Where do you come up with that idea? SS funds, by law from day one, have always been held in US government bonds, there are no SS funds
>
>>dgk wrote:
>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over
>>>>>>>>> my head.
>>>>>>>> Clearly, it is...
>>>>>>> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's
>>>>>>> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid >>>>>>> down
>>>>>>> with new taxes...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record >>>>>>> setting
>>>>>>> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what
>>>>>>> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against
>>>>>> punitive taxes.
>>>>> Actually, you said: "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes."
>>>> Right. We already have plenty as it is. Get a dictionary. Look up
>>>> "More". I'll wait for you.
>>>
>>> Maybe we should stop sending troops all over the world to protect the
>>> investments of the wealthy. Since we spend more on offense than the
>>> rest of the world combined, spending less would mean lower taxes. The
>>> rich can go protect their investments themselves, using their kids. >>
>>Investments of the wealthy??!!??!! ROTFLMAO. Yeah, wealthy, if you
>>consider living in the U.S. wealthy.
>>
>>I think you need to do a little homework.
>>
>>The $$ cost of the wars we're fighting is insignificant compared to the
>>cost of entitlement programs, Medicare and Social Security. Entitlement
>>programs cost hundreds of times that of funding the war.
>>
>>Want to reduce taxes? Start by eliminating some of the entitlement >>programs.
>
> Right now, Social Security is bringing in more money than it is paying
> out. The surplus is being used to pay for (among other things) the
> war on Iraq. If we stopped collecting social security tomorrow, we
> would either have to borrow more money on the open market (aka the
> Chinese) or raise other taxes to cover the shortfall. Medicare is
> also funded by a separate tax.
>
> I don't know how old you are or what your financial situation is.
> However, if you are lucky you will someday reach the age of 65. Maybe
> you will have enough money that you won't need Social Security. But I
> doubt you would be able to afford private health insurance, even if > you could get it.
>
> If you have at lest $10 million in the bank to self insure, your
> position on this issue is rational. Selfish but rational. If you are
> of more modest means, you have been drinking the neocon Koolaid. Wake > up.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>It makes sense to eliminate as much taxation as possible, then to start
>>cutting the entitlement programs to match the tax cuts. Then start
>>cutting again and eliminating programs again. Repeat. Tax revenues
>>will actually increase due to the economic stimulii tax cuts produce. >>
>>The current tax structure places a heavy and uncompetitive burden on
>>businesses. They have trouble competing globally unless the dollar is
>>weak. The current weak dollar makes U.S. business competitive globally
>>by lowering the cost of their merchandise and/or services.
>>
>>But from your post, you would not seem to have any clue about economics.