Open Letter to Conservatives

I agree with most of this. I also believe that America has wisened up to the those who scream racism and I do believe we will begin to see those factions crumble.



I wrote Mel Martinez a letter asking for my Congressional Hearings for my personal bailout. The response was pisspoor at best.



I do as well and I believe tort reform is the quickest, most efficient manner to creating affordable health care and healthy competition among a buffet of carriers.



When someone wants to cut the defense budget, I need a little more information because it's a loaded question. Pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I agree with, but it should be handled very methodically by experienced military personnel. Closing military bases in the United States like Clinton did I absolutely oppose. This makes us appear weak. I think a country is as strong as her military.....then currency and GDP.


We can't cut out entitlements. I do not agree with this.....there are too many dependents and we are already taking care of them. However, we can enforce the laws surrounding the entitlements. :wave:

No responsible person wants to cut out entitlements. We owe it to the seniors already there to provide what they were promised. But we CAN raise the retirement age for those years away from retirement and we can allow limited privatization for younger individuals. We can also tie others to reeducation and work placement efforts to wean them off of the public teat. If we do not act to contain costs and place these programs on a strong financial footing there will come a time when the whole scheme colapses.

I'd like to see one conservative grow a set and admit that one of the quickest and simplest way to eliminate the deficit and reign in spending would be to cut military spending.

Quick question for the conservatives; which country has the largest Air Force after the US Air Force?

Careful it's a trick question.

No responsible person wants to cut out entitlements. We owe it to the seniors already there to provide what they were promised. But we CAN raise the retirement age for those years away from retirement and we can allow limited privatization for younger individuals. We can also tie others to reeducation and work placement efforts to wean them off of the public teat. If we do not act to contain costs and place these programs on a strong financial footing there will come a time when the whole scheme colapses.

Here's a novel idea: cut both. In fact just take an axe and cut 10% of everything.(Of course, no one would get re-elected, but that might be a good thing.)

Limited privitization would cause the system to run of money faster.

Raising the retirement is fine for folks like but anyone works on their feet (teacher or retail sales), works construction, mining or other physical labor simply can not work much past 65.

A less generous COLA and changing how benes are calculated for the top 70% coupled with a gradual rise in the age to 68 (by 2050) is much more fiscally responsible than your proposal.

The privitization is a Wall Street scam...trust me, I know.

Are you telling me that a 20 year old investing half of his FICA outlay privately cannot come out better than what he will draw at 65? I have a hard time believing a financial planner would say that.

And as far as people not being able to work past 65, apparently Walmart has found the fountain of youth because they have people older than that working the door, the floor and the registers.

The fair tax would fix the revenue problem but that is another thread.

Are you telling me that a 20 year old investing half of his FICA outlay privately cannot come out better than what he will draw at 65? I have a hard time believing a financial planner would say that.

QUOTE]



I said privitization is scam promoted by the financial services industry.

Most Americans would end up high priced annuities, expensive life insurance products, mutual funds with high annual expenses or a portfolio improperly balanced.

Plus they would jump in and out of the market or at least that's what the data shows.

Investing is pretty difficult to do successfully.

A 20 year old who only saves 3.5% of his salary is not saving enough.


http://www.dalbar.com/Portals/dalbar/cache/News/PressReleases/PressReleases20090309.pdf

Half? How about all of it. I'm looking at my yearly SS report right now, and I can assure you, if I had all the money I've paid into SS and all the money my employers have paid, and all the money that's been paid into medicare sitting in a 401K, I'd be a heck of a lot closer to early retirement right now.

Plus, if it's in my own account, I know how much it's worth, and I know I will receive it, so I can do financial planning based on that. I have no assurances like that with social security.

SS is scam. We need to move to a private system. I'm fine with heavily regulating the investments and the companies who manage the accounts, and I'd even be ok with matching funds for lower income workers. But we need to get this money out of the hands of the politicians and into the hands of workers, and now.

Are you telling me that a 20 year old investing half of his FICA outlay privately cannot come out better than what he will draw at 65? I have a hard time believing a financial planner would say that.

QUOTE]



I said privitization is scam promoted by the financial services industry.

Most Americans would end up high priced annuities, expensive life insurance products, mutual funds with high annual expenses or a portfolio improperly balanced.

Plus they would jump in and out of the market or at least that's what the data shows.

Investing is pretty difficult to do successfully.

A 20 year old who only saves 3.5% of his salary is not saving enough.


http://www.dalbar.com/Portals/dalbar/cache/News/PressReleases/PressReleases20090309.pdf

None of this is true. The federal government could regulate the investments, the accounts, the activity, and set mandatory contributions. Some who want control would have it (like myself) others could fall back on simplified investment plans that were pre packaged and approved.

Note none of us currently have any money in our ss retirement accounts under the adminstration of social security by the federal government. That's the real scam.

While I agree that people would be better off with all their money I was willing to start at half in order to insure funding for the seniors who depend on Social Security.

I think a maintaining the current levels as minimum contributions and maintaining employer contributions for those making less than 100,000 would keep everyone on the right track. Regulating the types of funds and providors is acceptable as well.

I totally agree. This whole racial issue is backfiring.

FOXNews.com - Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer

To think this was something she thought people would not only approve of but support which they did by clapping. Lets see Al Sharpton address this...

NAACP is very racist. Look at how the crowd responds to her at their meeting.

We could also nix the whole 100K cap and force people to contribute even if they made over 100K a year, there's no lack of incentive..

Heck I wouldn't even care if the feds did the management or contracted the management out, as long as the money was held in accounts in private banks where politicians couldn't get to it.. Currently our retirement savings via ss is spent the second it's received by the FEDs. There is no assurance there will ever be a return on the investment...