If Mitt leads the ticket?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

This was a very good move, Alan. If it had been the social security program, the right would be jumping up and down for joy.



Go Here

Libby, I am personally related to someone who is involved in commercial rocketry (not my brother) and it still has a long way to go. In the meantime, we have spent millions of dollars on a space-station that our only access to will be through other countries.

While it sounds like a wise move, what it really is is a move from government back innovation and research money to en***lement programs. While you say that the right would jump up and down if social security was cut--I don't think anyone in politics at all is under the delusion that without some changes, Social Security is doomed. That is coming from the right and the left. I for one, have accepted that I cannot retire at 65 like my parents before me and that rising medical costs are going to keep me from accessing the same health care system that my parents have. That is the cold hard facts. Anyone who wants to hang on to the status quo is hanging on to a sinking ship. I keep wondering who the politician will be that will face that bear and do what painfully needs to be done. Raise the retirement age, cut the benefits---something will have to happen or the system will be bankrupt---let alone the federal government has been dipping into the trust for so many years, that the money that should be there is not.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Libby, I am personally related to someone who is involved in commercial rocketry (not my brother) and it still has a long way to go. In the meantime, we have spent millions of dollars on a space-station that our only access to will be through other countries.

While it sounds like a wise move, what it really is is a move from government back innovation and research money to en***lement programs. While you say that the right would jump up and down if social security was cut--I don't think anyone in politics at all is under the delusion that without some changes, Social Security is doomed. That is coming from the right and the left. I for one, have accepted that I cannot retire at 65 like my parents before me and that rising medical costs are going to keep me from accessing the same health care system that my parents have. That is the cold hard facts. Anyone who wants to hang on to the status quo is hanging on to a sinking ship. I keep wondering who the politician will be that will face that bear and do what painfully needs to be done. Raise the retirement age, cut the benefits---something will have to happen or the system will be bankrupt---let alone the federal government has been dipping into the trust for so many years, that the money that should be there is not.

I haven't seen anyone on the left say that SS needs to be cut. It's actually quite solvent, right now. It's one of the best programs our gov't has ever supported and I hope it continues. Changes to retirement age have already been made. My generation, for example, has to be 66 to retire with full benefits, and future generations will have a higher age, most likely. That is needed, because people are living much longer, today, than they did in the past, and that will, likely, continue to go up, as medical advances are made.

As for health care, we need a gov't health care plan that includes a single payer benefit!!! That is not going to be a luxury, in the next few years, but a necessity!

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Libby

I haven't seen anyone on the left say that SS needs to be cut. It's actually quite solvent, right now. It's one of the best programs our gov't has ever supported and I hope it continues. Changes to retirement age have already been made. My generation, for example, has to be 66 to retire with full benefits, and future generations will have a higher age, most likely. That is needed, because people are living much longer, today, than they did in the past, and that will, likely, continue to go up, as medical advances are made.

As for health care, we need a gov't health care plan that includes a single payer benefit!!! That is not going to be a luxury, in the next few years, but a necessity!

Libby, I have not seen an Act that changes the S.S. retirement age. Can you send me the link to it?

In 2009/2010 (approx.) the White House put together a bi-partisan committee to figure out ways to help the federal budget crisis (which once again, both sides do not dispute.)

Here is a couple of paragraphs from that report. If you look at it, you will see that it is from the White House.

Unless we act, these immense demographic changes will bring the Social Security program to its knees. Without action, the benefits currently pledged under Social Security are a promise we cannot keep. Today, the program is spending more on beneficiaries than it is collecting in revenue. Although the system’s revenues and expenditures are expected to return to balance temporarily in 2012, it will begin running deficits again in 2015 if interest from the trust fund is excluded and in 2025 including interest payments. After that point, the system’s trust fund will be drawn down until it is fully exhausted in 2037.

Unfortunately, the default plan in Washington is to do nothing. The do-nothing plan would lead to an immediate 22 percent across-the-board benefit cut for all current and future beneficiaries in 2037. Over the next 75 years, the program faces a shortfall equal to 1.92 percent of taxable payroll. Seventy-five years from now, that gap will increase to 4.12 percent of payroll. http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/site...h12_1_2010.pdf

Interestinly, Obama has deep-sixed these recommendations and currently is bowing down to the AARP and stating that the new "Super Committee" recently is not to touch S.S.

I don't believe I have yet seen anything on the table to change the Society Security retirement age. If it has p***ed, please show me the bill. I would be interested in seeing it. Thanks.

[alanmolstad]

from the numbers i have read about...when SS was set up you had about 147 people working full-time ***s for every person getting SS payments....

Today we have about 1.7 people working at full-time ***s to support that same person who collects SS payments.

Clearly that situation is doomed, and that there is no way in the world 1.7 workers can pay in enough SS withholding to cover the one person receiving.

[alanmolstad]

I once watched a TV comercial where a young black child was sitting with his grand parents doing his school home work,,,then I learn during the ad that the child's parents were killed in an accident, but thanks to SS payments, the child has enough money to go to school and pay for his education.

As I listened I kept think that this seems to be getting way outside the 'retirement" plan that was sold to us....

I was a bit upset to learn that my SS withholding was being sucked away to pay for this kid's whole life and future education.

Hey, I fell sorry for the kid, but I also want to protect SS from being used as the great Cash Cow that gets used to pay for fixing every problem in the world.

If the state wants to set up a fund to help orphans?..fine, set it up as such,
But you should not be dipping into my retirement funds to pay for such things that are not connected in any way, shape of form to my retirement.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I once watched a TV comercial where a young black child was sitting with his grand parents doing his school home work,,,then I learn during the ad that the child's parents were killed in an accident, but thanks to SS payments, the child has enough money to go to school and pay for his education.

As I listened I kept think that this seems to be getting way outside the 'retirement" plan that was sold to us....

I was a bit upset to learn that my SS withholding was being sucked away to pay for this kid's whole life and future education.

Hey, I fell sorry for the kid, but I also want to protect SS from being used as the great Cash Cow that gets used to pay for fixing every problem in the world.

If the state wants to set up a fund to help orphans?..fine, set it up as such,
But you should not be dipping into my retirement funds to pay for such things that are not connected in any way, shape of form to my retirement.

Well, it looks like Cain is leading the ticket (back to the original subject). I know you like him. This worries me because his 9-9-9 plan will be slaughtered. This will mean we have a losing ticket against Obama. This just makes me sick. So many other candidates would have had a better chance against Obama. Cain will go down because people will be afraid of a federal sales tax and a regressive tax. It is a deadly combination and I know I could never vote for it.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Well, it looks like Cain is leading the ticket (back to the original subject). I know you like him. .

..Yes, of all the guys running I like him the most,

Hands down.

I actually could not care less about all the other people in the race.

If I got a chance to vote in a primary (I live in ND so we tend to get overlooked up here) I would vote for Cain over everyone else.

Cain is the only guy I think has anything near my views, and my way of thinking.

Now don't get me wrong, I will vote for anyone over Obama.

But if I had my chance to support Cain in a primary I would.

[Libby]

Alan, I was wondering what you think of Cain, now? The personal stuff about him must have been a huge disappointment...

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

Alan, I was wondering what you think of Cain, now? The personal stuff about him must have been a huge disappointment...

My views.....

Cain made this election a lot more fun.

Almost every time Cain spoke you could count on a song, or a Bible verse, or a quote picked up and played on YouTube.

so with Cain there was a lot to like in him ...''as a fun person to have at the party"


But from the start I put Cain into the same box as Ross Perot and Alan Keys...
They are nice enough guys, but they tried to run for the White House before we knew how well they could handle a *** like this.

I wish such men would run for a State Governor or for Congress first, so we can see how they take to the *** in Washington.

Now, as for Cain's marriage problems and the other women?...I dont care about that stuff.

I am not voting for "Husband of the year"

Im voting for a guy i want to be president....I dont care what faith he is, or who he sleeps with...I dont want to get in to the personal stuff....

i think we all have a right to our personal privacy in such matters.

BUT......BUT......BUT...
But what kind of fool is so busy for years cheating on his wife, and then decided to run for the White House?

it strikes me as about the most foolish thing for a cheating man to do...

it is so foolish, that it sorta strikes me also as a way he could "tell the wife' and confess his cheating, without having to say it first.

getting CNN to tell his wife might have seemed at the time, to be an easy way out...

So there is a type of "Self Destruct" mentality to that moment cain decided to run for President.

He HAD to know that word of his girlfriend would get out.

He HAD to know this would happen just as it happened....

I mean really....the men that never want their wives to find out about a girlfriend, keep their names out of the news as best they can.
You lead a low-profile life when you are in the middle of cheating on your wife....

Running for president?
thats not the smartest move.....

[Libby]

Yeah, I hear ya. I kind of feel the same way about Newt Gingrich. Surely, he must know, his past is going to be a big detriment in his run for the White House....and detrimental to him and his party. So, why would he even put himself in that position. He really needs to retire from politics.

Cain was much too conservative, for my tastes. But, I did like him, personally, until I found out about his cheating. That does matter, to me, because it speaks to a person's character.