Suggest you refer to this link....


Socialism vs. Social Security « The Stanford Progressive

" The Public Option is no more “expansive” of govern ment than the Social Security Act. Creating universal health insurance in general is no more socialist than refusing to let the unin sured die outside a hospital."

Please read this and anything else you can on socialism, and you are welcome to the quote on public option.

Remember when President Bush offered the suggestion that people like me who "invested" so much by giving my money to the government, that we be allowed to actually invest that money since it was ours ?

If not read up on that also to better understand what is going on.

By the way, while his idea is now discussed with respect, he was laughed at for that suggestion by the democratic congress.

The black caucus mentions black in its name, why does that make it racist? If they push programs that help blacks, poor whites, and Hispanics, that is not racism. "Black Lives Matter" given their recent tactics, that's racist.

Why should the Democrats run away from some of the socialist programs that they enacted into law, since the 30's(social security)? Ending Capitalism, and replacing it with socialism isn't the Democrats goal. The cost of the programs that help the less fortunate is the biggest con against Democrats. Welfare moms is old history. Getting people up to a poverty level is a problem, only to the heartless.

You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism. How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country. There are no blameless Democrats, or Republicans. Neither party is following the Socialist, or Capitalist definition to the little of the law. They are both operating in a gray area.

The Republican party is handing out corporate welfare. Corporations are people. So, what is the difference between Republicans and Socialists? That road can run two ways.



Adopti

Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the [Social Security] Trust Fund itself

The above was from Wikipedia, and not from me.

I think might want to reconsider what you know about social security. For starters, it is a social security tax. Tax. The money that we paid into it on an annual basis went to pay for people that collected social security that year. If they ended social security today, we wouldn't get a dime of our money back. I don't enjoy being the bearer of bad tidings. Not to worry, it is not going to happen in our lifetime.

Social security is a socialist program just like the others in the pros of socialism. Current working tax payers are funding the social security benefits that we are receiving today.

The whole intent of the person that initiated this thread was to bash the Democrats. If that wasn't his/her intent, it sure appeared that way. If you look at the threads that receive the most responses, they are ones that bash either one party, or the other from the get go Given your constant use of capitalization, bold letters, it is gives the impression that you don't want to have a conversation with people that don't agree with you. You want to shout them down.

I am not blind to what's happening on this forum. The last thing that I want to do is get into someone's brain. There is no call for name calling, or tagging people with something that they are not.

Social Security Trust Fund


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


The United States Social Security Administration collects payroll taxes and uses the money collected to pay Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits. This is done by way of trust funds. There are two trust funds which the Social Security Administration controls: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI), collectively referred to as the "Trust Fund" in this article.

When the program runs a surplus, the excess funds increase the value of the Trust Fund. At the end of 2014, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.79 trillion, up $25 billion from 2013.[1] The Trust Fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. These securities earn a market rate of interest.[2]

Excess funds are used by the government for non-Social Security purposes, creating the obligations to the Social Security Administration and thus program recipients. However, Congress could cut these obligations by altering the law. Trust Fund obligations are considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of June 2015, the intragovernmental debt was $5.1 trillion of the $18.2 trillion national debt.[3]

According to the Social Security Trustees, who oversee the program and report on its financial condition, program costs are expected to exceed non-interest income from 2010 onward. However, due to interest (earned at a 3.6% rate in 2014) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2019. Under current law, the securities in the Trust Fund represent a legal obligation the government must honor when program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. However, when the Trust Fund is used to cover program deficits in a given year, the Trust Fund balance is reduced. By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 79% of program obligations.[4]

There is controversy regarding whether the U.S. government will be able to borrow sufficient amounts to honor its obligations fully to recipients or whether program modifications are required. This is a challenge for the federal government overall, not just the Social Security program.

Congress could reduce the national debt by 5.1 trillion dollars by getting rid of social security. Owing money to yourself is considered debt.

Dear Guest: I state right out of the chute that many in the Republican Party are disappointing because they are more concerned with staying in office then serving "we the people" its why Trumps' message is resonating with voters. I am a Republican

Debbie Wassermann Schultz was asked again on Meet The Press to explain the difference between a Democrat and Socialist and again she could not and she is the leader in Democratic National Committee

The Black Caucus serves only black issues and some of those issues are extreme. The black lives matter is nothing more than a means to stop police from doing their jobs. It is sad when a politicians and there were two Democratic challengers are booed because they said all lives matter. Think about the division created here and is that good for America?

I also agree with you concerning corporate welfare. I am against it in all forms and especially Export/Import and the so called renewables that taxpayers support that haven't added anything but more tax dollars. Telsa Motors and their customers draw a whole lot of tax dollars. Telsa owner wants more stringent CAFE laws for auto. guess why?

The social programs to help the needy become eternal and never are monitored become larger with more abuse and fraud. Food stamps grow free stuff grows and we now are approach a majority of the population that relies on government. Abled body people who can fend for themselves but have lost or never had an ambition. Yes there are people who can't but those with disablities are lost in this system and the can's continue to strip them of resources. Look at the homeless situation. I agree with a hand up but I am sick of the hand outs. Good intentions are not enough and violate man's basic law that each carry his own water. NOW AGAIN I AM ADDRESSING THE CAN'S WHO SPONGE ON SOCIETY AND NOT THE CAN'T 'S WHO NEED HELP.

As a side bar I had a woman who worked for me. she was blind but insisted on being independent. She received training from the state and worked as our word processor with specialized computer equipment. and i found along my travels in the business world may such examples

I believe acts of charity and compassion not to be the benefits of socialism but instead the acts of intelligent capitalist who recognize the benefits of making as many people productive that is possible...again a hand up and not a hand out

Personal Best Regards:

First, as seems to be the norm on this forum, NOBODY SAID THE BLACK CAUCUS WAS RACIST.

Fact is it was asked as a question to make a point and was never presented as anything other than a sarcastic question as a result of a post tying the Tea Party to the KKK.

HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE YOU ARE REFERRING TO....

"Is the BLACK CAUCUS racist ? I mean, it even mentions skin color in its name.

Not trying to be funny, but the obsession with race is holding us back and needs to be put aside."

Now if you want to respond to that which is what was posted that is fine, but do not make things up to fit your purpose.

I took you to task on the Black Caucus but agree with much of what you say, not all of it however.

Your comment on the Republican party and something I just read might be of interest to you. The old bad guys of the Republican party...KOCH BROTHERS....well

"As top GOP presidential candidates arrived at a hotel here to court the influential donors of the Koch network, Charles Koch called on retreat attendees to unite with him in a campaign against "corporate welfare" and "irresponsible spending" by both political parties.

Speaking on the hotel's grassy lawn with the Pacific Ocean shimmering behind him, Koch opened the gathering hosted by Freedom Partners by noting that the theme of the weekend would be "Unleashing Our Free Society." Koch network donors and politicians alike must work toward "eliminating welfare for the wealthy," he said."

Koch calls for unity against 'corporate welfare' - CNNPolitics.com

Instead of relying on Wikipedia for your information, which is not always accurate, why not go to the Social Security website to get your answers. Anyone can submit their opinions to Wikipedia, from what I can see of some of the information that they provide.

You're right, having "black" in a name or title does not make it racist. Courts said blacks can't be racists....only whites. :1rotfl:

You make a false premise when suggesting that capitalism is hurting the country because corporations move overseas to avoid paying taxes. The gov is hurting the country because they FORCED the corporations overseas with their highest corporate tax rate in the world. Unions and minimum wage laws have caused business to seek workers from cheaper sources, INCLUDING illegal aliens. The gov protects illegals, so that is the gov's fault.
Corporate welfare? Nice term but it doesn't click. Corporations are offered lower taxes by means of legal tax breaks, not subsidies to encourage them to stay/locate in a location or hire some special interest group. States offer tax deferrals for so many years to entice business into their states. This creates more jobs for their residents, which means more tax revenue.

Socialism is a dream utopia for the feeble minded to wish for. Socialism only works as long as the money coming into the gov is more than what it is dishing out for social programs/welfare. The only way you can have high tax revenues is if the economy is flourishing. It won't flourish if the gov causes corporations out of business due to high tax rates. It is a prove point that the better businesses do, the higher the tax revenues.

And before you suggest that socialism has a higher rate of middle class and less poverty, you had better do a comparison test. Our poverty level includes TVs, cell phones, AC, cable, etc. Our lower class folks live as well as many middle class in socialist countries. And before you accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about, I have lived overseas most of my life and have seen how their so-called "middle class" live.

Socialism is nothing more than a dream utopia. It doesn't work. Do you think that anyone in Russia wishes to go back to the old USSR? Only those that lost their power during that period.

You will always have the elite, no matter what. Socialism doesn't make a better middle class. It just makes a big lower class and an upper class. Middle class doesn't exist in socialism.

Thank you Mr. Personal Best Regards for posting a response to my post. I was beginning to think that you, and the person that posted directly below you, were one and the same. If that was the case, there would be no reason to continue to post here.

What is the difference between the Village Tea Party, and the KKK? In the serious department, that is over the top, and just not right. Nobody is as bad as the KKK. In the just kidding department, the KKK won't be the target of the IRS, if they apply for a 501(c)4 charitable political organization classification. I don't think the KKK has any need to place political ads on TV.

That was my post. What am I making up there to fit my purpose? My purpose maybe be for you to see the light of day. That's is fool's errand. I was that fool, but no more. If your remarks were sarcastic, that is the best sarcasm I have ever seen.

Has this president with the help of Harry Reid pushed issues concerning blacks? Of course, they have. Why would anyone expect that he wouldn't? Tying the Tea Party to the KKK was nonsense. However, given the timing of the birth of the Tea Party, and their over the top signs at the Tea Party's first Washington gathering, anyone that thinks that there weren't any racial overtones there, are just kidding themselves.

I think that this was you, but I could be wrong concerning the new tax id laws, the new tax id laws were directed at both WHITES AND BLACKS. The question that I asked in response, and has never been answered is, if the Penn. new tax id laws weren't directed at inner city blacks, then how do you explain the leader of the Penn. house comment, "We just gave Penn. to Romney?"

The color of this president's skin has fueled racism of both parties to unbearable levels. Couple that with the press's coverage of any event that fits in with their racial leanings, should make any person with an open mind to throw up.

Given the sides both parties seemed to have taken concerning immigration reform, racism is going to continue with just a different minority taking center stage.

The question ask what is the difference between Socialism, and the Democrats is a loaded question. Just because the Democrats have adopted some socialist ideas, that doesn't make them socialists. I am sorry, but Republicans have thrown out there that Socialism is a swear word, and all Democrats should run away from it. Why do the extremes of both parties get to dictate all the political conversation that I going on in the country today?

In that same vein, Donald Trump has stated several times, that he will win the black, and Hispanic vote, because he will bring jobs back to the US from China, and other overseas countries. I am a job creator. He won't have time to explain how that will be done in Thursday's debate. Capitalist sent those jobs overseas. If he is going to bring jobs back, isn't he going to have to attack capitalism? Since the difference in pay here versus overseas is so great, I can't see any incentive plan that could offset the difference in pay. He is a hellva lot smarter than I am (the understatement of the year), but the devil is in the details. Hopefully, sometime before Nov, 2016, if he is successful in becoming the Republican nominee, he will explain some of the details.

The difference??

In the old days, we shot socialists in wars. Can't do it if they call themselves liberals..

"...That's is fool's errand. I was that fool,.."

No argument from this end.

What is the effective corporate tax rate in the US? Is that the highest in the world?
The minimum wage rate hasn't been changed in many years. The current minimum wage doesn't even get working people in many places in the US to substance level. The Earned Income Credit brings people to substance level. When the government has to get working people to substance level, that is corporate welfare. Click! Click! Click! Click!

You can't be suggesting that lowering the minimum wage will bring back jobs to the US. That doesn't click. The difference wasn't one or two dollars an hour in pay. You are talking about paying people in the US one or two dollars an hour. That is a five dollar an hour cut in pay here. China houses some of their workers at the work site, and then fences them in. You pay people one or two dollars an hour here, and they can't get back, and forth to work on that money.

Wal*Mart and several other larger companies have seen the light, and are going to be paying their full time people a living wage. The increase in pay will be implemented over several years.

Where have I ever suggested that Socialism is the way to go? You keep on dealing in absolutes. That are no absolutes in Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. China is a perfect example of that. They are adopting Capitalist views concerning their economy. The market is setting production levels not the Communist government.


You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism.

How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country.

That is the entire statement. Maybe I didn't make my point clear, I will except that. However the premise was Capitalist moved their good paying jobs overseas due to the lower wages overseas. I thought that was a given. Avoiding paying taxes was a side benefit.

It is nice to see that the one linens snuck in an adult conversation. Their posts always heighten the level of conversation here to unbelievable heights. Keep up the good work.