yes it was very feeble. He was also very feeble when he wanted to fix fanny mae and freddy mac. I've often felt that Bush was a dem.

I would argue Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme but totally agree on medicaid and medicare and the abuses they have provided.

END the entitlements. There, I said it. They were never sustainable. There is truly be no such thing as an "entitlement", in spite of the frequency and energy with which that political term has been used. You are not entitled to anyone else's money but your own.

Sunset the social security program. Nobody is getting any "yield" on this "retirement program". You get less money than what you put in, if and when the government sees fit to pay you. I'm at the age where I'm not likely to see a dime from it, yet I'm forced to pay the FICA line item out of my check.

It's time to end the supremacy of the non-contributor. If you don't work, then you can't expect to live like you do work. Keep unemployment compensation and make real statistics on what the TRUE unemployment numbers are. At least that requires that we keep looking for jobs.

Everything, every budget entry: social programs, military spending, all of it must be eligible to be slashed. Foreign aid should become a thing of the past -- we can't afford it any more, and borrowing money from China to give to Haiti or any other country is ridiculous. And let's start calling in the loans we gave others, just like China expects us to pay up.

Liberalism is an obsolete anachronism that was a nuisance infection to the body that is the United States, and we have allowed it to grow to the point where it is life threatening.

The national debt MUST be REPAID. That's the only way to truly preserve the individual freedoms we have. Debtors are never free -- they are always beholden to their creditors -- until the debt is paid off.

well why dont we collect debts that are owed from other countrys to u.s.
trillions are in the mix.we need to look out for no 1 at some point.

The issue i have with entitlements is not the entitlements themselves. Look...as a country, we can't have our elderly on the street. At the same time, why should a person that doesnt NEED it still get it? We just did a loan for someone with a 10k square foot house on 17 acres that gets social security. Amazing. And yes...Republican!:p One has to wonder how many situations that are out there like that.

:) :tro: :tro:

If you pay in 6 or 12 % of your salary into it (depending if you are self employed) why would you not want some of it back? Its your money anyways?

I'm just really pissed that i'll be paying whatever % my whole life and I'll see very little.

They need to eliminate the way SS is done and privatize retirement funds. Its basically the Gov stealing right from your pocket because this is supposed to be your own darn retirement money and you see very little in return.

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on Paul's vote."

I agree. As for other posts where this one is a secret dem or rep-keep in mind they are pols first last and always. They must pick a party for the money, not because of ideology

Well, you might notice, 'Zig, that I am not - ever - the one throwing the first stone.

Well, yes about the debt, and we'd better not hope other countries try to collect our debt to them.

In all honesty, Joey - are you saving, now, so at the age of retirement you'll have $1,000,000 to cover very basically 20 years of retirement, and pay for yourself? Are you currently saving at least 10-20% of your gross income every year, with an average 8-10% return over time? Starting at age 20 or so? Few Americans are.

I think it's important to remember that the reason Social Security was created has not gone away. Starving, homeless old people - well, we are America. I don't think we should do that to our elderly. I don't believe in, "Every man for himself" 100% of the time.

Nor do I believe in complete American isolation on the world scene. This is 2010, not the 19th century.

That said, most people nowadays are getting out more than they put into Social Security, as they are living longer, etc. That is one of the reasons why Social Security is upside down. That said, it is currently funded through 2025.

"Liberalism" - in the form of Bill Clinton - put us into a positive budget, with extra money, with the federal deficit beginning to be paid off, and significant reduction in the deficit over the first 10 years. Unfortunately, that setup was reversed, not done, which has put the country in a terrible place. So "liberalism" doesn't seem an obsolete anachronism to me.

And if you are viewing it within the context of federal fiscal irresponsibility (I can't tell), you have the wrong party, judging by the facts of the the past 40-50 years of American history. Increasing taxes, increasing deficit, is a Republican thing.

For example, the largest single entitlement, $$ wise, in the past 40 years, with the exception of the start of Medicare - just occurred in the Bush administration, and unfortunately, was not funded.

what's the difference? if you're a thrower, it doesn't matter what order you pitch, does it? or maybe it does...

Why don't you read the post I was responding to, rather than ignoring it?

There are people here who have repeatedly proven they cannot discuss politics or politicians without also personally throwing insult, profanity, etc at other posters who disagree with their opinions. Pointing out the obvious is hardly the same thing as doing it, is it?

I did read it. He referred to you as ellie light I believe. All I'm thinking is when you said 'can you go a month...'that I thought ytou might want to ask the same of yourself

1) Your whole life? Really?

2) Both you n' Danzig are so sure you'll see very little of it. Do you base this on anything at all? Are you saying you are pretty sure you're gunna die on the job at age 55, or something like that? You seem pretty sure.

3) This program was started because it was needed. I see no signs that it is no longer needed. People just don't like paying for it. Perfectly healthy people having trouble stomaching the fact that sick and/or old people are getting money to live. I think there are 2 types of people against Social Security. Some (mainly men) are just selfish. That's not unique. Then, there are a group of people (often women) that object to it on the basis of fairness. Unfortunately, people aren't challenged in "fair" ways. Some people die of a heart attack on the job. Some people die at 88. Is it unfair for the former to have their money used to give checks to the 88 year old? Well, it's called shared risk. Even the person who died on the job probably had a loved one live a long tme, and get more than what some would call "fair." You will never have a totally fair world. You can only have a civilized world.

fine and dandy if that were the case but it is not ( general fund.)

whether direct or not funds go to paying for everything including Obama's aunt he barely knows, all of the illegals treated through e-rooms or not, their children etc. The families who have nothing to show but maybe an appearance on Maury or Jerry both black and white who seemed destine to nothing but gestation and repeat X2 ( start at 15.)

Truth ( say tough love ) hurts but as our President said these are tough times!

and as we can confiscate the illegal's 'stuff' they have obtained we can re-pay the SS fund and distribute a respectable pittance.

8 pages but scuds once again only mentions the females. How bizarre

At any rate. Ss is supposed to go tits up in 2035. That's when my husband is set to retire. My issue isn't with ss, its with the misuse of the funds. We pay with the expectation of a return-which were now being told not to count on. That I have a problem with. In other words scuds, you're wrong about what my motives are here