Cleveland Buck;910518 wrote:I like Cain better than RINOs like Romney and Santorum or big government types like Perry, but he isn't different enough from them for me to vote for him. He was the chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve and opposes even auditing the Fed let alone reforming it (yes he recently flip flopped saying he would audit the Fed because it is the popular stance, but he would never do anything to the Fed as president). He supported the bailouts. I'm not going to settle anymore and waste my vote. What is the difference if Cain or Romney or Christie or Obama win? You might get some kind of tax cut through Congress, but none of them are going to significantly cut spending. None of them are going to deal with our monetary policy. None of them are going to do anything to let the market correct itself and then stay out of it so we can have real growth again. If my vote for someone other than the R or D means one or the other wins, so what? They aren't different enough for it to matter.

gut;911058 wrote:That small of a margin against an un-named Repub candidate? Pretty much says the Repubs will have to find someone worse than Al Gore to run in order for Obama to win the election.

gut;911058 wrote:That small of a margin against an un-named Repub candidate? Pretty much says the Repubs will have to find someone worse than Al Gore to run in order for Obama to win the election.

Cleveland Buck;910518 wrote:I like Cain better than RINOs like Romney and Santorum or big government types like Perry, but he isn't different enough from them for me to vote for him. He was the chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve and opposes even auditing the Fed let alone reforming it (yes he recently flip flopped saying he would audit the Fed because it is the popular stance, but he would never do anything to the Fed as president). He supported the bailouts. I'm not going to settle anymore and waste my vote. What is the difference if Cain or Romney or Christie or Obama win? You might get some kind of tax cut through Congress, but none of them are going to significantly cut spending. None of them are going to deal with our monetary policy. None of them are going to do anything to let the market correct itself and then stay out of it so we can have real growth again. If my vote for someone other than the R or D means one or the other wins, so what? They aren't different enough for it to matter.

I Wear Pants;911069 wrote:Someone bad enough to win the popular vote?

I Wear Pants;911069 wrote:Someone bad enough to win the popular vote?

gut;911625 wrote:Obviously there needs to be significant cuts to military spending to get to a balanced budget. Truthfully, cutting non-military discretionary spending 50% (which would be far too severe) isn't going to move the needle much - a more realistic cut there of @ 20% would net us only about $150B.

I think we need to cut SS/Medicare about 15% and bump FICA another 15% (which would amount to about another 1% each from you and your employer) - very rough estimate but you're talking $250-300B. That would go a long way toward reducing the deficit while also shoring up those programs. And everyone shares the pain for that social INSURANCE, which is as it should be. I also don't have issue with reducing or phasing out benefits for the wealthy. It's insurance, one most of us don't know if we'll need when we are forced to participate when we begin working, so if you end-up doing really well I don't know that it should be some great crime that you get little to no benefit.

majorspark;911483 wrote:Our founders were wise.

BGFalcons82;911669 wrote:Horse-pucky, major.:rolleyes: The revisionists claim they were racist, wealthy, aristocratic, slave-owning, adultering, inhuman scum. :huh:

How could they be wise with all of these attributes?

Cleveland Buck;911608 wrote:If you are going to continue to police the world then you are never going to be able to cut enough to even balance the budget let alone be able to cut tax rates to help the economy. On top of that, look at the uproar about Social Security in this primary season so far. You can't even call it what it is without them coming after you for taking it away from them. How feasible is it going to be for career politicians who want and need to be re-elected to cut these entitlements when you see the uproar from just calling SSI a ponzi scheme? I would be shocked if any entitlements get cut. You will have to cut the empire to make any significant cuts to the deficit.

gut;911625 wrote:Obviously there needs to be significant cuts to military spending to get to a balanced budget. Truthfully, cutting non-military discretionary spending 50% (which would be far too severe) isn't going to move the needle much - a more realistic cut there of @ 20% would net us only about $150B.

I think we need to cut SS/Medicare about 15% and bump FICA another 15% (which would amount to about another 1% each from you and your employer) - very rough estimate but you're talking $250-300B. That would go a long way toward reducing the deficit while also shoring up those programs. And everyone shares the pain for that social INSURANCE, which is as it should be. I also don't have issue with reducing or phasing out benefits for the wealthy. It's insurance, one most of us don't know if we'll need when we are forced to participate when we begin working, so if you end-up doing really well I don't know that it should be some great crime that you get little to no benefit.

BGFalcons82;911669 wrote:Horse-pucky, major.:rolleyes: The revisionists claim they were racist, wealthy, aristocratic, slave-owning, adultering, inhuman scum. :huh:

How could they be wise with all of these attributes?

In summary, the Chilean model:

1. Allows for people to have individual retirement accounts IF THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE ONE. If not, then they can remain on the government dole. Like we have here today.
2. It is in a lockbox.
3. If inflation shows up to eat away at savings, then it will have a chance to keep up with inflation through investments.
4. The national savings rate would skyrocket as people manage money better than Uncle Sam would ever hope to do so.
5. Ummm...well....ahem....it works.

Herman Cain has it right. Whether or not the pols in DC care to fix the problem is a completely separate discussion.

Probably a little bit of both. Great men ARE still fallible and even ugly at times.

HitsRus;911855 wrote:fixed it for you.

BGFalcons82;911665 wrote:As far as Social Security, it is nothing more than a payroll tax. It is NOT insurance.

gut;911959 wrote:"Payroll tax" and "insurance premium" are one in the same here. It's a social insurance program operated like a ponzi scheme. You're basically buying an annuity. That those premiums have not been invested or saved in the "lock box" doesn't change the intent/design of the program. The fraudulent way the govt has chosen to operate the program is another matter.