Social security isn't broken. It's doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. Some minor adjustments may be needed to make sure the landing is soft, but there is nothing to fix.

The myth that it is broken was created by people who want it to go away because they hate the New Deal.

The Democratic party is not called "The Democrat Party". This is part of an effort to make the name of my party a slur, popularized by Newt Gingrich in the 90s.

actually I think Bill Clinton, slavery and a rejection of the civil rights movement in the 60's does a better job of defining the Democrats.

What galls me about social security is the fact that the government "thinks" that they know more about how to save more money for retirement that I do. In other words, I am not smart enough, mature enough, or disciplined enough to do it myself, so therefore, Uncle Sam is going to "take care of me" because I'm just too dang dumb to do it myself.

And "centrists" are nothing more than wafflers.

They don't stand for anything.

Oh, jesus....Rush, is that you? I've heard that so many times on his radio show that it makes me ill!!

It is generally(almost universally) accepted that political affiliations in this country run on a continuum. Commonly running from left to right, from radical to reactionary. What would you call someone in the middle who has beliefs from both sides? Rationally, they can be called a 'centrist'.

Someone who is a social liberal, but an economic conservative doesn't fit into either liberal or conservative, but believes in their positions as much as the 'fringe-dwellers'. What about someone who is anti-abortion, but believes in the 'nanny-state'?

I am an economic conservative(extreme), but believe government needs to provide a temporary safety net for those genuinely in need. I agree with the principles of the Iraq war, but admit the post-invasion was mishandled. I could be called 'pro-choice' on abortion because my true position is that I'm against the federal government taking *any* position on the matter save that it's up to the states.

Years ago I would have described myself as a 'Nixon Republican' being an economic conservative and a social moderate. Even so, my voting record is 80 percent Republican, not because I agree with them, but because it's the closest I can get on my most important issues.

There is no place in either party for people who don't toe the line like lemmings. Independent thought is discouraged and those that indulge in that thinking are disparaged(see quote above).

Liberals want justices in the judiciary who will take a liberal view of the constitution and create law where it doesn't exist. Conservatives want justices who aren't activist....well except for abortion(major hypocrisy there). Neither serves the constitution, however, as one of a few exceptions, anti-abortion dems are more accepted by their party than pro-choice conservatives are by reps.

The art of compromise arises from getting something you want and giving someone else something they want in return. It's not happening today and that's why Congress can't get any work done.

The idea that there are only two points of view most issues is ridiculous. Any effort to herd all Americans into just two sides is foolish and mentally bankrupt.

Yup...think "mortgage crisis"...

Democrats want the government to dole out your money and do every important task for you. Republicans want you to be able to do what you wish, except they want to regulate what you do behind closed doors.

AND libs and cons are just lemmings that do and say what they are told. Pull out the talking points and start speaking.

It's not true, but neither is your premise.

What "minor" adjustments do you make to a national trust fund that has no assets save for a pile of IOUs from a government with a negative current net worth at the point in the next 20-30 years when there are two people paying in for each person collecting. "Nothing to fix" is typical democratic spin.

No, I would call them one of the MAJORITY, since the majority is not "radical" or "reactionary," but somewhere in middle. The MAJORITY has views that fall in both parties, all over the continuum, but centrists imagine they alone do this. Political views might run on a continuum, but principles DO NOT.

The VAST MAJORITY of Americans ARE NOT "radical" or "reactionary", but "centrists" imagine that they are somehow SPECIAL and everyone else is radical and biased. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> How ridiculous. They believe since they have no firm opinions or principles, that they alone are immune to bias even though the only difference between them and others is they will not take a given position. Its real easy to be "unbiased" when you have no opinion on anything and everything is up for negotiation or compromise. Most people are not impressed by that; I sure am not.

AS far as being a lemming, who is more likely to be a lemming? Someone who stands for nothing and will compromise anything or someone who is firm in their principles? I think most folks are beholden to their PRINCIPLES and not a party, unlike a "centrist."


The sweeping generalization that anyone in a political party is a "lemming" is ludicrous and cannot be substantiated. Even so, I have much more respect for a so-called "lemming" - in either party - than someone who has NO position, no principles and just sits in the middle of the road arbitrarily proclaiming how "unbiased" and "independent" they are. Standing for nothing is hardly "independent." Or impressive.

I will add that I am a lifelong democrat who was raised democrat. I left that party and can just as easily leave the Republican party. I am beholden to no party. I am only beholden to MelodyLane's principles. I believe that describes most folks. Sure, some are only interested in winning an election AT ANY COST, but being around political circles as I am, I don't believe that describes the majority by a long shot.

So, now its not true?

Yeah, the original was *designed* for reaction..Thought I'd better make it clear the second time.

So you are taking back this comment?:

Oh NUTS! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

I cannot resist. Want to hear from someone who is a real skeptic??? If so read on.

If social security was to work as it was designed, the cost of it could easily be controlled. It was designed to provide a floor for those working MEN (could not resist Mel, sorry) who reached the age of 65. Want to know how many people that represented? 3% of the population.

If SS was to work like that today, I believe you would have to be in your early 80's to start collecting it, not early 60's which represents something like 20% of the population, unless of course we keep going with unfrettered immigration.

Oh! and SS did not cover children who lose a parent, or disability, it was simply a safety net for older retired people. If the same percentage were covered our SS tax would be small.

NOw as someone who is qualified to collect it, but cannot because I make too much money, I suspect I could have made better investments with the $200,000+ I have contributed in 45 years of paying in. But the odds are I won't live to collect it. It is really a transfer tax.

But, let's talk party's for a second. I cannot state the statistics but I have the data for every state, but here in the left coast nation of California, only one congressional district out of 51 was won by less than 20%. In my district the encumbent doesn't even bother to campaign and there are no political signs even up, much less any effort to sway the voters. Why?

Gerimandering (sp) coupled with people voting for their party. No need for thought, no need for discussion, no need for debate, and no need for the politicians to worry.

Personally, I like my politicians NERVOUS. Here they are set for life or until they get caught doing something illegal.

I suspect many other states are the same. I still carry the USA Today paper from election day 2004 in my briefcase incase anyone wants the data on their state as this paper has ALL of the congressional results in it. Probably without counting many of the absentee ballots that is. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Since I met my W at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, I have never viewed politicians or party's the same way again. It was a real eye opener for this naive scientist I can tell you.

Just thoughts.

JL

Romney's out----> LINK

I won't vote for McCain.

~ Marsh

Whew ... I missed alot being sick yesterday.

I remember my MIL grousing about McCain's affair during the primarys 8 years ago. She was merciless. Funny, how in her view it wasn't so serious when her own son cheated on his wife!

Seems is isn't only politicians who have several levels of standards.

rlt,

How the heck are you doing?

Best,

Who

Hi, Who,

Thanks for asking about me.

I'm hanging in there. How 'bout you?

Love the MIL comment. My SICKO MIL will tell everyone and their brother about what a cheat her husband was, but hey, it's quite already when the beloved SON does it. Not to mention, I learned a bit ago that she was a cheater, herself. Oh, the sickness of the world!!! It's too much for me, sometimes.

Mr. RLT is banned from talking to the witch. Bad, bad, bad. But I didn't do it. They did.

Regarding McCain, I don't think I'll have the stomach for vote for the guy.

I guess I'm pencilling in Mickey Mouse.

I had to pop in here and say something about John McCain.

My husband had the honor of meeting Mr. McCain upon his return from Vietnamese captivity.

The man who left this country was not the man who returned. The first Mrs. McCain did not receive back the man who left her in uniform. She received back a very changed person, who was not in a state to talk to many people for quite awhile.

Mr. McCain and his POW colleagues returned to the USA and were helped in a hospital setting for some time, due to injuries both physical and mental - given to them on behalf of the North Vietnamese government. All in violation of the Geneva Conventions. He was the only person among them who did not offer any information to the North Vietnamese, rather, he steadfastly stood against them and courageously withstood the torture inflicted upon him day after day after day.

His arms and shoulders will never be the same, due his elbows being tied up behind his head for three days at a time, and left in a room on the floor for three days at a time in the same position. He said that after awhile, he lost feeling - and the pain stopped - but then they would come and "help" him........by cutting the wire.

When the feeling began to return to his arms, THAT'S when the REAL pain began.

They did this to him more than once. Or twice. He was there a very long time, and they did whatever they could to try to break him.

He never broke.

He stood for this nation, and lost so much of himself. It took its toll on him.

It took its toll on his life, his marriage, his body.

There were a few years upon his return where my husband says he just wasn't the same. He was a person unlike others - regaining himself, regaining what it was to be "free". His fellow POWs all looked up to him in awe, and to a man claim him as the inspiration for their own ability to make it through this time in captivity.

Can anyone here even REMOTELY connect to this experience?

I cannot.

For us to even begin to pretend to understand the destruction of this marriage - it is beyond the "usual" circumstance. While some of the elements might seem to follow the script, there is so much more to this man's life, the complications and the psyche, we cannot understand.

After hearing what my husband has to say, and he WAS THERE, WITH JOHN MCCAIN HIMSELF - I believe the story is very deep and complicated.

I, for one, will never judge him in this regard. I cannot begin to fathom his world at that point in time.

And, by the way, I am leaning to Obama right now. Much against my own liking.........and can't explain why this is!

SB

SB,

Thanks for the "other" side of the story.

It was all very heartwarming 'till you got to the Obama part <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

"I am leaning to Obama right"

What????

Hahahahahahahaha

Thanks Schoolbus.

I saw McCain on TV at the debate. I thought he was a snake and he assassinated Romney and misrepresented him throughout the campaign. Frankly, regardless of what he's been through I couldn't vote for him.

Not that he's responsible for Romneys demise - that was entirely predictable.

I'm glad I have no dog in this fight. It's like being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

I'm looking forward to a strong independent candidate. I respect McCain for his record as a veteran. But just because he took one for his country doesn't qualify him for the office. If that were the case, there are thousands of veterans living under bridges we ought to consider for the job.

Fact: the man has a horrible temper and his lack of self-control is not a good thing for our relations with other countries.

Fact: we should consider annexing Mexico into the Union rather than facilitating, encouraging and surrendering to the invasion. We could go in, clean up the country's corruption easier than cleaning up Iraq - make them all citizens that way. McCain's plan just brings Mexico's lawlessness here.

Fact: McCain wanted to be John Kerry's running mate. Now the November election will have at least two democrats on the ballot - just the republicans will be voting the GOP right down the toilet.

Naw - nothing he could say will win my vote at this point.