Social Security

[No Limit]

The meat of my post is to point out democrat's hipocrisy; saying one thing in 98 and another today.

Classic example of you ignoring my points, I already pointed out how misleading that quote from Clinton you posted was. Read it in full context first.

I am not arguing there shouldn't be healthy debate. Like Bush said in one of your sources:

Saying there is a crisis and it needs to be fixed NOW is not how you start a healthy debate, it's how you scare people in to agreeing with you.

Thanks for the source. All it said is what I said above, 2 trillion over 10 years. Our GDP will increase by that amount easy, so I am not worried about it costing 2 trillion over a decade at all.

That's 200 Billion each year. The budget for 2004 was 2.2 trillion nationally (Source); that means it will go up about 10% each year; a huge jump. To put this in perspective currently we spend 15 billion on Nasa, 61 Billion for education, 56 Billion for transportation. Add all that up and you are still a long ways off from that 200 Billion we will spend that year.

Lets also assume there are 200 million tax payers in the US. That would mean each tax payer would pay an additional $1,000 each year on taxes. I don't know about you but that is a shit load of money in my world. Still not worried about spending that money?

I guess not, I did get confused. However, I did reread and understand now. What is the counterpoint's point? Borrowing from the SS surplus is nothing new. When we can't borrow from it any more what are we going to do? Raise taxes?

Yes, raise taxes if that is what we have to do. The social security surplus was designed to secure social secruity, it was not designed to bail out the US government when they have a huge deficit.

I remember you saying that but I can't find it, what post number was it.

Dude, start doing some of your own work . It's there somewhere and trust me, it is true.

Yah, strange is the fact that you look past historical events and blame Bush for unforseeable events, such as the end result of the .com crash, 9/11, etc.

I don't know if you noticed as I pointed out earlier but the Bush tax cuts increased Tax revenues.

I can get in to another debate on this and show you how wrong you are but lets just concentrate on social security for now.

 

[No Limit]

This was just posted on Media Matters For America, great read:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501190004

 

[Bodacious]

Classic example of you ignoring my points, I already pointed out how misleading that quote from Clinton you posted was. Read it in full context first.

And? I didn't comment because it doesn't matter. The problems just shifted a decade and that only happened because of reassessed assumptions. At least, that is what your source says.

Saying there is a crisis and it needs to be fixed NOW is not how you start a healthy debate, it's how you scare people in to agreeing with you.

Did you not read what Bush said? He wants a debate in congress. And where did I say SS needs to be fixed NOW?

That's 200 Billion each year. The budget for 2004 was 2.2 trillion nationally (Source); that means it will go up about 10% each year; a huge jump. To put this in perspective currently we spend 15 billion on Nasa, 61 Billion for education, 56 Billion for transportation. Add all that up and you are still a long ways off from that 200 Billion we will spend that year.

Lets also assume there are 200 million tax payers in the US. That would mean each tax payer would pay an additional $1,000 each year on taxes. I don't know about you but that is a shit load of money in my world. Still not worried about spending that money?

Except, tax revenues are increasing. The economy will always grow unless there is a devestating event. The economy will always grow because of Technology. Like I said, our GDP will increase to abosorb that extra 200 billion a year. 2008 is a long ways away and unless nothing bad happens I think America will be able to balance the budget.

Yes, raise taxes if that is what we have to do. The social security surplus was designed to secure social secruity, it was not designed to bail out the US government when they have a huge deficit.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't thing they are using the SS surplus to pay off the deficit.

This is what happens, I think. The government has a dependency of the SS surplus and budgets the money out. The SS surplus decreases because of higher claim numbers and the gov has to get the budgeted SS surplus money from elsewhere.

Now, if we decrease people's dependancy on SS by privatizing a portion of SS the gov can keep it money it has budgetd from the SS surplus.

Also, I agree with you, the gov probably shouldn't be getting money from the surplus, but both Reps and Dems do it, and from what I can tell both reps and dems don't want to stop it.

I can get in to another debate on this and show you how wrong you are but lets just concentrate on social security for now.

Go ahead, no one else is discussion SS but us.

So tell me, what would be a better solution to get us out of the recession of 2001? Deficit spending isn't unheard of. FDR did it and we recovered from the great depression and I don't hear democrats denouncing those acitons.

 

[No Limit]

And? I didn't comment because it doesn't matter. The problems just shifted a decade and that only happened because of reassessed assumptions. At least, that is what your source says.

It does matter because you said Clinton felt the same way as Bush did about this 'crisis' and you posted a misleading quote to back it up.

Did you not read what Bush said? He wants a debate in congress. And where did I say SS needs to be fixed NOW?

You honestly don't think Bush wants to get this done ASAP?

Except, tax revenues are increasing. The economy will always grow unless there is a devestating event. The economy will always grow because of Technology. Like I said, our GDP will increase to abosorb that extra 200 billion a year. 2008 is a long ways away and unless nothing bad happens I think America will be able to balance the budget.

Tax revenues are increasing? Have you actually looked at our economy lately. If you honestly believe the economy will always grow you are living in a dream world. Why the GDP increases each year is not because of good things; the opposite. Have you heard about inflation?

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't thing they are using the SS surplus to pay off the deficit.

They are. Every time the government gains any money they are paying off a deficit.

This is what happens, I think. The government has a dependency of the SS surplus and budgets the money out. The SS surplus decreases because of higher claim numbers and the gov has to get the budgeted SS surplus money from elsewhere. Now, if we decrease people's dependancy on SS by privatizing a portion of SS the gov can keep it money it has budgetd from the SS surplus.

Also, I agree with you, the gov probably shouldn't be getting money from the surplus, but both Reps and Dems do it, and from what I can tell both reps and dems don't want to stop it.

Well if you agree with me than you have to agree that the government needs to change the way it spends our money. This has nothing to do with reforming social security.

So tell me, what would be a better solution to get us out of the recession of 2001? Deficit spending isn't unheard of. FDR did it and we recovered from the great depression and I don't hear democrats denouncing those acitons.

It is a known fact that WWII played a huge role in getting us out of the great depression; what FDR did was simply keep people alive during that time. However, you can not compare the great depression to what is going on now; it is not anywhere close. I will tell you this, you can not get out of a recession by cuting taxes on the rich; Bush wants to make this permanent yet we haven't had much (if any) imporvement in our economy. Sure, you can blame 9/11 or anything else you want on our recession. But if our leader has a plan that clearly isn't working and then wants to make it permanent I am going to blame him for how bad our economy is doing.

You can spin how well Clinton did however you want; some say it was due to Reagan (stupid logic) and others say a bunch of other crap; the simple fact is that when we had Clinton in office we were doing much better as a nation. Then suddenly Bush comes in to office and everything goes to hell. So shouldn't Bush at least try some of those policies Clinton had, oh wait, he can't. All his big business buddies wouldn't be happy and might not donate any more money to him or his friends.

 

[No Limit]

Good read on what Bush is doing to our economy:

Making the tax cuts permanent would generate large, backloaded revenue losses over the next 10 years. Combined with a minimal but necessary fix to the government's Alternative Minimum Tax, making the tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues by almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years — and that's in addition to the $1.7 trillion of revenue losses already locked into law. By 2014, the annual revenue loss would amount to $400 billion, or 2 percent of gross domestic product — almost the size of this year's federal budget deficit.

Paying for the tax cuts would require monumental reductions in spending or increases in other taxes. To offset the revenue losses in 2014 would require, for example, a 48 percent reduction in Social Security benefits, a 57 percent cut in Medicare benefits, or a 117 percent increase in corporate taxes.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20040919galeorszag.htm

 

[Scoobnfl]

No limit that garbage you posted doesn't take into account the growth that the tax cuts will produce. It takes the tax cut and apllies it with no growth across that period of time.

I know that this is hard for you to understand but high taxes do not promote economic growth. Bush inherited a recession from clintoon and had to do something to spur the economy, the tax cuts were the answer........... interest rates fell to encourage more spending and the housing market exploded.

things are fine, we're growing at a decent rate and having the biggest and best economy in the world is a good thing.

 

[No Limit]

No limit that garbage you posted doesn't take into account the growth that the tax cuts will produce. It takes the tax cut and apllies it with no growth across that period of time.

I know that this is hard for you to understand but high taxes do not promote economic growth. Bush inherited a recession from clintoon and had to do something to spur the economy, the tax cuts were the answer........... interest rates fell to encourage more spending and the housing market exploded.

things are fine, we're growing at a decent rate and having the biggest and best economy in the world is a good thing.

Did you read the article? But you are probably right, what I posted was garbage and you are the genius that knows better than the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation that say otherwise. Sure, it will spur the economy in the very short term but we will have many problems because of this soon.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Did you read the article? But you are probably right, what I posted was garbage and you are the genius that knows better than the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation that say otherwise. Sure, it will spur the economy in the very short term but we will have many problems because of this soon.

yes I read it.

if the growth in the economy is sustained it will provide more revenue than raising taxes, or keeping the taxes too high would.

is it so hard to understand that people and people spending their money fuel the economy thus generating revenue, not raising taxes or keepng taxes too high

 

[firemachine69]

LOL! There are a lot people today, including Harry Reid's grandmother, are toatally dependant on the $1000 their brother is
loaning them, and don't have any other means of income? Going from $1000 to $800 is a pretty big paycut.

Can you explain why her lack of savings-sense should come off my generation's tab?

 

[Scoobnfl]

Can you explain why her lack of savings-sense should come off my generation's tab?

dude c'mon this is AmeriKa and the new socialist mentality of entitlement, where personal responsibility and planning for the future are all unnecessary.

where do you get off thinking that people should plan for their retirement or attempt to build wealth or save for the future....... that's ludicrous....... it makes much more sense to eliminate the classes and ensure that everyone can afford everything everyone else can just because it feels good.

 

[No Limit]

Can you explain why her lack of savings-sense should come off my generation's tab?

Again, this is her money. She paid just as much social security as you are paying in her day.

dude c'mon this is AmeriKa and the new socialist mentality of entitlement, where personal responsibility and planning for the future are all unnecessary.

where do you get off thinking that people should plan for their retirement or attempt to build wealth or save for the future....... that's ludicrous....... it makes much more sense to eliminate the classes and ensure that everyone can afford everything everyone else can just because it feels good.

Let me ask you, how much money have you put away for retirement? Be honest now.

 

[No Limit]

yes I read it.

if the growth in the economy is sustained it will provide more revenue than raising taxes, or keeping the taxes too high would.

is it so hard to understand that people and people spending their money fuel the economy thus generating revenue, not raising taxes or keepng taxes too high

I think you don't understand inflation. Our economy is not growing, inflation is simply going up making it seem that way.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Let me ask you, how much money do you have put away for retirement? Be honest now.

none saved. it's all tied up in RE at the moment but building equity. it's invested as opposed to saved and is definitely part of a plan for the future and assuring my ability to retire at 55. currently have 3 homes. total CV of $437K on which I owe $397K.

 

[No Limit]

none saved. it's all tied up in RE at the moment but building equity. it's invested as opposed to saved and is definitely part of a plan for the future and assuring my ability to retire at 55. currently have 3 homes. total CV of $437K on which I owe $397K.

Congrats, you have a nice life. However, you fail to see, or you simply ignore, that there are people out there making A LOT less than you and can't afford to save extra money for retirement in addition to what they pay already for social security.

You republicans are living in this dream that anyone, no matter what living conditions they were brought in to, could somehow pull money out of their ass for everything life throws at them, if they can't they have no 'personal responsibility' and that shouldn't be your problem.

 

[Scoobnfl]

I think you don't understand inflation. Our economy is not growing, inflation is simply going up making it seem that way.

i don't think that you understand that high taxes inhibit growth while low taxes permit it.

i also do not think that you undestand that more people spending their $$$$ as opposed to the govt. taking it also helps the economy.

we were in a recession the last 18 months clintoon was in office and you can not tax your way out of a recession.

 

[No Limit]

i don't think that you understand that high taxes inhibit growth while low taxes permit it.

i also do not think that you undestand that more people spending their $$$$ as opposed to the govt. taking it also helps the economy.

we were in a recession the last 18 months clintoon was in office and you can not tax your way out of a recession.

If you think macroeconomics is that simple you need to go take a few economics classes and get back to me. But again, I guess you know better than the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Let me write this in caps so you can see it, ALL THESE OFFICIAL GROUPS SAY BUSH'S PLAN IS A BAD IDEA AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT RUN OUR ECONOMY!!!

 

[No Limit]

Read this:

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

Or are all those successes just based on luck?

 

[firemachine69]

Again, this is her money. She paid just as much social security as you are paying in her day.


Let me ask you, how much money have you put away for retirement? Be honest now.

Actually, no, it is her (and her generation's) fault, they knew how numerous they were, yet did nothing. Making them fully liable. Hell someone may as well start a lawsuit, guaranteed to win.

The amount she paid (factoring in inflation, etc.) is far below what a person of my age (when the're in their fifties) will have to shell out to keep the system afloat, all thanks to their lack of saving.

 

[No Limit]

Actually, no, it is her (and her generations) fault, they knew how numerous they were... Making them fully liable. Hell someone may as well start a lawsuit, guaranteed to win.

You are kidding right?

Because if you aren't...

:sniper: :x

 

[firemachine69]

So the younger children are to blame for their parents' lack of savings?

 

[No Limit]

Ok, so you weren't kidding after I saw your edit.

The amount she paid (factoring in inflation, etc.) is far below what a person of my age (when the're in their fifties) will have to shell out to keep the system afloat, all thanks to their lack of saving.

Do you understand that if there are a lot of baby boomers today that are about to retire there were even more 50 years ago that each paid into social security.

And you are completely wrong which tells me you know absolutely nothing about this; they paid just as much as we did percentage wise from their checks. Instead their money went to support the retirees of their day just as is happening today. So please, go read up on this stuff before you make another post.

 

[No Limit]

So the younger children are to blame for their parents' lack of savings?

For christ sake, I'm not sure if the headache I have right now is from frustration on your stupidity or from my IQ going down 100 points after reading your post.

 

[firemachine69]

Source?

Again, boomers ONLY can be blamed for not saving up. My #1 problem with the Bush administration, putting his (and his friends) needs ahead of the future generation.

(Which IMO *should be* 95% of a government's work - make smart choices for the future.)

 

[No Limit]

Source?

Again, boomers ONLY can be blamed for not saving up. My #1 problem with the Bush administration, putting his (and his friends) needs ahead of the future generation.

(Which IMO *should be* 95% of a government's work - make smart choices for the future.)

I'm not going to play this stupid source game. If you want sources find me something that says they paid less than we did.

 

[firemachine69]

All of those that made 30K or more a year cleared (averaging it from say age 20 to retirement) should be held responsible for their own dam funds. If they couldn't manage their money, and bleew it all on selfish items, well then tough.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Congrats, you have a nice life..

yah it's not by accident either

However, you fail to see, or you simply ignore, that there are people out there making A LOT less than you and can't afford to save extra money for retirement in addition to what they pay already for social security.

You republicans are living in this dream that anyone, no matter what living conditions they were brought in to, could somehow pull money out of their ass for everything life throws at them, if they can't they have no 'personal responsibility' and that shouldn't be your problem.

you're nuts. What you fail to see or you simply ignore is the massive amount of irresponsibility that occurs in this country. Look at our personal debt and the increases in rates of people filing for bankruptcy. I guess that's not anyones fault? It can't be the moronic consumeristic out of control have to keep up with everone else mentality that goes on. People love to hate the 80's generation as the me generation, well it was followed by the Me Me generation, which was followed by the me me me generation and that's where we stand today.

I bust my ass. My wife and I both do, we drive older cars, avoid going on trips (we have a modest vacation home borderinga nat'l forest), we're frugal to the point of obsession and we do this because there is no other way to get wealthy than to build your own other than winning the lottery or some other dream.

We're heavily financed on the RE and are just now being able to see equity build up as property values are rising. It took a lot of sacrifices to make it this far and it will take more to get where we both want to be. The point is it's not easy and there have been no handouts, it's been hard work, lots of overtime and lots of headaches, but it will pay off.

Social security is a farce, who can make it on the paltry amount the govt. gives its recipients, especially when you take into consideration the people that don't pay in and who have never paid in that receive benefits. It's state sponsored theft and govt. racketeering. If private company officials did with their $$$$ what the govt. has done with SS they'd be in jail.


also no limit, how can you explain the success of imigrants who come here often not speaking the langauge that open stores and businesses and become successful, often wealthy and occasionally extremely wealthy? I'll let you know. IT'S CALLED HARD WORK. AND THEY WORK HARD BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT USED TO HANDOUTS AND THEY KNOW THAT IF THEY DON'T SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY, THEY'LL NEVER GET WHAT THEY WANT.

and you democraps are living in this dream that no matter what people are entitled to the same standard of living regardless of whether they want to work to achieve it or not. Everyone has the opportunity to be successful here in this country, and if they choose not to work hard to achieve it then no it's not my problem and I don't care.

 

[No Limit]

All of those that made 30K or more a year cleared (averaging it from say age 20 to retirement) should be held responsible for their own dam funds. If they couldn't manage their money, and bleew it all on selfish items, well then tough.

Ok you fail to address a single point I make so this is where I officially ignore your posts. Congrats, you are a first for me. Scoobnfl and Bodacious ignored a good portion of my points as most republicans do but I can atleast respect them for saying things they didn't pull directly out of their ass.

 

[No Limit]

yah it's not by accident either

Really? I wonder if you would be just as successful if you were born in to a family with a single parent making 15K a year. Oh yes, I'm sure you would as you have that magic about you.

you're nuts. What you fail to see or you simply ignore is the massive amount of irresponsibility that occurs in this country.

Irresponsibility? I love how this is a Republicans explaination for every poor person in this world. You don't think illness and other uncontollable forces have anything to do with it? I guess the 30 some million (10% of our population) living in poverty these days are just stupid and wanted to stay poor. After all, if they want to be rich all they have to do is wish it and the next day it will become true. Again, wake up to reality.

I bust my ass. My wife and I both do, we drive older cars, avoid going on trips (we have a modest vacation home borderinga nat'l forest), we're frugal to the point of obsession and we do this because there is no other way to get wealthy than to build your own other than winning the lottery or some other dream.

I'm sure you work hard and I respect you for it. However, what I obsolutely hate about people like you is that you assume that someone working 80 hours a week frying fries because they have to support a family isn't working just as hard as you are. When I was younger I lived in border line poverty. Does that mean my parents were lazy and irresponsible because they were forced to work 2 jobs each making just above minimum wage to support me, my brother, and my sister?

We're heavily financed on the RE and are just now being able to see equity build up as property values are rising. It took a lot of sacrifices to make it this far and it will take more to get where we both want to be. The point is it's not easy and there have been no handouts, it's been hard work, lots of overtime and lots of headaches, but it will pay off.

Ok, but where did you get the money for your properties? Loans, right? Do you think someone working at a minimum wage job will get a loan like you did?

also no limit, how can you explain the success of imigrants who come here often not speaking the langauge that open stores and businesses and become successful, often wealthy and occasionally extremely wealthy? I'll let you know. IT'S CALLED HARD WORK. AND THEY WORK HARD BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT USED TO HANDOUTS AND THEY KNOW THAT IF THEY DON'T SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY, THEY'LL NEVER GET WHAT THEY WANT.

Coming from an immigrant family (I moved here from Poland with my family when I was 8) I know exactly how that goes. My parents busted their ass each and every day, and it took them almost 6 years to get out of that situation. If you Republicans had your way they wouldn't have gotten any help ('handouts' as you call them) and my mom would have never went to school and my dad would never start a business and I would still be living in a 2 bedroom apartment with a family of 5. So please, spare me the hard working bullshit.

Everyone has the opportunity to be successful here in this country, and if they choose not to work hard to achieve it then no it's not my problem and I don't care.

Sure they do, the question is how unequal that opportunity is and how many people get hurt in the process of getting that opportunity.

 

[firemachine69]

You never answered MY question first.

How is it the fault of today's child for the failures of the past? Why should it be IS problem, why should HE shoulder the blame?

 

[firemachine69]

The Social system (from a Canuck's perspective) is fuxxored. It's just as bad in Canada. So no sweat. But the boomer's got US in trouble, and should sure as hell be their responsibility to fix it up.

But I'm not covering for the gov's fault. That I do admit. Governments are like a plague, required for stronger evolution but a plague to humanity. They always tend to muck things up.

However, having said that, the deficit will happen because inflation of market prices (NOT the GPO) were never *truly* accounted into the system. Hence why there's quite a bit missing from the puzzle.

Though I doubt spending that much on a reform would fix anything. I'd also like to know the accountants who managed to figure that cost and how/what/where the money would be needed to be spent.

Basically, accountability. Cause I don't know about the states, but we have a major problem with that up here.

 

[No Limit]

The Social system (from a Canuck's perspective) is fuxxored. It's just as bad in Canada. So no sweat. But the boomer's got US in trouble, and should sure as hell be their responsibility to fix it up.

But I'm not covering for the gov's fault. That I do admit.

However, having said that, the deficit will happen because inflation of market prices (NOT the GPO) were never *truly* accounted into the system. Hence why there's quite a bit missing from the puzzle.

Though I doubt spending that much on a reform would fix anything. I'd also like to know the accountants who managed to figure that cost and how/what/where the money would be needed to be spent.

Basically, accountability. Cause I don't know about the states, but we have a major problem with that up here.

Atleast you made an effort so let me address this. You are missing the point when you say it is their job to fix it. Do you understand they paid just as much as we do for social security but the government screwed them out of it? So why the hell should it be their fault?

 

[firemachine69]

Well I see your POV, but think about it, how could the gov be so dumb as to not see market price, not GPO, drives an economy or kills it.

Let me at this point remind you, it's the Boomer's/their parents right now that are currently running that government show.

The Boomers / their parents had the choice to vote, to change things. But the old vintage train just kept rolling without change. THAT'S accountability. Therefore making them responsible. That's the way I see it anyways.

If you don't like something in office, as a responsible citizen, it's your duty to vote for someone who will make things better on the next election, correct?

And I'll smack anyone who turns this into a debate of "Bomb-addicted-Bush" v.s. "Flip-Floppin-Kerry".

Quick Q:

I see everyone here hating Bush... Even though he corrected many of Clinton's office's mistakes (though I'm beginning to think he made just as many... :dozey: )

 

[No Limit]

Well I see your POV, but think about it, how could the gov be so dumb as to not see market price, not GPO, drives an economy or kills it.

Let me at this point remind you, it's the Boomer's/their parents right now that are currently running that government show.

The Boomers / their parents had the choice to vote, to change things. But the old vintage train just kept rolling without change. THAT'S accountability. Therefore making them responsible. That's the way I see it anyways.

If you don't like something in office, as a responsible citizen, it's your duty to vote for someone who will make things better, correct?

And I'll smack anyone who turns this into a debate of "Bomb-addicted-Bush" v.s. "Flip-Floppin-Kerry".

Ok, you said you don't like social security in Canda, go change it. After all, it is your responsibility to fix it.

Let me at this point remind you, it's the Boomer's/their parents right now that are currently running that government show.

They weren't running the show when the government was screwing them out of their money and its too late for that. I simply don't understand how you can possibly blame what the government does/did on those people. That's like saying every American and British citizen is responsible for the Iraq war.

 

[firemachine69]

Absolutely, I did not agree with the Liberal platform. Right now, the minority system is our best bet for now, I believe.

I voted Green Party. Changes for the future. And not just tree huggers, either (I know you wouldn't post something lame like that, but I betcha a few n00bs would).

I concede on your point of view regardless. Even though the Iraq "war" IMO was needed, it would be incorrect to state that it's every american's fault, though that's slightly out of context to what's on the table. There's a difference between scruffing over a twenty dollar bill and pointing .22's at each other.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Really? I wonder if you would be just as successful if you were born in to a family with a single parent making 15K a year. Oh yes, I'm sure you would as you have that magic about you.
.

I have 3 sisters and combined my parents brought home about $65k a year, for a family of 6 that's not a lot of cash. I put myself through college with student loans and received pell grants. I also worked 3 part time jobs at over 40 hours a week because my schedule prevented me from having one single full time job. It wasn't a whloe lot of fun but I enjoyed the hell out of college.

Irresponsibility? I love how this is a Republicans explaination for every poor person in this world. You don't think illness and other uncontollable forces have anything to do with it? I guess the 30 some million (10% of our population) living in poverty these days are just stupid and wanted to stay poor. After all, if they want to be rich all they have to do is wish it and the next day it will become true. Again, wake up to reality..

wish into richness? are you sniffing glue or did you ignore the part where I said that it requires hard work?

I don't think those that are poor want to stay poor, I think that they want to be wealthy, I do not think that they want to work hard to get it. Many see the fancy homes and nice cars and fail to see the effort that many put into getting those things. It takes more than want, it takes alot of work.

I'm sure you work hard and I respect you for it. However, what I obsolutely hate about people like you is that you assume that someone working 80 hours a week frying fries because they have to support a family isn't working just as hard as you are. When I was younger I lived in border line poverty. Does that mean my parents were lazy and irresponsible because they were forced to work 2 jobs each making just above minimum wage to support me, my brother, and my sister?.

not saying they don't work hard, and I'm not condeming those that do work that hard, I have worked that hard, and scrimped and saved and was fortunate enough to have a grandfather that explained the importance of good credit and why it is so important to manage your money and maintain good credit. I used the tools available to me, and the opportunities I created to better myself.

Ok, but where did you get the money for your properties? Loans, right? Do you think someone working at a minimum wage job will get a loan like you did?

yeah financing is how I got the properties. and no someone at minimum wage most likely can't qualify for financing for a $200K home. My advice would be get some skills, and get a higher paying job, save, manage your credit and money, eliminate extravegant and unnecessary expenses, and in a short amount of time they will qualify for financing on a home.

Coming from an immigrant family (I moved here from Poland with my family when I was 8) I know exactly how that goes. My parents busted their ass each and every day, and it took them almost 6 years to get out of that situation. If you Republicans had your way they wouldn't have gotten any help ('handouts' as you call them) and my mom would have never went to school and my dad would never start a business and I would still be living in a 2 bedroom apartment with a family of 5. So please, spare me the hard working bullshit.

6 years for a better life is not that long. And for the record I do support empowering people through education and SBA loans etc.... and believe it or not us evil republicans do want people like your parents to succeed, that way it spreads the tax burden out more, and puts more $$$$$ into the economy. I do not support enabling people to maintain themselves on welfare, that is what the democrats need. The democrats count on minorities being poor, uneducated and misinformed, that's how dirtbags like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton end up getting the respect that minorities like Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice deserve.

Sure they do, the question is how unequal that opportunity is and how many people get hurt in the process of getting that opportunity.

I don't think it's unequal, especially if you're a minority, there are plenty of people out there making it happen, unfortunately there are more out there that are wishing it would happen and confusing those who want with those who will work for what they want is where you get screwed up.

 

[No Limit]

I have 3 sisters and combined my parents brought home about $65k a year, for a family of 6 that's not a lot of cash. I put myself through college with student loans and received pell grants. I also worked 3 part time jobs at over 40 hours a week because my schedule prevented me from having one single full time job. It wasn't a whloe lot of fun but I enjoyed the hell out of college.

You thinking 65K isn't much is exactly what I am talking about when I say you guys are out of touch with reality and what happens there. I considered myself wealthy when my parents started making about $35K together. Compare that to the 20K most families get in poor homes. I will get in to college later in this post as I want to address it at once.

wish into richness? are you sniffing glue or did you ignore the part where I said that it requires hard work?

So you don't think sitting in front of a fryer for 70 or so hours a week is hard work?

yeah financing is how I got the properties. and no someone at minimum wage most likely can't qualify for financing for a $200K home. My advice would be get some skills, and get a higher paying job, save, manage your credit and money, eliminate extravegant and unnecessary expenses, and in a short amount of time they will qualify for financing on a home.

Get some skills and get a better job, I wish it was as easy as saying it. I think you really need to spend some time in a poor family. The fact is that many people have problems that keep them from getting those skills, especially in our system. Lets look at our schools which get money from property taxes (at least in most states). The rich kids, that already have a future guranteed for them, go to the nice schools with computers and lots of books because they live in the nice area. They have access to any help they need and usually the drop out rate in these areas is around 1-4%. Now, the ghetto schools on the other hand get almost no money for things like computers because they are in an area where property taxes bring in very little profit. These are the kids that are ignored by their teachers, these are the kids that need to wait on the bus for school twice as long as the rich kids, these are the kids that are on free lunch, and these are the kids that have nothing. Now, schools in these areas have around 50% of a chance to drop out. Why is that, because all the kids in these areas have some kind of virus that makes them more lazy than the rich kids?

Or many its because they are surrounded by poverty and they never succeed in anything they do. These are the kids that resort to drugs, to sex, to crime, to whatever because life simply isn't look good for them. So a good part of these kids get addicted to crack, others have a baby, and others end up in jail. Now the question is, is it their fault?

Let me ask you something else, you say your grandparents told you about good credit. You were lucky because of this, you could have just as easily ended up in the womb of some deadbeat mother. Do you think the parents of these poor kids who declared bankruptcy give their children the same lecture?

Your parents also always told you that school is extremely important, a lot more important than any crappy job at the time. Right? This is not the case in areas where parents want their kids to help out in supporting the family by getting a job and dropping out of school. In most of these households college is out of the question and the parents never even mention it, nor do the kids teachers or peers.

I could go on for another huge essay about the other influances these people have in their life but I think you get my point about how the people you are around shape your life. Now, by your logic we shouldn't do anything to help these people get out of poverty because they are simply lazy, there is nothing more to it.

I don't think it's unequal

Dude, again, wake up, it is as unequal as it can get. Are you honestly trying to say that a baby that is born to a crackhead mother has the same opportunities as a rich white baby born to a family making 65K a year?

6 years for a better life is not that long. And for the record I do support empowering people through education and SBA loans etc.... and believe it or not us evil republicans do want people like your parents to succeed, that way it spreads the tax burden out more, and puts more $$$$$ into the economy. I do not support enabling people to maintain themselves on welfare, that is what the democrats need. The democrats count on minorities being poor, uneducated and misinformed, that's how dirtbags like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton end up getting the respect that minorities like Colin Powell and Condoleza Rice deserve.

Last time I checked Jesse Jackson was a very respected person that came up through very hard work. But simply because he wants to help these people and doesn't agree with your ideology he is a dirtbag? Al Shapton, I won't defend as I do not like him to a degree.

Also, I'm glad you don't think 6 years is very long when you don't have to deal with that. Trust me, when your mother is crying because they can't get you what you need and desire 6 years is an eternity. Luckily when we were going through this I was very young so I didn't get a chance to get in to drugs and crime like most that lived around me did. Many of my friends from those days are working in crappy dead end jobs or are in jail. Now that I look back on it, I used to comit stupid crimes in my neighborhood because of the people around me; as soon as I moved away from those people that magically instantly stopped. So I wonder if the people around me actually did have something to do with it. And I was the lucky one because my parents pushed me, many of my friends at the time only got regular asskickings from their parents.

So maybe this will help you understand that the problem is a lot more complicated than just lazyness.

With that said I do not agree with democrats fully on welfare. I know that the system is broken because many people are getting money when they shouldn't. But what do you expect when they can make more money from welfare than they can at a job. I fully support reforming the system where people still have a lot of benefits, but I think those benefits should be in the form of education and jobs. So I think the democrats have the right idea but they are screwing it up because they aren't willing to regulate the system.

Republicans on the other hand realize that there is a problem with people getting money that shouldn't get it but instead of working on that they want to eliminate everything so they will save a couple dollars in taxes on their pay checks. This is definitely not the right solution and if anything I would rather have the democrat solution until we can come up with something that works.

 

[Bodacious]

No limit, your entire post is why democrats are perveived the way they are.

These are the kids that resort to drugs, to sex, to crime, to whatever because life simply isn't look good for them. So a good part of these kids get addicted to crack, others have a baby, and others end up in jail. Now the question is, is it their fault?

Hell yes it is their fault. Income doesn't dictate right or wrong. You can still be dirt poor and teach your child good work ethic and morals; morals enough not to do drugs, commit crimes or be sexually responsible.

 

[No Limit]

Let me just add something to summerize what I said about these people being lazy. Lets say I offer you the chance to go work 60 hours a week for 2 years at my farm. If Bush changes the constitution and declares himself king I will pay you $2 million dollars. However, if he doesn't do this I give you nothing. Would you take the risk? No, you wouldn't because you are lead to believe something like this could never happen. These kids in poor area get the same idea about school and hard work when everyone around them fails in school and in work.

 

[No Limit]

No limit, your entire post is why democrats are perveived the way they are.




Hell yes it is their fault. Income doesn't dictate right or wrong. You can still be dirt poor and teach your child good work ethic and morals; morals enough not to do drugs, commit crimes or be sexually responsible.

It doesn't seem like you read the entire post. It seems like you did what your Republican friends do, take 2 lines out of 300 and comment on only that.

 

[No Limit]

Also, participate in the entire discussion not just when you feel you could chime in and then when you are proven wrong not show up until a time you feel you can chime in again.