Jump to content

Will Hillary Clinton win the presidential election?


michaelskis

Recommended Posts

I graduated from high school 5 years ago... You should see how many people are now making sh*t for money ($12/hr and under) yet still able to afford vacations, ipods, to eat out whenever, to drink every weekend, to wear new clothes, etc. The ones still living at home usually have new(er) cars. It's not that all low income workers can't afford to save, most of them can. They simply don't. How much of that complacency is there because they know the government won't let them spend themselves to where they become dirt poor and desparate when they get old?

I'm speaking from where we are now, not 50 years ago. Maybe there should be a good system to protect those who are well advanced in age or who fall under extreme circumstances that impair their ability to work and/or cost a huge amount to treat, but for most people a market based system would work. If Chile could create a successful retirement system, why not us? The market has outperformed what social security returns would be on a consistant basis. If we have another Great Depression, the government wouldn't be able to afford all these handouts anyways. It would be in the best interest of Americans to switch this system now. I like to compare social security with those pensions that have been bankrupting old establishment businesses in the airline and automobile industry.

those people who make $12/hr and under are probably running up credit card debt to buy ipods and vacations. they probably can't save money even if they didn't buy those things they don't need. and those that live at home probably let their parents pay for all their living expenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Because of the broken state of how medical care is paid for in the United States, Medicare is a very necessary benefit for almost anyone regardless of income. People are elegible for this benefit at 65 and it gives them some relief from having to have private insurance. For most people this means they have to work until they are 65 simply because it is almost impossible to get private insurance at any price once you get above 55 without paying more money for it than what the average person makes. Not having insurance means you are one car accident away from losing everything you have worked a lifetime for.

Anyone who would advocate the elimination of medicare simply does not understand this situation or is a cold heartless person that wishes almost everyone work for a corporation (where group insurance is normally provided) until the day they die. I would ask any of you to call up an private insurance company, tell them you are 55 and asks what it cost to get a policy. All of you will be faced with having to deal with this situation if it doesn't change and a lot sooner than you think if you have parents that you care for.

If you want to fix the costs of medicare, then what is really needed is ah overhaul of the way medical care is handled in this country. On a per capita basis, the United States spends more than any other county on it, yet most of the working public is held hostage by the high costs. In the meantime there are a lot of people getting rich who are not even involved in the direct care. This includes drug reps, lawyers, administrators, advertisers, owners of test labs (who are often the same Drs who prescribe the tests), an so forth.

Before anyone here blindly decides it is a good idea to take benefits away from the elderly, I would highly recommend that you understand all of the issues before you do so. Else you might just get what you wish for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with snowguy... McCain would be a good president... (and I am a conservative)

If it was a Buchanan v. Clinton ticket, I am going to learn have to learn the words to Oh Canada or move to Ireland.

Social Security is a nightmare right now, and will get worse if something is not done. Right now we put in just over 8% of our pay check into it. If that money was instead put in the typical mutual fund instead, *average of 8% annual return, people would retire with far more money than Social Security would give them, from just the one investment. A change needs to be transitioned into place and not just dropped in our laps.

Education and Healthcare are also in dire need of a complete overhaul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social Security is a nightmare right now, and will get worse if something is not done. Right now we put in just over 8% of our pay check into it. If that money was instead put in the typical mutual fund instead, *average of 8% annual return, people would retire with far more money than Social Security would give them, from just the one investment. A change needs to be transitioned into place and not just dropped in our laps.

There is absolutely no proof that supports this assertion about social security. Social Security has a problem because the money that is supposed to be going into the trust fund is instead being used for other purposes. Conservatives are using this as an excuse to send hundreds of billions of of tax dollars into the coffers of the corporations of the USA. It is corporate welfare at its worst since it looks to take away a benefit from the seniors of this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no proof that supports this assertion about social security. Social Security has a problem because the money that is supposed to be going into the trust fund is instead being used for other purposes. Conservatives are using this as an excuse to send hundreds of billions of of tax dollars into the coffers of the corporations of the USA. It is corporate welfare at its worst since it looks to take away a benefit from the seniors of this country.

That is an absolute lie.

There have been several reports including those by the Social Security Administration and the Congressional Budget Office that shows how Social Security will run into significant problems as the Baby Boomer Generation stops working and starts collecting Social Security Checks. Additionally, that generation, according to the National Center for Health Statistics is expected to live longer than the Social Security projections.

Its not that hard to figure out, if you take out more than you put in for a longer period of time, there will be nothing left. At some point between 2041 and 2052 benefits will have to start being reduced... or just about the same time that I would be eligible for benefits.

With the privatization plan, a citizen can utilize compound interest to make sure that there is an established fund available, and depending on how much they made and what time they stated, inflation, and how well the long term interest rates done, it is almost certain that they would be able to receive a dividend check each month comparable to the median family income in the US without having to touch the principle.

Right now, the government takes 8% out of my check to put into something that I know will never help me... I they changed it by 0.5% per year over the next 16 years, it would still be better than Social Security, and the transition would allow people to continue to collect benefits for two to three decades...

Finally, it is not investing in one or two big companies, but 4 or more mutual funds that are made up of hundreds of companies, and would be putting money into the economy.

Here is a question... if Social Security is so good, why is it that Federal Employees hired before 1984 use a private investment plan (mutual funds) instead of social security? After 1984, they are required to be part of Social Security because of the anticipated disproportionate number of people retiring compared to those in the workforce. Maybe they know that it is a good option for the rest of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a question... if Social Security is so good, why is it that Federal Employees hired before 1984 use a private investment plan (mutual funds) instead of social security? After 1984, they are required to be part of Social Security because of the anticipated disproportionate number of people retiring compared to those in the workforce. Maybe they know that it is a good option for the rest of us?

If you go look at the history and reasons behind Social Security you will have your answers to that. Also it would help if you actually got your facts straight as you are required to pay 16% ( or close to it) of your income into SS. If you work for an employer however they pay 1/2 of the tax.

Anyone that can do a little math can figure out that the average person paying 16% of their income a year for 35 years or more is going to be paid out much much less than that in benefits. (people don't live that long after 67 and lifespans of americans are now going down) The plan is a sound one and has worked for more than 7 decades. Where the problems arise is that Congress is using the excesse payments from SS to pay for their inability to control their spending. If you want to protect the workers of this country, then stop congressional pork barrel and deficit spending.

SS is not an entitlement. You don't get it if you have not paid into the system. The predictions that you mention above are Karl Rovian tactics to get public money moved to the private sector. Anyone investing in the stock market should realize that "Past performance does not guarantee future results". Nobody in his right mind would put the fate of a governmental social insurance plan into the hands of CEOs and their boards that are not accountable to the public.

Social Security is a social insurance plan to guarantee a sustainance income for the workers of this country. It is not an investment plan and the government should not reduce the social insurance they provide to create an investment club for people. It is a huge increase in the involvement in the lives of people and an unnecessary one.

Oh BTW, calling people liars is not a good way to be taken seriously. It is usually a sign of one that isn't on sound ground with their arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope we can throw partisanship aside, most people in either party are so afraid to deal with social security it's pathetic.

That is not true. Both parties have decided that privatizing Social Security was a stupid plan and it is dead. As I said above the problems that social security faces are due to the deficit spending of the Republican congress. In that case it is the Republicans that refuse to balance the budget and bring some fiscal responsibility to governmental programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans have been trying, rather unsuccessfully, to kill Social Security since it was begun.

Let's face it: Social Security is a democratic program that benefits all seniors in this country, and Republicans hate that. They want to make it their program (or, rather, scare the public into thinking it is broken and that only Republicans have the solution to fix it).

It's a hoax by Karl Rove to scare baby boomers into a Republican vote. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans didn't buy and Bush lost on that issue.

The Social Security trust fund needs to be taken off budget, a measure supported by my Democratic representative in congress. If this is done with a few minor tweaks, the Social Security system will be fine.

Just take a look at demographics, would ya? The difference in size between the baby boomers and Gen Xers and younger people is shrinking every day because of immigrants who pay into Social Security and receive nothing back for it.

Metro, where did you read that life expectancy is going down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metro, where did you read that life expectancy is going down?

There are a number of reports out now that say that the fattening of Americans, lack of any exercise, the consumption of fatty, salty, overprocessed food that causes cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc are all leading to an average decline in the lifespan of Americans. There is only so much that medical science can do when people refuse to take responsibility for their own health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My partner and I agree that Social Security should be abolished as we know it, and instead put retirement benefits in the regular federal budget.

That way, there won't be any worries about SS "running out of money". As part of the regular budget, it won't run out of money any more than the Dept. of Defense runs out of money.

Sure that means more in taxes, but what about all the elderly folks who helped build this country into what it is today? Aren't they worthy of our deepest respect, and don't they deserve to live their twilight years with at least a bottom line economic survival?

Sure it would be great if SS was what it was intended to be--a supplement to regular retirement planning. But unfortunately many people struggle through life paycheck-to-paycheck, and are not able to save during their working years.

Here again is another example of how the government could be taking better care of Americans, instead of the financial emphasis on the Iraq War.

Hillary ain't the greatest thing since white bread, but she beats the hell out of who we have now. Bush won't any more help SS's survival that I could~~~

than I could:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of reports out now that say that the fattening of Americans, lack of any exercise, the consumption of fatty, salty, overprocessed food that causes cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc are all leading to an average decline in the lifespan of Americans. There is only so much that medical science can do when people refuse to take responsibility for their own health.

Hey hey .... personal responsibility. I don't think most of congress completely dismisses SS privitization. I'm pretty sure they didn't like the stupid proposal put forth by Bush that would've resulted in bigger deficits. My version of the idea, having young people pay into a system (paying for the boomers and older gen Xers) that they get nothing out of while putting half of the ss money into their own personal accounts (of course the numbers would probably be tweaked) would work. Whenever the boomers and gen Xers start dying off, the ss tax can be reduced to reduce the burden on the employers and stimulate the economy. Or they could just start putting a higher percentage towards the personal accounts. Really, something needs to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My partner and I agree that Social Security should be abolished as we know it, and instead put retirement benefits in the regular federal budget.

This is a common mistake that people make. SS is not a retirement plan. It is an insurance plan that provides a sustainance income. Nothing more. This insurance should not be raided, which is being advocated by some, to estabished government backed retirement plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go look at the history and reasons behind Social Security you will have your answers to that. Also it would help if you actually got your facts straight as you are required to pay 16% ( or close to it) of your income into SS. If you work for an employer however they pay 1/2 of the tax.

Anyone that can do a little math can figure out that the average person paying 16% of their income a year for 35 years or more is going to be paid out much much less than that in benefits. (people don't live that long after 67 and lifespans of americans are now going down) The plan is a sound one and has worked for more than 7 decades. Where the problems arise is that Congress is using the excesse payments from SS to pay for their inability to control their spending. If you want to protect the workers of this country, then stop congressional pork barrel and deficit spending.

First of all, if social security is dropped most people will not receive an additional 8% in their pay checks. As you mentioned it,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey hey .... personal responsibility.

Why is that the Republican answer to all society's ills? How is the average, working class American supposed to afford healthy food (which tends to be more expensive than overprocessed junk), health care, a quality education, and a decent home while prices are skyrocketing and wages are stagnant? Sure, some people squander their money on frivolities, but a large and growing number of Americans don't save because they have no choice. Every dollar they make goes to pay basic living expenses. Under these conditions a policy of "personal responsibility" and privatization amounts to relegating these people to a third-world lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that the Republican answer to all society's ills? How is the average, working class American supposed to afford healthy food (which tends to be more expensive than overprocessed junk), health care, a quality education, and a decent home while prices are skyrocketing and wages are stagnant? Sure, some people squander their money on frivolities, but a large and growing number of Americans don't save because they have no choice. Every dollar they make goes to pay basic living expenses. Under these conditions a policy of "personal responsibility" and privatization amounts to relegating these people to a third-world lifestyle.

People have priorities. Average Americans can afford to not be fat. Average Americans can save 20 bucks or whatever a week. A third world life style? Not in this America. Our poor are typically fat, spend whatever they can on whatever luxuries, etc. If they have kids and can't afford them, I feel sorry for the kids but not the parents. Sure there are circumstances that may be out of one's control and tough to impossible to predict, but for the most part poor people who have kids and can't afford them are just screwing themselves.

I could say... Government. Is that your solution to everything? It sure isn't to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the New England Journal of Medicine. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/352/11/1138 There are more if you go look for them.

unfortunately, you have to pay to read the full text... but the abstract basically just says that it might decline if current trends don't change. currently, the life expectancy is on the rise, but with the current weight trends, it will probably just about level off for a while and maybe slightly decline. i don't really think it will decline greatly.

also, a lot of these types of studies use BMI as the only determination of risk, which is a poor determination of obesity as it does not take into account frame size or muscle mass. it assumes everyone has the same amount of muscle mass and the same frame size, which can both add quite a bit of weight, and muscle tissue is more dense than fatty tissue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

unfortunately I dont think Americans are ready for a woman president despite the fact that many nation's around the world have them. and even more so during a time of war. The perception is a man should handle war affairs.

i think it's more a perception that a woman does not belong in a position of great power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason why an individual can't do this now. Anyone working can put 15% of their income, before taxes into a 401K plan. We don't need to raid SS for this. And BTW, your assumptions on the future value of the stock market are based on a stock market that was not being fundamentally changed by the addition of billions of capital dollars from the federal government. The value would certainly change to the negative if billions of dollars of tax backed withdrawals were made once the first set of elegible people began their retirement. Nobody knows what stock would do once the government started investing in it at these levels. It is voodoo economics that doesn't examine all of the facts.

From the New England Journal of Medicine. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/352/11/1138 There are more if you go look for them.

Then please provide anything relevant that says we have to privatize social security in order to save it. The examination of the numbers doesn't support it because of what I said above. There is not one reputable stock analysist that can tell you what the stock market will be doing in 10, 20 or 30 years from now.

Here is a good sorce to start with. While I don't know anything about your life... I figure this guy knows what he is talking about.

http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/social_security/

On the other hand, I don't know... you may be a multi millionaire with all the degrees and such.

As for the New England Journal of Medicine Link... the summery is interesting, but do you have a link where I don’t have to pay to read it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good sorce to start with. While I don't know anything about your life... I figure this guy knows what he is talking about.

http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/social_security/

On the other hand, I don't know... you may be a multi millionaire with all the degrees and such.

He only cites the Bush Plan which congress has dismissed. He doesn't say "He" believes it, he says Bush Believes it, not exactly a convincing argument. Bush says he believed there were WMD's in Iraq. This isn't the proof that I have asked for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would be very skeptical about any information on Social Security from a ".com" website. This is a commercial website.

Unfortunately you'd probably ahve to pay to read the whole paper, but the fattening of America is alarming.

I am personally overweight and have an obese BMI, but I also have a fairly normal amount of body fat at 14%. I know it's higher than a wrestler or soccer player, but many people have fat contents around 30%.

BMI is a poor indicator of obesity on the individual level, but provides good insight on the national level. Especially since it has been used for quite some time and so trends are identifiable and are alarming.

You should talk with your doctor about personal weight goals if you are overweight, as they can assess you better than a BMI calculator at X website can.

As far as getting back towards the topic, I think a woman president would be great. I think if Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton ran against each other, it would be a great presidential race. Condi is very intelligent, but unfortunately fraternizes with the enemy. Hillary is also very intelligent, but tends to have an "elitist" stature.

If Hillary runs against a man.. I think there are enough sexists out there to ensure a lopsided race against Hillary from the beginning... (although most Americans, somewhere around 70% wouldn't care if the president was male or female, and only 16% would be against having a woman).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Hillary runs against a man.. I think there are enough sexists out there to ensure a lopsided race against Hillary from the beginning... (although most Americans, somewhere around 70% wouldn't care if the president was male or female, and only 16% would be against having a woman).

I don't know if being a woman would hurt Clinton very much. To use your figures, how many of those 16% who would vote against a woman on principle are staunch conservatives who wouldn't vote for any Democrat? It's probably safe to assume that the 70% who don't care about the president's gender includes most Democratic base and swing voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.