When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@parados,

parados wrote:

Says the guy that thinks a Conservative Congress can strip people of their security clearance simply on a whim without following the US Constitution.

I don't recall saying such a thing.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

The normal already existing manner is Congress stays the hell out of it.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Says the guy that thinks a Conservative Congress can strip people of their security clearance simply on a whim without following the US Constitution.

Don't the rules apply to Conservatives in your world?

No one has a right to a security clearance in this country and there are no constitutional protections that apply for those whose clearances are in jeapordy. In some circumstances there are department procedures that allow for appeal at the lower clearance levels, but ultimately it is an administative security matter that puts a higher value on protecting the information that on fair access.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

This is another great lie told to old people to get their votes. A majority of the changes that would be made [to Social Security and Medicare] wouldn't effect the current batch of people who collect on those programs. Every bill put forth said no changes to current payouts and only a change for people such as me who are still at least 15 20 years out from collecting.

The Dems want old people to be single issue voters, if they raise any other issues, the Dems start talking about the GOP wanting to take away their retirement.

Oh sure, that's what conservatives say NOW. "The conversion of SS and Medicare to "means-tested" welfare systems is not gonna hurt you retired folks or those about to retire-this will only affect the YOUNGER people". Classic divide-and-conquer tactics. First unfairly take away the future retirement funds of the people who have been working for 20 years or more already. Then wait a few years for the resentment to build that the people now working are supporting benefits for those older, but the working age people themselves will never get those benefits when they themselves get old. Then conservatives can lead the charge for the system to be reformed yet AGAIN so that anyone of any age who gets SS and Medicare is "means-tested". Because, you know, it's "only fair". Nice try.

Republicans are reprehensible when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, and they will lie about it never affecting people now at or near retirement age just like they have been lying since the 1990s about how Social Security was doomed already and that people working then will never collect it. Fact is, the conservatives are philosophically opposed to Social Security and Medicare but dare not say so openly with all the votes they get from the elderly population. So they put out this Deal With The Devil for the old folks to foolishly sign onto and vote for them, then the old folks get screwed up the rear. By people they voted for.

Anyone at or near retirement age, unless they are immensely well set up financially for retirement, is crazy if they vote Republican.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote Georgeob1:

Quote:

Progressives by definition are looking for "perfect" administrative/bureaucratic/governmental "solutions" to social & economic problems. In order to do their calculations they must assume they know the wants & needs of various groups of people. That need also fits their self conceptions - i.e. that they (alone) know what's good for everyone else.

Baloney. Conservatives are philosophically opposed to both Social Security and Medicare and have been trying to get rid of them in anything like their present form. All one has to do is take a look at the present crop of Republicans and their glee at finding ways to not pay off retired public service union members-frequently characterizing them as greedy welfare recipients for wanting the state/city to honor the agreement the union workers made and worked under since the 60 or 70s. That whole attitude is what's in store for current seniors if they trust the conservatives to do anything but stick it to them at the earliest opportunity.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

The only way to save the program is a combination of increasing the age of benefit, and taxing more income.
People are living longer; that's a fact proven by our demographics. There's no reason why the retirement age can't be extended.
There's a ceiling on taxing income for social security; lift the ceiling. It's that simple. By what amount can be determined through studies on longevity.
These simple issues should not be a problem for congress. They already have the necessary information to correct it.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter:
Of course you are right. Social Security and Medicare have existed for generations and have gone through minor changes to make them work since their inceptions. Since conservatives and libertarians are philosophically opposed to these programs, instead of making realistic tweaks and minor changes in the system but keeping it more or less what they always were, they look for excuses to scrap the system. These programs are excellent, they have greatly raised the general living standards of the USA and helped to extend life expectancy, and they should be saved in more or less their present form, with the financing tweaked along the lines you mentioned.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Since conservatives and libertarians are philosophically opposed to these programs, instead of making realistic tweaks and minor changes in the system but keeping it more or less what they always were, they look for excuses to scrap the system.

Actually it is the Left that is the greatest threat to these programs. The Left prefers "scaremongering that Conservatives are trying to eliminate the programs" over "actually fixing them". Consequentially the programs will not be fixed anytime soon. Consequentially they will go bankrupt and be scrapped.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

It needs to be tweaked. I've kept a record of how much I've paid into social security, and the amount of benefits I've received from it. The benefits outweigh what I paid by multiples. It's also because of health issues I've had that cost tens of thousands of dollars, but I had to pay only a fraction of that cost. It can't survive that way, because we all know people are living longer, and the demographics between the people of retirement age and workers are narrowing.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Nonsense, the Left is the one who came up with these programs and the ones who defend them. The nefarious little two-step the conservatives are coming up with is nothing more than a plan to scrap these programs, as was Bush's disastrous proposal to let people pay into a personal account which would bankrupt the Social Security system quickly. But then, that's what the conservatives want-both then and now.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone, tweaking something and scrapping something are two different things. I agreed with you-it's going to be a combination of things. But it has to be a combination of things put together with the aim of saving the system-not a bunch of thinly-disguised ruses to get rid of the system entirely.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The only way to save the program is a combination of increasing the age of benefit, and taxing more income.

No doubt, either or both would work if they got the numbers right. The problem I see is that if you lose your job for one reason or another, you've got big problems if you're sixty or over. If you don't believe me, try hitting the job market.

1 Reply

@roger,

I was able to retire at 63 by choice, so I can't speak for anyone else. I still pay income tax, because I draw on my savings to be able to live in Silicon Valley where the cost of living is very high.
The one benefit we have is that we have no fixed expenses, because I paid off our mortgage when I retired in 1998, and no car payments. Both our cars are 2006 (Acura and Honda), but they're still in pretty good shape. I don't plan on buying a new car any time soon. I prefer to spend on travel.
http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-unaffordable-even-for-engineers-2015-5

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It needs to be tweaked. I've kept a record of how much I've paid into social security, and the amount of benefits I've received from it. The benefits outweigh what I paid by multiples. It's also because of health issues I've had that cost tens of thousands of dollars, but I had to pay only a fraction of that cost. It can't survive that way, because we all know people are living longer, and the demographics between the people of retirement age and workers are narrowing.

Have you taken in to consideration the many people who pay in and die before they receive any benefits?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

That's been the case for the majority of blacks whose life spans didn't allow for them to collect benefits. I forgot where I read that, but that was several decades ago.
Here's a more recent report on black life expectancy: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/01/05/black-americans-have-fewer-years-to-live-heres-why
It's good to see that blacks are making great strides in improving their life expectancy.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That is what I heard about black males as well. It seems that white females and healthy older rich males like yourself get their social security.

Jill Stein Appeared on Fox News, Made Their Heads Explode

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Nonsense, the Left is the one who came up with these programs and the ones who defend them.

The Left are not defending the programs. The Left are attacking honest attempts to save the programs. Because of attacks from the Left, the programs will not be saved, and will just go bankrupt.

Blickers wrote:

The nefarious little two-step the conservatives are coming up with is nothing more than a plan to scrap these programs, as was Bush's disastrous proposal to let people pay into a personal account which would bankrupt the Social Security system quickly. But then, that's what the conservatives want-both then and now.

No, conservatives were willing to work to save the programs. But since the Left insists on doing nothing while the programs go bankrupt, conservatives are just going to get out of the way and let it happen.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Republican proposals like taking money from Social Security contributions and putting them into private accounts that will bankrupt the system in short order is i not trying to save the system. Preventing present day workers from ever getting full benefits is not saving the system. Proposing a deal with the devil where older Americans vote in Republicans because they figure-wrongly-that the cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits will never affect them is not trying to save the system.

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

Yeah man, I was wondering if anyone else shared my deep sense of unease about what some gun enthusiast might do at, or just outside the convention.

Yeah, me too. I don't believe (and let's use the sort of terminology that too much media is now wielding so as to hold our attention) that the nation is "a tinderbox". But the nutters have been breeding.

0 Replies

This is all quite splendid. The GOP dudes in charge are agreed that the party platform for 2016 (if not all eternity) should boldly state the following:

Quote:

1. Pornography is a “public health crisis”

Quote:

2. Marriage should still be between a man and woman

Quote:

3. Children raised in “traditional” homes are “healthier”

Quote:

4. Parents can force their LGBT children to undergo “conversion therapy”

Quote:

5. Education includes “a good understanding of the Bible”

Quote:

6. Coal is a “clean” form of energy

Aside from that last one, #6, that apparently necessary kiss on the energy industry's ass, there's the pungent odor of Leviticus wafting through here.
And what really catches my attention is the zesty thirst to punish others.

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know