What are the issues of this year's Presidential election?

[Yukon Cornelius]

term limits the pigs in washington need to get out ..

 

education we are falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world....

 

health care .. WOW for a super power we suck

 

middle east... man what a cluster

 

S.S. why do you think congress got out of it...

 

 

but the elections will be about

 

guns

 

gays

 

baby killers

 

[gilthorp]

We all need to be excellent to one another, and not wish harm upon others we do not know...and the government has to stop using us like chess pieces in a big fantasy game.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I don't think it is a mess at all. It will be if action isn't taken but private accounts are not the answer. The answer, IMO, is three-fold:

 

Repackage SS as a mandatory insurance policy, not an entitlement

Take the cap up to a meaningful level e.g. $200k or even make it limitless

Means test the end result - if you don't need it, you don't get it. Use a sliding scale.

 

 

Not sure I completely agree, but your idea isn't a bad one. The key is to stop Congress from misappropriating the funding.

 

SS is a pyramid scheme - non-sustainable. As millions of 'boomers reach retirement age, something drastic needs to be done. We need to find another way to pay for those collecting benefits in the near-term (taxes on imports made by US companies? stop funding the corrupt UN?) and allow citizens to place 80% of retirement savings in private accounts.

 

Slow, methodical withrawl from Iraq starting now. Troops should be trained and used to secure borders. I am not remotely concerend about illegal immigration, but border secutiry is important with regard to terrorist threats.

 

Flat tax with the bottom 20% paying nothing. Down with the SSA.

 

As many have mentioned, we need to spend considerable resources on developing alternative energy sources. While solar and wind resources are ideal, they are far too expensive at this point to seriously count on. Nuclear power has proven to be pretty darn safe - we need more of it. We should also focus on technology that would allow us to burn fossil fuels like coal and shale oil with less impact to the environment. We have a lot of these natural resources, but have invested little in finding ways to burn it cleaner.

 

Education - what a joke. I'm not sure what the fix is, but it's clear we need to do something drastic and fast. If America is to have a bright future in the global economy, we need to be a superpower in education and not content to hover just above 3rd world countries in education levels.

 

Health care in this country is far from ideal, but does anyone really think giving the federal government more control over it will actually make it better? Serious tax breaks for employers that provide health care.

 

The current trade deficit needs to be balanced. I'm not current on all the issues here, but I know when I read up on it a few years ago, import taxes were far from fair with our trading partners - especially with Japan at the time. What's it like with China now?

 

There needs to be some clear focus on the national debt. I think if we manage to do some of the things above, we'll start spending less than we take in. Unfortunately, this will be decades in solving - not just a political cycle or two. Educating the next generation and developing our own energy resources are keys to success here.

 

Congress and Bush can take PAII and shove it up their facious little asses. A quick return to American civil liberties should be demanded in this election cycle.

 

The illegal immigration issue has become overblown and hateful. People have clearly forgotten that this country rose to greatness on the backs of non-English speaking immigrants. Assimilation is not an overnight process and frankly, we need these people. Only biggotry can make people belive these folks take more than they give to the system.

[Clubfoothead]

I'm voting for Skilly. I liked what I heard and cowbell puts him over the top.

[Bill Swerski]

I call BS on this one. What's fair in that? I pay my whole life and maybe have done well enough to not need some of that money back, so therefore I don't get what is rightfully mine whereas some schlep fails miserably in life and he gets my money? Sorry, but I ain't buyin'. Nah... I have no interest in that idea at all.

 

I agree somewhat. If I'm putting money into the system, I expect at least SOMETHING out of it. Even if it's a lower percentage than the guy who is struggling to make ends meet at 65. Taking ALL of it away from people who've lived responsibly is nothing short of economic redistribution.

 

The illegal immigration issue has become overblown and hateful. People have clearly forgotten that this country rose to greatness on the backs of non-English speaking immigrants. Assimilation is not an overnight process and frankly, we need these people. Only biggotry can make people belive these folks take more than they give to the system.

 

Yeah, and most of those non-English-speaking immigrants came here LEGALLY, paid taxes, and were given a fair wage. Big difference. This isn't about bigotry, it's about the government not enforcing immigration laws and businesses exploiting desperately poor people to save a few bucks. I don't know about you, but I have a big problem with a company laying off American citizens and replacing them with people who are here illegally and can be convinced to work for 1/10th the cost and live in slave-like conditions.

Edited January 6, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Jimmy Neutron]

Yeah, and most of those non-English-speaking immigrants came here LEGALLY, paid taxes, and were given a fair wage. Big difference. This isn't about bigotry, it's about the government not enforcing immigration laws and businesses exploiting desperately poor people to save a few bucks. I don't know about you, but I have a big problem with a company laying off American citizens and replacing them with people who are here illegally and can be convinced to work for 1/10th the cost and live in slave-like conditions.

 

Well, times have changed. There were pretty liberal limits on immigration in the 1800s - pretty much anybody that wanted to come could move right in. In recent decades, immigration quotas have been severely limited - especially from south american countries.

 

Illegal immigrants generally do pay taxes, BTW. In fact, some studies show they pay more than $5 billion per year more than they take in government programs.

 

The bottom line is, as long as conditons are poor in Mexico and other south american countries, illegals will continue to pour into the Uninted States. Trying to stop them is something akin to the war on drugs - expensive and largely ineffective.

[Cunning Runt]

So let it go bankrupt, I couldn't give a $hit.

 

Great example of the me-me-me mentality

 

I generally agree with most of what you say but you're wrong on this one. No in way in f'ing hell does my line of thought mean me-me-me. Yours on the other hand smacks me of entitlement-entitlement-entitlement.

[Bill Swerski]

Well, times have changed. There were pretty liberal limits on immigration in the 1800s - pretty much anybody that wanted to come could move right in. In recent decades, immigration quotas have been severely limited - especially from south american countries.

 

That's fine with me. It's not America's obligation to play Daddy Warbucks to the rest of the world, especially when it's usually at the expense of its own citizens. The fact that "times have changed" doesn't mean that foreigners or American business owners have the right to break Federal law.

 

Illegal immigrants generally do pay taxes, BTW. In fact, some studies show they pay more than $5 billion per year more than they take in government programs.

 

So, are you saying that their employers automatically deduct income from their pay, or do they file actual tax returns? I have a difficult time believing that they're all cutting checks to the IRS every April. Them not paying taxes is the least of my concerns anyway.

 

The bottom line is, as long as conditons are poor in Mexico and other south american countries, illegals will continue to pour into the Uninted States. Trying to stop them is something akin to the war on drugs - expensive and largely ineffective.

 

I'm glad that the FBI didn't adopt that defeatist attitude when they were forced to deal with the mafia.

 

I don't think it's too much to ask that our government to enforce existing immigration and employment laws. There's a lot of talk going on about the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments covertly teaming up with the corporations to try to expand NAFTA into something like the EU... and possibly more than that eventually. I'm not sure that I believe it, but the fact that the past five administrations have done jack squat about this problem, despite significant anger from a very large voting bloc of Americans, suggests that it may not be out of the realm of possibility. Certainly, all of the players stand to benefit (America gets to tap into Canada and Mexico's energy resources, Canada and Mexico get to tap into America's lucrative economy, and American and Canadian businesses get to exploit Mexico's cheap labor).

Edited January 7, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Ursa Majoris]

I agree somewhat. If I'm putting money into the system, I expect at least SOMETHING out of it. Even if it's a lower percentage than the guy who is struggling to make ends meet at 65. Taking ALL of it away from people who've lived responsibly is nothing short of economic redistribution.

You are the last person I would have associated with an entitlement mentality. I guess that just shows how far it's permeated into the national psyche.

 

I generally agree with most of what you say but you're wrong on this one. No in way in f'ing hell does my line of thought mean me-me-me. Yours on the other hand smacks me of entitlement-entitlement-entitlement.

Sure it means me-me-me. It also means entitlement - I paid in, I want mine! How else can you characterize it?

 

The point is that as it currently exists, SS really is a pyramid scheme but it doesn't have to be. I already stated that what is really required here is an insurance scheme. Like house insurance, it would pay out if it was needed. The upside is that because many less people would need it than currently receive it, the weekly / bi-weekly / monthly payments would be less. A lot less.

 

In the same way that you don't pay the entire value of your home in home insurance over the policy's lifetime (but you do receive the full value if you have e.g. a fire), SS would pay out when bad things happen. It wouldn't be a fortune, no more than it is now but it should be regarded as a safety net, not an automatic return investment scheme.

 

No-one with half a brain wants to have to subsist on SS alone so most people will still save for retirement. However, not one of us has a crystal ball and not one of us is named Nostradamus, so opting out would not be allowed. $hit happens to everyone. Sure, some will say that they would never use it and therefore shouldn't pay but we all know this country is too advanced to simply let people die in the streets in droves, hence the mandatory (but now less expensive) insurance.

[Yukon Cornelius]

$hit happens to everyone. Sure, some will say that they would never use it and therefore shouldn't pay but we all know this country is too advanced to simply let people die in the streets in droves, hence the mandatory (but now less expensive) insurance.

WWJD

[Bill Swerski]

You are the last person I would have associated with an entitlement mentality. I guess that just shows how far it's permeated into the national psyche.

 

I don't have an entitlement mentality. I have a charitable mentality. If I have half a million in the bank at age 65, I'd probably end up donating a portion of my Social Security check to the poor whether the government mandated it or not.

 

I don't think that your insurance idea is necessarily a bad one, but I still don't see the incentive for people to be responsible with money when the gubmint is going to bail them out when they're broke at 65. There is a large sect of people out there that are going to abuse the hell out of that type of system (I should know because I grew up around them). It's a solid idea in principle but, like welfare, it's going to be abused.

 

I still think that forcing people to save money in personal accounts is the best way to keep everybody honest.

Edited January 7, 2008 by Bill Swerski

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't have an entitlement mentality. I have a charitable mentality. If I have half a million in the bank at age 65, I'd probably end up donating a portion of my Social Security check to the poor whether the government mandated it or not.

 

I don't think that your insurance idea is necessarily a bad one, but I still don't see the incentive for people to be responsible with money when the gubmint is going to bail them out when they're broke at 65. There is a large sect of people out there that are going to abuse the hell out of that type of system (I should know because I grew up around them). It's a solid idea in principle but, like welfare, it's going to be abused.

 

I still think that forcing people to save money in personal accounts is the best way to keep everybody honest.

Certainly I see your point about freeloaders and wasters but we're all going to get SS as it stands right now and yet most of us are still stuffing money into 401k, Roth, IRAs and any other vehicle we can find, assuming we have some spare cash. How would what I have roughly outlined change that? Wouldn't it actually increase the incentive, if that's even necessary? We all know SS is just about enough to keep body and soul together - I don't see how switching it from an automatic to a needs based system would act as a disincentive to plan for one's own retirement.

[Cunning Runt]

Sure it means me-me-me. It also means entitlement - I paid in, I want mine! How else can you characterize it?

 

If you want to paint my take as a me-me perspective, that's fine. Maybe it is in your view. If me viewing it unfair to have paid in all these years only to see that money go to someone who was, for lack of a better term, "less succesful" in life, means "me-me", I'm ok with that characterization because that's exactly how I feel. I do have a lineage that would deserve that money far more than someone who is a stranger to me for sure. I would like to be able to pass along any accrued wealth to my family, not give it away because I personally may not need it. Me-me did earn it over the course of me-me's life after all.

[Ursa Majoris]

If you want to paint my take as a me-me perspective, that's fine. Maybe it is in your view. If me viewing it unfair to have paid in all these years only to see that money go to someone who was, for lack of a better term, "less succesful" in life, means "me-me", I'm ok with that characterization because that's exactly how I feel. I do have a lineage that would deserve that money far more than someone who is a stranger to me for sure. I would like to be able to pass along any accrued wealth to my family, not give it away because I personally may not need it. Me-me did earn it over the course of me-me's life after all.

See my post immediately above yours and also the longer attempt at clarification that goes with my quote you posted. The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be a redefinition of the SS system - the mechanics of how to do it so that "losses" are minimized are open to discussion but we surely all agree that some action is inevitable. Also, don't forget that what I am proposing should cost significantly less in contributions than it currently does.

 

I'm not pretending this isn't complex but inertia isn't going to solve this.