With Bush's social security plan came major democrate backlash. One leading democrate stated:
"Social Security won't run out until the year 2040(in that range) at this rate, and I know you and I will be long gone and even my children may be long gone."

2040 in all actuality isn't that far off and for somebody to say that it doesn't matter what happens in 35 years b/c of actions we commit now is completely and utterly ridiculous. Everyday, congressmen discuss ways to build for the future and what would be best to keep are country on top of the political and economic spectrum for the next fifty years.

For someone to say this, is horrible. It makes me think that Democrates look to much at the present rather than the future. What's your opinion?

quote:

Originally posted by Jugglerofdooom:
Can someone please explain to me the point of having a privatized social security system? If we're going to let people keep all the money they put in and have control over it, why not just let them keep it and be done with the system?
As you can tell, I'm no economics buff, and I'm not trying to make a point here. I just really want to know.

Because they're not getting it back, it's just being diverted into mutual funds, which, I assume, one would have several options to invest in. The details of the program are not exactly clear as yet.

Right now, when you pay taxes to Social Security, your money goes into a huge pit that may or may not be there when you're old enough to collect. With privitization, a portion of your money goes into an account with YOUR name on it, that could be passed down to your children, and is not able to be borrowed from by politicians.

quote:

How is that long-term plan to eventually leave Iraq working out for the republicans?

It's working out beutifully. Eventually Iraq will have sufficient security forces of it's own and we'll be able to slowly pull back. In the long term, our staying there as long as possible will be a great thing, allowing the country to become stabler and profiting from an extra 150,000 troops participating in their economy.

The prevailing Democrat's plan of setting a date in the very near future and pulling out is a plan for disaster, and as is thier plan for social security, focusing on a short gain in the present for an overall loss in the long term.

Ah, those darned democrates. Related, of course, in no way to democrats.

But the point remains the same, we need to concentrate on what's going on now in order to be best prepared for the future.

Can someone please explain to me the point of having a privatized social security system? If we're going to let people keep all the money they put in and have control over it, why not just let them keep it and be done with the system?
As you can tell, I'm no economics buff, and I'm not trying to make a point here. I just really want to know.

You talk about one democrat. It is a stupid and ignornat generalization to make. I support privatization to a point. However, I would like to see other options before we invest.

How is that long-term plan to eventually leave Iraq working out for the republicans?

quote:

Originally posted by CelticNewAger:
You need to fix your present to have a good future. Your present is currently screwed.

Which is why conseratives are putting forth a plan to fix the system. Democrats, as usual, are proposing to throw more money at the problem.

You're resting a lot on the words of ONE person, who you didn't even name.

Just thought I should point that out.

You need to fix your present to have a good future. Your present is currently screwed.