to Washington.
Bipartisan Process. Historically, successful reforms of Social Security and Medicare - like in 1983 and 1997 - have been accomplished on a bipartisan basis. As president, John Kerry will build on his strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans on fiscal issues to address Social Security's challenge.

John Kerry Will Never Balance The Budget On The Backs Of America's Seniors. As president, John Kerry will not raise Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits for people that rely on Social Security, or privatize Social Security. He will consider making sure that high-income beneficiaries don't get more out than they pay in. "

[Lefty]

I laugh at John Kerry and you sec if you think raising taxes on the group most responsible for jobs is going to promote growth in the economy. Kerrry's plan will throw the economy into chaos. Bush has proven, just like Kennedy and Reagan, that tax cuts work, but the dems just won't admit it or are just dense when it comes to economics.

[JustRalph]

This is a perfect example of Kerry Talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says.......

" I will only raise taxes on those making over 200k a year"

" I will give a tax break to small business"


So, let's say you own a dry cleaner or some other small business that is pretty successful.......... You get a tax break for your business. You personally start making more money and you then earn over 200k....(or you already earn 200k) ......guess what? you get it put in one pocket and pulled out of another.

How much you want to bet in the long run you end up losing money on the deal.............

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph

How much you want to bet in the long run you end up losing money on the deal.............

If you look at Bush's deficit, we're already losing money on the deal. Big money. We can't keep taxing future generations.

Kerry's has stated his intention to preserve the sanctity of Social Security and he's put himself on the line doinf so. He's listed what he'll protect, and has proposed a beginning as a source fo revenue. Bush simply says we'll take care of our seniors and then the next day it is released that Medicare Premiums are given a record increase.

I'm in the process of watching my father-in-law die, and my own father debilitate. Without Social Security and Medicareboth of these veterans of WW II would be completely destititute.

Social Security and Medicare is not something to give to the Halliburton's and Eli Lilly's of the world to make profits out of. It is the minimum that seniors rely on. Bush's plan is privatization. I'm 100% against that after researching Chile's problems with that.

The last thing our country needs is Bush foisting Social Security and Medicare onto his political contributors to raid more of our Treasury and leave future seniors to fend for themselves. If people want to privatize their retirement they already can do that in terms of IRAs. Attempting to dismantle one of FDR's greatest accomplishments is abominable.

[chickenhead]

you can't grow your way out of the problem by growing the economy....you have to structurally change SS...which is not what I hear Kerry proposing.

[fmazur]

__________________________________________________ __Posted by Sec.
I'm in the process of watching my father-in-law die, and my own father debilitate. Without Social Security and Medicareboth of these veterans of WW II would be completely destititute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This shows typical liberal garbage, and how a liberal thinks. I and many others have/had parents and in-laws. Fortunately for my parents and in-laws, we came from conservative families, with conservative values. We never remotely considered letting them try to get by on Social Security alone. We considered it our duty to see that they had whatever they needed.

In the liberal mind (apparently yours), one would never think that. I guess the liberal mind can't conceive of the fact that the people who fed, clothed and sheltered us, could be cared for by family. You should know, it is not against the law to give your parents and in-laws assistance, although being a liberal you may think so.

I guess it should be left to others to care for your families. I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to that.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Demos have to get past their own personal credibility issues if they expect to get voters listening to what the mean Repubs are doing. Like Bush and Cheney get past their drunk driving issues.

[Lefty]

Chick,you're right; SS has to be structurally changed. The Dems don't want to change it but just keep it as an issue.

[JustMissed]

Ever notice the DemLibs don't want to sacrifice but are more than happy to "pick our pockets" and use "our money" to take care of "their families".

They want to take care of everyone under the DemLib unbrella but with "our money".

Hey, cut back on your spending, get off cable and internet and send the older ones some money. Hey, quit posting on the intenet so much and get a part time job and help them out. Quit picking my pocket.

Hey, it's like I tell old Jesse Jackson and Julian Bonds "Get off that porch and go over there and teach them children to read".

"Hey Jesse, quit that running around with women every night and go over there and teach those children how to do math".


God help us if lying John Kerry gets elected.

JM

[chickenhead]

I didn't realize you had to be a registered democrat to get SS JM....

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by chickenhead
I didn't realize you had to be a registered democrat to get SS JM....

DemLib umbrella is the situation where Democrats take full credit for any program that purports to help folks out and never give Republicans any credit for helping anyone out under any circumstances.

Everytime the Republicans try to reform social security or medicare the DemLibs start telling the old folks that the Repubs are trying to take away social security benefits.

I know what's going on, you know what's going on and come November 2nd, the whole world will know what's going on.

JM

[chickenhead]

I agree...I thought you were saying that only Dems "want" SS...I don't agree with that.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by chickenhead
I agree...I thought you were saying that only Dems "want" SS...I don't agree with that.

Thanks for the clarification. Social Security is actually Old Age Surviors and Disablity Insurance and the money, 6.2%, they take out of your pay check is actually an insurance premium and the benefits are to be paid, per contract, just like an insurance policy would payoff.

Medicare is similar but different in many respects.

Unfortunately for all of us, both Republican and Demorcratic weasels have abused the OASDI fund over the years, basically robbed it and replaced the cash with an I.O.U..

Unfortunately, social security, taxes, health care, etc. are all political footballs and not much we can do about it till we have campaign reform, term limits and behead all the lobbyist.

JM

[JustMissed]

I forgot to mention that your employer also matches and pays in that same 6.2% for your social security premiums. The is a total of 12.4% of maximum wage base of $87,900 for 2004.

If you were fortunate to make $87,900 this year, there would be $10,899.60 paid into your OASDI retirement fund. Quite a lot of money if you ask me.

I get pretty tried of politicians from both parties taking my money and then acting like it is their money.

JM

[chickenhead]

that is an important thing to remember....they treat the surplus like general renevue......whatever budget shortfalls they claim are generally much bigger in reality....and budget surplus during Clinton years much smaller than reported.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Other than every single incumbent I will urge everyone else to vote against Bush.
And you will perpetuate the same old same old we have now. Wake up, dude....it's the CONGRESS, stupid!

[Tom]

Still waiting for specifics about how Kerry will accomplish these feats. Nothing concrete yet.

Let's put aside all the money spent on homeland security and Iraq and take a look at domestic spending. Out of control, thorugh the roof. Congress will not stop spending and Bush will not veto anything. Has anyone told him that he can do this? LOL!
Sec, ask your boss at the DNC to 'spalin that to you.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by fmazur
__________________________________________________ __Posted by Sec.
I'm in the process of watching my father-in-law die, and my own father debilitate. Without Social Security and Medicareboth of these veterans of WW II would be completely destititute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This shows typical liberal garbage, and how a liberal thinks. I and many others have/had parents and in-laws. Fortunately for my parents and in-laws, we came from conservative families, with conservative values. We never remotely considered letting them try to get by on Social Security alone. We considered it our duty to see that they had whatever they needed.

In the liberal mind (apparently yours), one would never think that. I guess the liberal mind can't conceive of the fact that the people who fed, clothed and sheltered us, could be cared for by family. You should know, it is not against the law to give your parents and in-laws assistance, although being a liberal you may think so.

I guess it should be left to others to care for your families. I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to that.

I suppose fmazur that you are one of the representatives of that “compassionate conservatism” that I heard so much of, when Mr Bush ran for office in 2000.

It’s hard to know whether to feel sorry for you fmazur due to your ignorancy, or whether I should just get indignant. I’m too tired to get indignant.

You know absolutely nothing about my personal situation, but you manage to denigrate my family by inferring that I and my wife are not doing our share to support my father or her father finacially. You do this without knowing how much either of us have contributed of our money, the sacrifcies that we’ve made nor the time we’ve committed over the last decade. Your ignorance of the situation doesn’t prevent you however,, in making a partisan politcal pronouncement judging us and all liberals.

Sir, you lack integrity.

Have you ever wondered what Nancy Reagan felt like? Can you imagine her battle during her husband’s battle with Alzheimers disease, and now imagine that without the benefit of a Presidential pension paying the bill? Do you know the costs of long term hospice care, or long term nursing home care today, or hiring a private nurse? Perhaps you don’t. Part of me wants to get angry by your statements, but I just feel sad for you man. Perhaps you haven’t had to look for work today. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you that you’ve got a secure job, and are able to help your parents through decades of nursing home care.

But the money is only a part of it. The inhumanity of denigrating anyone dealing with children of parents with debilitating illnesses represents truly unfeeling behavior sir. So congratulate yourself for your clever insulting remarks on all liberals. My wife’s doctor told me that ignorancy is catching. Better get a check up.

And as for Social Security, did it ever occur to you that both my father and her father refused often to accept our help due to their pride. They both beleive in Social Security. They paid their whole life, and were so happy to be “independent” and not reliant on their children when they got older. Her father wept when he was forced to accept our personal and financial help. He’s a blue collar guy, and has vowed to pay us back every penny we’ve loaned him.

I don’t bring this up for your sympathy because I could care less. Simply for you to think before you make broad judgments about “all liberals” and people’s personal situations that you really know nothing about.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by chickenhead
that is an important thing to remember....they treat the surplus like general renevue......whatever budget shortfalls they claim are generally much bigger in reality....and budget surplus during Clinton years much smaller than reported.

At least Chick, there was a surplus...I was not fond of Clinton, but fiscally he did not put our country into massive deficits necessitating our democracy to take loans out from Red China for our children to pay off.

[chickenhead]

That is what I don't understand Sec......Clinton presided over a great economy.....which did nothing to help fix SS or Medicare.....and Kerry's plan to fix SS and Medicare is.....a good economy????

It just doesn't add up. There is just no way to keep taxes and payments the same....it is untenable, period. There is really nothing to argue, IT HAS TO BE CHANGED....Kerry knows this as well as anyone....is his plan a big secret, or does he not have one?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by chickenhead
That is what I don't understand Sec......Clinton presided over a great economy.....which did nothing to help fix SS or Medicare.....and Kerry's plan to fix SS and Medicare is.....a good economy????

It just doesn't add up. There is just no way to keep taxes and payments the same....it is untenable, period. There is really nothing to argue, IT HAS TO BE CHANGED....Kerry knows this as well as anyone....is his plan a big secret, or does he not have one?

I think you said it in an earlier post that you made:

"Actually, SS has run an enormous surplus over the course of it's life...continues to run one today. BOTH parties have boned us...at any time they could have very easily transitioned the surplus into something like savings accounts.

That money hasn't disappeared...it is "owed" back to SS by the federal government...so essentially there is right now an enormous surplus in SS..on paper. So how do you pay for the transition? The answer is...we already have."

In other words the problem lies not with SS, but in the management of it. This is why Gore proposed locking SS away from the General Funds. SS does fine as long as that money is kept away from the rest of the budget as was orginally intended. I beleive an amendment to the Constitution to do that would receive overwhelming support by states, retirement groups, and the people. Think of that amount of money that is owed back into those coffers. In terms of security, the federal govt. offers the greatest security of any investment, perhaps not with the potentially greatest return, but social security is called security for a reason.

The "risk" with privatization involves (a) the risk of the investing company (b) unequal assessments of indivdual risk (c) increased overhead costs from companies seeking profit (d) the govt. having to address failed individual risks (e) loss of federal funds and hence interest from those funds resulting in most likely increased taxes or an increasing deficit lowering the value of the dollar internationally (f) a new enforcement bureaucracy to oversee investing companies.

Now, dismising privatization for a minute, and assuming that SS has created a surplus as you state, but it has been raided, why not fix the "raiding" part instead of dismantling something that by a large majority people like, especaillay retired people. The only reason younger people might not like it is fear of it not being there when they get older. Therefore, seperating SS from the General funds is critical. And the slow, and I mean it is going to have to be slow, the slow repayment by the General Funds back to the SS money which has been raided should occur. This money was earmarked for SS, and should be returned. Personally, I also beleive there are other incentives which SS can do to encourage improving the system without dismantling (i.e. greater return the later one receives SS like an IRA, perhaps addressing the debate of when SS should kick in and should it be tied to the average age death rate. In this case a man would receive SS sooner than a woman based on the difference in age death rates. Therefore SS can be budgeted more effectively based on the changing death rates. However, I also beleive that people who are unable to work based on individual situation could apply for early benefits and their case reviweed much like what happens with unemployment. Is one able to work?

There are a lot of options, but dismantling and privatizing SS is a bad plan and has for the most part failed in Chile because it is often attached to the performacne of the stock market. SS is attached to treasury notes, and eliminates the profit motive in privatization. All one has to do is look at the enrons or the Halliburtons to know what that can lead to.

Kerry's plan is a guarantee to continue with SS and to use tax reveneues to strengthen the current system rather than dismantling it. Is it short on specifics? Of course it is, it's a politcal season. Is Bush's privatization plan short on specifics? You better beleive it. Way short.

So it gets down to a fundamental decision for voters? Do you want to remove SS from government and trust that corporations are going to protect your life savings, and address the risk factors I quoted above, knowing that if you fail, you will have no government to rescue you for failed decisions, and that some group of seniors is really going to be screwed during the turnover. Or do you beleive as I do (and as checkenhead has attested) that SS has run a surplus and the government has used those funds for other things. That the only way to secure those funds is to maintain the current system, but to add enforcement measures which keeps Congress from "raiding" those funds for such things as international nation building exercises. Personally, I would be in favor of a Constitutional Amendment to seperate those funds from the General Fund. Kerry hasn't advocated that yet, but has guaranteed the solvency of our current system via tax revenues from the wealthy. THe complaint is that doesn't cover it all. Not, it doesn't, but I have not seen Bush'sp lan to cover the lost revenue from privatization or how current seniors will be paid during the privatization or how enforcement will be paid, or seniors destitute due to poor investments. There are many questions on both schemes, but to cite Kerry due to lack of specifics works both ways. You mention Clinton presided over a suplus economy and didn't do anything to fix SS. Agreed, not a big Clinton fan here as I've posted before, but SS was a cornerstone of Gore's campaign with his lock box approach. People semed either uninterested or didn't understand. Personally, I thought that idea was a good one.

Can one imagine the deficit today "IF" they could not have used the SS funds to help support things like Iraq and other discretionary spending? Whew!!!

[Lefty]

In essence, sec, you're saying do we want to trust corps or govt with our money. Johnson started the raid on SS and it hasn't stopped and it won't stop. Corps make money; Govt spends money; OUR MONEY! The Stock mkt has averaged a 10% increase since its inception. The choice is clear: I want my kids' and grandkids' to have a good part of their SS privatized where the Govt CAN'T get it and then that money will grow. We need Govt out of our money as much as posssible. We wouldn't need all these social prgms to help the disadvantaged if we hadn't been burdened with so much taxes all these yrs. And now Kerry wants to do wonderful things and with a tax increase? Laughter here.
If he gets elected nothing whatsoever will be done to change the SS and our taxes will increase to cover the massive spending he's suggesting. I want my kids and grandkids to mostly be in charge of their own SS. I want taxes cut so businesses can grow.
I want Bush. Not empty promises from a man whose mind changes every day.

[fmazur]

Sec.
I will answer you ,but do not like this as you seem to. I am a hunt and peck typist. I would point out I do not lump all liberals into one pot, just most. You are one that I respect, unlike amazing. You do make some valid points and I credit you for that.


I suppose fmazur that you are one of the representatives of that “compassionate conservatism” that I heard so much of, when Mr Bush ran for office in 2000.

Guilty as charged

It’s hard to know whether to feel sorry for you fmazur due to your ignorancy, or whether I should just get indignant. I’m too tired to get indignant.

Go for indignant--It is what liberals do.

You know absolutely nothing about my personal situation, but you manage to denigrate my family by inferring that I and my wife are not doing our share to support my father or her father finacially. You do this without knowing how much either of us have contributed of our money, the sacrifcies that we’ve made nor the time we’ve committed over the last decade. Your ignorance of the situation doesn’t prevent you however,, in making a partisan politcal pronouncement judging us and all liberals.

I never said anything about your family, you brought it up in saying---"Without Social Security and Medicare both of these veterans of WW II would be completely destititute."


Sir, you lack integrity.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


Have you ever wondered what Nancy Reagan felt like? Can you imagine her battle during her husband’s battle with Alzheimers disease, and now imagine that without the benefit of a Presidential pension paying the bill? Do you know the costs of long term hospice care, or long term nursing home care today, or hiring a private nurse? Perhaps you don’t. Part of me wants to get angry by your statements, but I just feel sad for you man. Perhaps you haven’t had to look for work today. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you that you’ve got a secure job, and are able to help your parents through decades of nursing home care.

Yes, I know all of the above and I have provided for it. You referred to
Nancy Reagan and her caring for President Reagan. Do you really believe she
would have been unable to care for him without his pension? If so, you
are living in more of a dream world than even I can imagine.


But the money is only a part of it. The inhumanity of denigrating anyone dealing with children of parents with debilitating illnesses represents truly unfeeling behavior sir. So congratulate yourself for your clever insulting remarks on all liberals. My wife’s doctor told me that ignorancy is catching. Better get a check up.

Where did I say "all liberals"? You are trying to be the clever one by
reading what you want to read instead of what was actually said. Liberals
are good at this i.e., Clinton defining "is" and now Kerry defining "we".


And as for Social Security, did it ever occur to you that both my father and her father refused often to accept our help due to their pride. They both beleive in Social Security. They paid their whole life, and were so happy to be “independent” and not reliant on their children when they got older. Her father wept when he was forced to accept our personal and financial help. He’s a blue collar guy, and has vowed to pay us back every penny we’ve loaned him.


My father worked in a factory, my mother operated a punch press, my father-in-law painted boxcars for the railroad and my mother-in-law worked as a clerk. I was a gas station attendant and then worked in a print shop. I would say this is as blue collar as you can get. Lets not go into the one upmanship.


I don’t bring this up for your sympathy because I could care less. Simply for you to think before you make broad judgments about “all liberals” and people’s personal situations that you really know nothing about.

Again the "all liberals"

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by fmazur
And as for Social Security, did it ever occur to you that both my father and her father refused often to accept our help due to their pride. They both beleive in Social Security.

Major mistake in judgement. My father never counted on it. He used to moan about what a joke it was. He knew it would be a rip-off for the future and it is..........it is the governments way of taxing us with a promisary note for the future. The government knows that most will never draw back anything close to what they contribute. The Dems pulled the wool over our eyes when they started and it should be ended.

Ask yourself this question. Why do the members of Congress not pay into it?

In Ohio Police and Fireman don't pay into it. There is a reason. It is a rip-off. Several other public employee types don't pay into it either.

[Secretariat]

Mr Mazir,

I suggest you read your own post:

"In the liberal mind (apparently yours), one would never think that. I guess the liberal mind can't conceive of the fact that the people who fed, clothed and sheltered us, could be cared for by family. You should know, it is not against the law to give your parents and in-laws assistance, although being a liberal you may think so.

I guess it should be left to others to care for your families."

Enough said.

[Lefty]

sec, i'm sorry about your parents' circumstances, but even when FDR proposed SS he said it was only to supplement retirement. Now suppose if from the git-go he had privatized it? Wow, your parents and the rest of us SS receivers would be rolling in dough.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lefty
sec, i'm sorry about your parents' circumstances, but even when FDR proposed SS he said it was only to supplement retirement. Now suppose if from the git-go he had privatized it? Wow, your parents and the rest of us SS receivers would be rolling in dough.


And they'd all be targets of Kerry's tax plan.
It is funny about Kerry. His solution to everything is to let the rich take care of it for him, so he gets a free ride. That is his tax plan for the country and his personal plan for himself...keep upgrading your wife to a richer model to give him a free lunch. With lots of catsup! LOL! Perhaps he could start his own new party, not the Free Masons. but the Free Loaders!
Flipper is a gigilo! Hehehe!

:p