"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would
"allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the
stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in
the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are
nearly identical to those measured in late April.



I wonder how these numbers compare to the percentages of people with at
least some money in the stock market or mutual funds?


I'm in favor of private accounts, and they'd be here already if Bush had
presented them properly. All that was needed was an expansion and
relaxation of IRA and 401k plans and contributions, funded by enabling a
dollar for dollar deduction off of income taxes due.

I agree. But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently
pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all
Bush is proposing.

That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general
revenue 2) Only benifit the rich

You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the
"general revenue". If you let them take their money out of the "general
revenue", there wouldn't be much in there at the end of the day.

But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute wealth.
And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and
the Republicans despise it.




The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional
employees are getting now. A poll should ask if they would like the same
plan government workers get. Most would vote for that plan. As soon as
the Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the Democrats are very good
at misleading their own.

"The Democrats are very good at misleading their own."
;-) ;-) ;-)

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional
employees are getting now.

Except that it's not under Social Security.


... As soon as the Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the
Democrats are very good at misleading their own.

Isn't it odd, Democrats are a minority but a majority are against Bush's
plan... so at least some Republicans must also be against it...

Oh yes, it's definitely the Democrats that are misleading everybody on
this issue... it was the Democrats who misrepresented whether Bush's plan
would increase the deficit, as Alan Greenspan told Congress...

no, that was President Bush, wasn't it... he said on TV that Greenspan
testified it would *not* increase the deficit...

It was the Democrats who mirepresented to everybody that Bush's plan will
make the Social Security Trust run dry sooner... no wait, that's true,
Bush plan *will* dring forward the date SST goes bust...

Well it doesn't matter... everybody knows that Democrats are horrible
America-hating terrorist-coddling fiscally irresponsible bad people. Just
keep shouting that loudly from every window!

Why? In my neighborhood, I'd just be preaching to the choir.

... But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently
pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all
Bush is proposing.


Huh? Bush is proposing shutting off Social Security altogether? That's a
new one.


That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general
revenue 2) Only benifit the rich


That's right, heaven forbid that President Bush do anything that
benefits only the rich!


NOYB wrote:
You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the
"general revenue".

And here's why 'the rich' *should* pay the most money into the general
revenue: they get most of the nation's income and control more than most
of the nation's wealth.

Doesn't it sound fair that they should pay a fair portion of the total
tax bill? Somehow, that part of it never gets mentioned by pro-Bush
'conservatives.'


But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute wealth.

Yes, it was. It was a redistribution program from day one, a Ponzi
scheme... illegal for private citizens, but gov'ts get to make their own
rules!

And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and
the Republicans despise it.

No, I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to
monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head.
Fortunately some of us can still think on our own.

DSK

Doesn't it sound fair that they should pay a fair portion of the total
tax bill?


Kubez wrote:
5% of taxpayers paying 50% of all taxes is "a fair portion"?

When that 5% of taxpayers receive 50% or more of all income in the
nation, yes.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently pay
out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all
Bush is proposing.


Huh? Bush is proposing shutting off Social Security altogether? That's a
new one.


That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general
revenue 2) Only benifit the rich


That's right, heaven forbid that President Bush do anything that benefits
only the rich!


NOYB wrote:
You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the
"general revenue".

And here's why 'the rich' *should* pay the most money into the general
revenue: they get most of the nation's income and control more than most
of the nation's wealth.

Doesn't it sound fair that they should pay a fair portion of the total tax
bill? Somehow, that part of it never gets mentioned by pro-Bush
'conservatives.'


But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute
wealth.

Yes, it was. It was a redistribution program from day one, a Ponzi
scheme... illegal for private citizens, but gov'ts get to make their own
rules!

And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and
the Republicans despise it.

No, I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to
monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head.
Fortunately some of us can still think on our own.

Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a
system designed to redistribute wealth.

... I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to
monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head.
Fortunately some of us can still think on our own.


NOYB wrote:
Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a
system designed to redistribute wealth.


Are Republicans that stupid? On one level or another, *everything* is a
system to redistribute the wealth. So, logically one would expect
Republicans to hate everything... actually some Republicans talk as if
they do hate everything including themselves & their country, but let's
skip over that quickly...

Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position
on this one.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to
monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head.
Fortunately some of us can still think on our own.


NOYB wrote:
Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a
system designed to redistribute wealth.

Are Republicans that stupid? On one level or another, *everything* is a
system to redistribute the wealth. So, logically one would expect
Republicans to hate everything... actually some Republicans talk as if
they do hate everything including themselves & their country, but let's
skip over that quickly...

Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position on
this one.

It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth.

Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position on
this one.


NOYB wrote:
It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth.


That makes *slightly* more sense, except that it begs the question of
what kind of wealth redistribution is truly voluntary.

However, let's just toss out the fact that there are a LOT of things,
like foreign aid and military budgets, that are also involuntary
redistributions of the wealth.

Before you start ranting about how much you hate foreign aid, let me
point out that Pesident Bush just promised a large increase in foreign
aid...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position
on this one.


NOYB wrote:
It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth.


That makes *slightly* more sense, except that it begs the question of what
kind of wealth redistribution is truly voluntary.



However, let's just toss out the fact that there are a LOT of things, like
foreign aid and military budgets, that are also involuntary
redistributions of the wealth.

Before you start ranting about how much you hate foreign aid, let me point
out that Pesident Bush just promised a large increase in foreign aid...

I hate foreign aid. Maybe he meant he was going to increase foreign AIDS?

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:27:38 -0400, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would
"allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the
stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in
the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are
nearly identical to those measured in late April.



I wonder how these numbers compare to the percentages of people with at
least some money in the stock market or mutual funds?


I'm in favor of private accounts, and they'd be here already if Bush had
presented them properly. All that was needed was an expansion and
relaxation of IRA and 401k plans and contributions, funded by enabling a
dollar for dollar deduction off of income taxes due.

I agree. But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently pay
out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all Bush
is proposing.

That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general
revenue 2) Only benifit the rich

The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional
employees are getting now. A poll should ask if they would like the same
plan government workers get. Most would vote for that plan. As soon as the
Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the Democrats are very good at
misleading their own.


You are almost totally correct. The public does not 'like' the plan because
they've been fed a bunch of crap by a bunch of 'progressives'.

The plan the government gets now is called the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
allows government employees to contribute, but the money is not reduced from
their FICA. If the employees are under the old Civil Service Retirement System
they don't pay FICA, but they can't draw Social Security. Under the Federal
Employees Retirement System, the new plan, they do pay in to Social Security.
But, they don't get a reduction in FICA for money paid to the TSP. On the other
hand, FERS employees get a matching contribution (like a 401K) up to some small
percent of their pay.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."