Sport Bikes banner

1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
Gonna go far on my GSX-R!
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well I was planning on replying to a thread about this but was surprised to find out that I'm the one who has to start one. Everyone, please enlighten the group with your thoughts on the Address. Please, no name calling and leave the blow job crap in the other thread. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
poulsen said:
Well I was planning on replying to a thread about this but was surprised to find out that I'm the one who has to start one. Everyone, please enlighten the group with your thoughts on the Address. Please, no name calling and leave the blow job crap in the other thread. :)
Since it is in progress I'll have to assume you are watching. So far I've heard some proposals I agree with while just now he is talking about outlawing cloning in any form.

I'm also wondering where the money to pay for these programs is coming from...social security reforms that fail to live up to obligations that have been made to people who have paid their entire adult lives??? More tax cuts???? More military spending????
 

·
Autobots! Roll Out!
Joined
·
2,061 Posts
They are always positive, but so far so good. However, I walked into the middle of it. I'm not 100% sure about the human cloning and human life is a gift from our creator remark tho. I'm not exactly for human cloning, but I am curious as to the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, which I'm all for. If we can better our quality of health by using embryo's that are unwanted, fuck if we shouldn't do it. I also liked how the President stated military leaders will determine when our troops come home from Iraq, not politicians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,722 Posts
----
I also liked how the President stated military leaders will determine when our troops come home from Iraq, not politicians.
----

But the President is the Commander in Chief. Sounds like non-accountability to me.
 

·
Gonna go far on my GSX-R!
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
BusaDave said:
Since it is in progress I'll have to assume you are watching. So far I've heard some proposals I agree with while just now he is talking about outlawing cloning in any form.

I'm also wondering where the money to pay for these programs is coming from...social security reforms that fail to live up to obligations that have been made to people who have paid their entire adult lives??? More tax cuts???? More military spending????
I can't watch it because my roommate is playing Conkers Bad Fur Day but I figured it was done by now so I checked on foxnews and they've got a transcript on their website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,722 Posts
poulsen said:
I can't watch it because my roommate is playing Conkers Bad Fur Day but I figured it was done by now so I checked on foxnews and they've got a transcript on their website.

The State of the Union address is on and your roomate is playing video games? :rolleyes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
BusaDave said:
social security reforms that fail to live up to obligations that have been made to people who have paid their entire adult lives????
Gotta cut that crap off sometime.. cant please everyone, if we ever get a president that is truley for the good, SS will go down the drain. It worked when it started, but is just a joke now. I'm not planning on getting what I put in... so I shouldnt be putting anything in. I would rather it be called another tax then social security, since taxes you dont expect to get back.

as far as the old man yelpin about everything. What do you expect?! He has a 40% approval rating... he is going to say all the good things, and try to please everyone just like polititians do whenever they want in office. IMO... thankfully it wasnt on Sunday night since simpsons/family guy/american dad rocked.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
[nelson]Ha-ha[/nelson] Cindy Sheehan had an invite from her Congresscritter...Cindy knew the rules and decorum of the Chamber, yet she was compelled to display a banner and a politically motivated shirt. She was promptly arrested for this misdimeanor.

Just when I think she has hit rock bottom, she whips out a pick-axe and starts digging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,722 Posts
Keith_J said:
[nelson]Ha-ha[/nelson] Cindy Sheehan had an invite from her Congresscritter...Cindy knew the rules and decorum of the Chamber, yet she was compelled to display a banner and a politically motivated shirt. She was promptly arrested for this misdimeanor.

Just when I think she has hit rock bottom, she whips out a pick-axe and starts digging.

I think her efforts to be politically motivated are admirable when most are content to bitch and moan but don't even register to vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
aero3685 said:
It worked when it started, but is just a joke now. I'm not planning on getting what I put in... so I shouldnt be putting anything in. I would rather it be called another tax then social security, since taxes you dont expect to get back.
Agreed...SS was and is a Ponzi scheme, plain and simple. It was originally never meant for much. It was supposed to be a "supplement", never full retirement. And frankly, when they set the collection age 2 years over the average life expectancy, they never really expected many individuals to collect. The hope was that it would help with widows, etc. Ponzi schemes work in the beginning, but the further down the ladder you get, the harder they are to support. Eventually they pan out. SS started out at I believe 8 workers to every retiree (I'm sure someone will correct me if it's greater). Right now, it's about 3:1. In the next decade, it will be 2:1. Simply put, it's not happening. Personally, give me the money and let me deal with it the way I see fit. That way I at least know I have a chance of seeing some return on my money, rather than never seeing it at all. I sure as hell don't want to work to support an older generation of workers knowing full well that I will never have the same opportunity.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
Triple_Z said:
Agreed...SS was and is a Ponzi scheme, plain and simple. It was originally never meant for much. It was supposed to be a "supplement", never full retirement. And frankly, when they set the collection age 2 years over the average life expectancy, they never really expected many individuals to collect. The hope was that it would help with widows, etc. Ponzi schemes work in the beginning, but the further down the ladder you get, the harder they are to support. Eventually they pan out. SS started out at I believe 8 workers to every retiree (I'm sure someone will correct me if it's greater). Right now, it's about 3:1. In the next decade, it will be 2:1. Simply put, it's not happening. Personally, give me the money and let me deal with it the way I see fit. That way I at least know I have a chance of seeing some return on my money, rather than never seeing it at all. I sure as hell don't want to work to support an older generation of workers knowing full well that I will never have the same opportunity.
Then what do you do with them? Throw them in the streets? :rolleyes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
Keith_J said:
[nelson]Ha-ha[/nelson] Cindy Sheehan had an invite from her Congresscritter...Cindy knew the rules and decorum of the Chamber, yet she was compelled to display a banner and a politically motivated shirt. She was promptly arrested for this misdimeanor.

Just when I think she has hit rock bottom, she whips out a pick-axe and starts digging.
If some people were as childish as "some" liberals,they could have elected to wear a T-shirt that said "keep your dick in your pants Clinton" at his State of the Union Adress.
Anyone who is intelllectually honest, would be outraged at such an action, but then, that would make them conservative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
eye speed said:
Then what do you do with them? Throw them in the streets? :rolleyes
Yes and no.... :bitchslap In most business or economics courses, you'll learn that businesses essentially have three generalized options with regards to operations: produce and sell product, shut down for an undetermined time until the correct market conditions exist, or close the doors permanently. Sure there are lots of little what-ifs in between, but to simplify things, you boil it down to those three. If you consider this in terms of Social Security, you have the the following generalizations:

1) Keep operating - Financially it will not work as it stands. It does currently, but when the Baby Boomers hit, you and I are stuck with the tab. As the ratio of workers to retirees will decrease even more (and they WILL resist both a reduction in benefits and an increase in the age for full collection), to keep it solvent you will have to take even more out of the pockets of the current workforce. As the life expectancy continues to increase, you will support this population for a longer period of time. The cost increases we see in healthcare each year will also affect the amount of money required. Thus, to keep them at a certain standard of living, you will have to take more away from workers currently in the workforce or entering it. Decreases in their income increase the likelihood of more defaults, less children, etc., which all leads to them having nothing when they reach retirement age.

2) Take a break from it....don't see this as an option.

3) Shut it down completely - Again, won't be an option. My generation is too politically apathetic to vote...the Baby Boomers however are not. They are active, they have more personal income, and they do vote. Congress (Republican or Democrat) goes to the deepest pockets generally, so do the math.

4) What I call the hybrid plan....to quote the REM song, "Everybody hurts." Similar to when Chrysler restructured in the 80s, everyone will have to take a piece of the proverbial crap pie. Younger workers will have to pay more into the system, and older workers/retirees will have to take a reduction in benefits, or take them at a later age, or a potential blend of the two. If they do not have the requisite income, Wal-Mart hires greeters. Or they consider downsizing their homes, or they don't take elaborate vacations, or yadda yadda yadda. Union contracts such as 30 and your out will no longer be an option (you're seeing that now). And the emphasis on personal savings will have to be increased. Pension plans as they used to exist are essentially dead in the water. You can thank Uncle Sam for that debacle. 401K plans exist, but are nowhere near as lucrative. Personally, I'd be pumping as much as you can into your employer's 401K plan (up to the match amount), then socking up to the max amount in a Roth IRA (if you have the disposable income to do so). Essentially, slow re-structuring of the system with less emphasis on government involvement would be my method. But again, this all takes time, and you would not be able to look at it in terms of 2-year election cycles for implementation. Maybe 3-4 presidential terms or senate elections would be a more adequate timeframe.

There are other goofy ideas being thrown around, like increasing the # of legalized immigrants to boost the taxrolls (not popular because it usually affects lower income folks already near the poverty line), pumping money into private accounts (noble concept, but still under gov't/corporate entity control...I'm wary of that), socialized medicine (money still has to come from somewhere), etc.

Sorry on this one Eye Speed, but I've yet to hear a plan which does not nail one group of people specifically. Personally, if you spread the pain, everybody hates it, but when you're all suffering it's easier to bear. IMO this will probably NEVER happen as any politician voting for it would most likely be ejected from office in the next election. Seriously though, if you've got a viable suggestion I'm all ears.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
Triple_Z said:
Yes and no.... :bitchslap In most business or economics courses, you'll learn that businesses essentially have three generalized options with regards to operations: produce and sell product, shut down for an undetermined time until the correct market conditions exist, or close the doors permanently. Sure there are lots of little what-ifs in between, but to simplify things, you boil it down to those three. If you consider this in terms of Social Security, you have the the following generalizations:
You left out the idea of holding their feet to the fire for having squandered the trust fund to begin with.

Or how about once and for all either paying taxes to cover expenditures and pay off the national debt or make them stop spending.

What is the annual interest on the national debt in comparison to the payout of Social Security? Perhaps I will do a little research on that.

Meanwhile, "too f'ing bad" is not an acceptable solution,and yes, I do vote. You want to avoid paying me the promised benefit? Then come up with a fair compensation plan that refunds my money now so I can manage it as part of my retirement. If you presume I'm going to live long enough to cash out more than I paid in, then it's a net gain.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
timd99 said:
If some people were as childish as "some" liberals,they could have elected to wear a T-shirt that said "keep your dick in your pants Clinton" at his State of the Union Adress.
Anyone who is intelllectually honest, would be outraged at such an action, but then, that would make them conservative.
What?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,153 Posts
BusaDave said:
You left out the idea of holding their feet to the fire for having squandered the trust fund to begin with.

Or how about once and for all either paying taxes to cover expenditures and pay off the national debt or make them stop spending.

What is the annual interest on the national debt in comparison to the payout of Social Security? Perhaps I will do a little research on that.

Meanwhile, "too f'ing bad" is not an acceptable solution,and yes, I do vote. You want to avoid paying me the promised benefit? Then come up with a fair compensation plan that refunds my money now so I can manage it as part of my retirement. If you presume I'm going to live long enough to cash out more than I paid in, then it's a net gain.
Dave, interest on the debt for FY05 was 352 billion. SSI was a little over 500billion. For FY06, $432 and $520, respectively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,682 Posts
I find it facinating how some will claim "it's my money" with regard to taxes and consider this an alien idea when it comes to Social Security. It's an annuity program. The insurer (using the business analogy) is required to maintain significant reserves to cover obligations. It doesn't have the option of reneging.

The issue here is really whether the government would have to cough up some cash to cover a temporary shortfall in revenues. But its our money right? So why is sucking it up such a crazy idea? Could it be that the expenditure threatens to reduce spending on corporate welfare? Or could it be that Republicans don't believe in anything that permits the workforce to sit back on the porch. Perhaps the idea is to keep the inventory item "workers" large and hungry? Hmmm....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
eye speed said:
Dave, interest on the debt for FY05 was 352 billion. SSI was a little over 500billion. For FY06, $432 and $520, respectively.
Thanks! Not quite enough to cover the entire cost, but I think worth mentioning.

So, where's all the outrage about the debt?
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top