• 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!

Should we Eliminate Social Security?

Should we Eliminate Social Security

  • Yes, no replacement

    Votes: 13 25.5%

  • Yes, but with a replacement

    Votes: 11 21.6%

  • No, we should wait until it goes bankrupt

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • No, its not going to go bankrupt

    Votes: 22 43.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • Total voters
    51
Catawba said:
80% of Americans think SS is important. I'm with them. Throwing half our elderly to the wolves as you propose is not a viable option.
Click to expand...

Appeal to majority and a purposeful changing of my argument
Is there ever a time when you don't make logical fallacies and purposeful mischaracterizations when discussing something?


Catawba said:
You are in a very tiny minority. Fortunately, we have a representative government.
Click to expand...

So you think "might makes right" is always good?

My position as a minority makes no difference, did you support segregation because those people were in a minority?


Catawba said:
So no pensions have been lost in private markets?
Click to expand...

Did I say that, no.
How about this, has anyone not received SS benefits that they have paid for all their life, the answer is yes.

Catawba said:
A Constitutional Amendment will prevent it from happening.
Click to expand...

:lol:
Really, so the living constitution suddenly becomes fixed when it applies to things you want, but not fixed in meaning when you want it changed.

Catawba said:
It has worked spectactularly well. When SS was created, 50% of the elderly lived in poverty. Its not hard to see why there is no interest in returning to that situation.
Click to expand...

For it to have worked well, it must be adequately financed while being able to meet the demands placed upon it.
It has not been adequately financed.
Your solution of course, to everything, is to tax wealthy people.

Returning to mandatory private accounts, that never existed before SS?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Appeal to majority and a purposeful changing of my argument. So you think "might makes right" is always good?
Click to expand...

Not a believer in a representative government?



My position as a minority makes no difference, did you support segregation because those people were in a minority?
Click to expand...

Segregation was defeated when a majority opposed it.



Did I say that, no.
Click to expand...

You said all institutions have insurance to prevent personal loss. That is simply not true, or millions would not have lost their pensions in private market failures.

How about this, has anyone not received SS benefits that they have paid for all their life, the answer is yes.
Click to expand...

That was never the goal of SS. The goal was to provide a safety net for our elderly, which it accomplished. Before SS, 50% of the elderly live in poverty.




Really, so the living constitution suddenly becomes fixed when it applies to things you want, but not fixed in meaning when you want it changed.
Click to expand...

No, it is We the People that determine government policy as specified in our Constitution.



For it to have worked well, it must be adequately financed while being able to meet the demands placed upon it.
Click to expand...

It has never missed a payment in 80 years, good times and bad. The private market cannot make that claim. Just ask the millions that lost their pensions in the private market.
It has not been adequately financed.
Click to expand...

It was more than adequately financed. It developed a surplus which was robbed. That is why the funds will need to be locked as proposed by the Democratic candidate in 2000.

Your solution of course, to everything, is to tax wealthy people.
Click to expand...

They are the ones that have skated during the last 30 years. If we are to solve our budget problems, they will have to once again carry their share again.

Returning to mandatory private accounts, that never existed before SS?
Click to expand...

The majority of Americans are not interested in risking their retirement in private accounts. Sorry!
 
Sigh, harry you just dont get it...if you end social security and medicare..in the end there will be millions of people that didnt make enough to save for their oldage and you will pay through the nose for them anyway and they didnt pay a dime...with social security they are CONTRIBUTING their whole life at least.
You and CPwill and turtledude have NEVER answered this question...Walmart a RETAIL STORE is the largest employer in the United States, half their employees are part time..how does a walmart worker pay for all of lifes necessities and save for their retirement and for senior health care...
Why isnt paul ryan going after illegal immigrants that cost us hundreds of billions...why isnt the teaparty railing on ending foreign aid to 154 countries that we give it too....You nor anyone else could sell me Paul Ryans plan cuz it outright sucks.
 
Catawba said:
Not a believer in a representative government?
Click to expand...

No, it's just that you're inconsistent in your beliefs.
One second you say might makes right, the next Bushes war is bad.

Which is it chief?



Catawba said:
Segregation was defeated when a majority opposed it.
Click to expand...

Right but before, a majority supported it.
So were you in their camp?



Catawba said:
You said all institutions have insurance to prevent personal loss. That is simply not true, or millions would not have lost their pensions in private market failures.
Click to expand...

This is a straw man, since I never, ever said pensions but I did say private accounts.

Catawba said:
That was never the goal of SS. The goal was to provide a safety net for our elderly, which it accomplished. Before SS, 50% of the elderly live in poverty.
Click to expand...

And those numbers are bunk, it measures the income level based on the individual and not on the household, which would show that not 50% were in poverty.

Catawba said:
No, it is We the People that determine government policy as specified in our Constitution.
Click to expand...

So you completely side step my statement with a totally unrelated statement.

When is the Constitution "living" and when it is fixed in meaning?


Catawba said:
It has never missed a payment in 80 years, good times and bad. The private market cannot make that claim. Just ask the millions that lost their pensions in the private market.
Click to expand...

Reusing the straw man.
Never said pensions, did say private accounts.

Catawba said:
It was more than adequately financed. It developed a surplus which was robbed. That is why the funds will need to be locked as proposed by the Democratic candidate in 2000.
Click to expand...

And even though you keep parroting this, you can not reassure anyone that it won't be robbed again, even with your amendment, that will never be proposed or passed.

Catawba said:
They are the ones that have skated during the last 30 years. If we are to solve our budget problems, they will have to once again carry their share again.
Click to expand...

Skating would mean that they didn't pay, at least an equal share of the tax burden, but you already know that isn't true.

Catawba said:
The majority of Americans are not interested in risking their retirement in private accounts. Sorry!
Click to expand...

I know, it's the Catawba shuffle.
Make a straw man, use logical fallacies and not debate the merits of a system or policy directly.
 
lpast said:
Sigh, harry you just dont get it...if you end social security and medicare..in the end there will be millions of people that didnt make enough to save for their oldage and you will pay through the nose for them anyway and they didnt pay a dime...with social security they are CONTRIBUTING their whole life at least.
You and CPwill and turtledude have NEVER answered this question...Walmart a RETAIL STORE is the largest employer in the United States, half their employees are part time..how does a walmart worker pay for all of lifes necessities and save for their retirement and for senior health care...
Why isnt paul ryan going after illegal immigrants that cost us hundreds of billions...why isnt the teaparty railing on ending foreign aid to 154 countries that we give it too....You nor anyone else could sell me Paul Ryans plan cuz it outright sucks.
Click to expand...

And you guys don't read.
I did not say completely end something, I said private accounts for SS and reductions in spending for Medicare.

Economic illiteracy will be the down fall of this nation.

Hey, lets pay everyone $100 a hour, then no one will be poor ever again. :roll:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
No, it's just that you're inconsistent in your beliefs.
One second you say might makes right, the next Bushes war is bad.

Which is it chief?
Click to expand...

I have never said might makes right. I said I believe in a representative government, that We the Peole call the shots. Who do you want making our policy decisions sonny?




Right but before, a majority supported it.
So were you in their camp?
Click to expand...

i was not alive than.




This is a straw man, since I never, ever said pensions but I did say private accounts.
Click to expand...

Private accounts is where millions lost their pensions.


And those numbers are bunk, it measures the income level based on the individual and not on the household, which would show that not 50% were in poverty.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your unsupported minority opinion.




When is the Constitution "living" and when it is fixed in meaning?
Click to expand...

It is completely up to We the People.



And even though you keep parroting this, you can not reassure anyone that it won't be robbed again, even with your amendment, that will never be proposed or passed.
Click to expand...

When the problem becomes serious it will have to be addressed.



Skating would mean that they didn't pay, at least an equal share of the tax burden, but you already know that isn't true.
Click to expand...

They have enjoyed 30 years of large tax cuts. It is in our historical record.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I have never said might makes right. I said I believe in a representative government, that We the Peole call the shots. Who do you want making our policy decisions sonny?
Click to expand...

In other words, you believe in the might of a majority of those who vote to take things from other people for you own use - that is might makes right.

They have enjoyed 30 years of large tax cuts. It is in our historical record.
Click to expand...
While the rates have been cut, so have the loopholes so that they now pay more than they did before. The people that have enjoyed 30 years of large tax cuts are the 40% + that now pay no taxes or pay negative taxes (they get more back than they put in).
Click to expand...
 
ggh said:
In other words, you believe in the might of a majority of those who vote to take things from other people for you own use - that is might makes right.
Click to expand...

No, I believe what the the Constitution says about a representative government of WE THE PEOPLE.

Who do you think should be calling the shots for our country?


While the rates have been cut, so have the loopholes so that they now pay more than they did before. The people that have enjoyed 30 years of large tax cuts are the 40% + that now pay no taxes or pay negative taxes (they get more back than they put in).
Click to expand...

Go read our history, more loopholes were provided under Reagan and Bush, as well as slashing the top tax rates, and Capital Gains taxes.
 
lpast said:
You and CPwill and turtledude have NEVER answered this question...Walmart a RETAIL STORE is the largest employer in the United States, half their employees are part time..how does a walmart worker pay for all of lifes necessities and save for their retirement and for senior health care...
Click to expand...

interesting that you would bring this up in the context of Wal-Mart, as they are leading the way in finding low-cost innovations in healthcare provision.

however, i would point out to you that Wal-Mart's workers are also overwhelmingly the second employment in the household (which is why it is so flexible and/or part time), or simply working a second job; and in either case, the WalMart pay is not the primary income stream. I would also point out to you that - while it is not easy - it is certainly plausible to save for the future on a low income. You simply have to be willing to practice an ancient form of dark magic known as "budgeting" in which you "live on less than you make." By worshiping at the dark altar of the "written budget" my family was able to save a little over $400 a month towards retirement when our income (we had one - mine - and it was that of an E3 in the military) was low enough that we rated food stamps. We got about 2500-ish a month, and we tithed 250 a month as well. So we were living with just the three of us off of about $1850 - or about $616 bucks per person, per month. Our apartment was pretty nice, we both had paid off cars, we didn't eat out much but we ate well... all through the magical power of the Budget.

So I don't have much sympathy when people tell me that they don't make enough to save. Just saving $40 a week over a working lifetime of 20-65 in an account that matches the CAGR of the SP500 (so literally the easiest, most dumb-dumb simplist way to do it) accounting for inflation would be worth $887,000. Most folks' incomes go up over time - and minimum wage earners (the majority of whom - again - are either part time second-jobbers or teenagers on their first job) are no different; so start saving 40 bucks a week now and bump it up to 100 once you start making more money. The habits this builds become an amazing virtuous reinforcing cycle. I'm about to start looking at whether i want to open up an IRA for my wife because - on a Sergeants pay, with two small children, one of whom is attending private school - I've already maxed out my IRA for the year, and am on track to max out both my kids college savings funds by halfway through summer.

so the answer to your question is: they only reason they wouldn't do it is because they are either uninformed, or don't care to.
 
Catawba said:
No, I believe what the the Constitution says about a representative government of WE THE PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

But then you do not believe in the part of the COTUS that deliniates the specific powers granted to Congress, hint: wealth redistribution is not one of them.

Who do you think should be calling the shots for our country?
Click to expand...
I believe in the COTUS where most of the power resides with the States and the individual citizens, I also believe in limited government at the State level, but that is determined by each state's constitution.

But even that is still rule by might makes right, there is no system where that is not true, the only differences in systems are what items the might of the majority are allowed to rule.


Go read our history, more loopholes were provided under Reagan and Bush, as well as slashing the top tax rates, and Capital Gains taxes.
Click to expand...
Go and actually study the tax datarather than opinion pieces, that is where you will find history.
In 1993 only .87% of tax returns had gross income above 200,000 and they accounted for 16.29% of all gross income. In 2008 3.07% (3.5 times as many) had incomes above 200,000 yet they only accounted for 29.81% of the gross income.

In 1993 those making more than 200,000 paid 27.60% of all income taxes in 2008 they paid 50.09% of all income taxes.

1993 tax data
2008 tax data
 
ggh said:
But then you do not believe in the part of the COTUS that deliniates the specific powers granted to Congress, hint: wealth redistribution is not one of them.


I believe in the COTUS where most of the power resides with the States and the individual citizens, I also believe in limited government at the State level, but that is determined by each state's constitution.

But even that is still rule by might makes right, there is no system where that is not true, the only differences in systems are what items the might of the majority are allowed to rule.
Click to expand...

I prefer this country's representative system as outlined by our Constitution.


Go and actually study the tax datarather than opinion pieces, that is where you will find history.
In 1993 only .87% of tax returns had gross income above 200,000 and they accounted for 16.29% of all gross income. In 2008 3.07% (3.5 times as many) had incomes above 200,000 yet they only accounted for 29.81% of the gross income.

In 1993 those making more than 200,000 paid 27.60% of all income taxes in 2008 they paid 50.09% of all income taxes.

1993 tax data
2008 tax data
Click to expand...

"Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period. "

"The 1981 bill also made certain business deductions more generous."

"In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%."
Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010



"As part of a law passed late last year, the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest Americans were extended for two years. The estimated cost to the government of that portion of the tax deal, $42 billion this fiscal year, exceeds the stated $38 billion value of the savings from the federal budget cuts lawmakers approved last week.

Those budget cuts, which will affect many services for poor Americans, add more strain to a still weak economy, leading some economists to lament that this allocation of federal resources is not the most efficient way to promote economic growth.

"I don't think it's a good time to be trimming federal outlays if you're interested in the vulnerability of the economy," said economist Gary Burtless, formerly with the Labor Department and now at the Brookings Institution. "I'm not quite sure where the theories come from that this is going to strengthen economic growth over the next 12 to 18 months. It's going to have the reverse effect. It's going to slow it down."
Cost Of Tax Cuts For America's Rich Exceeds Value Of Budget Cuts
 
cpwill said:
Combined Annualized Growth Rate for the S&P 500 (adjusted for inflation) between 1982 and 2010 - so including the Tech Bubble and the Real Estate Bubble - comes out to 8.13%. for nothing more fancy than buying an index fund.
Click to expand...

A problem with talking about average investment returns is that there is real ambiguity about what people mean by "average". For example, if you had an investment that went up 100% one year and then came down 50% the next, you certainly wouldn't say that you had an average return of 25% = (100% - 50%)/2, because your principal is back where it started: your real annualized gain is zero.

For example as I said ovetime stocks in whatever form they take outdo any other type of investment. Even when the stocks are boardbased such as an indexed fund were investors attempt to minimize the risk by spreading the risk out over a broad array of stocks your annex fund still tanks in certain years. For example if someone with a indexed fund retired in 2008 they would have -37% less in their fund than if they retired a just a year earlier. Something that most of us can not afford.

cpwill said:
yes, and i demonstrated in my Social Security Fix thread that even if the stock market went bust at the worst point in time for a retiree (just as they retired) and they then proceeded to make the worst possible set of decisions (pulling everything out at the very bottom of the trough and holding it in cash), the result would still be more than twice the benefit than they would receive from Social Security.
Click to expand...

Let's just say I don't thionk so. Another pattern: while stocks have certainly beaten inflation over the long run, they've done poorly within the high-inflation periods themselves: try the inflation-adjusted returns for 1916-1918, 1946-1947, and 1973-1981. From '73 to '81 for example stocks showed a average return of -1.69 or an Annualized inflation-adjusted return of -3.79. Certainly not a rosey picture for someone in those cercumstances.


Social Security can be saved and it should be saved. And BTW most baby boomers of which I'm a proud card carrying member are fiscal responsible the up coming generation which signed up for floating rate mortgages mm not so much. One should carry a little credit so that you have a credit score just in case you need a loan to pay medical bills, buy a house, refit your business.....

I will grant you that most Americans don't have enough money stashed away for retirement mainly because they start saving too late.
 
Last edited:
Rick345 said:
A problem with talking about average investment returns is that there is real ambiguity about what people mean by "average". For example, if you had an investment that went up 100% one year and then came down 50% the next, you certainly wouldn't say that you had an average return of 25% = (100% - 50%)/2, because your principal is back where it started: your real annualized gain is zero.
Click to expand...

yes. that's why i went with the Combined Annualized Growth Rate; which accounts for precisely that phenomena. the specific dates i used were 1982-2010, so it takes into accout three full market crashes; 1987, 2001, and 2008.

funny that you would quote them so precisely.

Social Security can be saved and it should be saved. And BTW most baby boomers of which I'm a proud card carrying member are fiscal responsible
Click to expand...

no, you're not. ya'll (by and large) didn't save enough for retirement, and instead you voted yourselves a bunch of unsustainable entitlements that you expect us to somehow come up with the money for. You ruined the nations' fisc worse even than you ruined everything else you touched (with the admitted and notable exception of music).

the up coming generation which signed up for floating rate mortgages mm not so much
Click to expand...

the baby boomers weren't exactly immune to that spree; many of you thought the ever-increasing value of your home would secure your retirement to make up for your lack of savings. but yes, the younger generation wasn't taught fiscal responsibility by it's baby boomer parents, and so now we will have to learn the hard way. but I think we will, early polling data seems to indicate we are already more conservative than ya'll are, and certainly we are about to all get a lesson in the result of living in debt.

One should carry a little credit so that you have a credit score just in case you need a loan to pay medical bills, buy a house, refit your business.....
Click to expand...

no, one shouldn't. one should have an emergency fund of 6 months of living expenses because you don't need a FICA score. all "credit" is is the ability to go into debt. you are paying for the privilege of using your own money so that later you can pay more for the privilege of using even more of your own money. Consumer debt is one of the worst things that the Baby Boomers convinced themselves of and then passed on to their kids.

I live debt free. the only time "I" "borrow money" is when I travel on official orders - and then I use the governments' credit card, not my own. and they pay it off, not me.

The No Debt lifestyle has left me (somehow) with a credit score of 788. but if it was zero I wouldn't care.

I will grant you that most Americans don't have enough money stashed away for retirement mainly because they start saving too late.
Click to expand...

ye-up. and that's why I want to change Social Security so that it becomes a vehicle for precisely that, as opposed to a millstone around the American people.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
yes. that's why i went with the Combined Annualized Growth Rate; which accounts for precisely that phenomena. the specific dates i used were 1982-2010, so it takes into accout three full market crashes; 1987, 2001, and 2008.

funny that you would quote them so precisely.
Click to expand...

It's not funny at all I copy and paste whenever possible it saves time, and wear and tare on my spell checker...

cpwill said:
the specific dates i used were 1982-2010, so it takes into accout three full market crashes; 1987, 2001, and 2008.
Click to expand...

So you did but, I'm curious we you never mentioned the stardard deviation on the forular used to determine someone would achieve a 8.31% return on their money? Which by the way happens to be 16.37 which means that while 68% of time people would receive 8.31% on their money which would be a healthy return... But, 16% of the time people would receive 27.31% a very nice return indeed but, the flip side is there is a 16% chance someone would lose 11.69% on their money and that would be devistating.

cpwill said:
no, one shouldn't. one should have an emergency fund of 6 months of living expenses because you don't need a FICA score. all "credit" is is the ability to go into debt. you are paying for the privilege of using your own money so that later you can pay more for the privilege of using even more of your own money. Consumer debt is one of the worst things that the Baby Boomers convinced themselves of and then passed on to their kids.
Click to expand...

By and large I agree with you but, without credit one would have no credit score and without a credit score one would have touble buying a big ticket item such as a house or car. I don't live debt free I do use a credit card when I go on trips as well but, its my own and its more convent and safer than carrying wads of cash or even traveler checks.

cpwill said:
The No Debt lifestyle has left me (somehow) with a credit score of 788. but if it was zero I wouldn't care.
Click to expand...

Well how did you manage that, you must have had a credit card or bought a house or car on credit at one time in order to have a credit score at all..
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
No, I believe what the the Constitution says about a representative government of WE THE PEOPLE.

Who do you think should be calling the shots for our country?
Click to expand...

Representatives, but they should not have nearly as much power as they do today.
 
phattonez said:
Representatives, but they should not have nearly as much power as they do today.
Click to expand...

The people have the power to replace their Representatives every two years! :sun
 
Rick345 said:
It's not funny at all I copy and paste whenever possible it saves time, and wear and tare on my spell checker
Click to expand...

I just found it ironic that you were critiquing the number by citing it's own generator.

So you did but, I'm curious we you never mentioned the stardard deviation on the forular used to determine someone would achieve a 8.31% return on their money? Which by the way happens to be 16.37 which means that while 68% of time people would receive 8.31% on their money which would be a healthy return... But, 16% of the time people would receive 27.31% a very nice return indeed but, the flip side is there is a 16% chance someone would lose 11.69% on their money and that would be devistating.
Click to expand...

if you were to invest a major amount of money over a single year, yes, it would be. but you are not doing that - you are investing a relatively small amount of money over a long time. it is virtually the definition of dollar cost averaging.

By and large I agree with you but, without credit one would have no credit score and without a credit score one would have touble buying a big ticket item such as a house or car.
Click to expand...

not true. you can buy cars cash (that is how I have purchased every vehicle I have ever owned), and if your bank does underwriting then not having a history of debt is far less important than having a history of paying rent, having a 20% downpayment, having your projected monthly mortgage be less than a third of your monthly take-home pay, having a hefty emergency fund, and having no other creditors.

I don't live debt free I do use a credit card when I go on trips as well but, its my own and its more convent and safer than carrying wads of cash or even traveler checks.
Click to expand...

which is why I have a check card.

Well how did you manage that, you must have had a credit card or bought a house or car on credit at one time in order to have a credit score at all..
Click to expand...

hellifiknow. all I can imagine is that my check card use somehow ties in.
 
Catawba said:
The people have the power to replace their Representatives every two years! :sun
Click to expand...

Allow me to give you a mission..

Go around state to state that has long standing representatives and tell them this.
 
Henrin said:
Allow me to give you a mission..

Go around state to state that has long standing representatives and tell them this.
Click to expand...

People have the power. It is up to them to exercise it. We get the government we deserve! :sun
 
Catawba said:
The people have the power to replace their Representatives every two years! :sun
Click to expand...

Not senators, not the president. And besides, the problem is their essentially unlimited power. Democracy cannot control itself, that's why the Constitution was made. The day we started ignoring it is the day this country started faltering from its spectacular growth.
 
Catawba said:
People have the power. It is up to them to exercise it. We get the government we deserve! :sun
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, but shouldn't you inform people that their choices are poor?
 
phattonez said:
Not senators, not the president. And besides, the problem is their essentially unlimited power. Democracy cannot control itself, that's why the Constitution was made. The day we started ignoring it is the day this country started faltering from its spectacular growth.
Click to expand...

We can change our senators every 6 years and presidents every 4 years. How is their power unlimited? Ignoring the Constitution? Are you another anarchist who doesn't believe in the rule of law?
 
Henrin said:
Yes, I know, but shouldn't you inform people that their choices are poor?
Click to expand...

Who's to decide who's choices are poor. If the majority of the people make a stupid choice than a stupid outcome results. Unless your plan is to get a whole new group of American citizens, our representative government can only be as smart as the group that elects it. If you want to change the government, you have to convince the majority of the people of the validity of your plan as it relates to them.

As I said before, we get the government we deserve. :sun
 
Catawba said:
Who's to decide who's choices are poor. If the majority of the people make a stupid choice than a stupid outcome results. Unless your plan is to get a whole new group of American citizens, our representative government can only be as smart as the group that elects it. If you want to change the government, you have to convince the majority of the people of the validity of your plan as it relates to them.

As I said before, we get the government we deserve. :sun
Click to expand...

Yes, like I said I know we get the government we deserve and I make that point all the time, however, as a person like yourself that wants to make the world the perfect place, want people to given everything they need, shouldn't you be more active on fixing this problem? Are you not interested in the short coming of the world? Do you not care?
 
Henrin said:
Yes, like I said I know we get the government we deserve and I make that point all the time, however, as a person like yourself that wants to make the world the perfect place,
Click to expand...

There is no such place and i have never said that. How about we just stick to the truth here.


want people to given everything they need,
Click to expand...

Nope, never said that either. There is really no need to lie to try to make your points.

shouldn't you be more active on fixing this problem?
Click to expand...

Exactly why I support a solution to the root of the problem rather than just the consequences of the problem that the GOP wishes to address.

Are you not interested in the short coming of the world? Do you not care?
Click to expand...

Yes, i care very much. That is why it is imperative that we address our main problems today - peak oil, the highest health care cost in the world, 30 years of cutting our income, climate change, and paying for undending optional wars through debt and robbing SS funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom