joe the plummers keating 5 ties and mccain ties plus......

[trish]

It most certainly is not going to be there.

Don’t you believe it. That's only what objectivists and neo-cons need people to believe to get “permission” to dismantle the most popular government program ever, the third rail of American politics. Social security is beloved of most republicans and democrats alike. It’s going to take more than neo-cons and libertarians to bring it down. And it’s going to take more than the current banking failures. Remember the program got its start during the biggest banking failure in world history. It’s in times like these that people most clearly see the need for Social Security.

You do not need the government to set aside money for you, you're completely capable of doing that yourself.

That might apply to you and me. I’ve got a decent job and I’m young enough to invest. However, millions of people (even young, promising and ambitious ones) will never score enough income to put anything of significance aside for old age. Lot’s of people hold down two or three jobs and can barely make ends meet. You’ve suggested yourself that even $250 000 a year isn’t a lot of money to make in the suburbs of NY!

Come move to the suburbs of NY, have a family of 5 and tell me 250,000 is really rich.

Try being a single mom with three kids who makes a secretary’s salary of $16000 a year.

Look, the point is, a lot of us can and will take care of ourselves into old age. But not everyone will be able to. Moreover, neither you nor I can predict who will in fact be able to put enough aside. Nobody knows what financial calamities may befall us singly as we approach retirement age. You may think you’re prepared, well invested and will always be able to work if you need to; but only time will tell. Sometimes self-interest involves looking out for the interests of everyone.

Oh maybe Social Security isn’t essential. We can live with homeless, elderly pan-handlers, right? I can learn to walk around them in the street. But I’d rather pay some taxes so they can continue to collect Social Security. I’m not alone. Few Americans relish stepping over each others grandmothers in the street, and most Americans are weary of their own chances of financial survival. That’s why Social Security is the third rail of American politics. As long as we continue to keep neo-cons and libertarians out of office (that second part’s pretty easy), Social Security will be with us through the next century.

That’s why I can go to bed now and sleep easy. Good-night.

[NYBURBS]

First of all $250,000 was brought up as not worthy of an almost 40% federal tax, I never said it's not more than enough to set aside money for retirement. Second of all the point that it has been run into the ground is still the big ol elephant in the room. Everyone knows it but most are afraid to admit it.

Further, the whole idea of SS is not because the poor can't set aside money. Let's face it, they don't get enough when they collect to live off of anyways. Another excellent point to this is that FICA is the most regressive tax there is. You pay it at around 7% regardless if you make 7.00 an hour or 25.00 an hour. If you're self employed GOD help you because you are responsible for just over 15% of your income on the first $102,000 (Do you know what kind of return you would have investing 15% of your income on your own?).

This program is there to say "you're not smart enough to take care of yourself, so we will do it for you." Of course the sheep love it, the government says "relax we'll give you money later on" but in reality they piss so much of that money away and are simply taking it from you all of your working life.

[PapaGrande]

god forbid someone practice plumbing without an official license from the State! Joe you rebel! I love these left wing Jr. Matlocks that uncover these grand conspiracies, Joe the Plumber is a McCain plant!!!! As if they couldn't have found a plumber with a license and didn't owe back taxes to ask a "fake" question.

I don't make $250k and Im against Obama's tax plans. Some of us think beyond just what is in it for us. Some of us don't fall for class warfare rhetoric and wealth envy. Some of us actually understand basic economics. Some of us believe in ethics.

isn't it funny how we all believe our side is right and the other is just so wrong? I used to be far left, very far left, I volunteered for the Socialist Party. I've read a considerable amount of far left material on politics, economics, history, etc. I know I wont change anyones mind here, but if you are going to argue against something, you should have a good understanding of what you are arguing against. I do have respect for anyone who can put together a halfway intelligent argument for something they believe, if it is based on facts and reason. Most of what I see here regurgitating near propaganda from Huffington Post and DailyKos. I mean really, you people need to get some balance in your information sources, if for no other reason that to strengthen your own case. That shit is as "fair and balanced" as Fox News. Know your enemy!

That being said, I will be happy when this election is over and Dear Leader fails to miraculously cure all of societies ills with government handout and nice speeches. Seriously though I hope this will finally put some of the "America is racist" bullshit to bed. Liberals are obsessed with race. Before the election two people that scored very high in polls of Republicans (of who they wanted to be President) were Powell and Rice. As the primaries showed, it looks like Democrats have more bigots in their ranks. I am sincere in that I hope an Obama presidency lets us move past this, so that next time around we can focus on the issues and not the color of the candidates skin.

OK, back to the real reason Im here, TS nudie pix.

[trish]

NYBURBS said,

the whole idea of SS is not because the poor can't set aside money.

Agreed, it's not the main point (nevertheless, it's not irrelevant because the poor and many others really can't).

Let's face it, they don't get enough when they collect to live off of anyways.

Between the two of us, and those of you reading the conversation, I’m sure we know a lot of people who are currently living off of Social Security who would be in bad shape without it. I certainly do. If there are some who still can’t make ends meet, perhaps we should increase our support.

FICA is the most regressive tax there is. You pay it at around 7% regardless if you make 7.00 an hour or 25.00 an hour.

I thought you guys preferred flat taxes to graduated ones (understanding, of course, you prefer, when possible, no taxes at all).

This program is there to say "you're not smart enough to take care of yourself,

Being able to take care of yourself when you’re elderly is often independent of how smart you are or how smart you were. You do not know now what your needs will be when you’re old, nor do you know what your financial situation will be. It’s fun to act superior when you’re momentarily well situated but the future is as opaque for you as it is for everyone else. The program is there because it is more efficacious and less risky for all of us to look out for each other. It furthers our individual self-interest to minimize our risks by investing in our collective self-interest.

PapaG, the point isn’t that Joe plumbs even though he’s not a plumber. It’s not that he's behind on his taxes. It’s not that he lied about being anywhere close to buying out his boss's business. The point is that John Sydney McCain III didn’t even have his staff of lobbyists, excuse me, campaign advisors give Joe a cursory check before making him a feature vehicle of his message. Once again McCain demonstrated how poor judgments arise from mavericky impulses. In that way he's exactly like Bush, the decider, who made snap decisions and stuck to 'em. Sarah Palin is the worst example of this impulse to bad judgment. We can only guess how McCain might fill cabinet positions and choose judges. The science journal Nature reported in its September 25th issue that McCain’s main science and technology advisors are: J. Woolsey, Former Central Intelligence Agency Director; J. Schlesinger, Former Secretary of Defense; R. McFarlane, Former National Security Advisor; C. Fiorina, Former Chief Executive of Hewlett-Packard; and M. Whitman, Former Chief Executive of eBay. That may be an appropriate group to advise the President on the technology of acquiring and assessing military intelligence, but a real President will need advice on a far more wider spectrum of science and technology issues.

Obama’s main science and technology advisors are reported by Nature to be:H. Varmus of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, D. Lamb of the University of Chicago, G. Omenn of the University of Michigan, H. Kelly of the Federation of American Scientists, S. Long of Stanford University, J. Grumet of The Bipartisan Policy Center and D. Kammen of the University of California at Berkeley.

[NYBURBS]

Yea Trish I know people living off of it, and if those same people kept 7% of their income every year they could have set aside money or invested. If they decide not to well that is their problem. Also any argument that they can't/won't because there are other things they will spend the money on should be moot... There are people that receive social welfare money that use it to drink or buy drugs, or lotto tickets. Somehow that doesn't stop you from wanting to give them that money. It comes down to responsibility for ones life.

You also act as if this money we raise through tax doesn't impact people. It greatly increases the cost of everything, thus hurting the same people you seek to help. A little faith in the individual to do the right thing would go a long way.

Oh and yes I do dislike taxes, along with the "progressive" income tax. Yet I noted the regressive nature of FICA due to the fact that so many people champion it in the name of the poor.

You know there are many things I believe in privately supporting. Some would most certainly have a collective aspect to them, yet I am adamantly opposed to most if not all of those things when imposed through the force of law.

[chefmike]

On his taxes, he pays them like most hard working Americans do. He found out he owed an additional $1,100 in taxes he had to clear up before they would refinance his home, and he payed it.

Oh really? Then why were there news articles showing a local radio station raising money to help GOP poster boy Joe pay his back taxes? He sounds like just another lying repug freeloader to me.

[chefmike]

Establishing social security is the best thing this government ever did and yes, we can thank FDR for that. The dumbest thing this country did was not safely invest the money paid into the social security system. The government has spent it on wars and given to the wealthy in tax breaks. That is exactly the program Bush based his first campaign on: give the social security surplus paid for by working people, to the wealthy in tax breaks. If that's not called redistribution of wealth, then it's called conservatism...same thing by my reckoning. McCain wishes to continue with that redistribution, draining money from the middle class into the Waterford crystal goblets held by the soft hands of the transcendent.

Brilliantly stated, trish. As always.

[trish]

…I know people living off of it [Social Security], and if those same people kept 7% of their income every year they could have set aside money or invested.

Yeah, you already said that, and I already pointed out what’s wrong with it. What if that savings is lost through a banking melt down? What if that savings has to be spent on a health emergency which should be covered by a private health insurance company that insists you’re not covered for that particular emergency? Or what if the company covered your first bout with cancer and then quickly dropped you, so that you had to use up your savings and also borrow to pay for your follow up treatment, or for your second bout with cancer? What if you invested it conservatively, but it turned out you lost a bundle anyway? What if you just simply and unexpectedly outlive your savings? Anything can happen to one person. Of course it’s probable that none of these horrible things will happen to you. But multiply the population of the U.S. by even a small probability and you will be convinced that hundreds of thousands of responsible people would and do benefit from the Social Security safety net. Anything can happen to a single person, but the brilliance of Social Security is making the law of large numbers work to the advantage of each and every one of us. Looking out for our self-interest collectively advances the self-interest of each of us singly.

If they decide not to well that is their problem.

No, that’s your problem. First of all, if people are putting 7% into Social Security they are putting something aside and have every right to benefit. Second, in a society without such a program, there will be more homeless elderly people on the street. That’s your problem. There will be more crime. That’s your problem. With more people living on the street there will be more public health dangers (public urination, defecation, contagion etc.). Those are your problems. There will be political instability and unrest. That’s your problem.

You also act as if this money we raise through tax doesn't impact people.

Of course it impacts people. It’s just like setting aside 7% of your income, which you yourself seem to be advocating. But the impact is even better. Your risk is nil, having been minimized by the law of large numbers. You are guaranteed (which is not the case with your plan) that when you reach retirement you will collect…and that you will continue to collect even when your accumulated withdrawal exceeds the amount you paid in plus interest, you will collect for the remainder of your life no matter how long you live.

My sincere wish is that you don’t outlive your resources. I’d rather that wish not be a constraint on your longevity. I’ll take for my resource any day, working American’s like me. I will work for them, if they will work for me. 300 million strong.

[trish]

Establishing social security is the best thing this government ever did and yes, we can thank FDR for that. The dumbest thing this country did was not safely invest the money paid into the social security system. The government has spent it on wars and given to the wealthy in tax breaks. That is exactly the program Bush based his first campaign on: give the social security surplus paid for by working people, to the wealthy in tax breaks. If that's not called redistribution of wealth, then it's called conservatism...same thing by my reckoning. McCain wishes to continue with that redistribution, draining money from the middle class into the Waterford crystal goblets held by the soft hands of the transcendent.

Brilliantly stated, trish. As always.

Thanks, sweetie

[NYBURBS]

Trish look around, this nation is going BANKRUPT, a government doesn't pull an additional 700 BILLION dollars (plus how many hundreds of billions for Franny/Freddy), spend hundreds of BILLIONS per year in foreign nations on some misguided crusade, and then keep up with entitlement payments that are about to balloon. Let's also not forget that we are trillions of dollars into debt. I know people like to think "We're the US we can't go broke" but we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I really think your confidence in government backed programs is perhaps misplaced.