|
Post by pete1 on Mar 9, 2009 19:31:28 GMT -4
CNN News - Lou Dobbs Show.........Where is our country going?
|
|
|
Post by constructr on Mar 10, 2009 14:22:19 GMT -4
Don't believe everything you hear on the Communist News Network.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Mar 10, 2009 18:42:07 GMT -4
constructr.........This information was on all the news shows, and the information came from the stimulus package itself. If this information is true then B.O. must be a Communist.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Mar 10, 2009 20:10:42 GMT -4
constructr.........This information was on all the news shows, and the information came from the stimulus package itself. If this information is true then B.O. must be a Communist. I believe this information is more likely assumption, speculation, and extrapolation. That's not to say that it couldn't happen, but I'm pretty confident there is no line in the stimulus package that reads, "These 300,000 jobs are to be set aside solely for illegal immigrants."Communist? Not by any definition of the word that I could find.
|
|
|
Post by aa1campbell on Mar 10, 2009 21:01:21 GMT -4
well at least someone will be working
|
|
|
Post by constructr on Mar 11, 2009 13:29:47 GMT -4
constructr.........This information was on all the news shows, and the information came from the stimulus package itself. If this information is true then B.O. must be a Communist. No, BO is a Socialist. He is proving it everyday.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Mar 16, 2009 22:23:54 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Mar 17, 2009 7:00:10 GMT -4
The "root of the issue" was the most useful part, and they stick it at the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Mar 17, 2009 12:15:13 GMT -4
They're a fact-checking website, not an issues one.
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 17, 2009 12:45:22 GMT -4
Here's a fun thought for those who enjoy armegedeon scenarios: Bush had pushed really hard in his first term to privatize Social Security.
Imagine where we would be now if that had gone through...
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 18, 2009 1:30:03 GMT -4
The same place we're gonna be anyway when I retire, since neither party will do anything but commission another study?
|
|
|
Post by kl on Mar 18, 2009 6:48:26 GMT -4
The same place we're gonna be anyway when I retire, since neither party will do anything but commission another study? And competing for that same Wal-Mart greeter job!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 19, 2009 1:09:15 GMT -4
Exactly!!
|
|
|
Post by misternuke on Mar 20, 2009 1:45:41 GMT -4
I'd venture to say that no matter how paltry my retirement savings might be by the time I need them, I'll probably see more benefit from private savings than I ever will from the "Social Security Trust Fund". Social Security makes Madoff's little ponzi scheme seem like child's play! Once the solid majority of Boomers becomes eligible for payout, the whole house of cards is going to crumble, anyway. If I was even allowed to keep the payroll taxes I've paid into SS under my mattress, that would be about 100% more than I ever expect to get out of SS when (Lord willing) I hit my golden years! I'm all for a simple "opt out" plan for SS.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Mar 20, 2009 4:14:35 GMT -4
I see two problems with an opt-out plan. First, hasn't the demise of SS in our lifetime been predicted about as often as the end of the world with just about the same accuracy? Not that it couldn't happen and shouldn't be worried about, but maybe, just like global warming, thngs aren't quite as bad as some would have you believe.
Second, let's imagine there was an opt-out plan a few years ago and people had raced to take the money and place it in such good investments as real estate, the stock market, or Bernie Madoff? With their entire retirement savings (not just 401K but SS also) now gone, what would society do? Would we sit by and let these people become homeless and go without healthcare? Or would Congress push for a support package for those who could no support themselves? My guess is that if we privatize SS we will end up with an even more expensive "safety net" program.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Mar 20, 2009 12:08:14 GMT -4
Philosophically, I think opting out is a great idea. Practically, though, I think it's a terrible idea, for the second reason falgar listed. Also, Social Security is not just for people who retire at age 67 (or whatever it's been raised to now); it's also for people with disabilities who can no longer work enough to support themselves. This can happen to anyone and can't be planned for.
|
|
|
Post by misternuke on Mar 21, 2009 19:50:07 GMT -4
I just get fed up with the whole notion so many people have that the federal government somehow owes them ANYTHING, besides the defense of their God-given rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. There is nothing in the constitution about the right to perpetual fiscal support...I prefer to make arrangements for myself, including having jobs with vested pensions and raising kids who love me enough to either change my Depends or hire someone who will.
As for the demise of the SS scheme...it's simple math...up until recently, the Boomers (large group) have been paying toward the checks of the aged (smaller group). Now the Boomers (large group) are filing for their checks and the Gen Xers, etc from later years (smaller groups) are on the hook to pay the bill. It only makes sense that the fewer paying in for the more drawing out makes for an unsustainable situation.
Personally, I think if I'm going to have to foot the bill for support of at least one elderly pensioner, I should get to pick which one! At least I know my mom's about as frugal as they come, and with a song in my heart, I'd send my money to her rather than the SS black hole!
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Mar 21, 2009 22:07:25 GMT -4
I just get fed up with the whole notion so many people have that the federal government somehow owes them ANYTHING, besides the defense of their God-given rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. There is nothing in the constitution about the right to perpetual fiscal support... I require fiscal support to continue my God-given right to life.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Mar 21, 2009 22:19:32 GMT -4
I just get fed up with the whole notion so many people have that the federal government somehow owes them ANYTHING, besides the defense of their God-given rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. There is nothing in the constitution about the right to perpetual fiscal support... I require fiscal support to continue my God-given right to life. We all require fiscal support to live.... BUT one shouldn't depend on the Government to fund their way of life either.... If it weren't for all the abusers out there....perhaps our predicament wouldn't be so bleak. There are those that truly need assistance but many are just bilking the system cause they are big ole fat lazy slobs who think they shouldn't have to work for anything... for some odd reason they buy into the belief that they are owed something.... I kid you not, I have never met so many people in my life till I moved here who sit home and collect disability checks who are more than capable to work, but don't , Boggles my mind and pisses me off when tax time comes. This is a generalized opinion and not specifically aimed at anyone on this forum who may be collecting checks from the government, I don't know your story, nor should you feel the need to justify anything to me..... As with anyting there are those that deserve it and those that do not!
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Mar 21, 2009 22:24:30 GMT -4
What bothers me is the assumption that you, eine, know enough about these people to judge their medical conditions. Are you a doctor? SSDI/SSI is not easy to be approved for. I had over 20 years of medical records backing me up and I still got denied once.
There are so many people who look fine, can act normal, and yet can't work. A lot of people with invisible disabilities struggle with this.
"Judge not lest ye be judged as well." I try to live by this and take it to me that I shouldn't pass judgments on other people.
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Mar 21, 2009 23:18:06 GMT -4
Understanding that the following has nothing to do with 300,000 jobs to be given to Illegal Immigrants, I would like to comment on the last two posts, as follows:
I agree with both Eine and Funnel, in that, yes, there are those receiving disability income that do deserve it and that there are those that do not deserve it. Also, it is extremely difficult and mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausting to go through the arduous process to attempt to get approved. In part, doctors are hired to perform IMEs (independent medical examinations) from both sides, and most times these doctors have conflicting findings, recommendations, and opinions that they testify to. There is a very thick book entitled AMA Guidelines and the person applying must be rated in five categories to a specific degree as to their disabilities. One of the major conflicting segments in determining findings, recommendations, and opinions is that of precariously balancing both objective and subjective findings. These are comprised of what the patient (claimant) is telling the doctor as to where he/she feels pain, describing the pain, and to what degree the pain exists, and what areas of his/her life that are negatively impacted as a result of this pain. Basically every medical record existing pertaining to the patient's (claimant's) body is intimately examined and discussed/argued back and forth. Based on what the patient (claimant) tells the doctor, the medical records, the medical testing, and the doctor's expertise, the doctor then forms his/her opinions which are based on a reasonable degree of medical probability. Probability is the key word here. Probability. Then you have the lawyers who are battling it out against each other. Then you have the patient. Then it's up to an authority figure, i.e. sitting judge, administrative law judge, to make a final determination based on all the evidence produced. It's not a fun process.
Then there are the cases where people have received approval, only to later have it determined that their claims were inaccurate or untruthful. But like it or not, it's the process that exists and its a d**nable one at best and highly emotionally charged on both sides.
Just my opinion, based on what I do and am exposed to.
|
|
|
Post by lynn on Mar 22, 2009 11:47:33 GMT -4
What bothers me is the assumption that you, eine, know enough about these people to judge their medical conditions. Are you a doctor? SSDI/SSI is not easy to be approved for. I had over 20 years of medical records backing me up and I still got denied once. There are so many people who look fine, can act normal, and yet can't work. A lot of people with invisible disabilities struggle with this. "Judge not lest ye be judged as well." I try to live by this and take it to me that I shouldn't pass judgments on other people. Funnel, I think what Eine (and many others feel - including myself) is that we are paying for free loaders. If you read my post in the obama/military healthcare thread - I told of my experience at the doctor's office in which 2 people got free service. IMO these 2 people absolutely did not need free service. Of course these people had other things that I did know about, but the fact that they were driving nice, new, expensive vehicles led me to feel that they did not need the free service and therefore they were abusing the system.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Mar 22, 2009 12:01:56 GMT -4
Funnel, I think what Eine (and many others feel - including myself) is that we are paying for free loaders. If you read my post in the obama/military healthcare thread - I told of my experience at the doctor's office in which 2 people got free service. IMO these 2 people absolutely did not need free service. Of course these people had other things that I did know about, but the fact that they were driving nice, new, expensive vehicles led me to feel that they did not need the free service and therefore they were abusing the system. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by mcbeth on Mar 22, 2009 22:49:40 GMT -4
Unfortunately, I'll agree that there are people "out there" that are approved for certain (many different ones, not just what is being discussed here) benefits. And, not all of them may be entitled. Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There definitely are circumstances where folks have benefits that they may no longer "qualify" for. (I think we've all seen, for example, the situation where someone has a "disability hangtag" in their car, and there is nothing that you can discern about that person as to why they have it. I've known people who have them for a family member, the member dies and they don't return it to DMV. Not applicable in all cases, but we've all seen something similar, I'm sure). I used to work in a field where I case-managed and I can tell you personally that I worked with a number of VERY disabled people who should have had benefits, but weren't approved for MANY years. The system, as Sequel noted, is "d--nable" one. Best we have, but still pretty sh--tty, IMHO, at times. There are so many things that go into the "why" that she described (including a few people who have worked in the system for "too" long and no longer have the capacity to care about the people who need their help). I've seen seriously, OBVIOUSLY, disabled individuals denied 2 or 3 times over a period of many years before being approved. I've also seen people who, again IMHO, make me wonder WTH are they getting benefits for??? Unfortunately, the "system" has existed LONG before Obama, and through WAY too many administrations; makes me wonder "what came first, the chicken or the egg"? Our brilliant leaders (on both sides of the aisle) are too busy trying to get re-elected to actually bother with what needs fixing in many of the "systems". But, like Sequel stated, I've worked in a field where I've seen quite a bit, too, and it is extremely emotionally charged, in both directions. Wish I knew a common-sense approach, but I think we all know that when it comes to our government (both sides of the aisle, again!), "common sense isn't common".
|
|