• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Fixing Social Security, Democrats, and "State of the Union" Address

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
I didn't want to take the OUTRAGE thread off topic, but I thought this was worthy of investigating:
Cityboy said:
There is no bigger group of buffoons than the Democrat party, led by Uncle Ted, and Bush made them look even sillier with the Social Security issue during the SOTU address.

I think it is fair to say that our Social Security system is financially approaching ruin. In a few years more money will go out to retirees than will be coming in from employees.

In 2005 President Bush tossed out a challenge to both parties and all members of Congress. FIX IT. He made a few suggestions but clearly stated that everything would be considered.

Given that Bill Clinton and other Democrats have a history of suggesting we need to fix Social Security, why did the Democratic party fail to offer constructive options?

Why did the Democratic party applaud the fact that they obstructed all progress to fix a system nearing bankruptcy when President Bush mentioned it during the State of the Union address?
 
"Why did the Democratic party applaud the fact that they obstructed all progress to fix a system nearing bankruptcy when President Bush mentioned it during the State of the Union address?"


Because pretty much the entirety of the political process in this country is geared around one party screwing the other to get back into power There are huge divisions among people in this country as to how they think things should be done - or maybe I should say there are huge divisions among the interest groups that really influence our legislators.


It is my personal opinion that the only way things will get better in this country in the long term politically, economically, and socially is if there is a viable third party that can actually get candidates elected. The balance of power put into our govt. by the founders is not there anymore. Take the House of Representatives for instance - why is there a cap of 435 persons in the House? There are many other Houses and Parliaments around the world where there is no cap - or least not a cap this low - on how many members can be elected into the house. The reason the cap is there is to consolidate power - more members would mean less control. Less control would mean more democracy and better representation for the voters - but that would not be good for the people who go into govt. and mean to make a career out of it. It wouldn't be good for the lobbyists because they would not be able to influence everybody if there were more people involved and then votes could not be swung their way.


It is my sincere opinion that the problems that we have in this country lately - lobbyist scandals, govt. overspending, govt. non reaction to natural disasters, criminal behavior in big business (Enron, etc.), over-influence of our govt. and laws by special interest groups and foreign govts. - will never be solved until the whole darn mess comes crashing down. Then we as a people will finally be mad enough to do something about it. The question is how far down are we going to have to go before something is done?
 
I guess the phrase is appropriate
"it takes a lot of money to keep corrupt politicians corrupt"
I certainly hope I don't need social security. I honestly don't think it will be there in 10 to 15 years. Thats what happens when a tool is misused.
Have to prepare now not to expect it.
 
That's what I said about SS about 15 years ago! I sure have been enjoying my check every month for more than 3 years, now...and Betsy started collecting hers last May...

...I can go find the exact numbers if anyone challenges me, but I recently read that a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war would be enough to fix SS forever.
 
In my view, the reason that the Democrats did not offer constructive options is that they did not want to give Bush the credit for fixing a system that is clearly broken.
 
HarryG said:
I guess the phrase is appropriate
"it takes a lot of money to keep corrupt politicians corrupt"
I certainly hope I don't need social security. I honestly don't think it will be there in 10 to 15 years. Thats what happens when a tool is misused.
Have to prepare now not to expect it.
Harry, I think this is the first time that I have agreed with one of your posts 100%. Well said.
Bonehead
 
REDDOGTWO said:
In my view, the reason that the Democrats did not offer constructive options is that they did not want to give Bush the credit for fixing a system that is clearly broken.

I tend to agree. Stupid politics. One party fights the next. Nobody solves the problem. Everyone knows there is a problem. Blame the other guy. Get nothing done. Say you are doing it for the people.

Okeedon said:
...I can go find the exact numbers if anyone challenges me, but I recently read that a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war would be enough to fix SS forever.

Why would we want to argue/challenge that? But then again, we could fix S.S. if we changed the system. Or we could fix S.S. if we stopped funding things that the government has no business spending money on like P.B.S. and N.P.R. and a hundred other silly programs. But none of that is what this thread is about.
 
BoneheadNW said:
Harry, I think this is the first time that I have agreed with one of your posts 100%. Well said.
Bonehead
Thanks Bonehead,
I appreciate that. I know it hard to believe but I do agree with you at times. Not often, but I do sometimes agree with your viewpoint. At least we can agree to disagree and thats all that we can expect.

Regards, HarryG :beer:

PS keep the lefty stuff coming. I need the target practice.
 

Attachments

  • GR-Black.jpg
    GR-Black.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:
bob: i don't think i ever mentioned it but i worked in john kerrys house hold for one summer as my girl friend was his daughters nanny , she was in school in boston and worked for one of kerry friends , and kerry offered a job to my liberal girl friend ( must note the only type of girl friend to have when your young) kerry at the time was Lt. gov. ma. and fit in quite well as a mass-hole as i like to ref. to mass residents. sorry guys. any way kerry would move his family to a house owned by the forbes family ( he had some forbes blood some where ). at which time i was hired becouse they needed a male on the island when he was not there . and to run the boston whaler around.. spent some time with him alone fishing from the whaler . i remember two things about this guy , first i thought he was an idiot and did not have a clue about anything , the second was when we did get in the boat , i was impressed. not much impressed this cocky 22 year old , but he did know how to handle a boat - at that time i knew nothing of his back ground.... back to my point. kerry is a perfect dem. not a clue or idea about anything. the guy would trip over his own feet... DEMS. do not have a plan or any ideas and are unwilling to work with anyone to fix the problems... just look at the clintons. also knew monica from new york but that another story... you can't make this stuff up... bring back reagan..... & nixon ....
 
Top