Stop the music…

These morons spent FOUR YEARS, telling us, there was no problem with Social Security.

Now, they want to raise taxes to “shore it up” ???

Will these idiots ever get their story straight?

franksalterego on November 12, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Quote from MM linked article:

Clinton has said growing the economy will pump more money into Social Security’s coffers. She also has said she would create a bipartisan commission to recommend solutions.

Dims are masters of contradiction. franksalterego points out Obama’s admission that SS is in trouble, which is why the Far Left nutroots are flaming him for blowing the lid off. Madam Mao wants to do onwe of two things: Sound centrist on the economy, then when in office, delare that growing the economy is impossible (due to Bush recession /sarc/) and that we must pass a huge tax increase. Or, have the bipartisam commission come up wiht a plan that would most certainly have a tax increase in it, then she can blame the commission for the increase. Side note: I thought the economy was the worst since Herbert Hoover, according to the Dims?!

It took him four minuets to basically say he would take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their need.

VolMagic on November 12, 2007 at 10:29 AM

You nailed that one VolMagic !

Come on B.O. at least Karl Marx said it succinctly.

The payroll cap should be removed. It’s stupid to stop people from having to contribute when they make so much money. Those of us who make the cap don’t notice the two or three or four weeks when they don’t take SS out of our pay. We don’t live paycheck to paycheck.

Anyone who makes that kind of money who does live paycheck to paycheck is a moron and only has themselves to blame.

The “rich” are the kulaks of today. And, the Socialists want to get rid of them.

Or the AMT, only for the super rich to ensure they pay taxes anyhow… which will never ever in any way possibly hit the middle class. Except it will this year. And they’d fix it, but that’d “lose” money. So they can’t justify not letting the AMT screw the middle class.

But this new tax is really truly honestly only ever going to hit “the rich”.

And I promise I won’t pull away the football this time Charlie Brown. Really I won’t.

It took him four minuets to basically say he would take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their need.

VolMagic on November 12, 2007 at 10:29 AM

EXACLTY!

I think the problem is much worse because when welfare was “reformed” in the 1990s, a lot of those people just figured out a way to collect SSI instead.

People need to realize that you need to actually put money away somewhere. When the government keeps baling people out for making poor financial decisions the problem just gets worse.

Let them take $25 a week out the their scratch ticket money and save it. Maybe you don’t need a 46′ HDTV, if you have less than $100 in savings…

Didn’t anyone else read the story about the Grasshopper and the Ants?

The program has served it’s intended purpose of bribing voters with their own money very, very well. However, letting workers pay the half they directly pay into a private account is at least a little feasible politically.

Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:25 PM

And, by the way, I agree with you on this. Any step in the right direction would help.

I was so busy doing a Yosemite Sam in full-blown temper tantrum routine that I didn’t acknowledge your point. Sorry. ;-)

It all makes sense to me: The Democrats want you to be poor and dependent in a socialist utopia where there are too many piglets and not enough teats on the sow.

Someone give me a hammer; my forehead needs pounding.

I pay 15.3% of my total income into other people’s retirement, I’ll never see any of it back, and I don’t have squat left over to invest for my own retirement. How can that be legal?!

aero on November 12, 2007 at 1:33 PM

You won’t get any defense of Social Security from me; it’s “legal” thanks to liberal Supreme Court justices who’ve interpreted the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution to mean “whatever the federal government wants it to mean”.

These morons spent FOUR YEARS, telling us, there was no problem with Social Security.

Now, they want to raise taxes to “shore it up” ???

Will these idiots ever get their story straight?

True (actually I think it’s 13% IIRC)….

Hollowpoint on November 12, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Okay, here’s the SS rates table from the SSA site:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html

Somebody ‘splain that to me, please, ’cause it looks an awful lot like the federal government is working really hard to punish the self-employed. What looks fair about that to you?! I pay 15.3% of my total income into other people’s retirement, I’ll never see any of it back, and I don’t have squat left over to invest for my own retirement. How can that be legal?!

You just discovered the left’s solution to the Social Security mess. They see no need for a military and they want to move that money to Social Security.

William Amos on November 12, 2007 at 10:07 AM

That’s the thing. The average liberal voter really and truly thinks that getting out of Iraq and cutting military spending will make a difference in the budget–enough to “save” Social Security and Medicare–but it can’t. Not even if we took every penny of military spending and pumped it into entitlements. Military spending is discretionary, and a relatively tiny portion of the overall federal budget–like less than 10%, I’m thinking (does someone have the stats on that?). Social Security and Medicare are mandatory and growing exponentially, and they make up something like 60% of the budget already–all by themselves. Within a couple of decades, if nothing changes and retirement projections remain more or less correct, entitlements will constitute 100% of the federal budget. They will take up every cent of taxes we pay to keep paying the Boomers’ benefits. Every. Freaking. Cent. Of course, they’ll raise taxes before that happens. But I don’t wanna pay any more into this Ponzi scheme. I just don’t. This whole thing makes me so angry. It’s just such an injustice and really un-American when you think about it.

It’s actually 15%. Remember that your employer contributes on your behalf as well, and that’s money they’d pay you in salary if the government weren’t demanding that they pay it in on your behalf before you ever see it. It’s still your money, or should be. If you’re self-employed, like me, you have to pay it all, and it SUCKS.

aero on November 12, 2007 at 1:16 PM

True (actually I think it’s 13% IIRC), but baby steps- no Congress would approve of scrapping Social Security. The program has served it’s intended purpose of bribing voters with their own money very, very well. However, letting workers pay the half they directly pay into a private account is at least a little feasible politically.