# Any more positive scenarios than doomsday?



## db2469

Maybe I've been listening to and reading the material of only those (John Williams, Peter Schiff,etc) who predict that there is NO other way for this to end than the collapse of the dollar with the subsequent food shortages, the shutdown of the electric grid and anarchy. Are there any other believable scenarios being discussed out there by economists, etc. that suggests a "softer landing", maybe some inflation, maybe some somewhat severe budget cuts and austerity measures that will not produce the near doomsday scenario we all dread? 
DB


----------



## Elinor0987

db2469 said:


> Are there any other believable scenarios being discussed out there by economists, etc. that suggests a "softer landing"DB


There's articles written by some that believe our economic decline will take place slowly over the course of many years instead of a rapid crash. I'll post it as soon as I find one of the articles I read.


----------



## mojo4

A soft landing can never happen. People hate changes and a soft landing would force numerous small changes in peoples life. Starting with no more disability, then a drop in welfare then a drop in unemployment and so on and so forth. So the lazy would scream bloody murder and this current admin, who have shown a strong inclination to writing lotsa checks on our dime, would just start "helping out" with assistance for votes. Nope, no soft landing cause the morons we elected are gonna spend spend spend till there isn't a dime left and we won't be able to beg borrow or steal another dime. Any chance at austerity died about 10 years ago. So get ready for the big drop cause that is the one and only way this can end for us financially.


----------



## bahramthered

Pretty much 100%. We just had the worst finical collapse in 70 years and for most people it barely mattered except to their retirement accounts and stock prices. Hurts to lose your house and all but we've always had poverty and homelessness in this country. I personally think it's something we should work on but I get called a socialist for that idea.

Our elected leaders will not allow us to have that kind of disaster even if they say screw it and default on all that debt. And additionally if we returned to a sensible tax system (maybe a few modifications) as well we'd be over it with the social programs intact. And not be able to borrow more money.


----------



## db2469

mojo4 said:


> A soft landing can never happen. People hate changes and a soft landing would force numerous small changes in peoples life. Starting with no more disability, then a drop in welfare then a drop in unemployment and so on and so forth. So the lazy would scream bloody murder and this current admin, who have shown a strong inclination to writing lotsa checks on our dime, would just start "helping out" with assistance for votes. Nope, no soft landing cause the morons we elected are gonna spend spend spend till there isn't a dime left and we won't be able to beg borrow or steal another dime. Any chance at austerity died about 10 years ago. So get ready for the big drop cause that is the one and only way this can end for us financially.


So what if Romney gets in there? Will he do anything to prevent it?
DB


----------



## bahramthered

db2469 said:


> So what if Romney gets in there? Will he do anything to prevent it?
> DB


No, He's sworn to follow the Ryan budget which will expand the debt. Course it'll also expand his bank accounts.


----------



## d_saum

bahramthered said:


> No, He's sworn to follow the Ryan budget which will expand the debt. Course it'll also expand his bank accounts.


Riiggghttt... As opposed to Obamas slashing of our debt... right? That clown wants even MORE spending, higher taxes (which bring in less revenue), and has zero ideas how to cut our debt and save SS, medicare/medicaid. What's his plan for saving SS again? Oh that's right.. he doesn't have one.

When Romney is elected, whether you like him or not, business owners confidence will rise because, if nothing else, they'll feel confident that a man with business experience is in the office, as opposed to Mr. "I've never even run a lemonade stand" Obama, who scares the crap out of businesses. Romney, while not my first choice, will start to bring down our debt, and our economy will start to recover. Our dollar will start to regain its value, and we will avoid economic disaster.. at least for a good long while.


----------



## Tweto

I don't see a soft landing. The only difference between BO and Mitt is BO will flush the toilet quicker. As soon as Mitt looks like he will win the election the markets will explode up, but that will only be a short term situation that may give us another few years. As soon as BO looks like he's winning the markets will crash and burn.

I hope Mitt gets in and he finds a way to save the US. 

Here is what has to be done to solve this debt problem. Interest rates have to be kept at the current rates, entitlement programs have to be cut to the point of riots in the streets, taxes have to be increased by 50%, and then it will take about 10 years to pay it back. BTW for this to work it has to be done now! If the interest rates normalize all bets are off and Mad Max is next.

Now here is the most likely outcome. The politicians do nothing to stop this and the debt continues to climb. Within a few years the national debt reaches 20 trillion, the dollars is removed as the world reserve currency. From that point that the dollar is not the reserve currency the US can not print more money or other governments will stop trading with us. Everything that is imported will go up by 300%-500% maybe even 1000%. This is the point where the dollar collapses and entitlements will be worthless because the money will not buy anything, riots star. 

The US government, in an emergency, will make a law that all gold must be given to the government to back-up a new monetary system. People that refuse to turn over their gold will be jailed (this is not the first time this has happened). While the US is reestablishing a new money system nothing will be getting imported and this will cause the manufacturing of almost all of the consumer items again like back in the beginning of the 20th century. Manufacturing is the only way build wealth. 

This scenario is the best view of the future that I have. Any other scenario I have is worse.

I'm having a really good day today so I tried to be as cheery as I can be.


----------



## cajunmeadows

mojo4 said:


> A soft landing can never happen. People hate changes and a soft landing would force numerous small changes in peoples life. Starting with no more disability, then a drop in welfare then a drop in unemployment and so on and so forth. So the lazy would scream bloody murder and this current admin, who have shown a strong inclination to writing lotsa checks on our dime, would just start "helping out" with assistance for votes. Nope, no soft landing cause the morons we elected are gonna spend spend spend till there isn't a dime left and we won't be able to beg borrow or steal another dime. Any chance at austerity died about 10 years ago. So get ready for the big drop cause that is the one and only way this can end for us financially.


AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BillS

db2469 said:


> So what if Romney gets in there? Will he do anything to prevent it?
> DB


The big problem isn't just the trillion dollar deficits. It's the additional $5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. There isn't the political will to even cut the real deficit by 10%. And Romney is liberal. He wouldn't fight to repeal the economy-choking taxes and regulations.

If we had a dictator (not something I'm in favor but bear with me) they could do things like this:

Repeal all new regulations passed in the last 25 years.
Repeal ALL EPA restrictions on the use of coal.
Cut all entitlement spending by a total of 80%. End all funding for medicare and the prescription drug program for senior citizens.
Cut the defense budget by 80%. Close all the bases overseas. 
Cut off all foreign aid.
Eliminate class action lawsuits. Eliminate pain and suffering awards.
Cut the federal budget by 80%. Start with ending farm subsidies. Eliminate the departments of energy, agriculture, education, EPA, ATF. Cancel pensions for all federal workers. Lower all salaries by at least 40%.
Limit social security payouts to the amount collected.
End all federal welfare including the Earned Income Credit and food stamps.
End all corporate welfare.
Eliminate the IRS.
The only federal taxes would be a 10% national sales tax. Watch the economy come roaring back.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily in favor of all those cuts but think of it this way: Our country is in extreme danger and extremely drastic cuts are the only way to fix it. Even all those cuts might not be enough. And they would politically impossible to achieve in a democracy.


----------



## BillS

db2469 said:


> Maybe I've been listening to and reading the material of only those (John Williams, Peter Schiff,etc) who predict that there is NO other way for this to end than the collapse of the dollar with the subsequent food shortages, the shutdown of the electric grid and anarchy. Are there any other believable scenarios being discussed out there by economists, etc. that suggests a "softer landing", maybe some inflation, maybe some somewhat severe budget cuts and austerity measures that will not produce the near doomsday scenario we all dread?
> DB


It's way too late. We have trillion dollar deficits. The Federal Reserve creates billions of new dollars every month to cover whatever the government can't borrow.


----------



## BillM

A crash of our currency doesn't have to be the end of the world. It has happened before many times. I would expect a very hard landing when the dollar tanks because we are not an agriarian sociaty anymore. In 1929 83 % of the working population of the USA were employeed in agriculture. Now the figure is 2%.
In 1929 there were only two billion people in the world. Now there are seven billion scraping for goods and services. I predict we will lose a large portion of our population in the first year.


----------



## The_Blob

I believe that preparing for the 'worst case' scenario is the only sensible option; anything less will appear to be a 'soft landing' to those who are prepared.


----------



## tac803

BillS said:


> The big problem isn't just the trillion dollar deficits. It's the additional $5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. There isn't the political will to even cut the real deficit by 10%. And Romney is liberal. He wouldn't fight to repeal the economy-choking taxes and regulations.
> 
> If we had a dictator (not something I'm in favor but bear with me) they could do things like this:
> 
> Repeal all new regulations passed in the last 25 years.
> Repeal ALL EPA restrictions on the use of coal.
> Cut all entitlement spending by a total of 80%. End all funding for medicare and the prescription drug program for senior citizens.
> Cut the defense budget by 80%. Close all the bases overseas.
> Cut off all foreign aid.
> Eliminate class action lawsuits. Eliminate pain and suffering awards.
> Cut the federal budget by 80%. Start with ending farm subsidies. Eliminate the departments of energy, agriculture, education, EPA, ATF. Cancel pensions for all federal workers. Lower all salaries by at least 40%.
> Limit social security payouts to the amount collected.
> End all federal welfare including the Earned Income Credit and food stamps.
> End all corporate welfare.
> Eliminate the IRS.
> The only federal taxes would be a 10% national sales tax. Watch the economy come roaring back.
> 
> I'm not saying I'm necessarily in favor of all those cuts but think of it this way: Our country is in extreme danger and extremely drastic cuts are the only way to fix it. Even all those cuts might not be enough. And they would politically impossible to achieve in a democracy.


I don't think giving up all of our freedoms in order to secure a semblance of financial security is a good trade any day of the week! The vast majority of dictators have never had the good of the people as their top priority, and I can't believe that one here would solve our problems. Besides, dictators tend to implement change at gunpoint...and that's not going to end well.


----------



## db2469

BillS said:


> The big problem isn't just the trillion dollar deficits. It's the additional $5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. There isn't the political will to even cut the real deficit by 10%. And Romney is liberal. He wouldn't fight to repeal the economy-choking taxes and regulations.
> 
> If we had a dictator (not something I'm in favor but bear with me) they could do things like this:
> 
> Repeal all new regulations passed in the last 25 years.
> Repeal ALL EPA restrictions on the use of coal.
> Cut all entitlement spending by a total of 80%. End all funding for medicare and the prescription drug program for senior citizens.
> Cut the defense budget by 80%. Close all the bases overseas.
> Cut off all foreign aid.
> Eliminate class action lawsuits. Eliminate pain and suffering awards.
> Cut the federal budget by 80%. Start with ending farm subsidies. Eliminate the departments of energy, agriculture, education, EPA, ATF. Cancel pensions for all federal workers. Lower all salaries by at least 40%.
> Limit social security payouts to the amount collected.
> End all federal welfare including the Earned Income Credit and food stamps.
> End all corporate welfare.
> Eliminate the IRS.
> The only federal taxes would be a 10% national sales tax. Watch the economy come roaring back.
> 
> I'm not saying I'm necessarily in favor of all those cuts but think of it this way: Our country is in extreme danger and extremely drastic cuts are the only way to fix it. Even all those cuts might not be enough. And they would politically impossible to achieve in a democracy.


If this crisis is so obvious, why isn't the mainstream media demanding answers from Obama, Bernanke, and Geitner? I mean really asking the tough questions like what will happen when the Eurozone countries default, when WE default, when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency? I can understand our officials not wanting to answer those questions but if the media kept demanding them , as per their JOB, maybe we could hear the truth and many lives will be saved...
DB


----------



## BillS

tac803 said:


> I don't think giving up all of our freedoms in order to secure a semblance of financial security is a good trade any day of the week! The vast majority of dictators have never had the good of the people as their top priority, and I can't believe that one here would solve our problems. Besides, dictators tend to implement change at gunpoint...and that's not going to end well.


My only point was that someone would have to have absolute power to make the cuts necessary to save the country. That obviously isn't happening.


----------



## bahramthered

BillS I have to respect that for a libertarian budget/principal. Got to say I object to some of those points, but I've always thought compromise should be painful on both sides. 

I also think you should ask for the world and settle for reasonable in negotiations. I hope that was your over reach ideal.


----------



## BillS

bahramthered said:


> No, He's sworn to follow the Ryan budget which will expand the debt. Course it'll also expand his bank accounts.


And how could is possibly expand his bank accounts?

The Ryan budget only makes modest cuts. Obama told all kinds of lies about how terrible those cuts would be when they ultimately would do very little.

And don't accuse Republicans of corruption. Obama gave federal money to all those solar companies that were going bankrupt because they gave money to his campaign. To be exact, those guys were bundlers. Bundlers give cash contributions along with a list of people that those donations are supposedly from. The whole practice is corrupt. The CEO's of those solar companies gave themselves huge salaries on their way to bankruptcy. They were never viable in the first place. But you can't beat Democrats for paying off their political allies regardless of the cost to the rest of the people. All you have to do is look at public employee unions and their unsustainable wages and benefits for that.

And no, 94% of winners aren't the people who spend the most money. Where did that percentage come from? The fact is, you look at all the billionaire political foundations and 90% of them are liberal. That's how all the local newspapers across the country were bought up by those who support 
liberal policies. The Wisconsin public employee unions are corrupt. They forcibly take union dues from everybody and use that money to support only Democrat candidates. How could that possibly be democratic???


----------



## Magus

I got to back BillS on this one.we need a dictator who will follow the constitution to the letter and send congress home while he fixes things, then step down once its done.last guy we had that honest got crucified though.


----------



## The_Blob

db2469 said:


> If this crisis is so obvious, why isn't the *mainstream media* demanding answers from Obama, Bernanke, and Geitner? I mean really asking the tough questions like what will happen when the Eurozone countries default, when WE default, when the dollar is no longer the reserve currency? I can understand our officials not wanting to answer those questions but if the media kept demanding them , as per their JOB, maybe we could hear the truth and many lives will be saved...
> DB


I think the answer is *hidden* in that statement somewhere...


----------



## TheAnt

Magus said:


> I got to back BillS on this one.we need a dictator who will follow the constitution to the letter and send congress home while he fixes things, then step down once its done.last guy we had that honest got crucified though.


I understand what you guys are saying but I think you misunderstand the scope of the problem. The reason our leaders are not following the constitution is because we dont force them to. Sure some of us would not vote for someone who was in favor of unconstitutional things but the fact is that most folks vote for whoever promises them the fruits of someone elses labor. The problem isnt our leaders, thats a symptom of the problem. The problem is with our fellow countrymen -- many of whom are just uninformed. We who have our heads on straight need to speak our minds and do what we can to promote the ideals of liberty over the promises of security. Folks like RP have made huge strides in that effort even if he will never be elected as the "Supreme Leader". We have to change the electorate or we will NEVER change the leadership.

The answer: Start at home, teach your kids and their friends. Teach your friends. Change your towns, then counties, then states. Once you have hit the tipping point the folks who think like we do will be in the majority and everything else will fall into place.


----------



## d_saum

Magus said:


> I got to back BillS on this one.we need a dictator who will follow the constitution to the letter and send congress home while he fixes things, then step down once its done.last guy we had that honest got crucified though.


Negative ghostrider.. We do not NEED a dictator. What we NEED is an honest media, and some REAL discussions about what's going on in this country. If the media grilled every president like they were on trial, and not let them spin their way out of the question, peoples eyes would open.

I propose this.... Once a year the president has to debate someone from the opposing party for 3 hours with no moderator. That person can ask any questions they want, and the networks broadcasting the debate will have teams of fact checkers that are 50/50 R/D to verify if the answers are truthful.

If the people of this nation were "TRULY" informed, 90% of ALL politicians would be recalled, and then maybe we could get this country back on the right track... ya know, the track the founding fathers intended us to be on.

This country cannot, and will not ever have a dictator.. no matter which side of the aisle he's on. We the people, will not allow it. It goes against the very fabric of what this great nation stands for.


----------



## TheAnt

d_saum said:


> This country cannot, and will not ever have a dictator.. no matter which side of the aisle he's on. We the people, will not allow it. It goes against the very fabric of what this great nation stands for.


I disagree and would suggest we nearly have one right now. Thing is, as I said, he is not the problem. He is a symptom of the disease. We have to have a nation of countrymen that love freedom more than security or we will continue in this direction.

For example, in the area of financial freedom vs. security:
We have to have a generation of older retired folks that say "I will forgo social security to ensure the freedom of my grandchildren"

We have to have a generation of working individuals that say "I would rather have *any *job than sit on my butt and collect unemployment"

Folks, give up security for liberty and encourage your friends to do the same. Living the responsible life of liberty is NOT secure.


----------



## Immolatus

d_saum said:


> Riiggghttt... As opposed to Obamas slashing of our debt... right? That clown wants even MORE spending, higher taxes (which bring in less revenue), and has zero ideas how to cut our debt and save SS, medicare/medicaid. What's his plan for saving SS again? Oh that's right.. he doesn't have one.
> 
> When Romney is elected, whether you like him or not, business owners confidence will rise because, if nothing else, they'll feel confident that a man with business experience is in the office, as opposed to Mr. "I've never even run a lemonade stand" Obama, who scares the crap out of businesses. Romney, while not my first choice, will start to bring down our debt, and our economy will start to recover. Our dollar will start to regain its value, and we will avoid economic disaster.. at least for a good long while.


While you may have a point, Mittens is just as corrupt as anyone else. Look at his top corporate contributors. All of the banksters. This is who you would rather have as president? Theres only a couple of possible solutions to 'saving' SS. 
Raise the retirement age.
Cut benefits.
Increase taxes.
Not gonna happen.

*THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO! UNTIL THE PEOPLE REALIZE THIS THERE WILL BE NO MEANINGFUL CHANGE.* This is the plan, convince people that there is a difference between the Dems and Reps, and they are doing it quite well. We get what we deserve by falling for it hook, line, and stinker.

Now, as to the OP, just listen to the MSM. Everything is just fine.
I think the best we can do is muddle along like Japan has done for the last 20 years. The ptb can kick the can for a long long ways.


----------



## bahramthered

BillS said:


> And how could is possibly expand his bank accounts?
> 
> The Ryan budget only makes modest cuts. Obama told all kinds of lies about how terrible those cuts would be when they ultimately would do very little.
> 
> And don't accuse Republicans of corruption. Obama gave federal money to all those solar companies that were going bankrupt because they gave money to his campaign. To be exact, those guys were bundlers. Bundlers give cash contributions along with a list of people that those donations are supposedly from. The whole practice is corrupt. The CEO's of those solar companies gave themselves huge salaries on their way to bankruptcy. They were never viable in the first place. But you can't beat Democrats for paying off their political allies regardless of the cost to the rest of the people. All you have to do is look at public employee unions and their unsustainable wages and benefits for that.
> 
> And no, 94% of winners aren't the people who spend the most money. Where did that percentage come from? The fact is, you look at all the billionaire political foundations and 90% of them are liberal. That's how all the local newspapers across the country were bought up by those who support
> liberal policies. The Wisconsin public employee unions are corrupt. They forcibly take union dues from everybody and use that money to support only Democrat candidates. How could that possibly be democratic???


Seriously turn off Fox. The CBO says it will disproportionately affect the poor and has trillions in new tax cuts for the rich.

My quote comes from a Harvard study.

No one is a slave and forced to join union. You want a job somewhere you APPLY. But here's a fun one for you, if you work in a union you can opt out of paying for political activities by law. If you work for a corporation there is no so such protection. Doesn't even matter if you own stock in it.

Personally I'd remove them both from our political discourse.


----------



## d_saum

Immolatus said:


> While you may have a point, Mittens is just as corrupt as anyone else. Look at his top corporate contributors. All of the banksters. This is who you would rather have as president? Theres only a couple of possible solutions to 'saving' SS.
> Raise the retirement age.
> Cut benefits.
> Increase taxes.
> Not gonna happen.


So banksters proves he's corrupt how? Maybe... oh.. I dunno.. they just want someone who's not going to villianize them at every turn. And the republicans keep putting forward plans to save SS.. but the dems keep blocking them every step of the way. Dems try to scare people away from doing anything about it by showing grandma being thrown off a cliff... remember that one?



Immolatus said:


> *THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO! UNTIL THE PEOPLE REALIZE THIS THERE WILL BE NO MEANINGFUL CHANGE.* This is the plan, convince people that there is a difference between the Dems and Reps, and they are doing it quite well. We get what we deserve by falling for it hook, line, and stinker.


This has GOT to be one of the most ignorant (not dumb.. "ignorant") sentences I've ever read on this forum. Do you REALLY think there's no difference between BO and Romney? Please say you were joking, because if you weren't.. well.. you are seriously misinformed. Again.. not calling you dumb or stupid.. but you have no concept of how different they really are. You have the socialist versus the free market business guy.. they are worlds apart and anything you say otherwise does not make it so. What business has BO ever run? Any? Any at all? Didn't think so. Has BO ever had to meet a payroll? Nope... Oh and please do not say that "running his campaign" counts.. it does not.


----------



## FatTire

Immolatus said:


> While you may have a point, Mittens is just as corrupt as anyone else. Look at his top corporate contributors. All of the banksters. This is who you would rather have as president? Theres only a couple of possible solutions to 'saving' SS.
> Raise the retirement age.
> Cut benefits.
> Increase taxes.
> Not gonna happen.
> 
> *THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO! UNTIL THE PEOPLE REALIZE THIS THERE WILL BE NO MEANINGFUL CHANGE.*


couldnt agree more. 
i voted for clinton (gimme a break i was 19), which brought us 'dont ask dont tell', which led both directly and inderectly to increased suicide rates both in and out of the military, the firing of joycelyn elders for mere suggestion that masterbation aint such a bad thing, and for suggesting we approach drug abuse from a medical, rather than criminal, perspective.

then i voted nader. if you question this descision, the simple fact is, legislation written and passed by nader likely saved either your life, or the life of someone you know.

by then i was getting a bit jaded, so i voted Dubya... really i just couldnt stand gores condescending demeanor.

and then 9-11. 
and then katrina.
and then i saw the crash comming, all that leveraging of subprime credits, betting on defaults, it had to happen, and it did.
and all the while, the genocides that bush had said 'not on my watch' about, were still raging, and getting worse.

then then came Obama. i thought, 'finaly, someone to end this madness, bring our familys home, end all the rediculous bloodshed in the of obscene corporate profit.

never, NEVER, again will i vote for anyone with a D or an R after thier name.


----------



## d_saum

FatTire said:


> never, NEVER, again will i vote for anyone with a D or an R after thier name.


while I applaud your ideals... I hate to be the one to tell you good sir.. that you will be, in essence.. wasting your vote. No matter how you slice it. Unless you are planning just to not vote at all, which, in my opinion would be wiser than wasting the vote on the independent/third party candidate.


----------



## FrankW

For the original question:

I believe in a soft process in a sense that the decay is already on us and it just means every 10 years we take less for granted than 10 years before.

10 years ago we took highschool students being able to drive for , now its no longer taken for granted as upkeep costs are beyond reach for many highschoolers. Detroit has stopped lighting somepmarts of the city as it doens thave the money..

10 years from now College may no longer be taken for granted maybe and more cities cant afford ot light all parts of the city. Only the high traffic or high tax ones...
10 years hence maybe we start seeing some food insecurity slowly creep in ,as oil prices rise to the point where it REALLY affects the cost of food (food costs are dependent on oil , for fertilizers, pesticides, distribution, refrigeration trucks, tractors etc)

Another 10 years hence oil might be too expsnive for roa to be improved in some areas, asphalt is mostly oil, so we will swictch maybe ot all conrete raods again as asphalt will beocme unaffordbale for all but the most affluent cities.

SoI think its already started.. its just a slow procces so its hard to put your finger on it..


----------



## FatTire

d_saum said:


> while I applaud your ideals... I hate to be the one to tell you good sir.. that you will be, in essence.. wasting your vote. No matter how you slice it. Unless you are planning just to not vote at all, which, in my opinion would be wiser than wasting the vote on the independent/third party candidate.


well hate no more, you aint the first, and you wont be the last... i decided many moons ago that any vote, ANY, your, mine, the man on the moons... are all wasted breath, trying to blow out birthday candles that relight... i vote now only because i, as a liberal, believe that i contribute to the best of my ability. back to that old saw 'from each according to ability'. i owe it to the blood, hot and steaming filling the cool morning sand in pools and puddles, spraying jungle leaves lung red-black... there is no repesentation for the working man, any more, i vote, that is my opinion... if i kicked in, that and five bucks or so would buy you a cup of trrendy, corporate coffee


----------



## db2469

Well folks, I started this thread and I thank you all for your input...BillS is consistent as always with his ultra conservatism and I'm not convinced he doesn't agree with everything on his "list"..but I certainly tend to agree that this country, if not the world, is in this hole too deep to get out without a great deal of pain and so I will continue to prepare for the worst case scenario...it's just SO heart-wrenching to think it will come to that! 
DB


----------



## Friknnewguy

FatTire said:


> well hate no more, you aint the first, and you wont be the last... i decided many moons ago that any vote, ANY, your, mine, the man on the moons... are all wasted breath, trying to blow out birthday candles that relight... i vote now only because i, as a liberal, believe that i contribute to the best of my ability. back to that old saw 'from each according to ability'. i owe it to the blood, hot and steaming filling the cool morning sand in pools and puddles, spraying jungle leaves lung red-black... there is no repesentation for the working man, any more, i vote, that is my opinion... if i kicked in, that and five bucks or so would buy you a cup of trrendy, corporate coffee


I agree with you Fat Tire . I m not a liberal , but I was told that I wasted my vote when I voted for Buchanan over Bush in the Republican primary all those years ago . I voted my conscience . Today I say I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat . I'm an angry American, plain and simple .


----------



## jehowe

Things like politics and financial concerns are going to feel like abstractions if the concerns of a group of international scientists recent report come to pass- http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/docfeed/biosphere_state_shift_nature.pdf

Summarizing the article, it's claiming that the planet is creeping closer to several global ecological tipping points that once crossed could suddenly thrust us into new and unpleasant realities.


----------



## db2469

I just can't get past the realization that the journalists, economists and others are not screaming to the high heavens about this issue! Apparently, it's importance pales in comparison to the divorce of Tom Cruise and his wife...THAT was even a segment on the NBC Nightly News a couple days ago... tens maybe hundreds of millions dead within a year didn't get a mention...
DB


----------



## FatTire

db2469 said:


> Well folks, I started this thread and I thank you all for your input...BillS is consistent as always with his ultra conservatism and I'm not convinced he doesn't agree with everything on his "list"..but I certainly tend to agree that this country, if not the world, is in this hole too deep to get out without a great deal of pain and so I will continue to prepare for the worst case scenario...it's just SO heart-wrenching to think it will come to that!
> DB


you asked in another thread, id try to find it, but it seems more efficient to answer here, sorry if thats bad form.

hello, im a secular humanist. there is no god, other than the ones man made to explain the joys and pain, the pure random chance, the things we as humans have come to love and hate.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

TheAnt said:


> ...For example, in the area of financial freedom vs. security:
> We have to have a generation of older retired folks that say "I will forgo social security to ensure the freedom of my grandchildren"...


I think it would be wise to leave SS alone. These people paid into it and they have the benefits coming. It's in a whole different class than welfare and a host of other "entitlement" program.


----------



## Tweto

The_Blob said:


> I think the answer is *hidden* in that statement somewhere...


The term "Main Stream Media" is going away. Their viewership has dropped to the point that they are just considered entertainment. They are trying to get their viewership back by only having light news. CNN, CNBC, FBN, FNC, and Bloomberg have all been reporting the "financial cliff" and have not held back from reaming BO, house and senate.


----------



## alwaysready

Friknnewguy said:


> I agree with you Fat Tire . I m not a liberal , but I was told that I wasted my vote when I voted for Buchanan over Bush in the Republican primary all those years ago . I voted my conscience . Today I say I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Democrat . I'm an angry American, plain and simple .


If angry American is a party that's what I am. SS is not an entitlement people paid into it during their working years. That money was taken out of their earnings they have right to get it back with interest. I can't say the crash will be hard but I do believe that 5 years from now folks will be calling these the good old days.


----------



## cengasser

I'm certain I will take heat for this opinion. But I think we are to far gone to correct this "economic cliff" we are on. I think both parties have an agenda, only difference being one hits the iceburg head on and we sink quick, the other is a slow demise. 
No one in this great country wants to have it hard like my grandparents did. We have raised a bunch of kids who's sense of entitlement is unlike any generation before them. They all believe they should go to college, have a six figure incomne and a McMansion. But you will always need the ditch diggers in the world, after all who would bury our dead if no one grew up to become a ditch digger. 
Niether party has the guts or inclination to fix this, it's a race to see who can be incharge when the SHTF. Afterall once we do (callopse), elections as we no them wouldn't happen and martial law will rule the land. Then What? 
just sayin.....:dunno:


----------



## TheAnt

cengasser said:


> I'm certain I will take heat for this opinion. But I think we are to far gone to correct this "economic cliff" we are on. I think both parties have an agenda, only difference being one hits the iceburg head on and we sink quick, the other is a slow demise.
> No one in this great country wants to have it hard like my grandparents did. We have raised a bunch of kids who's sense of entitlement is unlike any generation before them. They all believe they should go to college, have a six figure incomne and a McMansion. But you will always need the ditch diggers in the world, after all who would bury our dead if no one grew up to become a ditch digger.
> Niether party has the guts or inclination to fix this, it's a race to see who can be incharge when the SHTF. Afterall once we do (callopse), elections as we no them wouldn't happen and martial law will rule the land. Then What?
> just sayin.....:dunno:


I agree with so much of what you are saying. This "economic cliff" is no surprise to the PTB -- on the contrary I think they have planned it. Its purpose is not to throw us into some "Mad Max" scenario as so many on this forum seem to be planning for and we wont end up in "Mad Max" land unless their plan goes horribly wrong. Nope, their plan is to enslave us but they will do it in such a way that the majority in this country will beg for their shackles and chains. As you said folks grow up thinking they are entitled and they demand the security the government provides without thought about the chains that security comes with. I'm not scared my children will have to grow up in "Mad Max" land, I'm scared my kids will grow up without knowing the liberty I now know. When I was younger I didnt understand the level of freedom my great grandparents had that are all but non-existent now. We are little more than tenants of the kings forest anymore but most dont realize it -- just the way "they" like it.

All that said there is a way back to the freedom and liberty our forefathers left to us but there will likely be no desire for it until after we have lived in slavery for some time -- probably after my time. Then folks will rise up and risk their lives and fortunes once more that their children could have a better life than they. More than likely this rebellion will be squashed like most of the rest and this planet will never see another nation of free men like it had during the 18th, 19th and even 20th century.

Preferably we of like mind would stand together in our communities and start planting the seeds of desire for freedom NOW. We would educate our children, families, friends, cities, counties, states, etc. about the freedom our forefathers left us that we have squandered and we would start to demand them be returned level by level until the federal government is put back in its place. Not an armed revolution but a return of our national mindset to one that desires freedom and liberty more than it desires security.


----------



## TheAnt

alwaysready said:


> If angry American is a party that's what I am. SS is not an entitlement people paid into it during their working years. That money was taken out of their earnings they have right to get it back with interest. I can't say the crash will be hard but I do believe that 5 years from now folks will be calling these the good old days.


Alwaysready, please know this is not directed specifically at you but rather at the mindset your post seems to be made of.

SS is NOT an entitlement but rather a little carrot on the end of a stick called "slavery". It may not have enslaved the first several generations that collected on what they paid in but it will certainly enslave their grandchildren. I pay SS and I dont expect I will ever see a dime of it. To me, SS is just another way to hide another tax so that money can be spent on things I would never pay for if it were my choice.

The mindset folks have to SS baffles me:
Who in their right mind ever thought that the government would actually ever be able to manage their money better than they? Government is a waste of money and a destroyer of wealth. It always has been and always will be.
Who ever thought Social Security was about providing you with security? You cant really live off social security even if it did pay what it was supposed to. Ever since SS was developed your dollar was worth more when you payed it in than when you collected it. Inflation has been (nearly?) constant. Social Security always was and always will be a scam to get you to hand over a little more of your paycheck. Why pretend like you are ever going to get anything out of it? Why enslave your children so you can keep your delusion alive? The money you paid into SS is GONE.

I would like to see SS abolished and kids step up and take care of their parents instead of relying on the government to do it. I would like to see retired folks step up and admit that SS was and remains a scam and they do not want to enslave their children.

We were all lied to with SS and we chose to believe it because it gave us a sense of security. We have been trading our freedom for security for our whole lives and now we are mad because we realize we might not be as secure as we thought. Surprise! The only security government can provide is a ball and chain and the security that comes with a locked cell. Wake up! You got scammed and have no right to saddle my children with the penalty of your stupidity for believing the government would provide you any security.


----------



## TheLazyL

TheAnt said:


> ...SS is NOT an entitlement but rather a little carrot on the end of a stick called "slavery". ...The money you paid into SS is GONE...I would like to see SS abolished...We were all lied to with SS and we chose to believe it because it gave us a sense of security....


BRAVO! BRAVO! :beercheer:


----------



## TheAnt

mosquitomountainman said:


> I think it would be wise to leave SS alone. These people paid into it and they have the benefits coming. It's in a whole different class than welfare and a host of other "entitlement" program.


It would be politically wise if I were a politician. It would be wise if I were an American that loved freedom more than security to forgo the delusion that the government actually had any money to return to me. It would go a long way to saving my children and grandchildren from the slavery that social security represents.

Obviously you are owed money that you paid in to an "account" but you were lied to and scammed and now you know it. Hold your representatives responsible and only vote for folks that will repeal the scam and let you keep the money you earn in the first place instead of playing some shell game with it.


----------



## partdeux

SS is nothing more than a Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. Always has been, always will be.

As someone that is getting close enough to smelling the benefit, it's still an entitlement. I "invested" in it for decades, I "deserve" the payout... aka entitlement.


----------



## WatchUr6

db2469 said:


> So what if Romney gets in there? Will he do anything to prevent it?
> DB


No. He will get us to the same place, just at a slower pace. That would give me a little longer to finish preparing.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

TheAnt said:


> It would be politically wise if I were a politician. It would be wise if I were an American that loved freedom more than security to forgo the delusion that the government actually had any money to return to me. It would go a long way to saving my children and grandchildren from the slavery that social security represents.
> 
> Obviously you are owed money that you paid in to an "account" but you were lied to and scammed and now you know it. Hold your representatives responsible and only vote for folks that will repeal the scam and let you keep the money you earn in the first place instead of playing some shell game with it.


There's no need to persuade me of the shortcomings of SS. I've been aware of them for many, many years. If a private corporation came up with a plan like that and administered it as the govt. has done they'd have been thrown into prison.

Rather than abolish it altogether maybe it would be wiser to phase it out. Perhaps give those in the 45 to 55 age range the choice to opt out of payments and benefits. Exclude those below 45 from SS benefits and paying into it. Those 55 and over will be stuck with it.

It's kind of odd too, that no one ever mentions abolishing government pensions including those being collected by servicemen/servicewomen, law enforcement personel, fire fighters, etc. Every one of them is on the government dole the same way as those collecting social security.

I'm a bit dismayed by those who see no need to honor their commitments. One of the major blemishes on this nation is the shameful way the American Indians were cheated and lied to as the govt. (the people!) broke contract after contract with them.

Maybe it's time we, as citizens, began insisting that the government keep it's word and obligations. It's a reflection on each and every one of us when that doesn't happen and does indeed poignantly demonstrate the character of it's citizenry.


----------



## TheAnt

mosquitomountainman said:


> There's no need to persuade me of the shortcomings of SS. I've been aware of them for many, many years. If a private corporation came up with a plan like that and administered it as the govt. has done they'd have been thrown into prison.
> 
> Rather than abolish it altogether maybe it would be wiser to phase it out. Perhaps give those in the 45 to 55 age range the choice to opt out of payments and benefits. Exclude those below 45 from SS benefits and paying into it. Those 55 and over will be stuck with it.
> 
> It's kind of odd too, that no one ever mentions abolishing government pensions including those being collected by servicemen/servicewomen, law enforcement personel, fire fighters, etc. Every one of them is on the government dole the same way as those collecting social security.
> 
> I'm a bit dismayed by those who see no need to honor their commitments. One of the major blemishes on this nation is the shameful way the American Indians were cheated and lied to as the govt. (the people!) broke contract after contract with them.
> 
> Maybe it's time we, as citizens, began insisting that the government keep it's word and obligations. It's a reflection on each and every one of us when that doesn't happen and does indeed poignantly demonstrate the character of it's citizenry.


Im OK with phasing it out. I agree that would be the most politically correct way to do it and would garner the most support. End game is that it has to go. Realistically I know that that SS is not going to benefit me weather it is phased out or not. Im just saying to be realistic, the money isnt there.

Im with you on the pensions too although that is small potatoes in comparison. While we are at it lets phase out every other government welfare/assistance/retirement program. Maybe privatize them all as part of the "phase out" solution. The government has no business being involved in it.

The problem with "honoring the commitment" as you say is that the commitment was made by folks that want to enslave us and empower themselves. By "honoring the commitment" we just admit our addiction to our own slavery and further empower them. I think its time to kick the habit.

The American Indians were defeated by all measures when those commitments were made. We should have never made those commitments either because nobody intended to keep them. What other time in history has a defeated nation been promised so much by the victor? Its rediculous. Its also a whole different subject but by historys measure I think the indians got promised more than most defeated nations and ended up getting about the same treatment. I'd say we are more than even. By the way... I say cut all welfare/assistance to indian nations as well.

Our federal governments only obligation is to provide for the common defence of the states and other things specifically outlined in the constitution. Apart from that it has overstepped its bounds and promised more than it has the authority to deliver.


----------



## partdeux

mosquitomountainman said:


> Rather than abolish it altogether maybe it would be wiser to phase it out. Perhaps give those in the 45 to 55 age range the choice to opt out of payments and benefits. Exclude those below 45 from SS benefits and paying into it. Those 55 and over will be stuck with it.


Because it's constructed as a Ponzi scheme, you can't cut off the revenue flow from the ones below. There is this belief that it's a savings plan, and there's this huge savings account with everybody's money. Plain and simple, it's not there.


----------



## BillM

I don't think Romney , Obama or any man from any political party at this point in time could effect enough change to prevent the financial crash that is comming to the whole world.

The American people have sold our Republic to politicans for the last hundred years in exchange for government handouts and privilages until it has become the way of government that we have now and not the government fought for and handed to us by the founders.

The vehicle is out of control and headed over the cliff and nothing will stop it.

Grit your teeth and buckle your belt we are going to crash !

The question is what will the survivors replace it with ?


----------



## staceyj

X-ring BillM


----------



## The_Blob

partdeux said:


> SS is nothing more than a Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme. Always has been, always will be.


Madoff wouldn't have had the BALLS to try to pull that one off...


----------



## JackDanielGarrett

SS is NOT an entitlement but rather a little carrot on the end of a stick called "slavery". It may not have enslaved the first several generations that collected on what they paid in but it will certainly enslave their grandchildren. I pay SS and I dont expect I will ever see a dime of it. To me, SS is just another way to hide another tax so that money can be spent on things I would never pay for if it were my choice.

^This PLUS, your employer pay the same amount you pay. SO...your employer raises his prices to offset the cost of paying for YOUR SS and passes the cost to..us. In reality you pay half of your SS, boss pays half and you pay for it again when you purchase goods.

My dad says...Aint nothing free, someone, somewhere is paying for it.


----------



## lucaspm98

BillM said:


> I don't think Romney , Obama or any man from any political party at this point in time could effect enough change to prevent the financial crash that is comming to the whole world.
> 
> The American people have sold our Republic to politicans for the last hundred years in exchange for government handouts and privilages until it has become the way of government that we have now and not the government fought for and handed to us by the founders.
> 
> The vehicle is out of control and headed over the cliff and nothing will stop it.
> 
> Grit your teeth and buckle your belt we are going to crash !
> 
> The question is what will the survivors replace it with ?


Yeah, we are headed in a downward spiral that no president could solve by themselves.
Let's replace it with PreparedAmericaSociety!


----------



## mosquitomountainman

TheAnt said:


> Im OK with phasing it out. I agree that would be the most *politically correct way *to do it and would garner the most support. ...
> 
> Nothing "politically correct" about it. It's just an honorable way of doing business. It's the way honorable people do things. They honor their commitments ... even when it hurts!
> 
> The problem with "honoring the commitment" as you say is that the commitment was made by folks that want to enslave us and empower themselves. By "honoring the commitment" we just admit our addiction to our own slavery and further empower them. I think its time to kick the habit.
> 
> The real problem with honoring your commitment is that it sometimes takes sacrifice. There's nothing honrable about telling our senior citizens that we are not going to pay them. To bad someone didn't think of that before the government collected all that money from them.
> 
> 
> The American Indians were defeated by all measures when those commitments were made. We should have never made those commitments either because nobody intended to keep them. What other time in history has a defeated nation been promised so much by the victor? Its rediculous. Its also a whole different subject but by historys measure I think the indians got promised more than most defeated nations and ended up getting about the same treatment. I'd say we are more than even. By the way... I say cut all welfare/assistance to indian nations as well.
> 
> This is one of the biggest lines of BS I think I've ever read. We did make the deal and we should have upheld and continue to uphold our end of the bargain. I wonder if they were all that defeated when the treaties were agreed to. If the conqueror has actually won then why would they make any kind of deal? I think that's called "unconditional surrender" and that's all any conqueror offers to a defeated enemy. The defeat of the Indians was probably inevitable however someone at the time must have recognized that a lot more blood would have to be shed before victory would be proclaimed. They must have also realized that it was better to make peace than to continue the war. Remember, history is written by the winners and I often wonder how much we don't know about those times.
> 
> Our federal governments only obligation is to provide for the common defence of the states and other things specifically outlined in the constitution. Apart from that it has overstepped its bounds and promised more than it has the authority to deliver.


I think the problem I have with this entire line of thought is the concept that any country, municipality or individual should just refuse to honor their obligations. This lack of commitment seems to be a character flaw of the younger generation.

We can whine all we want about what the government has done wrong but as a human being I'll never be the one to say to my seniors who've paid into SS that I'm not going to do everything in my power to honor the commitment made to them. They paid that money in good faith and they should get every red cent that's owed them.

If we can cut a new deal with the next generation then it should be done but the commitment that's been made should be honored.


----------



## kappydell

of course there are. I prep on, though, because as my mother told me "plan for the worst, hope for the best, then hang on and enjoy the show!" i don't worry about things i cant control, just roll with the changes.


----------



## alwaysready

TheAnt said:


> Alwaysready, please know this is not directed specifically at you but rather at the mindset your post seems to be made of.
> 
> SS is NOT an entitlement but rather a little carrot on the end of a stick called "slavery". It may not have enslaved the first several generations that collected on what they paid in but it will certainly enslave their grandchildren. I pay SS and I dont expect I will ever see a dime of it. To me, SS is just another way to hide another tax so that money can be spent on things I would never pay for if it were my choice.
> 
> The mindset folks have to SS baffles me:
> Who in their right mind ever thought that the government would actually ever be able to manage their money better than they? Government is a waste of money and a destroyer of wealth. It always has been and always will be.
> Who ever thought Social Security was about providing you with security? You cant really live off social security even if it did pay what it was supposed to. Ever since SS was developed your dollar was worth more when you payed it in than when you collected it. Inflation has been (nearly?) constant. Social Security always was and always will be a scam to get you to hand over a little more of your paycheck. Why pretend like you are ever going to get anything out of it? Why enslave your children so you can keep your delusion alive? The money you paid into SS is GONE.
> 
> I would like to see SS abolished and kids step up and take care of their parents instead of relying on the government to do it. I would like to see retired folks step up and admit that SS was and remains a scam and they do not want to enslave their children.
> 
> We were all lied to with SS and we chose to believe it because it gave us a sense of security. We have been trading our freedom for security for our whole lives and now we are mad because we realize we might not be as secure as we thought. Surprise! The only security government can provide is a ball and chain and the security that comes with a locked cell. Wake up! You got scammed and have no right to saddle my children with the penalty of your stupidity for believing the government would provide you any security.


No offense taken Ant I just needed to vent my frustrations. This old dog needs to howl at the moon every so often.


----------



## TheAnt

mosquitomountainman said:


> I think the problem I have with this entire line of thought is the concept that any country, municipality or individual should just refuse to honor their obligations. This lack of commitment seems to be a character flaw of the younger generation.
> 
> We can whine all we want about what the government has done wrong but as a human being I'll never be the one to say to my seniors who've paid into SS that I'm not going to do everything in my power to honor the commitment made to them. They paid that money in good faith and they should get every red cent that's owed them.
> 
> If we can cut a new deal with the next generation then it should be done but the commitment that's been made should be honored.


MMM, you dont have to convince me of the importance of keeping commitments. It is part of the foundation of civilization. I, however made no commitment and just because my parents and grandparents were bamboozled into buying into a scam doesnt make me or my children or grandchildren responsible. Sure, go ahead and demand repayment for what is rightfully yours and my kids and grandkids will have to pay it. I didnt promise you anything out of SS, neither did my kids or their kids. I pay into the system too... the difference between you and me is that I know I wont see any of it unless my kids are robbed too. Are my grandkids and yours commited to this financial slavery for your benefit? If not, where is your repayment going to come from?

I believe you are an honorable man who is committed to his word and I certainly dont fault you for that -- on the contrary I wish there were more men like you. Thing is you are looking to the wrong folks to fulfill a commitment that the party you made that commitment with never intended to make good on. You were scammed and the scam continues as long as we demand repayment at the expense of our children. That is not an honorable thing to do either.



mosquitomountainman said:


> This is one of the biggest lines of BS I think I've ever read. We did make the deal and we should have upheld and continue to uphold our end of the bargain. I wonder if they were all that defeated when the treaties were agreed to. If the conqueror has actually won then why would they make any kind of deal? I think that's called "unconditional surrender" and that's all any conqueror offers to a defeated enemy. The defeat of the Indians was probably inevitable however someone at the time must have recognized that a lot more blood would have to be shed before victory would be proclaimed. They must have also realized that it was better to make peace than to continue the war. Remember, history is written by the winners and I often wonder how much we don't know about those times.


Our understanding of history may be distorted by the victors -- about that you may be right but by bullet or treaty the indians were bound to lose -- no "probably" about it. Indians chose treaty and in the end it may not have mattered because in large part they still got bullets. I think we gave them the option to spare our mens lives not theirs. We did it because it was easier. We still won. The victors offer the terms of surrender and the indians one by one accepted those terms. Were the terms fair? Nope. Were we harsh with them? No doubt, but I dont see the English putting up with "Celtic nations" within their borders or the Germans with "tribal nations" within their borders. We have more than accommodated the indians we utterly defeated. It is to their own detriment that they hang on to the past and demand further reparations. The indians that have faired the best are the ones that accepted their defeat and integrated into the society that defeated them. What did the indians do to the tribes they defeated before the white man showed up? I doubt there was much of a difference but if there was I feel certain they treated them harsher. For some reason we have a national guilt about how successful we have been and that somehow the nations we defeated to get here were nobler than we are. Its a crock of $h!t and Im not buying it.

In closing I want to say that I respect your opinion and mean nothing personal by expressing mine. I think you and I would agree on most issues more than not but what fun would it be to discuss things we agree on


----------



## mojo4

What a great thread!! Lemme add my 2 cents as well.... on SS it was passed by my great grandparents generation and they were a selfish bunch!! Times got a little tuff and they broke out the checkbook and wrote themselves a big fattie and handed their descendants the bill!! And my granparents and their generation had no problem stealing the SS money for stupid social programs to appease their kids (my parents generation, the gluttonous boomers) so now its up to me.....do I keep passing the bill and sell out my kids future or do I say F&$K it.... work or die!! Well, I say...... work or die!! I cannot in good conscious destroy my childrens future to keep dumba$$ boomers happy when they've already spent my future and try to spend my kids too so they can live forever with viagara and botox. The gluttony has to end!! No offense to any older people here but for all of mankind we worked until we died so we can provide for our children and grandchildren but the last 2 generations have figured out how to spend the future earnings of their kids and grandkids so they can live high on the hog here and now. It has to end!!!


----------



## TheAnt

mojo4 said:


> What a great thread!! Lemme add my 2 cents as well.... on SS it was passed by my great grandparents generation and they were a selfish bunch!! Times got a little tuff and they broke out the checkbook and wrote themselves a big fattie and handed their descendants the bill!! And my granparents and their generation had no problem stealing the SS money for stupid social programs to appease their kids (my parents generation, the gluttonous boomers) so now its up to me.....do I keep passing the bill and sell out my kids future or do I say F&$K it.... work or die!! Well, I say...... work or die!! I cannot in good conscious destroy my childrens future to keep dumba$$ boomers happy when they've already spent my future and try to spend my kids too so they can live forever with viagara and botox. The gluttony has to end!! No offense to any older people here but for all of mankind we worked until we died so we can provide for our children and grandchildren but the last 2 generations have figured out how to spend the future earnings of their kids and grandkids so they can live high on the hog here and now. It has to end!!!


I think you are being facetious... at least I hope so.

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that SS was and is a device to enslave and demanding payout is only contributing to its existence. That said, nobody running or holding office would suggest that we NOT pay because they would never get (re)elected. I am for any means to get rid of SS. If any means is accepted it will surely be a phased out plan -- I can live with that especially since I have no choice in the matter. The point of all of this is to point out the rediculousness of those folks that insist we need to keep paying out.


----------



## BillS

mojo4 said:


> What a great thread!! Lemme add my 2 cents as well.... on SS it was passed by my great grandparents generation and they were a selfish bunch!! Times got a little tuff and they broke out the checkbook and wrote themselves a big fattie and handed their descendants the bill!! And my granparents and their generation had no problem stealing the SS money for stupid social programs to appease their kids (my parents generation, the gluttonous boomers) so now its up to me.....do I keep passing the bill and sell out my kids future or do I say F&$K it.... work or die!! Well, I say...... work or die!! I cannot in good conscious destroy my childrens future to keep dumba$$ boomers happy when they've already spent my future and try to spend my kids too so they can live forever with viagara and botox. The gluttony has to end!! No offense to any older people here but for all of mankind we worked until we died so we can provide for our children and grandchildren but the last 2 generations have figured out how to spend the future earnings of their kids and grandkids so they can live high on the hog here and now. It has to end!!!


Actually it was FDR's idea. The retirement age was 65 back then and that was how long your were expected to live. There were also about 20 working people for every retiree back then. It marked a big change in the way government worked but it wasn't that expensive back then.


----------



## alwaysready

Wow ain't this grand we might have a differance of opinion on alot things. But we all agree that things are bad and getting worse. We all have decided to do something about it get prepared! We are taking responsibility for ourselves and our families. We are the exception rather than the rule. I most likely will never meet any of you. But I'm honored to be counted amongst you on this forum!


----------



## db2469

Yes AR, there are lots of good people here who are helping us save our own lives. We can't take many into the bunkers with us when the SHTF but we can try to inform the uninformed about the importance of preparing for disasters in these dangerous times...we run the gamut from ultra conservative to liberal (haven't seen too many of those tho, lol) but we all pretty much agree that both political parties are dysfunctional and politics as usual has GOT to change!
DB


----------



## mojo4

Well ant I'm not being facetious. I just wanted to say how I feel. I have also paid into SS for over 20 years and I'm OK with walking away right now and not collecting a red cent if I can free my kids from financial bondage. I have 2 parents on SS and 2 inlaws on SS and I'm ok with trying to help them out too if it means freedom for my little ones. Far too many people in our country would never make the same sacrifice and that's why this won't change until it collapses. When people believe they can vote for more money and not earn it this dooms a society. We are doomed. Prepare now.


----------



## TheAnt

mojo4 said:


> Well ant I'm not being facetious. I just wanted to say how I feel. I have also paid into SS for over 20 years and I'm OK with walking away right now and not collecting a red cent if I can free my kids from financial bondage. I have 2 parents on SS and 2 inlaws on SS and I'm ok with trying to help them out too if it means freedom for my little ones. Far too many people in our country would never make the same sacrifice and that's why this won't change until it collapses. When people believe they can vote for more money and not earn it this dooms a society. We are doomed. Prepare now.


I understand now what you are saying. I dont think most folks on SS have any malicious intent they just dont understand the ramifications of what they are doing... some simply dont have a choice because their kids have all but abandoned them. I think we pretty much agree. Keep on keeping on. Be prepared!


----------



## mosquitomountainman

mojo4 said:


> Well ant I'm not being facetious. I just wanted to say how I feel. I have also paid into SS for over 20 years and I'm OK with walking away right now and not collecting a red cent if I can free my kids from financial bondage. I have 2 parents on SS and 2 inlaws on SS and I'm ok with trying to help them out too if it means freedom for my little ones. Far too many people in our country would never make the same sacrifice and that's why this won't change until it collapses. When people believe they can vote for more money and not earn it this dooms a society. We are doomed. Prepare now.


Wow!!! A whole twenty years!!! Sorry if I'm not impressed. You have at least another 25 years to prepare for retirement. (Which you are doing ... right!) What about those who only have 10 years?

Like I said before. Phase out SS. Take care of the problem honorably ... not like a whiny, spoiled child.

As for those selfish boomers? Many of those boomers are raising grandchildren because their children's generation is a bunch of selfish morons. I could go on and on and on with more examples but that's beside the point.

Social Security is a tough problem but running away is not the way to solve it. There's been too much of that already.

Just remember, when someone brings up the shameful way the American Indians were treated be sure to hold back any comments because you are guilty of the same offense.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.


----------



## alwaysready

db2469 said:


> Yes AR, there are lots of good people here who are helping us save our own lives. We can't take many into the bunkers with us when the SHTF but we can try to inform the uninformed about the importance of preparing for disasters in these dangerous times...we run the gamut from ultra conservative to liberal (haven't seen too many of those tho, lol) but we all pretty much agree that both political parties are dysfunctional and politics as usual has GOT to change!
> DB


New members show up daily real change occurs slowly. No pun intended.


----------



## md1911

Here is my opinion of how to deal with SSI. I'm a child of a baby boomer and have paid SSI since I was 14. I'm 38 now. No pun intended but we could grand father in older people. Who are let's say 10 years from retirement and pro rate everyone else. No mater who you are or what your situation the anwesere to this problem shold be painfull to all americans. But we should not pass this problem to the next generation. Just my opinion


----------



## UncleJoe

md1911 said:


> we should not pass this problem to the next generation. Just my opinion


But that is exactly what the congresscritters are doing and will continue to do. Kick the can as far down the road as possible. But eventually they will kick it into a wall and say "OMG, How did this happen?" We never saw it coming.


----------



## BillS

mosquitomountainman said:


> Just remember, when someone brings up the shameful way the American Indians were treated be sure to hold back any comments because you are guilty of the same offense.


No, I'm not guilty of the same offense. If I was born in 1840 and personally murdered some of them then I would be guilty. It doesn't really matter what happened to your ancestors 200, 150, or 100 years ago. They're all American citizens now. They are 100% responsible for the lives they create for themselves.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

BillS said:


> No, I'm not guilty of the same offense. If I was born in 1840 and personally murdered some of them then I would be guilty. It doesn't really matter what happened to your ancestors 200, 150, or 100 years ago. They're all American citizens now. They are 100% responsible for the lives they create for themselves.


What I meant was that if you're the type who doesn't keep his word maybe it would be best to not criticize others who are guilty of the same offense.

The point I've been making all along is that the money was paid in good faith (actually it was taken under threat of the govt. sending in jack-booted-thugs with guns) and that obligation should be honored.

Scond, the answer is not to cut and run but to fix the problem. Several solutions have been suggested with the best in my opinion being phasing out the program. If people on both sides would back off on the knee-jerk reactions perhaps a real solution could be impemented.

Again, SS, military and civil retirement, and other programs where the individual paid directly into the system or received it as part of the "employment package" should be honored. They are not in the same category as "entitlements."


----------



## gypsysue

Some people here have paid in to SS for 40 or 50 years, WITHOUT CHOICE, with the promise from the government that it's an investment for their retirement. They worked decade after decade resentfully watching that money being taken out of their checks, accepting it because the government told them that they'd get it back (if they lived long enough!).

I can't understand why anyone would think that should be yanked out from under those people. I just shake my head in amazement at that. 

I'm even more stunned that some of you have the mentality of blaming these older people for 'accepting' the pittance payments they now get (or will soon) from that program that extorted money from them all those years!!! 

To me, that's like paying on your house for years, expecting that you'll pay it off and live out your life in it, then the government (with crowds of the younger generation cheering and jumping up and down behind them) comes and tells you that you have to leave, the house is needed to help the younger generation. "Sorry, you'll have to figure out some other place to live." And dumps you out the door. At least in that case you had a CHOICE to buy the house.

If anyone really believes SS is the problem driving this country into bankruptcy, and not the billions of dollars we freely give away to foreign countries (who haven't paid into our country and would stab us in the back at first chance), then you need to at least realize that the SS program needs to be changed or ended gradually and with other plans in place. The answer is not the same for a 55 year old as it is for a 40 year old or 30 year old person, etc.


----------



## alwaysready

gypsysue said:


> Some people here have paid in to SS for 40 or 50 years, WITHOUT CHOICE, with the promise from the government that it's an investment for their retirement. They worked decade after decade resentfully watching that money being taken out of their checks, accepting it because the government told them that they'd get it back (if they lived long enough!).
> 
> I can't understand why anyone would think that should be yanked out from under those people. I just shake my head in amazement at that.
> 
> I'm even more stunned that some of you have the mentality of blaming these older people for 'accepting' the pittance payments they now get (or will soon) from that program that extorted money from them all those years!!!
> 
> To me, that's like paying on your house for years, expecting that you'll pay it off and live out your life in it, then the government (with crowds of the younger generation cheering and jumping up and down behind them) comes and tells you that you have to leave, the house is needed to help the younger generation. "Sorry, you'll have to figure out some other place to live." And dumps you out the door. At least in that case you had a CHOICE to buy the house.
> 
> If anyone really believes SS is the problem driving this country into bankruptcy, and not the billions of dollars we freely give away to foreign countries (who haven't paid into our country and would stab us in the back at first chance), then you need to at least realize that the SS program needs to be changed or ended gradually and with other plans in place. The answer is not the same for a 55 year old as it is for a 40 year old or 30 year old person, etc.


This is why I don't consider SS an entitlement by right people should just be having money they paid returned. Of course the Gov threw it away on things it was never intended for. The mentality of younger people is just a symptom of the me generation. They fail to understand that these people did their part to make this country great they spent their youth being productive and part of that productivity was diverted into SS for their "Golden years" The fact that they were lied to is not their fault they are victims. The opposite side of the coin is the young people who have been taught that the way to success is a college education. They amass tremendous debt in the form of student loans. Today they are likely to end up with a degree, huge debt and no job. The silver lining to SHTF is people will began to depend on each other again. It will start with families and spread to communities. With that being said SS is doomed either through out right default or by being phased out it was mismanaged and well past the stage of repair.


----------



## partdeux

GS,

Most people that receive SS receive far far far more than they ever paid into the program. the program is unsubstainable, even without the additional drag on the system. I said it before and will say it again, SS is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme on steroids.


----------



## alwaysready

partdeux said:


> GS,
> 
> Most people that receive SS receive far far far more than they ever paid into the program. the program is unsubstainable, even without the additional drag on the system. I said it before and will say it again, SS is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme on steroids.


There are so many facets to SS I guess it is a ponzi after all a person that never worked a day in the U.S. can come here after the age of 65 and still qualify for SS.:scratch


----------



## mosquitomountainman

alwaysready said:


> There are so many facets to SS I guess it is a ponzi after all a person that never worked a day in the U.S. can come here after the age of 65 and still qualify for SS.:scratch


Look, no one is arguing that SS has some serious problems. The only argument is what to do about it.


----------



## TheLazyL

SS...well....What Dad paid in went towards Grandpa's supplemental income.

What I paid in went for Dad's supplemental income.

And it is also my responsibility to train my children and the younger generation of coworkers to acquire steady sources of income so they can pay for my supplemental retirement income.

There are too many votes involved for the Federal government to allow SS to fail which means the only way SS will fail is when the Federal government goes kaput too.


----------



## TheAnt

mosquitomountainman said:


> Look, no one is arguing that SS has some serious problems. The only argument is what to do about it.


And the best thing to do about it is end it... phase it out. Nobody is here is saying that we need to take money away from those that paid in just that we should not take money away from those that dont want the benefit (me, my children and on and on). My point was that those that have paid in for 40 or 50 years should understand that SS is bankrupt, robbed, gone. Why should I pay into a system that is broken and will never pay a return? Why should my children? Currently the only reason we pay in is because the older generation needs us to. Many folks my age would opt out right away. If we did the older generations wouldnt get jack squat because (big surprise) your money is not sitting in a SS account somewhere... its GONE. I didnt steal it, my kids didnt steal it, the people that the older generations voted into office did. OK, maybe YOU didnt vote for them but they were elected. What do you want to do about it? First off, NEVER trust the government with your money. Period. Secondly NEVER rely on the government for anything especially retirement. Lesson learned by our generation? Probably not.


----------



## TheLazyL

mosquitomountainman said:


> Look, no one is arguing that SS has some serious problems. The only argument is what to do about it.


SS is like an old car.

Mechanic thought a $1,000. for repairs, cost $1,500.

Then you needed tires before winter.

Radiator hose burst on the freeway, towing charge.

Transmission is slipping a bit.

After a while to have too much money into it to get rid of it and it's costing you too much money to keep it. What do you do? Cut you loses and replace it with something this more reliable and affordable.

Time to cut our losses and eliminate SS. I believe it would be a lot more cost effective and a whole lot less overhead if I keep the 15% to invest instead of "relying" on the Feds to collect the money and spend it on other things.

And if I don't want my parents to move in with me because they didn't save, then I need to help them manage their finances.

Like wise if my children don't want me to be moving in with them...


----------



## TheLazyL

TheAnt said:


> ... SS is bankrupt, robbed, gone. ...


SS is not bankrupt. It took in $69 billion more then it spent last year with reserves of $2.7 trillion!

_"Myth 1: Social Security is going bankrupt.
A quick Google search turns up plenty of supporters for this myth--none more prominent than President George W. Bush, who floated it in his 2005 State of the Union address, as he campaigned to replace Social Security with private investment accounts. "The system . . . on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy," he said. "And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security."

Facts: The word "bankruptcy" is meaningless in the context of a federal government program. Nancy Altman, an advocate for Social Security and historian of the program, notes in her book "The Battle for Social Security: From FDR's Vision To Bush's Gamble" that "As long as the federal government has, under the Constitution, 'Power to Lay and collect Taxes' and the authority to issue and sell Treasury bonds, it and its programs will not go bankrupt."

Social Security does face a long-term financial challenge. In April, the program's trustees reported acceleration of the drawdown of Social Security's vast trust fund reserves. The trust funds of the retirement and disability programs are on a course to be exhausted in 2033 as baby boomer retirements accelerate--three years sooner than projected a year ago.

But the trustees also noted that after 2033, there will still be sufficient assets from payroll taxes to pay about 75% of promised benefits. Although that isn't a fair or acceptable outcome, it's still a fact that Social Security will have substantial assets even after 2033. A far more likely outcome: Congress will take action to correct the imbalance (see Myth No. 10, below).

Discussing the trustee report, Social Security commissioner Michael Astrue went out of his way to emphasize that the program is far from broke. Social Security took in $69 billion more than it spent last year, when you include tax receipts and interest on bonds held in the Social Security Trust Fund. The SSTF had reserves of $2.7 trillion last year."_


----------



## TheAnt

TheLazyL said:


> SS is not bankrupt. It took in $69 billion more then it spent last year with reserves of $2.7 trillion!


Do you care to reveal to all of us which bank that money is in? Or is this theoretical money that can be printed at a moments notice? There is no money and we all know it. Sure, it took in money... and it spent it all -- though maybe not all on SS benefits.

To continue down this road is robbery isnt it? But, I mean, we have to rob the next generation to keep the commitments we have made to the previous right?


----------



## Marcus

TheLazyL said:


> SS is not bankrupt. It took in $69 billion more then it spent last year with reserves of $2.7 trillion!


And where are all those reserves invested?
Oh yeah, *Congress started raiding the SS reserves back in the 60s* to pay for a war and a new entitlement. But Congress did give SS special promissary notes that are non-negotiable and kept in an unlocked filing cabinet (I saw it years ago on 60 Minutes.) So we just have to trust Congress. Yeah, right.



BillS said:


> If we had a dictator ......


If you have even a passing knowledge of history, in particular the Late Roman Republic era, you'll know where we're headed. Et tu, BillS?

One of the famous sayings from those days was panem et circenses (bread and circuses.)
Bread in today's terms: Food Stamps/ Welfare
Circuses (alternate translation is games) in today's terms: pro sports/ college sports/ amateur sports


----------



## Sam

> If anyone really believes SS is the problem driving this country into bankruptcy, and not the billions of dollars we freely give away to foreign countries (who haven't paid into our country and would stab us in the back at first chance), then you need to at least realize that the SS program needs to be changed or ended gradually and with other plans in place.


gypsysue,
Last year we paid $49.1 billion in "foreign aid" yes I am POed about every cent of it.
Last *month *we paid out $63,243,000,000 in Social Security payments. Does that suit you well enough?


----------



## BillM

Sam this year was the first year that the amount paid out in SS payments each month exceeded the amount witheld from workers paychecks and the business contribution.

To put it plainly we are going deeper in the hole every month that the SS checks are issued.

Prior to this the amount paid out each month was roughly equal to the amount taken in.

There is nothing in the SS reserve acount to draw intrest . Our elected representives have robbed it to fund pet projects that will get them re-elected for the last 65 years.

The account is full of IOU's.


----------



## Sam

The account has always been full of IOU's.
The funds were supposedly invested in Class "Q" treasury bonds.
Those pay 1 1/4% when they pay at all and can only be bought and sold by the FedGov.
In other words all they did was loan themselves the money at a rate no one else gould get.
gypsysue was of the opinion that we were giving out huge gobs of "foreign aid" and that SS was a mere pittance that couldn't possibly be driving us under.
WRONG!
Constitutionally mandated items like Defense (where fully 40% of the money is wasted through fraud and mismanagement) look like they are the biggest chunk of the pie. SS and Mrdicare are the biggest items out there. Not only the biggest but they are "off line" which means that the Congress won't even vote on it.


----------



## Immolatus

I think we can all agree that the gubt spends lots of money they shouldnt. We could also probably all agree that when it came down to it, there would be lots and lots of spending we could cut before we started cutting off peoples only source of income, or helping out your fellow man (sorry ladies!).
And yes, there is no SS money. However you want to account for it, iou's in an account somewhere, whatever, when it comes down to it, it doesnt exist. Much like the rest of the 'money' in the system. If we all went to the bank today, the system would collapse because we all know its not there. But what would happen if we all went to get a loan to buy a house or car? Would the 'money' then be there? Damn skippy it would. Then where does it come from? Money is not money. Debt is money. The bank creates it.



d_saum said:


> So banksters proves he's corrupt how? Maybe... oh.. I dunno.. they just want someone who's not going to villianize them at every turn.
> 
> This has GOT to be one of the most ignorant (not dumb.. "ignorant") sentences I've ever read on this forum. Do you REALLY think there's no difference between BO and Romney? Please say you were joking, because if you weren't.. well.. you are seriously misinformed. Again.. not calling you dumb or stupid.. but you have no concept of how different they really are. You have the socialist versus the free market business guy.. they are worlds apart and anything you say otherwise does not make it so.


Hey no worries, Ive got pretty thick skin. 
I would think that the fact that GS,JPM, BoA etc are willing to give him tons of money to reelect him speaks for itself. Why would any entity give money to an election except to benefit itself? The Vampire Squid (GS) has its hands in everything, and JPM runs the EBT program. They benefit immensely from gubt largesse. You think they would donate money to Mittens if they didnt think they were going to get something out of it? Basically all large scale corporate donations are a legalized form of bribery. The entities wouldnt even exist in their current forms if not for their influence. Since Mittens is one of them, they know that he would keep them at the top of the power structure. How is that not corruption? Not that any other politician is any different.
As for Mittens v Obama, cmon. Look at his record as gov of Mass. One could easily just point at Romneycare and end it. But look at state spending during his tenure. If you remove the reduction in spending as a result of mandating health insurance, state spending rose.
I am sorry, but this line of thinking is exactly what the ptb want you to think. The people that voted for Obama can vouch for it. Was he significantly different than Bush? Other than the whole healthcare debacle (which is FAR from socialism, its more of a handout to the insurance industry, socialism wouldve instituted a single payer system) what has changed?
Forget M vs. O. Both parties will increase spending, support the MIC, and do everything they can to keep the current fascist structure in place. Anyone believing otherwise is being naive.
They are all 'socialists' in the respect that they will use gubt money willy nilly, its just a question of where that money goes.



d_saum said:


> while I applaud your ideals... I hate to be the one to tell you good sir.. that you will be, in essence.. wasting your vote. No matter how you slice it. Unless you are planning just to not vote at all, which, in my opinion would be wiser than wasting the vote on the independent/third party candidate.


Sad. Again, the power structure has convinced some that if you dont for one of the two major parties, your vote is wasted. In essence you are saying if you are not on board with X or Y, then your opinion doesnt count. I hope you do not ever say anything negative against the 'ptb' since you are so in favor of their control over the system.


----------



## BlueShoe

d_saum said:


> Riiggghttt... As opposed to Obamas slashing of our debt... right? That clown wants even MORE spending, higher taxes (which bring in less revenue), and has zero ideas how to cut our debt and save SS, medicare/medicaid. What's his plan for saving SS again? Oh that's right.. he doesn't have one.
> 
> When Romney is elected, whether you like him or not, business owners confidence will rise because, if nothing else, they'll feel confident that a man with business experience is in the office, as opposed to Mr. "I've never even run a lemonade stand" Obama, who scares the crap out of businesses. Romney, while not my first choice, will start to bring down our debt, and our economy will start to recover. Our dollar will start to regain its value, and we will avoid economic disaster.. at least for a good long while.


Folks, the federal reserved DOES NOT want a strong dollar for the recovery. And Romney is not an economist. The Federal Reserve is in charge of interest rates, debt (through QE and bond purchasing), the dollar valuation and lending.

You're going to see the opposite of a strong dollar in the near term. That's what the Fed is depending on. Get used to the idea. The Fed answers to nobody. They make this statement from time to time to remind you of that.


----------



## partdeux

TheLazyL said:


> SS...well....What Dad paid in went towards Grandpa's supplemental income.
> 
> What I paid in went for Dad's supplemental income.
> 
> And it is also my responsibility to train my children and the younger generation of coworkers to acquire steady sources of income so they can pay for my supplemental retirement income.
> 
> There are too many votes involved for the Federal government to allow SS to fail which means the only way SS will fail is when the Federal government goes kaput too.


LL, you get why this is a Ponzi Scheme. Today's benefits are being paid by today's workers. Many of the people collecting SS today, have collected far more then what was ever put into it. This only works as long as you have an exponentially increasing number of paying workers. But, what we have had is an exponentially increasing number of recipients, and what is quickly becoming a decreasing number of workers. The math makes it unsustainable, no matter how you sling it.


----------



## partdeux

tenOC said:


> Folks, the federal reserved DOES NOT want a strong dollar for the recovery. And Romney is not an economist. The Federal Reserve is in charge of interest rates, debt (through QE and bond purchasing), the dollar valuation and lending.
> 
> You're going to see the opposite of a strong dollar in the near term. That's what the Fed is depending on. Get used to the idea. The Fed answers to nobody. They make this statement from time to time to remind you of that.


Federal Reserve is NOT a govt entity. They are a private corporation.


----------



## BlueShoe

Well, I read 2 and half pages and I'm quite disappointed.

The media isn't for one party and against the other. They're for the agenda, and the agenda is more government control and fewer individual freedoms because that's what the government caretakers want. The media is state run though only a few news outlets.

The Ds and the Rs are playing a battle not to lose with candidates and the end result is poorer and poorer candidates. They want the worst candidate they can win with so he'll attract more people outside of the core support groups. They aren't trying to win the converted.

The staffers and lifelong bureaucrats are always left in power regardless of the party in charge. Some get moved to different seats, but that's all. They always come back.

The bureaucrats never sleep. They've woven such a trap of legal wording that you can NEVER get out of the trap unless there is a major reset in the nation. We aren't operating under the original Constitution anymore. That went out the window during the War over States Rights vs Federal Power.

The bankers ARE corrupt. They don't care about you and neither does your government. It's them combined against individuals. We get saddled with all the debt they create through schemes that they work on for decades to fulfill. After the Great Depression we passed laws to prevent if from happening. And then THEY had the laws repealed and did the exact thing over again. And both times they got bailed out at our expense. They know how to do it and they know what they're doing. Why do you think every month there's a new top tier bank caught defrauding the investors and government overseers?

Presidents aren't economists. They do what they're told will work by staffers and the autonomous Federal Reserve. The Pres delivers the speech prepared for him for the masses. And we go along thinking the President is responsible for the results. And along the speech they try to push for new government taxes or money for the military (money from you). Romney is already owned. Obama is owned. Every President is and will be owned by the system that cares for them. Until this system completely fails, if it does fail.

We aren't a group who acts in unison. We're Wildebeasts with superhuman potential power but we think as prey through fear and not wanting to get picked out of the herd for targeting. So we go to work to pay the taxes for banks to steal from us by the government giving them more and more of our money and taking power for themselves.

SS is welfare. Medicaid and Medicare are welfare. Government prescription drug programs are welfare. Everything that is a service provided to the citizenry through the government for wellness and care is welfare. That's just the facts. We lie to ourselves that welfare is poor deadbeats with their hands out and not us good hard working souls. It's all welfare whether you paid or not.
*
There is only one answer and only one silver bullet to stop all of this.* Eliminate the money source. The ONLY lasting way is to eliminate the Federal Reserve system and take our money back internally to the Congress.


----------



## Sam

Some may consider it a wasted vote to not support a big party candidate, they are wrong.
It is how you vote NOTA (none of the above)
Immolatus was wrong there is a difference between Romney and Obama, about 3 shades of melanin.


----------



## BillM

This Country is Bankrupt. 

There is not going to be a save by anyone or any party.

It is too late. There is no way anyone can make the math work !

No Republican, No Democrat, No Libertarian can fix our system. abolishing the Federal Reserve would have worked in 1972 but we didn't do that then , we went off of the Gold standard and our Dollar has steddiely decreased in buying power ever since.

Any thing could push it over the edge right now . A war , a natural disaster or some European bank failures but even if these things do not happen, it must and will crumble of it's own weight very soon.


----------



## mojo4

We have all been suckered into a crappy ponzi scheme that I doubt anyone here is old enough to be responsible for. Pretty much everyone who voted for the politicians who implemented it is dead so I'm sure we can all agree we are innocents born into this financial bondage. So now what do we do?? A phase out won't work because that means people will pay in and never expect a dime. Nope, either we keep the insanity express full steam ahead into the iceberg or we quit cold turkey and get the shakes!! So let's all give a big round of applause to FDR and all the crappy politicians who voted this in and especially our ancestors for voting in such great people. Well when it breaks, and it will, hopefully people will take care of their family like I will have to. I guess one big bed with both sets of parents facing each other like charlie and the chocolate factory is in my basements future!!


----------



## mosquitomountainman

mojo4 said:


> We have all been suckered into a crappy ponzi scheme that I doubt anyone here is old enough to be responsible for ...


And here's a major difference in thought. We are all responsible for this because it's still in existence. Do you people think this "crisis" in SS is new?????? It's been recongnized since the 70's that I know of. It should have been handled appropriately then but people weren't willing to make the hard decisions needed to do so. If it's continued under your watch you, too are at least partially responsible for it.

The same set of whiners is active here. Instead of coming up with a plan that might have a chance of passing it's the same old hard-line nonsense that's kept SS going in it's present form. Wake up and smell the coffee. You're as guilty of perpetuating this fraud as anyone in your past.

When Slavery was abolished in England it took years of effort to work towards political solutions. It took dedicated people who gave unselfishly to the cause and they were victorious. It did not take a civil war to accomplish it. However, in the "United" States thousands of lives were lost because of the stupid way it was handled. Instead of persuasion and patience each side drew some lines in the sand that they wouldn't cross and the result was the death of thousands as brother turned against brother and a nation was torn in half.

Learn from the past instead of repeating it. It doesn't have to be an "either/or" decision. It does need courageous people who can think and act to bring about the most good for everyone involved.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't the way to handle it.


----------



## BillS

mosquitomountainman said:


> And here's a major difference in thought. We are all responsible for this because it's still in existence. Do you people think this "crisis" in SS is new?????? It's been recongnized since the 70's that I know of. It should have been handled appropriately then but people weren't willing to make the hard decisions needed to do so. If it's continued under your watch you, too are at least partially responsible for it.
> 
> The same set of whiners is active here. Instead of coming up with a plan that might have a chance of passing it's the same old hard-line nonsense that's kept SS going in it's present form. Wake up and smell the coffee. You're as guilty of perpetuating this fraud as anyone in your past.
> 
> When Slavery was abolished in England it took years of effort to work towards political solutions. It took dedicated people who gave unselfishly to the cause and they were victorious. It did not take a civil war to accomplish it. However, in the "United" States thousands of lives were lost because of the stupid way it was handled. Instead of persuasion and patience each side drew some lines in the sand that they wouldn't cross and the result was the death of thousands as brother turned against brother and a nation was torn in half.
> 
> Learn from the past instead of repeating it. It doesn't have to be an "either/or" decision. It does need courageous people who can think and act to bring about the most good for everyone involved.
> 
> Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't the way to handle it.


No, those of us who are alive aren't responsible for social security. That's a ridiculous statement.

America as we know it today won't exist after the collapse. Or after the government regains control of the country. Expect to live in a one-world government with no government benefits of any kind.

It's pretty ridiculous to talk about reforming social security when 90% of the US population will most likely be dead just a few short years from now.


----------



## BlueShoe

BillM said:


> This Country is Bankrupt.
> 
> No Republican, No Democrat, No Libertarian can fix our system. abolishing the Federal Reserve would have worked in 1972 but we didn't do that then , we went off of the Gold standard and our Dollar has steddiely decreased in buying power ever since.


True, but I didn't say we could save the finances of the country. I said this is the way out. The way out of being owned and controlled by the world group controlling us presently. If you don't start by eliminating this central banking scheme/scam by the international cartel, we're just gonna stay trapped. Remove the money stream, it dies. You can focus on a smaller group of corrupt people.



> Any thing could push it over the edge right now . A war , a natural disaster or some European bank failures but even if these things do not happen, it must and will crumble of it's own weight very soon.


Count on that as a ruse by the corrupt the government we're owned by through the Federal reserve.


----------



## JayJay

A comment stated this:
~~~The bankers ARE corrupt. They don't care about you and neither does your government. It's them combined against individuals. We get saddled with all the debt they create through schemes that they work on for decades to fulfill.~~~ 
Yep..it's the taxpayer's money when it's bailout time...but when the CEOs are getting millions in packages, where's the dividend for the taxpayer??

Also, I don't think the SS program would have collapsed if it had been kept local, maybe within states, etc.and not answered to hundreds of accountants not paying attention. 
This was money set aside, placed in an interest-bearing account until some ******* moved it to the general fund classification.

The Amish do have a social security program..but it is within the community.
Are they broke?? Do they need welfare?? Do they go bankrupt when sick or injured?
Just my opinion. It is not an entitlement; yes, years ago, the deductions from the employee/employer should have been increased.
That wasn't the only problem...mismanagement by CON gress had a big hand in losing our money.
Just give me my and my dh's donations for 45 years and we'll go away quietly...but not possible because of the mishandling/theft.

I do not call this a Ponzi scheme; I call it a 'management program gone wrong' because of poor management and stupid people.


----------



## BlueShoe

Social Security IS welfare. Medicare and Medicaid are welfare programs. Anything that is a social service is a welfare program whether it's government or non-government. There are 184 welfare programs under the Fed gov system that it funds along with worker contributions as well as those from the employers and also from the states. SS and Medicare are the largest of the welfare systems run by our government.

And our Social Security system still has a surplus on paper. Yeah, they spend on things like the wars.


----------



## BillS

No, social security isn't welfare. At worst it's a ponzi scheme. At best it's an involuntary pension program that was poorly run by the government. Almost everybody pays 7.65% of their gross wages. The company matches it. The total is 15.3% of gross income. If you worked for 40 years you'll pay the equivalent of about 6 years' wages into social security. Payouts are such that the government pays you about 1% a year for the use of your money. The government spent the money as it was coming in. And of course nobody went to prison for it.


----------



## BlueShoe

The facts dispute that. If you're on SS, you're on welfare. You can say the sky is red and the sea is yellow. You can attribute things to Cicero he never said like your old signature. 

"Social" Security. The name says it all. "Social" services are welfare by definition. According to any credible dictionary on the planet, welfare is any social service or aid administered for the aid and/or well being of the citizenry. When the LDS offers canning to people, it's part of their welfare program. That's just the facts about what welfare is.

Wiki:


> *Social programs in the United States are welfare subsidies designed to aid the needs of the U.S. population. *Federal programs began with Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism and expanded with Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society.
> 
> The programs vary in eligibility requirements and are provided by various organizations on a federal, state, local and private level. They help to provide food, shelter, education, healthcare and money to U.S. citizens through primary and secondary education, subsidies of college education, unemployment disability insurance, subsidies for eligible low-wage workers, subsidies for housing, food stamps, pensions for eligible persons and health insurance programs that cover public employees.
> 
> *The Social Security system, is the largest and most prominent social aid program. Medicare is another prominent program.*
> 
> In 2002, total U.S. social welfare expenditure constitutes roughly 35% of GDP, with purely public expenditure constituting 21%, publicly supported but privately provided welfare services constituting 10% of GDP and purely private services constituting 4% of GDP. This compared to France and Sweden whose welfare spending ranges from 30% to 35% of GDP.


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2012USbn_13bs1n_400010200212_651_571#usgs302
click the link. This is welfare spending by the US gov. Click (+) by PENSIONS and then HEALTHCARE. Click (+) OLD AGE and up comes SOCIAL SECURITY.
According to the US government, who created the program, it's welfare. It's welfare even if they didn't.

http://usgovernmentbenefits.org/hd/index.php?t=list+of+government+welfare+programs
Click the link. See the title? 
"List of government welfare programs" 
Just above that statement you'll see SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE. See also veterans benefits. It's all welfare by universal definition and even by government definition. The only place it's NOT welfare is on talk radio, TV media and in the minds of those who want to believe welfare is only food stamps and SNAP cards to dead beats.


----------



## BillS

That's so ridiculous. You found a website that claims it's a government benefit so that makes it welfare. OK. If you're going to use grade-school arguments to "prove" your point I'm done wasting my time.


----------



## BlueShoe

BillS said:


> That's so ridiculous. You found a website that claims it's a government benefit so that makes it welfare. OK. If you're going to use grade-school arguments to "prove" your point I'm done wasting my time.


I provided more than one website. You have provided none. I provided that the government even states it's welfare.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare



> financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government:
> 4.( initial capital letter ) Informal . a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, especially those unable to work.





> a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed





> Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for all citizens. In most developed countries, welfare is largely provided by the government, in addition to charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations. In the end, this term replaces "charity" as it was known for thousands of years, being the voluntary act of providing for those who temporarily or permanently could not, and in some cases choose not to, provide for themselves.


----------



## Tweto

The numbers (if correct) show that the US could eliminate *ALL* spending and increase taxes to 75% of income and we still could not pay off the debt.

Friday I heard 2 financial experts on different shows say that nothing we do will stop us from going into a *DEPRESSION* and* DEFLATION* followed by *HYPERINFLATION*. They said that all this should start before 2014.


----------



## Magus

BillS said:


> That's so ridiculous. You found a website that claims it's a government benefit so that makes it welfare. OK. If you're going to use grade-school arguments to "prove" your point I'm done wasting my time.


Hang in there coin dealer,I got your back on this one!
Social security was founded on the hope that 3/4ths of us would drop dead before payout time.I figured I'd never see what I put into it until I got too screwed up to function.if they'd just let us smoke in peace and stop screaming we're the children of Satan for lighting up even at home, we'd oblige the stupid retards, and let's not forget the food Nazis and free medical care!Social Security could be saved just by leaving people the hell alone and letting Darwin do his thing!

When BillS is right, he's laser focused right.


----------



## BlueShoe

Bills is always laser focused, right or wrong. And he's wrong. Saying people weren't expected to live so long does not change it from being a welfare program and is contrary to one reason the government stated for creating this specific program. The original formation of the law was to alleviate the risk of destitution by those who can't work, and that specifically included old people. Why is it so hard for some people to admit it's welfare? Yes, I know why they can't. We need to be face the facts, though.

Discussing why it will fail won't change it. Even Dave Ramsey admits it's welfare. It will fail because of the Baby Boom, government squandering the trust fund, abortion or at least lack of worker replacement to continue the funding. And it turned into healthy older people taking benefits since they paid into the program. They're entitled. I'm entitled to take back from the welfare program.


----------



## Foreverautumn

db2469 said:


> but we all pretty much agree that both political parties are dysfunctional and politics as usual has GOT to change!
> DB


DB, that's why there's a TEA PARTY!
:rant:


----------



## Foreverautumn

mojo4 said:


> When people believe they can vote for more money and not earn it this dooms a society. We are doomed. Prepare now.


Or, as I've come to think of it, when people vote against mathematics!:nuts:


----------



## partdeux

For ease of discussion purposes, we pay SS taxes of 10%

10 people working, create sufficient revenue to pay for one person no longer working

One of those workers retires, suddenly 2 people are collecting govt run social income, and only 9 people paying those taxes.

Start doing this for decades, and you run out of other peoples money to spend. Now what? This is where we are today.


----------



## UncleJoe

tenOC said:


> And he's wrong....Why is it so hard for some people to admit it's welfare?


 Because it isn't; plain and simple.

SSI is a government sponsored retirement program. You pay into it your entire working life and when you've reached the end of that working life you are to collect what you paid in, with interest. Do you contribute to an employer sponsored retirement account such as a 401 or IRA? Many folks do. Do you expect to get that money back with interest when you retire? Of course you do. We all do. Do you consider that welfare. By your definition, that IRA you've been building should be classified as welfare.

Your SSI account should have grown over all those years but it hasn't because it has been squandered through legislators pet peeves and pork barrel projects. It's your personal account. You get (at least I do) a statement every year listing your personal contribution to your own personal retirement account. I built that account. It belongs to me and no one else. It is NOT welfare.


----------



## partdeux

UncleJoe said:


> Do you contribute to an employer sponsored retirement account such as a 401 or IRA? Many folks do. Do you expect to get that money back with interest when you retire? Of course you do. We all do. Do you consider that welfare. By your definition, that IRA you've been building should be classified as welfare.
> ...
> It is NOT welfare.


When I put money into an IRA/401k, I will get back what I put in plus any gains, and not one dime more.

When I put money into SS, most people have received far more than they put in, even taking into account potential gains.


----------



## alwaysready

Can someone with more knowledge than I have do the math as to how much a person who worked 45 years might have paid. And how that money would have grown if it was left untouched in a regular savings account. I know that there are better ways to invest. But for the sake of argument I'd just like to know the numbers on the most basic accumulation.


----------



## BlueShoe

> When I put money into SS, most people have received far more than they put in, even taking into account potential gains.


That's because it's a welfare program.



UncleJoe said:


> Because it isn't; plain and simple.


It is welfare and the government is telling you that it is. If you want to say you don't believe it, that's your choice. I'm going to take the word of every dictionary and as well as the government who administers it that it's welfare.
I don't make the decisions. It's right in those links, even broken down in charts and lists under government welfare benefits that they are absolutely, welfare.



> SSI is a government sponsored retirement program.


 It's the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT and as you just said, it's government sponsored SOCIAL service program. It came from the New Deal. That it is a fact. They extract money from you BY FORCE before you even get paid (if you work for someone). They distribute that money to those who can not work due to age or disability, etc. That is a social service and it's defined as welfare.



> You pay into it your entire working life and when you've reached the end of that working life you are to collect what you paid in, with interest.


 And you don't have a choice in the matter because you are forced to. There are only a few exceptions to them taking your money (pastors, etc.).



> Do you contribute to an employer sponsored retirement account such as a 401 or IRA? Many folks do.


No. I don't. But I have the choice not to invest. With Social Security I don't even get a check unless they steal it before I get to it.


> Do you expect to get that money back with interest when you retire? Of course you do. We all do. Do you consider that welfare. By your definition, that IRA you've been building should be classified as welfare.


(1) It's not my definition. It's all the dictionaries, government and NGO that aid people getting services. And a 401K would be MY PERSONAL investment account that nobody else is a party to. No other individual gets any share of that. That is entirely different than a welfare program. I control it's funding, direction and allocation. And no a 401K is not welfare. It's an investment vehicle. The SS trust fund is a financial vehicle within the greater Social Security Act.



> Your SSI account should have grown over all those years but it hasn't because it has been squandered through legislators pet peeves and pork barrel projects. It's your personal account.


No, it is not my personal account. I have NO control over the investment of the money that they force from me before I even receive my check, and it's piled with everyone else's money. If I pay in enough for long enough, I get some of my money back. But it's not my personal account I'm in control of. And if I die, nobody in my family gets my money. It's just gone. I have no kids and will have no beneficiary. I own none of it after I die. If I have a 401K, someone in my family gets my money. With 401K I can increase, decrease, realocate, borrow against, take an early pay out, etc.. With the Social Security Act I get something if I can get a doctor to convince the government I'm indigent, or I can wait until I'm old aged when every body else gets there's.


> You get (at least I do) a statement every year listing your personal contribution to your own personal retirement account. I built that account. It belongs to me and no one else. It is NOT welfare.


It's welfare according to clinical definition and government accounting office.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

BillS said:


> No, those of us who are alive aren't responsible for social security. That's a ridiculous statement. ...


Guess I'd have to disagree with you. If you know a crime is about to be committed and you do nothing about it you bear at least part of the guilt for not trying to stop it.

SS was voted in ... it can be voted out. Every year it's in existence was an opportunity to abolish or reform it.

We may have to just agree to disagree with this one. :kiss:


----------



## BlueShoe

Could be. People alive today, say over the age of 35, see the money they've had forced from their hands and they want their money back. They are going to cling to this welfare program because they funded it. Of course the fair way out is to give us our money back.


----------



## mosquitomountainman

tenOC said:


> ...It's welfare according to clinical definition and government accounting office.


Uncle Joe: It's like I read on another forum ... "If you argue with a fool, that just makes two fools." I think tenOC has proven what he is multiple times on this thread already.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## BlueShoe

Ahem, he posted questions to me directly.



mosquitomountainman said:


> Uncle Joe: It's like I read on another forum ... "If you argue with a fool, that just makes two fools." I think tenOC has proven what he is multiple times on this thread already.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


It's disappointing to think that quoting the actual chapter and verse from the creation of the Social Security Act signed by the most socialist President of the 20th century along with definitions from multiple sites will fall on the deaf ears of fools. I have more faith than that.


----------



## mojo4

Skeeter i am in no way responsible for SS!! I have never voted for or against it and i would most happily decline involvement if allowed. But im not. And nobody who has a job is. Only the self employed are not forced into it. When you compare SS to slavery you made my point for me!! You are refusing to end the program claiming it needs repair. Well, the money is spent and gone so the only way to fix it is to round up more money from current workers. Not gonna happen, were already tapped!! So since you show zero inclination to face reality and admit the money is gone, probly on hookers and blow for politicians, then please tell us all your plan to scrape up an extra 60 billion or so every month?? Nope, skeeter says what iceberg??? Full steam ahead!!


----------



## BillM

TenOC is correct regarding the Federal Reserve. It is not Federal and there is no Reserve. The Federal Reserve was conceived and planed on Jeckle Island by seven of the wealthiest bankers in the world in 1912. They sold it to the U S Government in 1913.
It is a central banking system. No central banking system in the history of the world has ever lasted more than 200 years. When they have stolen every tangible asset they can from the people who are forced into using their magic fiat currency, the central banking system fails and the people are left holding an empty bag.

Social Security was started by President Roosevelt. When it was started, there were 17 people paying in to the system for every one person drawing from it.

Congress borrowed from the SS reserve fund by issuing U S bonds that were to accrue 1.0% interest or for lack of a better description an IOU from the government. They never intended to pay these IOU's and never have.

SS was a revenue source for our elected officials to reward constituents with. It was a tax that was misrepresented to the American people.

I said there were 17 people paying in for every one drawing in the beginning. 

The average mortality age was 65 when SS was started.

Now it is 84 years of age and the Baby Boomers are all retiring.

There are now, three people paying in for every one person drawing from SS.

This is the first year that the FICA taxes taken from U S taxpayer’s paychecks are less that the amount paid out and the difference is growing monthly.

If we removed all our military forces from all foreign nations and trimmed it to a bare minimum, it would not balance out our federal budget.

That is the reason the Government will not propose or pass one. They can't and can't tell you that there is no way out.

Social Security is going to collapse the U S Dollar all by its self.

You have to remember this, there are 577 essential government officials and their families who will be cared for and defended, no matter what happens.

They do not draw SS or Medicare. They will not be linked to Obama Care either.

All they have to do to secure their own future is to be re-elected.


----------



## Tweto

partdeux said:


> For ease of discussion purposes, we pay SS taxes of 10%
> 
> 10 people working, create sufficient revenue to pay for one person no longer working
> 
> One of those workers retires, suddenly 2 people are collecting govt run social income, and only 9 people paying those taxes.
> 
> Start doing this for decades, and you run out of other peoples money to spend. Now what? This is where we are today.


As of this month, for every 1 person on some form of government assistance there is only 1.65 people working!


----------



## Immolatus

alwaysready said:


> Can someone with more knowledge than I have do the math as to how much a person who worked 45 years might have paid. And how that money would have grown if it was left untouched in a regular savings account. I know that there are better ways to invest. But for the sake of argument I'd just like to know the numbers on the most basic accumulation.


Doesnt this show up in the form you get every year? SS mails me a statement each year, Im not positive it shows what Ive paid in, but I know it shows my benefits accrued as of the date of issuance.
EDIT- You can get it here.

I think all this discussion about SS is a question of semantics. Those who paid into the system receive SS. Those that did not receive 'welfare'.

From the site:
_The Social Security Administration manages the SSI program. Even though Social Security manages the program, SSI is not paid for by Social Security taxes. SSI is paid for by U.S. Treasury general funds, not the Social Security trust funds._
By implying that it is some kind of investment, you are implying the money is *yours*. It is not. While in some cases the benefits can be allocated to survivors, this is completely different. Implying it is your money would mean there is a specific amount sitting in an account with your name on it which is obviously not the case. The benefits are open ended, so if you lived to be 100 you would still be getting them thereby assumedly getting back way more than you paid in. Conversely if you were single with no dependents and died before receiving any benefits the (your?) 'money' is gone. If it was 'yours' in any way, you could pass it on, to say, a sister or other non dependent relative. Obviously you cannot.
Those who have paid into the system receive SS, those who have not receive welfare. That is the crucial difference, and that welfare is mainly a state run operation.

Sorry UJ, but 


UncleJoe said:


> Because it isn't; plain and simple.
> 
> SSI is a government sponsored retirement program. You pay into it your entire working life and when you've reached the end of that working life you are to collect what you paid in, with interest. Do you contribute to an employer sponsored retirement account such as a 401 or IRA? Many folks do. Do you expect to get that money back with interest when you retire? Of course you do. We all do. Do you consider that welfare. By your definition, that IRA you've been building should be classified as welfare.
> 
> Your SSI account should have grown over all those years but it hasn't because it has been squandered through legislators pet peeves and pork barrel projects. It's your personal account. You get (at least I do) a statement every year listing your personal contribution to your own personal retirement account. I built that account. It belongs to me and no one else. It is NOT welfare.


This is the way we see it, but obviously not the case. Ten explained it pretty well. This is NOT your money in any way shape or form. If it was, you could pass it on as an inheritance. The 401k/IRA *is* your money. When you die, your will decides where the money goes.
"I built that account. It belongs to me and no one else." So you are "entitled" to it? (Sorry, I couldnt resist! Obviously I believe the same, that I am entitled to that money they stole form me) I agree with your sentiment, but it is unfortunately incorrect. Again, that is what we like to believe but that doesnt make it so.

And MMM, I agree in principle with SS being our responsibility, in the sense that we are responsible for anything the gubt does in our name whether you agree with it or not (war, foreign policy, welfare, whatever), what all of this shows is that the gubt for the most part is so far removed from the 'will of the people' and we are basically powerless to affect real change, barring...
What it comes down to is that there are so many different views on what gubt should be and what function is it supposed to serve, that most of the citizenry end up unhappy with at least some (if not most) of its policies.

As for what to do about SS, the discussion could include any specific action/program that it undertakes.
The only plans I have seen put forth usually involve:
Privatization- Sounds great in principle, but I have an idea of how that would work. I wonder who would administer it? Two guesses, GS or JPM. I wonder if they would be allowed to leverage it to the hilt? And how much are they allowed to skim off the top?
Raising taxes- Not feasible under its current form.
Raising the retirement age- Prolly not feasible politically, and also prolly wouldnt do enough to fix it.
I dont think any of these would work.
I would propose phasing it out completely, and for those who cant save for whatever reason receive, ahem, welfare. We cannot go without some kind of final safety net, and I think most of us would agree on that, unless we want to deal with lots of starving homeless people...


----------

