• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

Should Social Security Retirement be increased?

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
TurtleDude said:
really? people are convicted on informations all the time through a plea. Misdemeanor convictions are not pursuant to an indictment either

I know who is really the lawyer and who is not.
Click to expand...
Nope, I am not a lawyer....got some self respect.
we ain't talking petty crime here....now tell me how a person gets to the point of the plea bargain without an indictment? they just walk in and plead guilty? ask to be put in the slammer for felony crimes without an indictment? all the time?
 
UtahBill said:
Nope, I am not a lawyer....got some self respect.
we ain't talking petty crime here....now tell me how a person gets to the point of the plea bargain without an indictment? they just walk in and plead guilty? ask to be put in the slammer for felony crimes without an indictment? all the time?
Click to expand...

If you have to ask you will never understand. you are trying to derail a discussion that had you making an idiotic claim about wanting to kill people

people plead to INFORMATIONS all the time. call up any federal prosecutor or defense attorney who understands the issue as I do

Chapter Nine : Grand Jury Manual


An information is of benefit to the Government because its use obviates the resource commitment in time, expense and effort necessary to present an indictment to the grand jury. Depending upon the totality of circumstances, the presentation of an indictment to a grand jury can be an expensive and time-consuming task, particularly when the grand jury must be called to sit merely to consider the indictment. Also, the staff must spend time and effort preparing its presentation, including a summing-up of the relevant evidence and the presentation of relevant documents, as well as arranging to have all the documents and transcripts available for the grand jurors' consideration. Although such work is not particularly onerous, it is time-consuming, and the ability to avoid it is usually a benefit.(17) However, there may be other strategic considerations in specific factual settings that would lead a prosecutor to prefer an indictment over an information.

If pre-indictment plea discussions do not appear to be making progress, particularly if the defendant or his counsel is apparently dragging his feet or otherwise not negotiating in good faith, the staff should proceed with an indictment. On occasion, this will force the issue and put an end to delaying tactics and result in a post-indictment plea agreement.
 
haymarket said:
My plan reduces no such thing.

I have no idea what your question about attacking upper income people means.
Click to expand...

They get to lord it over the peasants in the safety of their McMansions and country clubs and Daddykins can sleep with the upstairs maid without the fear that America will go the way of other societies in history where the masses felt they were not being treated properly and insurrection and violence and even revolution resulted.



That you do not see that you are almost occasionally rabid and soaked in blood deleuged fantasy when you consider people who have earned more than you have is almost comical.
 
cpwill said:
They get to lord it over the peasants in the safety of their McMansions and country clubs and Daddykins can sleep with the upstairs maid without the fear that America will go the way of other societies in history where the masses felt they were not being treated properly and insurrection and violence and even revolution resulted.



That you do not see that you are almost occasionally rabid and soaked in blood deleuged fantasy when you consider people who have earned more than you have is almost comical.
Click to expand...

What is even worse is that you intentionally have decided to be blind to me actually trying to make sure we have a society that never ever has that sort of violence.

And I do fairly well in the blessings of wealth department.
 
haymarket said:
What is even worse is that you intentionally have decided to be blind to me actually trying to make sure we have a society that never ever has that sort of violence.
Click to expand...

Nah - you are quite quick to take from others and cover with not-so-veiled threats. "Nice family you have, there. Be a shame if anyone were to guillotine them because you didn't support increasing the top marginal tax rates......." :roll: your hyperbole makes you look equal parts ridiculous, radical, and rapacious.

And I do fairly well in the blessings of wealth department.
Click to expand...

Yeah. We know. After all, two full public employee rides with double social security and an extra paycheck from a job hanging around the capital?

Mind you, despite your doing fairly well in the blessings of wealth, you have no intention whatsoever of giving up a single dime to help lower income seniors - no, that you reserve for others.
 
TurtleDude said:
If you have to ask you will never understand. you are trying to derail a discussion that had you making an idiotic claim about wanting to kill people

people plead to INFORMATIONS all the time. call up any federal prosecutor or defense attorney who understands the issue as I do

Chapter Nine : Grand Jury Manual


An information is of benefit to the Government because its use obviates the resource commitment in time, expense and effort necessary to present an indictment to the grand jury. Depending upon the totality of circumstances, the presentation of an indictment to a grand jury can be an expensive and time-consuming task, particularly when the grand jury must be called to sit merely to consider the indictment. Also, the staff must spend time and effort preparing its presentation, including a summing-up of the relevant evidence and the presentation of relevant documents, as well as arranging to have all the documents and transcripts available for the grand jurors' consideration. Although such work is not particularly onerous, it is time-consuming, and the ability to avoid it is usually a benefit.(17) However, there may be other strategic considerations in specific factual settings that would lead a prosecutor to prefer an indictment over an information.

If pre-indictment plea discussions do not appear to be making progress, particularly if the defendant or his counsel is apparently dragging his feet or otherwise not negotiating in good faith, the staff should proceed with an indictment. On occasion, this will force the issue and put an end to delaying tactics and result in a post-indictment plea agreement.
Click to expand...
Some people deserve shooting.....Bernie Madoff and those like him. Just my opinion. If we had punishment that matched the level of damage done to old people's retirement funds, maybe we would have fewer old people working to get a little extra to go with their social security.
Don't you ever watch American Greed?
 
cpwill said:
:) Thanks. I've long thought that there were plenty of ways to achieve both Liberal and Conservative goals within policy.
Click to expand...



I agree. Unfortunately, not with the current conservatives in Congress as it would call for compromise...But actually I think it would be wonderful for a person who receives only $1,000 in SS benefits to be getting $2,000-$3,000 instead..
 
Juanita said:
I agree. Unfortunately, not with the current conservatives in Congress as it would call for compromise...But actually I think it would be wonderful for a person who receives only $1,000 in SS benefits to be getting $2,000-$3,000 instead..
Click to expand...

...I would be willing to bet if you put that plan in front of the GOP in Congress today you would get a large majority of support - and that your main problem would be convincing people who were afraid it was "too radical" and conservative to sell well to the public. That was why they abandoned Bush in 2005 (to their everlasting shame) on this issue. You might get a couple who stick on the sole issue of popping the cap, but I think compared to the overwhelming advantage of creating an ownership society of people who can reasonably expect to be able to take care of themselves... I just don't see that stick having all that power.

I think your bigger problem is going to be Democrats, who seem to have an antipathy to letting people take advantage of the markets' growth in their SS accounts almost imprinted in their DNA (and who will see an excellent political opportunity to castigate Republicans - accurately or not - as placing people's retirements in the hands of evil corporations and bankers).

But if you want people to have more secure retirements, and actually be able to provide some measure of fiscal independence to our low-income-elderly, you have to be able to take advantage of that higher growth.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
...I would be willing to bet if you put that plan in front of the GOP in Congress today you would get a large majority of support - and that your main problem would be convincing people who were afraid it was "too radical" and conservative to sell well to the public. That was why they abandoned Bush in 2005 (to their everlasting shame) on this issue. You might get a couple who stick on the sole issue of popping the cap, but I think compared to the overwhelming advantage of creating an ownership society of people who can reasonably expect to be able to take care of themselves... I just don't see that stick having all that power.

I think your bigger problem is going to be Democrats, who seem to have an antipathy to letting people take advantage of the markets' growth in their SS accounts almost imprinted in their DNA (and who will see an excellent political opportunity to castigate Republicans - accurately or not - as placing people's retirements in the hands of evil corporations and bankers).

But if you want people to have more secure retirements, and actually be able to provide some measure of fiscal independence to our low-income-elderly, you have to be able to take advantage of that higher growth.
Click to expand...



That's the way I felt and thought about it too..I was totally against the idea, but I have seen the stock Market dive like Esther Williams only to come back higher than ever--whatever was lost was regained...so that fear is gone...and perhaps it hasn't been explained as well as you explained it:2wave:
 
cpwill said:
Nah - you are quite quick to take from others and cover with not-so-veiled threats. "Nice family you have, there. Be a shame if anyone were to guillotine them because you didn't support increasing the top marginal tax rates......." :roll: your hyperbole makes you look equal parts ridiculous, radical, and rapacious.



Yeah. We know. After all, two full public employee rides with double social security and an extra paycheck from a job hanging around the capital?

Mind you, despite your doing fairly well in the blessings of wealth, you have no intention whatsoever of giving up a single dime to help lower income seniors - no, that you reserve for others.
Click to expand...

I am trying to make sure we honor our commitments to ALL AMERICAN WORKERS and that includes seniors of low incomes. Attacking me for not doing so is a lie and is utter nonsense.

And talk about looking ridiculous - George Santayana warned us about people like you who prefer to play ostrich and hide their head in the sand rather than study the past and confront the errors we committed so it is not our future

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Apparently you have learned nothing from it and would have us rush headlong down the same paths which only lead to disaster for our society.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I am trying to make sure we honor our commitments to ALL AMERICAN WORKERS and that includes seniors of low incomes
Click to expand...

A lie you tell yourself and probably even believe, but still a lie. You would reduce low income workers' living standards off their current baseline in order to protect upper income seniors such as yourself from having to lose a penny of their government checks.

And talk about looking ridiculous - George Santayana warned us about people like you who prefer to play ostrich and hide their head in the sand rather than study the past and confront the errors we committed so it is not our future
Click to expand...

:lol: given your demonstrated pathetic understanding of a subject you spent years teaching, you may not want to be throwing that claim around ;)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. For example, large pyramid schemes such as our current entitlement structure always fail. those who do not remember this will be doomed to repeat it ;)

As for the beheadings you love to claim are the alternative to your proposed policies - balderdash. There is nothing in history that suggests such a thing. Revolutions are, as I have already pointed out to you historically engendered by rising and unmet expectations, not rich people being rich.

Apparently you have learned nothing from it and would have us rush headlong down the same paths which only lead to disaster for our society.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Juanita said:
That's the way I felt and thought about it too..I was totally against the idea, but I have seen the stock Market dive like Esther Williams only to come back higher than ever--whatever was lost was regained...so that fear is gone...and perhaps it hasn't been explained as well as you explained it:2wave:
Click to expand...

:) Well, doing so would require that lawmakers do the intellectual leg-work themselves. Let's just say that I suspect the belief they have not is a fairly reasonable thesis. :lol:
 
cpwill said:
A lie you tell yourself and probably even believe, but still a lie. You would reduce low income workers' living standards off their current baseline in order to protect upper income seniors such as yourself from having to lose a penny of their government checks.:
Click to expand...

Man up and quote where I would reduce the checks of anybody.

As for the beheadings you love to claim are the alternative to your proposed policies - balderdash. There is nothing in history that suggests such a thing. Revolutions are, as I have already pointed out to you historically engendered by rising and unmet expectations, not rich people being rich.
Click to expand...

You just stepped into your own criteria and in doing so proved me correct. Rising and unmet expectations hey? That describes perfectly the expectations people have that they will be able to live their retirement in dignity with the promised funds from Social Security and then folks like you on the right snatching the rug out from under them. Thank you for proving me correct. I can think of little else that would so infuriate otherwise calm and peaceful Americans than to screw them in this horrible fashion.

You do a great job at being a witness for my very claims. ;):2wave:
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:lol: given your demonstrated pathetic understanding of a subject you spent years teaching, you may not want to be throwing that claim around ;)
Click to expand...

taking cheap shots and making personal attacks against me only makes you look bad in your inability to actually present any evidence proving what I stated was wrong.
 
Juanita said:
That's the way I felt and thought about it too..I was totally against the idea, but I have seen the stock Market dive like Esther Williams only to come back higher than ever--whatever was lost was regained...so that fear is gone...and perhaps it hasn't been explained as well as you explained it:2wave:
Click to expand...

The gains are not in the same stocks as the losses.....
I know people who worked in financial related jobs who lost most of what they had invested. But their bosses did very well.....
 
haymarket said:
Man up and quote where I would reduce the checks of anybody.
Click to expand...

I'll say this again: You would reduce low income workers' living standards off their current baseline in order to protect upper income seniors such as yourself from having to lose a penny of their government checks. You stated that was part of your "solution", along with raising taxes on those of us who are younger than you, and have more of our working lives ahead of us.

You just stepped into your own criteria and in doing so proved me correct. Rising and unmet expectations hey? That describes perfectly the expectations people have that they will be able to live their retirement in dignity with the promised funds from Social Security and then folks like you on the right snatching the rug out from under them.
Click to expand...

That is partly correct - the loss of expected benefits is indeed the kind of thing that does spark violence - which is why we have seen it start to spark up in Greece (for example). What we do not see it from, however, is what you have described, as some kind of natural response to rich people being rich.

However, the people who want that future are not those of us on the right. Those of us on the right are trying to save these programs. The folks currently aiming at that future are those who refuse to allow these programs to become sustainable because that would allow change and - ironically - they appear to oppose change for the sake of opposing change.
 
UtahBill said:
The gains are not in the same stocks as the losses.....
I know people who worked in financial related jobs who lost most of what they had invested. But their bosses did very well.....
Click to expand...

:) Actually the biggest losers in the market crash were the wealthy.
 
DaveFagan said:
Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate


Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

"On the issue of the Chained-CPI, which Obama is reportedly advocating for, The Nation figures that a conservative estimate indicates that the CPI would "take $15,615 in cumulative benefits from the average senior who lived to 95."
But Warren is going much further and debunking the whole notion that seniors living on $1,269 a month are the major contributors to the deficit as compared to the tax breaks and loopholes that have led to the massive redistribution of national revenue to the top 1 %.
In a news release on Warren's senate website, she issued a clarion call to save our elderly from poverty imposed by the "conventional wisdom" of shifting the nation's financial assets to a privileged few:
“With tens of millions of people more financially stressed as they approach retirement, with more and more people left out of the private retirement security system, and with the economic security of our families unraveling, Social Security is rapidly becoming the only lifeline that millions of seniors have to keep their heads above water,” Senator Warren said. “And yet, instead of taking on the retirement crisis, instead of strengthening Social Security, some in Washington are actually fighting to cut benefits…
"So long as these problems continue to exist and so long as we are in the midst of a real and growing retirement crisis – a crisis that is shaking the foundations of what was once a vibrant and secure middle class – the absolute last thing we should be doing is talking about cutting back on Social Security. The absolute last thing we should do in 2013 – at the very moment that Social Security has become the principal lifeline for millions of our seniors – is allow the program to begin to be dismantled inch by inch.”

Social Security Should Be Enhanced, Not Cut, Elizabeth Warren Tells Senate

Is this finally the voice of sanity ringing in DC?

Who do you trust?

Is she the voice of the 99%?
Click to expand...

I say we should increase social security. The reason we are having this problem is that the government took all of that income earned from the people paying for it and spent it instead of keeping it to use for peoples use. Now when those people are old enough to actually need it, there's nothing to support them with. Its classic government: spend the money you have now even if it bits you in the butt later.
 
UtahBill said:
dollar wise, perhaps, but percentage of net worth?
Click to expand...

Yup. A higher percentage of their net worth was in the market to begin with. They lost the most income, too (aside from those who lost all their income).
 
JJB3333 said:
I say we should increase social security. The reason we are having this problem is that the government took all of that income earned from the people paying for it and spent it instead of keeping it to use for peoples use. Now when those people are old enough to actually need it, there's nothing to support them with. Its classic government: spend the money you have now even if it bits you in the butt later.
Click to expand...

Right..... so..... if there is nothing to support them with.... and the government already spent it.... where is the government going to get the money from to increase social security? Is it going to use magic?
 
cpwill said:
Right..... so..... if there is nothing to support them with.... and the government already spent it.... where is the government going to get the money from to increase social security? Is it going to use magic?
Click to expand...

Yo' Bubba, where you been. Ain't you never heard of helicopter Ben. Now, it gonna be helicopter Janet. There are probably new printing presses on order as we speak. It's even better than that. Just print the Treasury Bonds and make an electronic notation at the FED. Magic, don't ya' know?
 
cpwill said:
Right..... so..... if there is nothing to support them with.... and the government already spent it.... where is the government going to get the money from to increase social security? Is it going to use magic?
Click to expand...

There is no magic in making money disappear, the magic is in getting it to reappear....:doh
 
cpwill said:
Right..... so..... if there is nothing to support them with.... and the government already spent it.... where is the government going to get the money from to increase social security? Is it going to use magic?
Click to expand...

As of currently we should start cutting some funding from parts of the government, say the retirement funds from the politicians. The people who have been paying for their social security deserve to get their moneys worth, not just to be put off year after year or just overlooked completely because these same politicians who spent all of that money want extravagant retirement at the cost of hundreds or thousands of other people's retirements.
 
JJB3333 said:
As of currently we should start cutting some funding from parts of the government, say the retirement funds from the politicians. The people who have been paying for their social security deserve to get their moneys worth, not just to be put off year after year or just overlooked completely because these same politicians who spent all of that money want extravagant retirement at the cost of hundreds or thousands of other people's retirements.
Click to expand...

Cool. Now you've put off the collapse of Social Security and having those people wake up with nothing by a grand total of about 45 seconds. What else?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom