Colobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-27-07 08:43 PM
Original message |
Iowa voter Tod Bowman wants to tell you something. |
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-27-07 09:26 PM
Response to Original message |
1. A plan for fixing social security fairly AND a call for fiscal responsibility. |
|
Gee, I thought we had to choose one or the other according to Hillary!
|
Colobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-27-07 10:20 PM
Response to Original message |
illinoisprogressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-27-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message |
3. After 98 thousand, Buffet did not have to pay anything! How screwed is that? |
Mother Of Four
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-28-07 07:06 AM
Response to Original message |
|
A real answer. My husband is 49, I'm 37. Fortunately we are both healthy but his age is rapidly approaching that 63 and 1/3 mark.
Raiding social security to balance the budget is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and while Paul gets richer Peter ends up eating Alpo over toast.
It's a crying shame.
|
MH1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-28-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Some initial amount of income should be exempted, then the cap raised or eliminated.
The reason for the cap initially (as I understand it) was to create a simple program that wasn't a blatant redistribution of income. If you eliminate the cap completely, it becomes redistribution. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, but it's more troublesome politically. OTOH, it should be possible to make a case for raising the cap to keep the program solvent. In fact as far as I can see, that is the only "solution" that is in keeping with the program's initial intention. Anything else is a design change. A design change isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we should see it for what it is.
I like that Obama isn't afraid to address this issue rationally.
|
CK_John
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-28-07 10:04 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Obama trying to solve a problem that isn't there, is being played by anti-FDR wing of the GOP. n/t |
Colobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-28-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. Wrong. There is a problem, and it needs to be solved. |
CK_John
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-28-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. What problem, funded thru 2030/40, depending on the beankeeper. No oil is problem. n/t |
phen43
(223 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-28-07 11:21 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Say it like it is Todd Bowman!!!:patriot:
|
phen43
(223 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-28-07 11:26 AM
Response to Original message |
phen43
(223 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-28-07 11:40 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 18th 2024, 01:08 AM
Response to Original message |