He He...He.....He He....He He said Weiner.
Posted on 03/21/2011 4:13:22 AM PDT by Scanian
Democrats never miss an opportunity to pander to older voters by demagoguing on Social Security -- and Brooklyn Rep. Anthony Weiner seems only too glad to lead the way.
Weiner, who dreams of becoming mayor, has introduced a bill to require a two-thirds majority in Congress to enact any changes in Social Security -- a near-impossible hurdle.
His goal: to "defend" an entitlement system he insists is "fiscally responsible" and fundamentally sound.
"We shouldn't assume the program is on the brink of collapse just because Republicans say it is," Weiner wrote last year -- even as Social Security reached the so-called "tipping point," when it paid out more in benefits than it received in tax revenue.
President Obama's bipartisan deficit-reduction commission seems to differ, having recommended cuts in Social Security benefits and a hike in the retirement age.
Weiner and other like-minded Democrats cite the claim by Obama's budget chief, Jack Lew, that the Social Security trust fund is solvent through 2037.
But, as Fox News analyst Charles Krauthammer notes, the same Jack Lew -- in his days as Bill Clinton's budget director -- conceded that the trust-fund balances are merely a "bookkeeping" device.
Weiner & Co. don't want to accept what's apparent to anyone who has actually studied the issue: Social Security needs changes to remain solvent.
You'd think someone aspiring to a position of responsibility, as Weiner likely is, would act a bit more, well . . . responsibly.
In his case, we guess not.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Putz.
His last name coupled with his persona is proof that God does have a sense of humor. He leaves it up to us to know how and when to laugh and sadly many, especially in New York and on the left, have no idea when and how.
What a more perfect name for such a detestable little man-child. But then again, maybe he is just getting his diggs back into society for what was a life full of jokes. Funny that most get a tough skin and then beef up to become NFL linebackers. This little twerp decided to go after the human race.
The big lie is that SS is not increasing the deficit. Waiting for a Republican with guts to explain that the SS money is being borrowed. Believe it or not, Sen. Jim DeMint agrees with Weiner and harry Reid on this.
How about Republicans agree to this in exchange for a 2/3 requirement to raise federal taxes with making the current tax levels permanent, that should stop Weiner in his tracks.
It isn't a matter of accepting anything. Weiner doesn't care about the program. He cares about accruing power. Telling old people what they want to hear is how he does it. Social Security and other entitlements won't be changed by any politician. They will be changed when demographics and the laws of economics force them to fail. Once the system seizes up, an new system will be built on the ashes of the old one.
Ah the old scare the seniors routine, the sound of desparation.
Pray for America
I’m not a big fan of the way Social Security was drawn up. Using the funds for anything Congress wants, while allowing the recipients to draw from the general fund, was a terrible way to design a retirement fund. Essentially there is no fund. We’re tapping Uncle Sam’s pocket.
This isn’t good for our general fund and it isn’t good for S.S. recipients. Had those funds been invested, retirees could expect a much larger payout.
A way must be found to move this fund back to people’s direct control. If it were, then people could self-insure for all sorts of things, Health Insurance, Auto Insurance, Household insurance, and retirement.
I know this sounds like the fund would be used up in any critical event, but the truth is a $10,000 deductible on these types of funds would mean that your insurance company wouldn’t have to cover ever dollar of your losses. Your insurance rates would be very low. That would help us to save more money each month.
Most people don’t have very many medical requirements between the ages of 20 and 45. During this period people could save all sorts of money.
It’s just a darned shame that the money they pay out for S.S. isn’t invested.
On some form of sliding scale, S.S. needs to be phased out in lieu of a better plan that could be administered by the people who will reap the benefits.
Had those funds been invested there may or may not be a large fraction or more of that money left now to use for retirement with the Keynesian boom-bust economy, but one thing for sure : There is NO money left to use when the Federal government takes it in taxes.
This whole “SS trust fund was raided” line confuses the whole issue. The government takes your money in taxes and spends it however it wants. You dont get to decide how it is spent anymore than you do in child support payments. If enough voters dont like how it is spent they can throw out those in Washington. But what the elected have found is that by using that SS money on roads, bridges, wars, education, space instead of raising other taxes(they raised the SS payroll taxes) , and in fact cutting them, they had a BETTER chance of getting re-elected. Let the congressman of the future tell the bad news to the gullible public who get stuck with the bill.
They dont invest money, they spend it to get re-elected or in some-way to help themselves. Why is this so hard for people to understand when they see it everyday?
ponzi from the gitgo, and once the courts decreed that there was ZERO personal claims by citizens on “their” SS dollars, then the whole faceade of a ‘trust fund’ became a general fund running joke...
It was over when the US constitution was changed to allow income taxes. FICA taxes are just another form of income tax.
Try to tell a family court judge that your ex-girlfriend is spending your child support money on her boyfriend instead of 'your' kids. As Judge Judy said to the father :"It's none of your business how she spends your child support money. stop paying and you go to jail.
Same with taxes." They take it, it's gone. The only difference is with income taxes you can stop paying if you have no income, doesnt always work with child support.
been there done that X2...i even got the t-shirt but i dont recall which of them ended up with it...
I have never been a father but I have talked to many single/divorced fathers and mothers (as that is the norm here) as well as reading up on the subject and family courts are worse than Islamic justice. The father has no rights and can be thrown in jail with no due process, at a judges whim. Here in MD the police camp out at the family court parking lot to arrest fathers for driving to their court dates after family court taking their licences.(Hint : Dont park near the courthouse.)
What I learned from single Mom's in MD is that many men, if they can, hide their income as contractors or small businessmen. That gets them off the hook.
Hey, I’m a divorced dad of two boys (and now, remarried and father of another wonderful boy).
Yesterday, I got temporary sole legal custody. I’ve been fighting her for 6 years now for my kids, and it took her threatening to kill me, trying to coerce my son to kill me in my sleep and then when he said no, threatening to kill him. Nevermind the abuse, the torture, etc, the 3 liters of wine a day followed by 2 Fifths of vodka, drunk driving, etc. That didn’t matter.
So, yes, dads get screwed in this country. NC is one of the worst.
Paul
I got a friend who got his girlfriend pregnant rather carelessly and he was/is a small business owner and she was/is a loser. It didn't take long before she left him and she was awarded child support, and she even got a temporary restraining order to keep him out of a house HE owned before she left.
In any case their Son started calling him late at night scared , mommy left him alone to go to bars at night regularly. Finally one night she got arrested for DWI coming back from a bar at night. He used that to get full custody and was awarded peanuts for child support, as she is a loser. He didn't even try to enforce it, he just doesn't want to see her again.
She found another guy at the bar to ‘give’ her another child, and to repeat the story.
Child support would make sense if it was really for the child, as the courts claim in some cases (when the mother signs a contract promising NOT to sue for child support), but that is a lie, the mother is awarded child support to use for whatever she wants, like a entitlement, for getting pregnant. This natural selection process selects losers as the fathers because they can avoid the child support, responsible men know better.
I didnt mean you two in my natural selection comment, natural selection tends to produce on the average....I still use probability math so exceptions to a rule are a norm to me. Obviously responsible fathers get screwed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.