Official Stop OBAMA Express!!!

SS is a poorly conceived and unnecessary insurance plan for people who don't bother to save but constantly spend...not a retirement plan.

The problem now is that SS has become a necessity for many.  Why?  Poor individual financial planning.  And now you, me and everyone else (responsible and irresponsible) has to pay for their mistakes.

The party that thrives on individuals irresponsibility.



Don't save and spend too much...we got your back...

Get pregnant...PP...got your back...

Have risky sex and contract aids...we got your back...

Build your house on a cliff or below sea level...flood comes...we got your back.



How many examples of piss poor judgement is needed and when is enough...enough? The entitlement party...

Get pregnant...PP...got your back...

Have risky sex and contract aids...we got your back...

W T F are you talking about?

It's still a stupid idea.  Has anyone heard of an "emergency fund" or "rainy day fund"?  Why does the irresponsible government need to be "responsible" for citizens that don't know how to live within their means and establish their own savings?  People these days are way to "LIBERAL" with their spending and then they expect the "LIBERAL" government to "BAIL THEM OUT".  This bail stuff has got to stop.  When are people going to learn to live with the consequences that their lack of fiscal discipline creates?

Do you have any idea what SS actually pays?  You're making it out like the govt is just taking care of people, however they want, not that the govt is giving them just enough to not fall under the poverty line (and not even that much in lot's of cases). 

Oh yeah, and that's after those people PAID INTO SS for years and years.  You do realize that's what SS is, right?  Essentially, forcing people to put money into an "emergency" or "rainy day fund," and doling it back out over time...

If they able bodies that are making more on welfare and food stamps don't get a job but what do they care...they have daddy government to keep them going.  No need to be a responsible adult.

You must really enjoy being wrong.  Let's count the ways:
1) People on welfare HAVE to have jobs.  It's a requirement of the PRWOAct of 1996. If you have a problem with that, you should go tell Newt Gingrich what a dumbass he is for writing it.
2) Welfare and foodstamps aren't an incentive to not work.  They barely cover basic necessities.  Making more money, and being able to live a better life, are the incentive to get off welfare.
3) People cannot just keep getting welfare forever and ever.  There is a 5 year max on TANF assistance.  Once again, goes back to Newt's bill in 1996.  And if you don't know what TANF is, you have no business commenting on our welfare system.

Actually no I don't.  I look at SS as a huge drain on people that create their own "emergency funds" and "retirements" not because they are rich but because they know how to live within their means.  You should tell the people that are living "solely" off of SS that the plan isn't just for them.  It is now though because THEY didn't plan for retirement.  I know people well into their 40's who haven't even thought about starting a 401K and have no savings to speak of for emergencies...yet have a decent house and a bunch of really nice cars.  Sounds like irresponsible behavior to me

Do you think that SS alone will pay for those cars and houses once they retire?  Again, you must have no concept of how much SS actually pays.

SS is a poorly conceived and unnecessary insurance plan for people who don't bother to save but constantly spend...not a retirement plan.

Not everyone CAN save for retirement, because they only make enough to cover the basics.  SS forces people to put something away, and provides them something to live on in retirement.  The program has its issues, to be sure, but it's not something we should do away with.  I mean, who do you think will end up taking care of these people anyhow?  It is going to be the govt in one way or another - might as well have those people pay into the system to at least help offset, if not cover entirely, that cost.

The problem now is that SS has become a necessity for many.  Why?  Poor individual financial planning.  And now you, me and everyone else (responsible and irresponsible) has to pay for their mistakes.

Yeah, you aren't being pretentious or anything...

2) Welfare and foodstamps aren't an incentive to not work.

nathan, there is a problem here.  Medicaid.  For some of these people to work, they need an employer health plan or make enough to cover a health plan.  A single payer system would have took care of that but politicians never look at the good results of something their philosophy thinks is wrong.  Debt crisis - using a system that reins in healthcare costs and stops making healthcare costs a budget buster - no good because it is against my philosophy.

nathan, there is a problem here.  Medicaid.  For some of these people to work, they need an employer health plan or make enough to cover a health plan. 

I am admittedly not incredibly familiar with Medicaid, so excuse my questions.  Are you saying that if they went to work, they would lose Medicaid eligibility, and therefore could only take jobs where health insurance is provided?  That makes sense.

A single payer system would have took care of that but politicians never look at the good results of something their philosophy thinks is wrong. 

Agreed.  Though I do think a single payer has plenty of problems in its own right - however, I do think it would likely still be the best option for HC overall.  IMO, Obamacare is just a stop-gap until we move to a single payer.  And when we do move to a single payer, my guess is that it won't be because we really want to, but because we have no other viable alternative (like how we usually let problems get out of hand before addressing them).

Debt crisis - using a system that reins in healthcare costs and stops making healthcare costs a budget buster - no good because it is against my philosophy.

You'll get no arguments from me that there is far too much ideology over practicality in our govt.

Are you saying that if they went to work, they would lose Medicaid eligibility,

nathan, yes.  Medicaid pays if you are under 100% of poverty (133% in 2014).  A family of four making under $22,350 would be eligible for Medicaid.  A health insurance plan for a family of 4 is usually more than $15,000.  So if the family of 4 makes $22, 351, they would lose their Medicaid.  Ouch!!

You'll get no arguments from me that there is far too much ideology over practicality in our govt.

nathan, you may not agree with me but my fiscally conservative side knows that one plan paid by one payer eliminates so much paperwork and efficiency and clout that health care costs would have to slow.  And when it is the same plan for CEOs, workers and politicians, it has to stay viable and have quality.

2) Welfare and foodstamps aren't an incentive to not work.

I have a friend who was on unemployment for 60 weeks (got foodstamps too), he wasnt living like a king for sure (enough money to party a whole hell of alot though) but he had enough to get by, he never looked for a job until he got cut off. Its not like that for everyone and Im not against unemployment per say but it isnt near perfect. I imagine welfare to be similar. Id like to see more job training provided, make people feel like they actually earned the money instead of feeling like theyre entitled to it.

I have a friend who  

the old "I have a friend who..."  Haven't changed either.

the old "I have a friend who...

didn't get laid for 5 years? 

I have a friend who was on unemployment for 60 weeks (got foodstamps too), he wasnt living like a king for sure (enough money to party a whole hell of alot though) but he had enough to get by, he never looked for a job until he got cut off. Its not like that for everyone and Im not against unemployment per say but it isnt near perfect....

...whats your point???...NOTHING is near perfect when it comes to government spending on programs for those in need and those in greed...it seems you're saying your friend is a lazy azz just "partying" off the taxpayers dime, well how about all the rich guys that receive subsidies, special taxbreaks, and all other incentives, and handouts, when they absolute DON'T need it, and often don't even ask for it....and YES, they often do get rich off of it, and most live like kings...of course the first place to look for problems is the poor person, the one without a job, or the means to survive day to day without assistance...

Why does the irresponsible government need to be "responsible" for citizens that don't know how to live within their means and establish their own savings?

sloner, first because the private sector could not handle it in 1933.  You ignore the reasons people fall into the safety net and just claim that they are all irresponsible.

People these days are way to "LIBERAL" with their spending

Yeah, making $40,000 with a wife and 2 kids spends money recklessly.  Do you believe that people want just SS to live on?  You should try living on a $1,000 per month.  And many seniors don't even get that because they always worked in low paying job.

This bail stuff has got to stop

Let's see people have worked all their lives and paid into an insurance plan (SS) that comes due at 65, 66, 67.  It is sort of like a term life plan.

But, sloner, thinks that, if you die or reach 65, the insurance plans should not pay???

If they able bodies that are making more on welfare and food stamps don't get a job but what do they care.

yep, every senior and poor person loves welfare.  You are really disconnected from the world.  Do you want Bush 1 to show you how the scanner at a supermarket works?

This bail stuff has got to stop

Let's see people have worked all their lives and paid into an insurance plan (SS) that comes due at 65, 66, 67.  It is sort of like a term life plan.

All I'm saying is people that are paying into this SS (like myself, you and others who are earning income) should have a choice to put his/her SS money into his/her own personal "term life plan" and/or "retirement" what have you.

But, sloner, thinks that, if you die or reach 65, the insurance plans should not pay???

That is patently false and absurd.  I believe people who have "paid in" to this plan should absolutely get paid accordingly but I also believe that those who are still paying into it should have the option to put their money elsewhere.  Why?  Because we are adults and should be given the freedom to choose where money that is "intended for our own good" goes.  We should be able to put our money into to our own personal term life plan, 401k or whatever that our employer provides or what we can find on our own.  There are tons of ways to save and grow our investments that are much more flexible and adaptable to our personal needs than the government could ever hope to provide.

All I'm asking is that we don't get forced to put our money where we don't want it.  I think I know what is best for me more than "Uncle Sam" does thank you very much.

All I'm saying is people that are paying into this SS (like myself, you and others who are earning income) should have a choice to put his/her SS money into his/her own personal "term life plan" and/or "retirement" what have you.

Why do you want that?  So the Wall Street Raiders can wipe out your retirement savings in 3 months like they did to many in 2007/2008?

Do you have any idea how easy it would be to manupulate the market & do that?  One "fat finger" here, a false report there, a few too many naked shorts over there.... 

All I'm saying is people that are paying into this SS (like myself, you and others who are earning income) should have a choice to put his/her SS money into his/her own personal "term life plan" and/or "retirement" what have you.

Why do you want that?  So the Wall Street Raiders can wipe out your retirement savings in 3 months like they did to many in 2007/2008?

So you are comparing 07/08 to the rest of what the government has done to us since the "new deal"?  I'll tell you why I will do that...because if something goes wrong it will be my own dumb fault...not the governments.  The government doesn't do a very good job of learning from their mistakes.  I do on the other hand.

Do you have any idea how easy it would be to manupulate the market & do that?  One "fat finger" here, a false report there, a few too many naked shorts over there.... 

I'm not saying that wealthy are above pulling some fast ones but I still would rather take my chances with that lot than that of the government.  If you don't think the government is doing some crazy manipulating to get their agendas in play; you are sorely mistaken.  The agenda of wallstreet is to make money and this can be done without screwing everybody in sight.  You libs seem to think that wealthy people are only interested in screwing people over but at the same time think the government (especially when the libs are in power) is benevolent and trustworthy as our own parents (or moreso).  It's pretty disturbing how much you libs trust the government to cure any and all social ills as long as we keep raising taxes and spending...sooner or later...we'll spend ourselves out of this mess.

It's madness...pure madness!

 It's pretty disturbing how much you libs trust the government to cure any and all social ills as long as we keep raising taxes and spending...sooner or later...we'll spend ourselves out of this mess.

It's madness...pure madness!

1) I don't "trust" the government to take care of my retirement - I trust them to force other people who wouldn't do it otherwise to take care of their retirement so they won't become thieves, beggars, and generally disease spreading bags of filth because they didn't plan ahead & now have nothing.
2) You don't understand what "liberals" want - you assume you do, but anyone can see you don't understand what they are saying because you won't listen.  No one is saying "spend ourselves out"  Not one single person.  

All I'm saying is people that are paying into this SS (like myself, you and others who are earning income) should have a choice to put his/her SS money into his/her own personal "term life plan" and/or "retirement" what have you.

sloner, if Social Security Insurance was a retirement plan, then I would agree but it is not.  Go ahead and put your own money into any retirement plan that you want but we do not let people decide where their tax money will go.

All I'm saying is people that are paying into this SS (like myself, you and others who are earning income) should have a choice to put his/her SS money into his/her own personal "term life plan" and/or "retirement" what have you.

sloner, if Social Security Insurance was a retirement plan, then I would agree but it is not.  Go ahead and put your own money into any retirement plan that you want but we do not let people decide where their tax money will go.

Well one of your lib buddies seemed to indicate that SS is to some degree a "term life plan"...so I also included that.  If SS is a "term life plan", I would still rather have my SS money (that I'm contributing) go into my own "term life plan".  Welfare is something different...I know there is no doing away with that.  I know (at this point) there is no doing away with SS but I think the government should at least put a policy in place that helps ween us off of SS.  They can give those who are still paying into SS to at least opt for contributing 5% of their SS into either their own "term life plan" or "401k".  After that tax year, we can opt an addional 1% each following year or they can leave it as is.

At least give us a freaking choice for crying out loud.  That is all I'm asking.  The government needs to get to work on reform (ways of cutting back on unnecessary spending).  When they come up with ways people can opt out of things and choose outside alternatives...this is a way to do this.  What is so bad about this?

Well one of your lib buddies seemed to indicate that SS is to some degree a "term life plan"...so I also included that.  If SS is a "term life plan",

so, sloner, if somebody is wrong on his/her definition of SS, you will still use it in your argument??  Well, golly, gee, you really are a sleaze.  It is an insurance plan for all of us paid by a tax on all of us.  You can hate it but you cannot take your taxes and do something else with it.

I think the government should at least put a policy in place that helps ween us off of SS

I think the government should at least put a policy in place to ween us off frivolous military spending but I cannot take my tax money and use it for other items.

At least give us a freaking choice for crying out loud.

what part of it being a tax do you not understand?  It is an insurance plan to help seniors.  It is not and never has been a retirement plan FOR YOU ONLY.

The government needs to get to work on reform (ways of cutting back on unnecessary spending)

I agree.

When they come up with ways people can opt out of things and choose outside alternatives...this is a way to do this

well, wont that be special.  Letting people decide what they like or don't like?  Your taxes are being used to help fellow citizens.  You may be heartless but our society believes in helping each other.

Well one of your lib buddies seemed to indicate that SS is to some degree a "term life plan"...so I also included that.  If SS is a "term life plan",

so, sloner, if somebody is wrong on his/her definition of SS, you will still use it in your argument??  Well, golly, gee, you really are a sleaze.  It is an insurance plan for all of us paid by a tax on all of us.  You can hate it but you cannot take your taxes and do something else with it.

Oh now I'm a "sleaze" for bringing to light how all you libs have different definitions and explanations of what SS is for?  It plays perfectly into my argument you (lib #1) says SS is this while lib #2 says SS is this and lib #3, 4, 5 and 6 all say something else entirely.  My point is that you libs have no clue as a whole what SS is really used for.  I think that's a problem.  Maybe you don't care how your hard earned money is being used but I do.  If that makes me a "sleaze" in your eyes then so be it.

I realize that I can't take my SS taxes and do something else with it because I am under an irresponsible and spend happy government that thinks it knows what is best for me and everyone else.

I realize that I can't take my SS taxes and do something else with it because I am under an irresponsible and spend happy government that thinks it knows what is best for me and everyone else.



Your 'reality' is just bizarre, stoner. Actual reality is that the majority of people, lefr alone to decide what to do with safety met money, would lose it.  The government is a vastly better bet than the stock market (it hasn't crashed in over two hundred years), and no one wants to see a whole lot of crotchety old conservative/reactionary numbskulls living on the streets in twenty years...  

Let me put it to you this way. If the stock market crashes , the govenment may be affected, but won't fail.  If the government fails, I all but guarantee you the stock market will, too.
 
Anyone who doesn't understand this simple point doesn't live in the real world. 

Let me put it to you this way. If the stock market crashes ,

Sce, ask the people retiring around the 2008 crash about the value of SS.

I realize that I can't take my SS taxes and do something else with it because I am under an irresponsible and spend happy government that thinks it knows what is best for me and everyone else.

Your 'reality' is just bizarre, stoner. Actual reality is that the majority of people, lefr alone to decide what to do with safety met money, would lose it.  The government is a vastly better bet than the stock market (it hasn't crashed in over two hundred years), and no one wants to see a whole lot of crotchety old conservative/reactionary numbskulls living on the streets in twenty years...  

Funny...you think my "reality" is bizarre and then you say "actual reality is that the majority of people, left alone to decide what to do with safety net money, would lose it"...

If you truly believe that this is "actual reality"...then I hope and pray that "your reality" is more bizarre than mine...because if it isn't...this country is in bigger trouble than any of us can imagine.

Then you say:

and no one wants to see a whole lot of crotchety old conservatives/reactionary numbskulls living on the streets in twenty years...

If the government keeps up the pace of spending the way it is and robbing our children's futures...you are going to see libs and conservatives alike on the streets in 20 years.  I would expect though that the majority of those on the streets will be the libs and they will blindly blame all of their misfortunes on the "ultra wealthy" all the while the wealthy politicians (Ds and Rs alike) will be laughing at their gullibility.

The government has no intention on solving social issues...the sooner you libs catch on to this...the sooner this country can wake up and start the process of economic healing.  The government is only interested in catering to potential voters who will keep them in power.  You think they lighten regulations on welfare out of the goodness of their hearts when all they are really doing is buying votes...the same goes for amnesty to illegal immigrants.

The government is a vastly better bet than the stock market...

Another ridiculous myth.  Do you realize how many people were made millionaires because of the "Great Depression".  Those who didn't sell like the ship was sinking and rode out the crash made a killing on their stocks when things rebounded.  We have a much better means than just simple stocks for investing these days.  They are called mutual funds.  Mutual funds is a way of investing without putting all your eggs in one basket.  I'll take my chances with a good growth stock mutual fund over government bonds anyday.  Government bonds are good for people who are at or very near retirement age and they don't want to deal with the volatility of the stock market.  Overall, the stock market has been the best way to increase savings.  The more time you have to invest...the more risk you can take.  Dollar cost averaging is a great way to take advantage of the stock markets ups and downs over a fairly long period of time.  People need to learn this stuff.

The solution to this country's ills is to start educating people on how to budget, invest and save for the future.

I realize that I can't take my SS taxes and do something else with it because I am under an irresponsible and spend happy government that thinks it knows what is best for me and everyone else.

no, sloner, you did not realize until I told you but, at least, you learned something.  You still are very heartless.

When they come up with ways people can opt out of things and choose outside alternatives...this is a way to do this

well, wont that be special.  Letting people decide what they like or don't like?  Your taxes are being used to help fellow citizens.  You may be heartless but our society believes in helping each other.

And bb Mr. Slone just doesn't get that history is full of retirement plans that have failed despite the best of intentions of investors.  One of the uglier examples was the Enron scandal at the turn of this century.  Millions of people took it in the shorts and lost millions  because they had invested in this (for retirement).  And are still working today to replenish what they lost with that investment.  And if Sloan wants to grouse about the lack of solvency (SS) he can start writing "Thank You" notes to all of our presidents who had the decency to soak monies from the trust fund. 

What Dr. Slone is not aware of (and he must be a doctor of something as he seem to have all the right answers), that the vast majority of those that have 401 K's allow the investment companies to do the investing for them because the average Joe doesn't know how to do it properly and STILL said investment companies don't catch all the "downs" of market investments.  What he again doesn't realize that we have become a nation of indiviuals that don't want to be accountable foreanything....it's always someone else's fault or something else's fault.  Their kids have no social skills are all brats and its everyone elses fault (not thiers).  And if they screw up their investments, they won't have the guts to admit it was their own stupidity.