You're not funding your social security. You're funding your parents or grandparents social security. Payroll deducted contributions were originally supposed to be kept separate, just for social security but they spent it on something else. Let's see, what would make me more comfortable, controlling the investment of that money taken from my check for retirement myself or just giving it to the government to spend on something else and hoping that they will find a way to pay me someday? Hmm, not really a difficult decision is it? Balance in government retirement = 0. Balance in my retirement account = everything I put in plus or minus how I did investing it. Geeez, even if I only collected 1% interest on my money I would still have my capital and many many years worth of interest to retire on. It's kind of a no brainer isn't it?<quoted text>
I would assert that you are the lunatic.
I am part of the "Busy Majority", trying to balance a lowpaying job with token "benefits", family and a bleak future if things don't improve. At least I am funding my Social Security which the Republican'ts better not abolish or the healthcare insurance which I will need to use when I loose that "benefit" in 2012.
A minor Recession that the Dems turned into a Depression? Go take a chill pill, you pervert!
Join the discussion below, or Read more at The York Daily Record.
#42 Nov 8, 2010
#43 Nov 8, 2010
Problem - Government NEVER creates even one single job!!
For that matter, for every job that government "creates", two (or more) private sector jobs are eliminated. The private sector pays for every (non-productive) government job, at double the rate of the equivalent private sector job. Also, there is the "overhead" of supervision and "pass-through" costs, and the fact that government jobs are inhibitors to business. Government is a brake on the economy! OSHA stops production to meet a trivial regulation. The FDA stops the sales of drugs because of suspicions of adverse effects (possibly costing lives). Government inhibits! Sometimes this is entirely appropriate, as in deadly work environments, but more often, it is a drag on the economy.
#44 Nov 9, 2010
You Republican'ts have way too much time on your hands or are getting paid by the keystroke.
Kicking corporations AND unions out of our elections would be fine with me (although I didn't see one pol ad that said "sponsored by ______ Union" but I saw plenty by Families for Repub Totalitarianism, Chamber of Rich People Paper Pushers, Project to Promote Fear of Religions Not Represented by Our Founding Fathers, Constitution Analysts Against any Interpretation but Ours, ad nauseum)
#45 Nov 9, 2010
Go out, and make your own money. Get your hands out of my pockets.
You're sounding very bitter at this point.
#46 Nov 9, 2010
What's funny to me is that it's obvious by spending even a cursory moment looking at their resumes that they're vastly more intelligent than you are, yet you insult them by calling them names simply because you don't agree with their political philosophy.
Grow up. This is not a schoolyard, and name calling won't impress anyone but other bullies.
Add your comments below
|Bush says he tried to leave presidency better (Oct '10)||Nov '16||Jammer56||83|
|Lancaster toddler drowns in backyard pool (Mar '08)||Apr '15||Adjex||4|
|Sal Mena Jr. may plead guilty (Feb '09)||Dec '13||Corrupt Judge||8|
|Panic, tears on 911 tape in wounded man's last ... (Feb '08)||Nov '13||Russell Dow Sister||26|
|Hershey to close main plant (Jun '10)||Jun '13||What Up wit dat||67|
|Welcome Chad Evans to WLFI (Aug '10)||Apr '13||Herman||5|
|Former employee sues Daystar over affair (Dec '10)||Sep '12||buck||2|
Find what you want!
Search Tuesday Morning Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC