I don’t know why people think Kerry is better on the economy, Health Care or Social Security.

Bush is doing the right tax cuts and Greenspan approves it. While Kerry wants to raise taxes what would slow the economical recover.

Kerry’s Health Care solution is an illusion and I hope he doesn’t think like Hillary who single-handed bankrupted 23 vaccine companies in NY.

Kerry’s Social Security is a recipe for disaster. He’s bringing back Carter’s big government which won’t work because the gov. can’t deal with the savings of 280 million people.

I hope so much that Kerry doesn’t win! He would be a disaster! 

My impression from this thread -

Information may have been obtained from a television ad campaign or so it seems. Just my opinion, of course.

It seems to me some people really need to do their research before they speak of topics they see presented on TV; keeping in mind that these ads and the "information" contained therein are purposely edited and spun to confuse the issues, often misrepresenting the facts.

My impression from this thread -

Information may have been obtained from a television ad campaign or so it seems. Just my opinion, of course.

It seems to me some people really need to do their research before they speak of topics they see presented on TV; keeping in mind that these ads and the "information" contained therein are purposely edited and spun to confuse the issues, often misrepresenting the facts.


Even better they need a reality check.  Walk around your neighborhood and talk to people and
find out who is working, working for less, paying more, scaling back.  They far out number the
people who are doing better in the past for years.  I am one who can attest to that.  It is not the
taxes you collect so much as what the money is spent on.  I don't mind taxes that go into
quality of life projects and/or social welfare(health, human services) I do object to billions of
"unaccounted" tax dollars being give to halliburton, do not for a minute believe that money is being
spent on wages and benefits for its line workers.

Privatizing Social Security would be a disaster.  Bush's health insurance plan is rationing, if you got the bucks you get the care.  Raising taxes on those who make (get) over $200,000 could get us back to budget surpluses instead of the massive deficits that are starving the economy and could pay for tax cuts for working and middle class families  Now that would be valuing families, as Kerry has said.

I don’t know why people think Kerry is better on the economy, Health Care or Social Security.

Bush is doing the right tax cuts and Greenspan approves it. While Kerry wants to raise taxes what would slow the economical recover.

Kerry’s Health Care solution is an illusion and I hope he doesn’t think like Hillary who single-handed bankrupted 23 vaccine companies in NY.

Kerry’s Social Security is a recipe for disaster. He’s bringing back Carter’s big government which won’t work because the gov. can’t deal with the savings of 280 million people.

I hope so much that Kerry doesn’t win! He would be a disaster! 


What's your source for Hillary and the vaccine companies?  Sounds implausible.

DC is right.  Priivatizing social security WOULD be a disaster.  Here's why:
If people were forced to make their own investments, any additional money they'd save above current SS benefits would be swallowed up by broker's fees, according to Paul Krugman.  If an investor decided to play the free market he or she could lose all savings in one swell foop.  Thus, if the government wanted to protect the public from unscrupulous brokers and bad investments, it would have to pre-select "blue chip" stocks into which the public would be limited to investing their money.  Thus, the government would be scratching the backs of cerain big businesses (Microsoft, Coca-Cola) even more than it does now.  It would guarantee tens of millions of investors.  That's not the free market, mon frere.  Remember, social security went into place after the U.S. saw the true vagaries of the free enterprise system.
Another reason SS privatization would be a disaster is that it would enslave us all to Wall Street.  You would have the financial community tellling the public, "If you vote for candidate X, if you support policy X, the Dow will take a nosedive and you'll lose your old age money, and we wouldn't want that to happen, would we?  Would we?" 

In this country we have the attitude that the so-called free market is God.  We've got to get away from that tyrannical mythology.  We've got to free ourselves from the belief that the free enterprise system doesn't fail us, we fail it.  Whose country is it anyway?

Bush and the Economy:

We had a good economy.  Bush wrecked it.  End of story.

How about this instead of taking money from social security and allowing people to invest it
themselves why not encourage people to do, what is called by some of us, a savings account.
Now ain't that a new concept.  It would work the same way as georgie says except we leave
social security as it is and the people use money they have to put into savings.  To bolster this
idea perhaps we could pass a living wage bill so that people will have something to save., and
if he wants to get really creative perhaps doing like most every other president and have a job
creations strategy.  God! I am asking too much.

General Explanation:

I’m saying it because I’ve lived this social welfare disaster in other countries:

-First the population gets older (the % of seniors will be higher than ever before). 
-Causing a giant discrepancy (generation X – 45 million – will have to support the old    Baby-boomers – 78 million)
-Then Social Security is in dept. Most part of our taxes could go to Social Security and we forget everything else or we just don’t pay Social Security anymore.

That alone has stagnated entire countries because the state alone can’t deal with it and our money isn’t generating more money or investing in our economy. Social welfare didn’t work in Europe or South America. I thought people would know better by now.

DanootaAndMe, you don’t mind paying taxes, what are you talking about. I’d much rather have money with me and spend on what I want. For example, 20 y/os don’t want to pay for the full but expensive health care coverage that 60 y/os are willing to – the Senate coverage. People know what’s best for then and their money.

People who make over $200,000 won’t just sit and wait for taxes to go up they’ll probably transfer to the Caymans or Lichtenstein. Billions will flee America and we’ll lose money for investments and the economical recover will slow down.

Yes people have lost jobs and the ones who got a new one don’t have as high payment as before. But it’s part of an economical cycle. The bubbles grew under Clinton’s low-regulated administration and blew up on Bush’s.

Bush’s trying to fix it and good economists, including several Germans and French agree with him because they’ve seen too the Social welfare disaster. We’re on the right course.

Kerry on the other hand is a big bureaucrat and that is one thing we don’t need.

General Explanation:

-Then Social Security is in dept. Most part of our taxes could go to Social Security and we forget everything else or we just don’t pay Social Security anymore.


DanootaAndMe, you don’t mind paying taxes, what are you talking about. I’d much rather have money with me and spend on what I want. For example, 20 y/os don’t want to pay for the full but expensive health care coverage that 60 y/os are willing to – the Senate coverage. People know what’s best for then and their money.

Yes people have lost jobs and the ones who got a new one don’t have as high payment as before. But it’s part of an economical cycle. The bubbles grew under Clinton’s low-regulated administration and blew up on Bush’s.

Bush’s trying to fix it and good economists, including several Germans and French agree with him because they’ve seen too the Social welfare disaster. We’re on the right course.

Kerry on the other hand is a big bureaucrat and that is one thing we don’t need.


Our social security system was made solvent and was in very good shape until the bush
administration "borrowed" the capital and now it is serious trouble.  I said I don't mind paying
taxes as long as the taxes go to the right things. Taxes pay for roads, schools, hospitals,
elder care,  those are all good things and contribute to a civilized society.  Do you know what
life was like for elders and disabled before social security?  Disgrace is a mild world.  We have
just found out that BILLIONS of tax dollars are "unaccounted for".  Tax dollars paid to Halliburton
for support services in Iraq.  They do not know where the money went.  That part of my tax dollar
I want back, but I do not mind giving to help pay for the alzheimers patient needing care.
I was 20 something once, and if life goes as planned you will be 50 something one day.  You will
see the worth of the social security system when your parents, friends, older relations, begin to need
the extra help that comes with it.

When I said “don’t pay social security anymore” I was clearly been sarcastic. Of course we shouldn’t eliminate Social Security we need to save it, change it. Big governments are like babysitters but we’re not misguide fools, we know what’s best for us we know the “right things”. 

I said that Social Welfare was a disaster not Social Security. I already see the worth of Social Security but one that gives me more freedom over my choices. It’s going to be our money not the government’s.

Plus, the people will own large amounts of stocks and therefore own big blue ships companies, government bond... People will have more power over the corporate America. It’ll be an unprecedented democratization.

When I said “don’t pay social security anymore” I was clearly been sarcastic. Of course we shouldn’t eliminate Social Security we need to save it, change it. Big governments are like babysitters but we’re not misguide fuels, we know what’s best for us we know the “right things”. 

I said that Social Welfare was a disaster not Social Security. I already see the worth of Social Security but one that gives me more freedom over my choices. It’s going to be our money not the government’s.

Plus, the people will own large amounts of stocks and therefore own big blue ships companies, government bond... People will have more power over the corporate America. It’ll be an unprecedented democratization.



The people, who are working and making a living wage, already have that option.  It is called a
savings account, that grows and becomes IRAs, CDs, mutual funds, to supplement what you
will recieve.  It is what  people do every year instead of brand new SUVs, cel phones for
all the kids, and home equity loans to pay for vacations. 

The solution to the Social Security "problem" is to not exempt from taxation incomes over the current cap, which is something like 68,000 if memory serves.  Why should income above the cap not be taxed to support the SS trust fund?  The big problem with the personal accounts idea is that seniors need a steady income flow, which the stock market can't provide.  SS does.  If its all you have, its rather slim, but at least a reliable base.  Individual retirement accounts would put seniors in jeopardy but profit stock brokers, corporations (which would never manipulate stock prices, and financial advisors who charge commissions to administer accounts.  And when the market goes south, as it always does from time to time, its those who are working who will still have to pick up the slack, as individuals, to support their retired parents.  So lets talk "family values".

The solution to the Social Security "problem" is to not exempt from taxation incomes over the current cap, which is something like 68,000 if memory serves.  Why should income above the cap not be taxed to support the SS trust fund?  The big problem with the personal accounts idea is that seniors need a steady income flow, which the stock market can't provide.  SS does.  If its all you have, its rather slim, but at least a reliable base.  Individual retirement accounts would put seniors in jeopardy but profit stock brokers, corporations (which would never manipulate stock prices, and financial advisors who charge commissions to administer accounts.  And when the market goes south, as it always does from time to time, its those who are working who will still have to pick up the slack, as individuals, to support their retired parents.  So lets talk "family values".

When all the right-wing goofballs like Hannity and Limbaugh start ranting about how poor don't pay taxes, I wish more people on the opposition would bring up the fact that SS has become a de facto income tax.  The lower income taxes go, the higher payroll taxes become as the government raids the trustfund for revenue in lieu of sufficient taxes elsewhere.

At least 2/3 of the damage to the economy following the dot com bubble burst is due to Bush's profligate tax cuts.

Things are changing. Social Security worked and remained the same for many decades, senior have a steady income but that won’t last longer. It urgently needs to be restructured to survive.

The days when money could just be passed on are over, it won’t do it anymore. Money has to “work”, generate more to pay all those baby-boomers – 78 million people.

The increase of the senior population is a new factor that requires new solutions.

When the market goes Bear buy government bonds, put the eggs on lots of baskets. Actually you can profit when a stock goes down – sell high then buy low. 

You believe that the tax cuts caused the bubbles? The bubbles grew because the stock-market pressed for higher profits and the companies felt the need to lie about it. The tax cuts relieved the margin of profits so the companies wouldn’t need to lie.

Fewer dollars enter the social securtiy system when more people are out of work.  The more
wages paid, the more into social security.  So the high unemployment rate, coupled with the
raid on the social security lock box by the bushies has been a disaster that will not be felt
by the bushmen, they are extremely wealthy.  It will be felt by us.

Things are changing. Social Security worked and remained the same for many decades, senior have a steady income but that won’t last longer. It urgently needs to be restructured to survive.

The days when money could just be passed on are over, it won’t do it anymore. Money has to “work”, generate more to pay all those baby-boomers – 78 million people.

The increase of the senior population is a new factor that requires new solutions.

When the market goes Bear buy government bonds, put the eggs on lots of baskets. Actually you can profit when a stock goes down – sell high then buy low. 

You believe that the tax cuts caused the bubbles? The bubbles grew because the stock-market pressed for higher profits and the companies felt the need to lie about it. The tax cuts relieved the margin of profits so the companies wouldn’t need to lie.



Your financial planning advice may be good, and clearly it is possible to make $$$ in a bear market, but how many working people have the expertise to play the market?  As a college professor who lives frugally in most regards I could play the market, and lose my ASSets, so I let TIAA-CREF handle them.  I'm certainly not competent to play the market, nor would I if I could.  First I'd play poker on the web.  From what I read, it would be a safer gamble.

I'm surprised that no one has responded to the idea of taxing all "earned" income, with no cap, to support SS.

I would have no problem with that if the government would stop dipping their ladles into the SS "pot" to bail out other areas where they've overspent. 


I don't even mind that, as long as they put it back and the benefits people have earned are fully pain.  Greenspan might be able to get along fine with reduced SS benefits, as might I on a different level of existance, but there are too many who would face the choice between pet food and medm or evan no food and  meds, to reduce benefits.

You  see, Cheers, the gov't can take a different approach to $$$ than we do.  It can easilly spend more than it takes in because it can take in as much or as little as it pleases.  And so Bush can run up historic deficits.  If I did that, or you did, we would be in bankrupcy court in short order.  Go figure.

This discussion topic was one of the densest ones and the issue really evolved!

It was nice exchanging ideas with you, specially DanootaAndMe