Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent (lock-box) fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.
Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country at 65 and got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it.
Q.Which party does not want citizens the option of investing part of their own Social Security money into 401K type retirement stock funds (that all members of Congress can invest their retirement money into)?
A. Democatic party.
Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security from you.
And the worst part about it is, they want you to believe it!
Worse still is that most Democratic voters do believe this.
But then the Democtatic party depends on the dumb vote.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
hmmmm... simple math Art, "voluntary" social security privatised accts....what a lie... there is nothing voluntary about SS... privatising it DOES divert money away from the current system...
secondly?there were GOP presidents involved in those changes..
thirdly? ANYBODY CAN invest in a 401K..... this is just another TAX break while the bills continue to go UP...
as far as i can tell? Bush and co are BANKRUPTING US faster than anybody ever thought was possible...
"Take what you want. And PAY for it"... these guys don't pay for anything but they sure are good at taking.....
lastly, not even all of the GOP's on capitol hill arte for the presidents plan...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glassman: hmmmm... simple math Art, "voluntary" social security privatised accts....what a lie... there is nothing voluntary about SS...
Art: Bush's plan is to give the citizens the option of leaving their money in the regular account, at 1% or so growth per year, or voluntarily taking a small portion of this and investing. No one forces anyone to do it but anyone, with even a democratric brain, would realize they could build up more money in their fund by investing it in stocks.
Glassman: privatising it DOES divert money away from the current system...
Art: Only in an individual account where the citizen elected to invest asmall portion into stocks. This is what congress is able to do with their retirement money which they get regularly in a retirement fund.
Glassman: secondly?there were GOP presidents involved in those changes..
Art: Wher ewas I wrong in saying what I did?
Glassman: thirdly? ANYBODY CAN invest in a 401K.....
Art: Only if they have enough money. For millions of people the money government robs from them in SS is all they have to invest and the democtrats won't allow them to do this - democrats discriminate against the poor and oppress them here.
Glassman: this is just another TAX break while the bills continue to go UP...
Art: No tax break. Who gets this non-existent tax relief?
Glassman: s far as i can tell? Bush and co are BANKRUPTING US faster than anybody ever thought was possible...
Art: The deficit is now less than was predicted, and is small by historic standards.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom line, if the drug manufactures would lower there price and the government handled the books better, there would be no problem. Big Pharma could if they wanted to, but they would only make a couple hundred million instead of a couple of billion, and that is unacceptable in corporate America.
IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of retirement, social security and taxes, I have a question. I have an opportunity to work overseas for a non-U.S. company. My pay would be direct deposited into an offshore account. Now, would it be possible to open an account with Ameritrade or whoever and still trade even though my information would be non U.S. (ie bank, address, etc.) Obviously there are some huge tax advantages if this is feasable. I know people from other countries trade in our markets much like we do. I just wonder if it is possible for us to do the same.
-------------------- If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all.
IP: Logged |
posted
Art: Only in an individual account where the citizen elected to invest asmall portion into stocks. This is what congress is able to do with their retirement money which they get regularly in a retirement fund.
glassamn: so does my wife... and she's a civil servant... stop trying to tell me Bush is coneservative....
i'm conservative Art..my credit cards have a ZERO balance.... i pay cash for my USED cars and i put my money to work in the market and you know i WORK my butt off in the market..
i don't lie or cheat..i'm often WRONG, but those are honest mistakes... and i admit it when i make them...
...that's CONSERVATIVE...Bush is something else entirely...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Art: Only in an individual account where the citizen elected to invest asmall portion into stocks. This is what congress is able to do with their retirement money which they get regularly in a retirement fund.
glassamn: so does my wife... and she's a civil servant... stop trying to tell me Bush is coneservative....
i'm conservative Art..my credit cards have a ZERO balance.... i pay cash for my USED cars and i put my money to work in the market and you know i WORK my butt off in the market..
i don't lie or cheat..i'm often WRONG, but those are honest mistakes... and i admit it when i make them...
...that's CONSERVATIVE...Bush is something else entirely...
Bush has been a big spender - as bad as a liberal for sure. I only agree with his foreign policy.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
posted
I take offence to you comparing Bush to a liberal when it comes to money. I am a liberal and have no debt, have never filed for bankrupt, never collected unemployment, never been fired, paid all taxes, and give money to homeless people and other all the time and still have enough to invest in the market.
All my friends who voted for Bush all have debt and have no idea how to balance a check book. I think when it comes to conservatives, liberals and money; the liberals always have more in the end, even with giving money to poor people.
posted
United Airlines just failed on it's pensions too...
hmmmm.... seems like MORE people are gonna NEED SS to me...and private ACCTs actually expose you to MORE risk...UALQ? ENRON? MCI? Global Xing? not pretty.... i think the ultra-wealthy of the country better clean up their own house...
otherwise? it's gonna get ugly.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the poor are poor for a reason Art, and the rich are rich for a reason...
they aren't GIVING them anything except the BAIT LOL...
One reason the poor are poor is that they don't have any money to invest.
Bush's SS plan would afford them some opportunity to invest.
Democrats want to protect them and not give them the choice to invest - Republicans want to give them opportunity - opportunity always entails risks - we learn from failure.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
