American attitudes have shifted from cherishing self-sufficiency and personal responsibility to craving cradle-to-grave security "guaranteed" by government. The result is that increasing numbers of Americans are dependent on government for their income, careers, health care, education, and other essentials. Government benefits--once concentrated on "the needy"--now extend into middle- and upper-middle-class households, even as more and more Americans see their income tax liabilities decrease. Today, the majority of Americans can v**e themselves more generous government benefits at little or no cost to themselves. As a result, most have little fiscal incentive to restrain the continued growth of Big Government and the entitlements it dangles before them.

Individuals assigning value and determining their own destiny is what makes people free, and it is this exercise that strengthens the good citizen. I venture to say that most Americans believe that if government gives people adequate income, food, and shelter, then we've done a good thing. But people are not pets, and by making these decisions for people, we strip freedom from people.

This tyranny of good intentions disables citizens' self-determination and undermines their values, especially personal responsibility. Ultimately, it devalues their inherent worth as created in God's image. We risk, as Ronald Reagan warned, "treating them as helpless children to be forever dependent." Our guiding principles should be to help people by building their capabilities so that they exercise their rights to choose a life that they value.

Just because you won the last e******n does not make you right. The side with the most stupid people wins more than half the time in politics.

Most of the posters on your side are so uninformed about the things they post on, it makes it difficult for me to control my temper. I do not mind people disagreeing with me, but when they constantly post things that are factually incorrect, then I spend all of my time correcting.

When you study the history of Social Security you realize that it was designed as a financial time bomb. It was never based on the worker storing up his savings, for his or her old age. It was based on the worker supporting his parents and grandparents. It worked great. It worked too great. I can't find figures for the 1930s. In the 40s the ratio of workers to retirees was 41 to 1.
https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/how-many-workers-support-one-social-security-retiree


Back then most people died before retiring. It was freaking great for the government. Between smoking, industrial accidents, and working yourself to death, you likely paid in 20-30 years, and died without seeing a penny. They usually only paid out a pittance to your widow. Plus in the 40s and 50s good old American fertility produced 5 or sometimes 10 kids. Unlike previous times in America, most of them lived.

Why I said SS worked too great is because with geezers dying early and the baby boomers entering the work force, all of those $ Billions piling up in trust funds were too large to keep greedy politicians from buying v**es by promising more and more benefits to stupid v**ers.

Now we get to the last 40 years. Thanks to the pill and women's lib, us baby boomers were not as fertile as our parents. So the suckers supporting us are not very many. Plus thanks to anti smoking and modern medicine and disability, too many of us are living forever. We are not like our forbears who considerately paid in and died without taking out. We selfishly will take out for 30-50 years, and we could care less about those behind us.

You l*****ts always have one solution to everything. Raise taxes on the rich. It sounds great. There are two problems with your final solution to every problem. The main problem is sucking all of that money out of the economy, even when you take it from rich people who stole it from the poor like you and me, is it will hurt the economy. I know you will never believe that but it will. Plus it won't work.

The hole in SS, disability, and Medicare is so big that you guys can confiscate every penny from the rich, and every thing is still going broke. Your masters will tell you different, but eventually even YOU will get smacked in the face with the t***h.

I am 67 and this will hurt me, but not as bad as those who are now in their 50s. I will get a few years before it all blows up. By then maybe c***d or cancer will finish me off. Maybe I will just live off of my rich liberal children for a few years before they throw me in some rat hole old folks home.

My math is correct and was only an example of someone AVERAGING $5000 a year into the stock market over 40 years to come up with the $200 thousand mentioned. In the real world that would mean someone starting into the workforce at 25 and retiring at 65 with normal raises and promotions with corresponding raises over that 40 year span and increasing their contributions accordingly. Then let the wonders of compounding kick in.

Personally, I didn't start seriously saving for retirement until I was 40 and retired last year at 64. My wife retired at 59 two years ago and we have an income stream of $80 thousand per year without SS.

I'm not responsible for anyone else who has not been prudent in their retirement planning.

If the states and government offered lower income people a hand up instead of a handout and returned to temporary assistance programs with work requirements for able bodied people. States could offer vocational- technical training schools with internship payback programs so people could attend these programs tuition free.

The Department of Education must replace/reform its current doctrine of common core to address the specific needs to improve student learning (e.g., raising the average level of achievement, remediating gaps among low performers, and challenging high performers to develop higher-order sk**ls). Bringing back merit-based competition among students.

States can offer education vouchers that follow the students (school choice) to compete with public schools. Competition for funds would raise the competency and quality of teachers and the level of instruction given.
School districts hiring Bilingual ESL instructors (US bilingual citizens) for large mixed classes containing non-English-speaking children.

There is a potential ability for people to achieve self-reliance and freedom through hard work, education and ambition.

If the states and government offered lower income people a hand up instead of a handout and returned to temporary assistance programs with work requirements for able bodied people. States could offer vocational- technical training schools with internship payback programs so people could attend these programs tuition free.

The Department of Education must replace/reform its current doctrine of common core to address the specific needs to improve student learning (e.g., raising the average level of achievement, remediating gaps among low performers, and challenging high performers to develop higher-order sk**ls). Bringing back merit-based competition among students.

States can offer education vouchers that follow the students (school choice) to compete with public schools. Competition for funds would raise the competency and quality of teachers and the level of instruction given.
School districts hiring Bilingual ESL instructors (US bilingual citizens) for large mixed classes containing non-English-speaking children.

There is a potential ability for people to achieve self-reliance and freedom through hard work, education and ambition.

Who is to say you are right or I am wrong ? One indicator is our discussions on Social Security. I gave you the history of Social Security. How the financing was set up and why the demographics will cause it and medicare and the disability fund to fail. You cling to this fairy tale the Democrats have filled your mind with from childhood that fixing the mess is as easy as 123. Just raise taxes on people who have more wealth than you. They tell you there are no consequences to the economy, you, jobs, or the country.

Why do you think, initially FDR only taxed SS at 1 % ? Gradually it was raised to 6.2 %, but why did Roosevelt start it at 1 % ? It was because he knew that, contrary to what you and every other Liberal currently living on Planet Earth believe, taxes are a d**g on the economy, and during the depression it would have k**led the economy.

Also, Social Security was never meant to be the sole support for most Americans. It has evolved into that, but it was not the intended purpose. It was to be the last resort for the poor when they retired, so they wouldn't starve or be homeless, but for the majority of middle class workers had good pensions. Social Security was always only to be a small part of their retirement income. That is no longer true.

I am in that generation that saw the good pensions go away. I have 2 minuscule pensions from 17 years at two different companies in the 1970s-early 90s. The bulk of my future retirement will have to come from my 401 k-IRA. If I had played it safe, in the decades I contributed to that, it also would be minuscule and insufficient. I HAD to take risk.

I did well and just when I retired and needed the money the dufus you put into the Presidency caused rampant inflation, and both the bond and the stock markets to tank. That has almost never happened in American History, but your boy Joe pulled it off. So say the experts running my IRA and trying to explain why in 2022 they lost so much of my money.

At any rate, I say I am right and you are wrong because my statements and arguments are filled with facts. Your statements and arguments have almost no facts. You really have no clue what you are talking about.

The initial rate of 1% was set when a yearly salary was just $4,000. The rate was raised to 6.2% in 1990 when annual wages increased to $20,000. That rate remains the same today.

Overtime, employers decided to shift the pension cost from themselves to their employees. Employees were urged to take on some pension risk. 401K IRAs were offered. When it was their choice, many workers did not take advantage. Most owners of 401K IRAs have been happy when the market was rising. When market risk came to life and the market declined, it was time to blame the current president.

The fact is when workers are not forced to save, many will refuse. The Social Security program is essential to avoid poverty in our old age. The funding formula changed over the years. It needs to be changed again.

1 % of o $ 4,000 in the price and wage environment of the 1930s and 1940s is no different from 1 % of $ 20,000 in the price and wage environment of 1990. Tell me different ????????????????

Why did employers shift from defined benefit plans to 401k plans ? Did they suddenly become greedy ? Well ??

The reason was in a competitive environment they could no longer afford defined benefit plans. A lot of companies went into bankruptcy and their pension plans had to be rescued by the PBGC. One of my minuscule pensions is that way.

The only economic sector that has not switched over to 401ks is the public sector because the public sector unions who support your buddies in the Democrat Party, want to screw over the taxpayer, me and you.

" Most owners of 401K IRAs have been happy when the market was rising. When market risk came to life and the market declined, it was time to blame the current president. "

You just keep defending this POS. Listen my friend. I went through a lot worse in 2007-2009. THAT was a catastrophe. I lost 40-50 % of my 401k, but because I did not panic, I made out like a bandit. I kept putting in as stock prices collapsed. I bought stocks at fire sale prices. When the market recovered I ended up 400 % above my pre collapse position.

This is much different now. This time I am only down maybe 18 %. However in real terms with Joflation, my purchasing power is down close to 30 %. Even if, as I hope, I make up my nominal losses by the end of this year, Joflation will have me down 9 or more %.

You excuse Biden's inflation and stock market correction as something he did not cause. I don't because this is my money you and Joe are screwing with. I also understand economics which you obviously do not. If was Biden's uncontrolled spending and his attacks of oil and gas that caused Joflation. I don't care that it is beyond your understanding to see it.

Bad Bob and I frequently exchange views on the stock market. He being one of you and me being something totally different. He frequently bragged about how great the stock market did under the awesome mighty all powerful President Obama. Bad Bob must know better than me about the market and what a President can do to affect it.

I have been brutally honest in my investing experience. I frequently lose money. Bob never seems to lose money on investments. That makes him way way smarter than me. So if he says a President deserves the credit for the market doing well, I believe him.

That means if inflation and the market are bad, it must also be the President's fault.

When your hero Joe began his policies, we who have been around the block more than once all shook our heads and said, this will cause inflation and cost us all dearly. We were right. And inflation caused the stock market to tank, because the stupid fed after giving Joe enough rope to hang himself, finally began tightening.