Democrats Fiscal Responsibility

[caelkhnter]

Here is a story I received today regarding the Social
Security Program.
_____________________________________________

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to "put
away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities????
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?

This is MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans
want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is un-informed
citizens believe it!

 

[overton]

Bush must have had some hand in this, right? He must have influenced Franklin Roosevelt from the womb.


Ransom

 

[TFinalshot]

A lot off water has passed under the bridge since then, including 6 years of a republican administration that did nothing REAL to solve the problem. . .

It's about how to get it fixed, anyone who thinks they can blame any one party or person for the SS mess 100% un informed and completely lacks even the most modest understanding of the history of the USA over the past 50 years. . .

As with many of the major social welfare programs, they need overhauled, or in some cases eliminated all together. The key is who does the overhauling. . . I'd do it but you would not like it, you'd do it, then I would not like it, and so on. . .

No reason to blame the republicans for the largest deficit ever in the history of the world - for the second time - the first was under Regan. . .

Anyhow, it needs fixed, and if it gets fixed under Hillary, I'm sure it will get fixed wrong now wont it. . . ?

 

[202typical]

I agree the Dems had 40 years in power and did some serious damage. However and I hate admiting this but this current bunch of Republicans in office are spending like drunken sailors. I think they all Dems and Reps need to be voted out. They all stink to high heaven. The worst of them are the ones that have been in office for 20, 30 and 40 years. Vote the bums out!!!!



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,

 

[caelkhnter]

I truly believe the 2 party system we have is failing miserably. Unfortunately I do not see how we could ever get a third party candidate elected.

 

[202typical]

I agree. However I see a third party as more problems not less. You could potentially have a little over 1/3 of the country elect a 3rd party that 2/3 of the country is diabolicly aposed to. My God you think people complain now could you imagine 3 parties all at one anothers throats nothing would get acomplished.........well even less than what is getting acomplished now.

I think term limits are a better solution. 4 terms and your out. Get some fresh blood in there. I also think there needs to be a cap on fund raising. No forieng contrabutions to candidates what so ever. No more professional lobiest.


?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,

 

[NeMont]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-07 AT 12:43PM (MST)[p]202

Can you explain how 1/3 can out vote 2/3 of the people? How is having more choice of candidates to choose from be a bad thing? A candidate would still need to win a majority of the vote would they not?

Isn't that how our Republic works? That is an interesting position to take.

Term limits have been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level so you would have to amend the constitution. In Montana we have term limits and that system sucks. I have always believed that the ballot box is the ultimate term limit device ever invented.

When you have term limits you get a resulting chaos because so much institutional knowledge is lost as well as working relationships between office holders. Why wouldn't you trust the voters to decide whom them wish to have represent them?

As for Social Security nobody can "fix it". It is a giant Ponzi scheme that is unsustainable.

Nemont

 

[overton]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-07 AT 12:46PM (MST)[p]>I agree the Dems had 40
>years in power and did
>some serious damage. However and
>I hate admiting this but
>this current bunch of Republicans
>in office are spending like
>drunken sailors. I think they
>all Dems and Reps need
>to be voted out. They
>all stink to high heaven.
>The worst of them are
>the ones that have been
>in office for 20, 30
>and 40 years. Vote the
>bums out!!!!
>
>
>
>?Justice consists not in being neutral
>between right and wrong, but
>in finding out the right
>and upholding it, wherever found,
>against the wrong.?
>---Theodore Roosevelt,

202

I agree. Vote them all out. The problem being it's never really a persons own congressman( thats where the pork comes from after all) it's everyone elses congressman. A one term limit would be great but will never happen. Back to square one.

NeMont

You do know that experience breeds more pork don't you.


Ransom

 

[NeMont]

If a Representive or Senator bring federal money to their district or state and the voters vote them back in, then aren't the voters saying they like "pork".

What would be gained by having one term in office then have to be done. In the House the terms are only two years, in two years most of them still haven't learned where all the restrooms are.

Define pork for me please.

Nemont

 

[overton]

Someone, other than me, getting Federal Projects. Hows that?


Ransom

 

[NeMont]

So Federal Projects are bad?

Nemont

 

[overton]

Yep! Federal Projects in your district are. Not mine of course.


Ransom

 

[overton]

MeMont

Still waiting.


Ransom

 

[NeMont]

for what?

 

[eelgrass]

"A lot off water has passed under the bridge since then, including 6 years of a republican administration that did nothing REAL to solve the problem. . ."

One of the first things Bush did was try to set up a program where individuals could invest some of the money they pay into SS, into mutual funds in the stock market. Of course Congress rejected the idea. They should have passed it in my view.

As it is now, I have no idea where all the money I've paid in over the last 40 years is. Or even if it still exists. How could investing in the stock market be worse than that?

Eel

 

[jmcenulty]

>I agree. However I see a
>third party as more problems
>not less. You could potentially
>have a little over 1/3
>of the country elect a
>3rd party that 2/3 of
>the country is diabolicly aposed
>to. My God you think
>people complain now could you
>imagine 3 parties all at
>one anothers throats nothing would
>get acomplished.........well even less than
>what is getting acomplished now.
>
>
>I think term limits are a
>better solution. 4 terms and
>your out. Get some fresh
>blood in there. I also
>think there needs to be
>a cap on fund raising.
>No forieng contrabutions to candidates
>what so ever. No more
>professional lobiest.
>
>
>?Justice consists not in being neutral
>between right and wrong, but
>in finding out the right
>and upholding it, wherever found,
>against the wrong.?
>---Theodore Roosevelt,



Nothing would get done, now would that be a bad thing? Then the only gov. bodies doing anything would be at the state level. Kind of how it was suppose to be from the begining.

 

[overton]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-07 AT 08:17PM (MST)[p]>for what?

NeMont

Your no fun today. We need Dude back. I'm sorry I asked all Mt. lions to do their duty on Dudes hunting trip.
On a brighter note I found the following emblem.

Ransom

 

[overton]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-07 AT 07:48PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-25-07 AT 07:45?PM (MST)

>"A lot off water has passed
>under the bridge since then,
>including 6 years of a
>republican administration that did nothing
>REAL to solve the problem.
>. ."
>
>One of the first things Bush
>did was try to set
>up a program where individuals
>could invest some of the
>money they pay into SS,
>into mutual funds in the
>stock market. Of course Congress
>rejected the idea. They should
>have passed it in my
>view.
>




>As it is now, I have
>no idea where all the
>money I've paid in over
>the last 40 years is.
>Or even if it still
>exists. How could investing in
>the stock market be worse
>than that?
>
>Eel

Eel

I have a very good idea where the money is. Do I really have to tell you?

Ransom

 

[eelgrass]

Ransom, no.

Eel

 

[D13er]

Part of it is in Tfinal's pocket, he worked back there for a while.

JB

 

[overton]

"Tfinal worked back there". You don't mean Washington do you? That would explain much. How about Nemont, RUS and Dude, they work back there too?
Rackmaster hates me I think, he made a very ungentleman like comment tonight, is he a lib too? Or just a moderate?


Ransom

 

[D13er]

Rackmaster ?? He is extremely right wing just illiterate.

JB

 

[overton]

Okay. I thought so.
With Dude gone the silence is deafening. I'm sorry now I wanted the Mt. lions to get him. Hope he makes it back.


Ransom

 

[eelgrass]

>Part of it is in Tfinal's
>pocket, he worked back there
>for a while.
>
>JB

So, I'm the one who bought that nice camera?????WTF?

Eel

 

[TFinalshot]

LOL - too funny! I like it when it's hunting season, you guys are a lot more fun to be around. . .

Happy hunting!!!

 

[202typical]

"Can you explain how 1/3 can out vote 2/3 of the people?"

Nemont I said "You could potentially have a little over 1/3 of the country elect a 3rd party that 2/3 of the country is diabolicly aposed to." Do I need to draw you a picture?

OK try and follow along Nemont:
Example
Dem candidate gets 33% of votes cast
Republican gets 32% of votes cast
Third party gets 35% of votes cast

Hypathetically third party wins and now you have 65% of the country automatically pissed.

Looks like one giant cluster **** to me.

Term limits: I aint sayin its a be all end all. I agree when you say the voting box is the best term limit. However when you have folks that have been in power for so long no one runs against them, number two they have such a huge war chest that no one will touch them. So you have no choice. I also think the long term candidates become numb to what the people want. They become institutionalised, they get a God complex. I do see your point on the knowledge factor however.

Another problem I see is that if you want to run for office you had better be ready for the anal exam of your life. Not many folks are up for this, hence I believe anymore all we are getting to run are the bottom of the barrel candidates. There are no good candidates and I think the scrutiny a candidate comes under in the press is more than a lot of potential candidates want to go through.


?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,

 

[NeMont]

Hey Overton,

You may want to do a little research on my political views including my view of the war before you lump me with anyone. I think for myself and will call it like I see. I happen to believe that the war in Iraq must be won and we need to stay for as long as it takes.

202,

Wouldn't the candidate in your example have won enough votes to get elected? What is the difference if 65% of the country is pissed vs now with 50% being pissed? What could be wrong with more choices?

As for the anal exam to run: don't you think the two party system of Gotcha politics plays right into that? People with nothing in their closets have not had enough experience of working through problems in their lives nor learned how to solve major issues.

I don't trust the chior boys anymore then I trust the thugs.

How many seats for Congress go uncontested every election cycle? Very, very few.

Nemont

 

[proutdoors]

Nemont, can you tell me ONE example of where a third party canidate for a major office has won? And, can you point to a time in American history where we had more than two parties? The two party system has worked great for 220+ years, I see no reason to muddy things up with third party canidates.

I disagree with 202 on term limits, I believe the best way to 'limit' a term is to vote the bums out. But, I see McCain/Fiengold as a way for incumbants to almost get a life term to DC in many cases. What to do.

Nemont, seats for Congress are contested because the 'perks' once elected are great. I do NOT see why the wives/husbands and kids of canidates are open season for mud slinging. One must be a narcisist or power hungry to run for National office, especially President.

PRO

 

[NeMont]

Does the constitution state that we are required to have a two party system? No, it does not.

There have been many congressman elected to office that were not from either party. Most recent would be Liberman after the Dems crapped on him.

Also you are incorrect about having a 220 year history of two party rule. Originally there were no parties and office holders grouped together with similar minded office holders.

If the two party system is serving us so well then how come we are having so much difficulty in getting any movement forward on important and pressing issues. How come there is no room for moderation in either party. People in the middle should just not be included in the process?

I have never said nor condoned a candidates family being fair game but if those are the rules and you know it ahead of time then I guess the candidates will make that decision. My point about contesting elections is that 202 said people won't run against incumbents. I think that isn't accurate.


Nemont

 

[proutdoors]

Liberman is NOT a Third Party politican! How many Green Party/Libertarian lawmakers are in DC or ANY state capital?

You make it sound as if partisanship is new in American politics. Simply not true.

Splitting hairs aren't we? My point is we have NEVER had "third parties" in our history.

I am not even sure what 'moderation' means, I bet my view of what is moderate is different than yours, so what is 'moderate', and what great 'moderates' in history can I look to for inspiration? All the great presidents I can think of were NOT moderates.

PRO

 

[NeMont]

Nearly all the great presidents were also great compromisers. All great Congressional leaders were first great deal makers able to put together members from both sides. Pelosi and Reid have no interest in working with anyone who isn't Democrat and prior to that the Republican leadership in congress did not work with the democrats.

Moderates are able to sort through the rhetoric and do what is best for the country. They are not beholden to either end of the political spectrum.

Whom do you consider "great" presidents?

Man this thread has wondered.


Nemont

 

[proutdoors]

"Whom do you consider "great" presidents? "

Reagan, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy. None whom I would consider 'moderate'. I am still waiting for how you define 'moderate'. I do NOT consider someone who is willing to compromise a moderate, I consider that someone who is smart. My definition of a moderate is someone who doesn't take a stand for things. What you describe as moderate I would call 'independant'. I am a conservative over being a republican. I disagree with fellow republicans all the time, but I will NOT compromise my conservative values just to get along with someone who is pushing an issue I disagree with.

In my lifetime, I can't recall a Speaker of the House who was a 'moderate', nor the majority leader in the Senate. The only President I can recall as a 'compromiser' was Carter, not the type of 'leader' I look to have in charge again.

"Moderates are able to sort through the rhetoric and do what is best for the country. They are not beholden to either end of the political spectrum."

Using that definition, George W Bush is a moderate.;-)

PRO

 

[NeMont]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-26-07 AT 12:03PM (MST)[p]You may want to check how much compromise Reagan had to do during his two terms in office.

Lincoln was a consumate compromiser, he had to be in order to keep the union going.

Teddy Roosevelt not only understood diplomacy but also compromise. The whole walk light but carry a big stick kind of thing. Also Teddy was a true champion of preserving public lands for the future which is not a conservative principal of today. Most true conservative will argue that the Government has not business owning land except for military bases.

It may surprise you that I am a conservative as well. That is why I disagree with GWB on so many things. Medicare part D, NCLB, Dept. of Homeland Security, Pick something that has grown government during his term and it makes me want to puke.

My arguement about the center of this country is that a very small number of people on the extremes of both side of politics are calling the shots. Polarizing politics is not a great way to advance this country.

You can have poltical discourse and discussion with the other side without compromising your conservative credentials. In the end you will have to come to an agreement with the other side because they are going to have some or all of the power. Like it or not. Why not make sure your conservative views are heard and taken into consideration? If you put two average Americans in a room, one democrat and one conservative you would be surprised at how much they agree on.

Nemont

 

[proutdoors]

You seem to intertwine compromising with other viewpoints and being moderate, I don't. I agree compromise is needed to get things done, but I don't see that has being a moderate. I don't see being a conservative/liberal as an extreme stance either. You are correct, there are some nutjobs way outthere on the fringes, but they are neither liberal or conservative.

Believe me, I have LOTS of gripes with GWB, BECAUSE I think he is too 'moderate' and is NOT conservative enough on many issues (all the ones you mentioned). Reaching across the aisle does NOT require one to let go of values and principles, but GWB has seemed to do that in attempts to 'appease' the left, big mistake. Reagan knew how to get his way for the most part with the left, that is what made him one of the greats.

Roosevelt was a conservationist and a conservative, I see the two values as one and the same. Too many modern day 'conservationists' are enviromentalists, which is nothing more than a socialist.

PRO

 

[202typical]

"Wouldn't the candidate in your example have won enough votes to get elected? What is the difference if 65% of the country is pissed vs now with 50% being pissed? What could be wrong with more choices?"

LMAO you have a point

"How many seats for Congress go uncontested every election cycle? Very, very few."

Yes but the ones that are not going uncontested are the ones holding the majority of the power in congress.

The President has term limits, I think we need to amend the constitution and add term limits to House of Reps and Senate. 8 years and your out



?Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong.?
---Theodore Roosevelt,

 

[rooselk]

"Whom do you consider "great" presidents? "

George Washnington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, with a special nod to Theodore Roosevelt.

And by the way, there is nothing wrong with Social Security that cannot be fixed with a simple adjustment to the cap.

 

[NeMont]

Roos,

Explain how a simle adjustment in the cap will "fix" SS. It is going to die regardless once the baby boomers begin to retire en masse or have Steep and Major cuts in benefits.

It is a Ponzi scheme. SS was never ever meant to be as big of a burden as it is now and it is out moded in both it's purpose and design.

Fixing will require much much more then a simple adjustment to the cap.

Nemont

 

[overton]

>Hey Overton,
>
>You may want to do a
>little research on my political
>views including my view of
>the war before you lump
>me with anyone. I
>think for myself and will
>call it like I see.
> I happen to believe
>that the war in Iraq
>must be won and we
>need to stay for as
>long as it takes.
>
>202,
>
>Wouldn't the candidate in your example
>have won enough votes to
>get elected? What is
>the difference if 65% of
>the country is pissed vs
>now with 50% being pissed?
> What could be wrong
>with more choices?
>
>As for the anal exam to
>run: don't you think the
>two party system of Gotcha
>politics plays right into that?
> People with nothing
>in their closets have not
>had enough experience of working
>through problems in their lives
>nor learned how to solve
>major issues.
>
>I don't trust the chior boys
>anymore then I trust the
>thugs.
>
>How many seats for Congress go
>uncontested every election cycle?
>Very, very few.
>
>Nemont

NeMont

Sorry. Must be advanced age on my part. Without uniforms I can't tell friend from foe. Will work on it.


Ransom

 

[huntindude]

After being away from here a few days reading this seems even more ludicris with a clear head. anyone who would even attempt to bash the dems on fiscal responsibility after the disaster the republicans have made of it for the last 6 years is insane. this is thread is so dumb it's not even worth posting.

 

[caelkhnter]

But you did post didn't you. So what does that say about you?

 

[proutdoors]

Dude wrote: "this is thread is so dumb it's not even worth posting. "

What were you saying about "dumb"? Oh the irony!

PRO

 

[rooselk]

You're wrong about that. If they did NOTHING about SS there's still enough money in the system to take care of the boomers. This problem was foreseen which is why they made adjustments during the Reagan administration to build a surplus in anticipation of the boomer retirements. However, the system will need new money or a small reduction in benifits about thirty years from now. That problem could indeed easily be solved by raising the cap on the upper income brackets.

The entire Social Security debate is a phoney issue put forward by conservatives who have hated the program from the beginning. There's no doubt that Republicans would just love to get those funds to their friends on Wall Street.

 

[huntindude]

Pro you get excited easy, if you want irony how about the fact that Bush has run the national debt up 54%, 1.42 billion dollars a day and he has over a year to go. he's already racked up the most debt of any president in history and has over a year left yet the dems are catching it for not being fiscally responsible, now there's some sweet irony for you.

I said this thread is so dumb it's not worth posting, where did I say I wouldn't?

 

[NeMont]

There is NO money in the trust fund. It is full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. The entire balance has been loaned to the Federal Government to run the government today. There is no way the Government is going to have the ability to pay back even the interest on those funds.

If you think the Republicans wanted to destroy SS then why didn't they when they held both chambers and the White House.

Nemont