Repubs calling each other names.....St Reagan must be turning over in his grave!

First they're called heartless......now brainless!

Yikes!

Newt is smarter then the other GOTP candidates? So? Apparently smart doesn't equate to winning or morality in his case.

He probably is smarter than his competition. But that isn't saying a whole lot. Romney? Bachmann? Cain? Paul? Santorum? Huntsman is out, because he worked in the Obama Administration and he won't be forgiven for that.

So the bar is pretty low with these candidates.

Newt is a joke. Especially his involvement in the Iraq invasion. I'm getting tired of people whitewashing their roles in that invasion.

He played a big part in it. And it was reprehensible.

No, Noot- Christie is an ENORMUSly complicated guy. You are just another loud-mouth Obama detractor with the personal morals of an alley cat.

No, Noot- Christie is an ENORMUSly complicated guy.

But, not so complicated when it comes to a restaurant dinner menu.....he orders everything!

Newtsie is still trying to sell his failed Contract On America to conservatives...

I don't know whats more sadder-er...the fact that Newtsie has ressurected this crap, or that the GOP/Tea Party is buying it!

Smartest Republican candidate---kind of like being the tallest of the 7 dwarfs, isn't it?

Mickey, are you crazy? The contract for America was a huge success with at least 7 of the 10 items adopted and then signed into law by Clinton. Why do you think we had such huge bipartisan success. Give both Newt and Clinton credit when its due. You may dislike a party or politician but you lose any credibility when you cant even give them credit for their successes.

Do you really think intelligence is single best barometer of factor of success for a president? Certainly hasnt worked very well for Obama at the moment now has it? I would think leadership would be the single most important factor as it sure seems like the best historical presidents have been great leaders. Besides, I wouldnt be surprised if Newt doesnt test out as higher IQ than Obama but Newt certainly wouldnt make a good president. Also purely on IQ scores, Bush had a higher SAT score than Gore and Bush was a horrible president. But Pat, explain to me again why Huntsman is your man? Tell me what political positions he has that you like that are different than Romney or Perry?

Kirk, where did I say Huntsman was "my man"?

I can't stand any Republicans of today. They're incompetent and pushed this country to the edge. And continue to do so.

So no explaining necessary. They have no business in government. Any of them.

Pat, I understand but you acted like you like huntsman the best but clearly he is the same as the rest. Given that the democrats have led 2 of the 3 branches of government and all 3 for the first 2 years and they refuse to compromise on a single one of their failed policies to date, wouldnt most logical people including the conclusions of all the current polls place the blame on the democrats? Hard to say $1.4 trillion deficit is blamed on the republicans. Hard to say the doubling of the national debt is the republicans fault at this point dont you think?

Sadly, or fortunately, intelligence rarely has anything to do with success.

He is just hanging around to see if some of the "hopefuls" (Romney-Perry) would feel sorry for him and would consider him for Vice-President. He knows that he is NEVER going to be the President...

Why are these people so arrogant and delusional?

Then why aren't you in the lead Newt?

Quick question here, maybe I'm not smart enough, unlike Mr Newt. If all of the younger crowd pulls their money out of social security, and puts it into private accounts, where does the money for the current retired people come from? I know it sounds complicated, but since the workers of today are paying for the retirees of today, how is it going to work?

Funny, regardless of whether you are a Conservative or a Liberal, it is well known that Obama's IQ is 170, not disputed at all. Both of his parents where PhDs his wife has a PhD, and he is a College Professor with a Doctorate. Why do whites with less than 100, IQs always call the President, Odumbo and like names. Dumb, he is not. Now compared to Newt who has a EQ (emotional IQ) of a Junior High Drama Queen, come on, Gingrich smarter than Limbaugh, maybe, barf....smarter than Bachmann, my dog turns off the TV and reads the Sports section....

Jensen, are you trying to be racist or funny. Both Obama's parents werent PHDs, his wife is a lawyer who practiced here in chicago and so is Barack. Nobody should refer to Obama as Odumbo and I agree that is disrespectful. Most people view Obama as very intelligent and the people I know who worked with him here in chicago consider him to be very bright and intelligent but certainly not in 170 IQ level. Its no different than constant referrals to Bush as stupid or any of the current GOP candidates by posters on this blog who themselves I am sure have IQs far below Bush or the GOP. Or look at you making fun of Bachmann who is an accomplished tax lawyer. That doesnt mean she is a good politician though right?

Gingrich is smarter than anyone...

But, is he always...without fail...

"The smartest guy in the room"?

Sorry, Newt.

We already have one of those.

It hasn't worked out.

We'll call you.

I have to agree with Mr.Gingrich, he is very smart and just may be the only person that can get us out of this recession. He did a wonderful job when he was Speaker of the House. The ONLY reason he seems in the background is because that's where the media wants him to be. They're so busy pushing Mr. Romney one day and Mr.Perry the next. At the end of the week the media tries to make them both look bad and goes back to praising Obama and we already know he is a loser.

That's why it is important to do your own research on all the candidates. So far Mr. Gingrich is way ahead of the rest . When I started I was slanted toward Mr. Romney but Mr. Gingrich keeps pulling out ahead of the group. I set up a questionnaire first, then put each candidate's qualifications and policies into it to determine which ones to be eliminated. Next I put the remaining candidates in and what the experience was and scored each individual before going to the next category. I have gotten to the seventh step out of nine and Mr. Gingrich is far ahead of the rest.

Jensen

Could you give us a link to Obama having an IQ 170 ? The only information that I can find that he hasn't paid to keep hidden and is verifiable regarding his education was when he lived in Indonesia and was registered as a Muslim. Later he applied for Foreign Student Aid with the U.S. of A. and received it. It doesn't say anywhere that he applied for citizenship but somehow claimed he was a U.S. citizen.

I could claim that I have an IQ of 176 and you would have to take my word for it.

I could claim that I have an IQ of 176 and you would have to take my word for it.

Nahhh - I've read enough of your bull@!$%# to know YOU'RE lying! ;o))

If anything, you need a remidal course in School House Rocks!

Thanks for playing though - without you and your ilk this place would be pretty boring! ;oP

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

I knew at some point in time the wicked witch would make her appearance. I guess I should feel flattered that you chose me, but I'm not. I leave little mudballs like you in folds of toilet tissue before I flush them down.

You must find it very stressful when people write comments about your kind always having your hand out and you may only be getting empty envelopes in your mail instead of welfare checks in the near future. My guess is that your life is very boring or you wouldn't be hiding behind your computer all day making those little disgusting sounds.

But hey, who am I to judge? It's probably your only reason for existing.

http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/894197-Obama-s-IQ-The-Highest-Of-Any-Pre%20sident-Ever

Obama's IQ The Highest Of Any President Ever?

The former Guidance Counselor of Obama's private Hawaiian school has supplied The Washington Post with a certified copy of
Obama's Stanford-Banai IQ Certification, one of which was taken in 1966 when he was a kindergardener in Hawaii before moving to Indonesia, and one which was taken as entrance protocol as a freshman in his private (extremely exclusive) Honolulu private highschool.

His IQ was clocked at 172 and 166 respectively (IQ's normally have a fluctuation of 6 or 7 points from test to test so that discrepency is normal).

That puts Obama in the certifiable clinical genius category.

Obama's campaign is apparently NOT HAPPY about The Washington Post preparing to disclose this, because they fear it adds to his reputation as not an "everyman" and being too "elitist".

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729685,00.html

Link to time. com about Mother Phd

Each of us lives a life of contradictory truths. We are not one thing or another. Barack Obama's mother was at least a dozen things. S. Ann Soetoro was a teen mother who later got a Ph.D. in anthropology; a white woman from the Midwest who was more comfortable in Indonesia; a natural-born mother obsessed with her work; a romantic pragmatist, if such a thing is possible.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729685,00.html#ixzz1ZUNUsgAw

Father Phd:

http://www.biography.com/people/barack-obama-12782369

Do you really think intelligence is single best barometer of factor of success for a president? Certainly hasnt worked very well for Obama at the moment now has it?

Then you should be the next President.

Jensen

Your links are mere magazine articles and doesn't prove or verify anything. You are allowing the media to lead you around in a circle. Ha Ha Ha. You can't believe everything you read. Those articles sound like Obama wrote them himself.

I just clicked on your link to : Rangewolf

Hmm, you have not written or seeded any articles, and are not allowed to do so.

Newt likely is the smartest of the current crop, at least politically. He's really not running though. Newt is milking. He's not about to say much against the other candidates. He will continually perform twists, lies, distractions, and subjective criticisms of President Obama and the democrates to the favor of his pseudo opponents. They, and their supporters, will in turn, shower him with great appreciation. This is the nature and vocation of "Newt Gingrich".

we're going to do a commercial showing President Obama in July saying twice you're not going to get your social security check," Gingrich said.

There's "book smart". There's "street smart". Then there's the Gingrich "making out of context Obama quotes like all the other dumbasses" smarts.

He may well be right. He may be smarter than the rest of the Republican field. But I wouldn't brag about being smarter than a gaggle of geese. These people have distorted so many facts that even true historians will have trouble sorting this out.

Jensen

Haha, What makes you think I am not allowed to ?

Well, RANGEWOLF, after reading your comebacks, it appears you are the one being lead around by the opinion of others. Jensen provides credible sources for the information you impugned and all you can say is "Your links are mere magazine articles and doesn't prove or verify anything. You are allowing the media to lead you around in a circle. Ha Ha Ha. You can't believe everything you read. Those articles sound like Obama wrote them himself."

Where are your credible links? What constructive input can you actually add to the conversation about Newt? Certainly, we are all free to express our opinions, but how about just a little consistency in offering what you seem to demand of others.

When he thinks with his big head or his little head?

you don't have to go to school to be stupid.

Gingrich smarter than his GOP rivals?? Kiss of death for the whole republican line-up.

So what? That only means he's smarter than a rock!

I actually agree with Newt....but being the smartest of a group of idiots doesn't mean he isn't still an idiot.

All Republican candidates fall somewhere on this line graph:

"Stupid/Good Intentions"------------------------x-----------"Smart/Evil"

That's where I place Newt.

chilled

Repubs calling each other names.....St Reagan must be turning over in his grave!

First they're called heartless......now brainless!

Yikes!

LOL, they are brainless!!!

Pat, Boston, MA

Newt is a joke. Especially his involvement in the Iraq invasion. I'm getting tired of people whitewashing their roles in that invasion.

He played a big part in it. And it was reprehensible.

Pat,

Newt is a reprehensible fat, greedy, pig and so is his "new Contract with America; ummm, hit on America" I loved your article by Dr Melissa Perry; thank you. I had wanted to write about it. Every time I mention race, suddenly, I become a pernicious racist; not that I care. I'm going to call it like I see.

====================================================

I have very little respect for firebaggers. They are libertarians, ex GOP OPERATIVES, and professional hacks in my opinion.

Arianna Huffington comes to mind, and she’s anything but liberal. Jane Hamsher (fire dog lake blog) owns a public relations firm who represents and advises Republican candidates like Grover "never pay a tax" Norquist. Glenn Greenwald has been connected with the Cato Institute and the Koch brothers .

Might I mention I have even less respect for Glenn Greenwald now that I found out he is associated with the CATO Institute, which is partially funded by the Koch brothers.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/glenn-greenwald/

I read this a couple a days ago. I hope you like it when you get time to read it. Again thank you for enlightening me. Here is the article...

When the Left-Wing Uses Right-Wing Attack Methods To Attack Themselves

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/03/left-wing-attacks/

You got it Bev...

Which is the Brainless Scarecrow and which is the Heartless Tin Man.... which candidate will use the Courage (Cowardly Lion) comment?

answer======All

Jody,

I've had the doubtful honor of meeting Mr. Gingrich (prior to his becoming Speaker) and I believe he is more intelligent than the current crop of GOP candidates, with the possible exception of Governor Huntsmann. Where he is sadly deficient is in his character. I'm reminded of the famous assessment of FDR by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who is reported to have said that he had a second rate intellect, but a first rate character.

Ahhhh, quit picking on Mr. Family Values. ROFL

Kate, right now 15% of a persons pay up to the cap of $106,000 is already paid into social security and medicare for future benefits. Why not privatize it and put the cash into Treasuries already back by the US government? The nuances of death, disability can always be dealt with separatly so thats an easy fix. Privatization provides all the safeguards you progressives are looking for. Why arent you behind it?

Kirk -- tell us how privatization provides "all the safeguards" people want? Another word for privatization might be "outsourcing..." why have an army when we can privatize it and let the private sector do the work for the government -- privatization involves a profit for someone, and that profit is at the expense of the people who pay for the service. There are some things that government does better than the private sector, and keeping government in charge of social security is one of those things, just as keeping the government in charge of the armed services is one of those things.

kate: " There are some things that government does better than the private sector,....."

RIGHT. Let's see......government is great at dumping billions into failed "green companies" , sending checks to dead people, hiring people at the cost of $5 million per job, throwing "stimulus" at Union pension funds and failed banks ( i.e. Maxine Waters husband's bank) and neglecting their most important job......PROTECTING OUR BORDERS.

But Kate--you're forgetting that privatization would make enormous money for Wall Street---we all know that is why they want to privatize Social Security. Then, when Wall Street loses everyone's investments in a crash, we can bail them out again.

Kate, what makes you think the government does it better than the private sector. There is no way that could be true. Can you imagine the cost savings to the government by allowing the private sector who is actually in the business of keeping private accounts and providing information reporting to its recipients etc. Who cares if someone can make a profit if they can do it better and more efficiently. Social security is no where close to being the same as the armed services. There is nothing special about collecting retirement contributions and recordkeeping eligible recipients and providing information reporting for them all. Union pension plans do it all across the country very well and its privatized in many state governments very well. I would be willing to gamble my life savings that the so called profit you are worried about is less than the huge cost savings by eliminating the government from the process.

As for safeguards, not sure what you mean but it sure would be safer than today where all the contributions or funds are taken immediately and used by another arm of the government. That means the entire amount of today's benefits are unfunded and paid out by current contributions which as we all know are contributing to our deficit. Take the contributions and put them into an account which must invest in safe investments like certificate of deposits or Treasury Bills. No speculating so not sure what your concern is

Steeler Fan. privatization doesnt mean wall street makes a dime. Why do you say that? No one is advocating that recipients are allowed to invest in the market and that was also eliminated from any consideration when Bush proposed it. The real reason the democrats are against this is that it eliminates the welfare or government subsidy component to social security. Current benefits are 3 to 1 compared to contributions and rising as the baby boomers retire and people live longer.

Kate, nicely said.

I'd like that "responsible" journalist to also ask what programs Gingrich plans to cut to pay for his all-out border assault--education, infrastructure, medicare, social security, Pell grants, aid to the poor, disabled and elderly; is he willing to raise taxes to pay for it, maybe close tax loopholes to cover the cost.

Privatization of social security would be a disaster. We only need look at the Wall Street collapse of 2008 to see that, and the roller coaster ride both before and after. We have the option of privatizing already with 401Ks, IRAs, investment in bonds. Social Security is intended to be a safety net. Wall Street would just love to get their greedy little hands on that money, that way they could take even greater risk and screw the whole country instead of just those who didn't pay attention and let their savings ride.

Kirk I am sure all that 401K money that disappeared into the stock market ended up in someones pocket. It was real money and now poof it is gone.

But don't worry wall street isn't going to make any money if social security is privatized just like they haven't made any money off the 401K's.

Jody and Americans First--you keep making things up. There is no reason that privatization will invovle Wall Street and speculating. That was taken out of the Bush proposal we are talking pension like IRA accounts. Why make up concerns that arent in the proposals.

The real reason the democrats are against this is that it eliminates the welfare or government subsidy component to social security. Current benefits are 3 to 1 compared to contributions

Kirk you are referring to Medicare not Social Security with your figures.

No Medicare is a 10-1 pay out versus contributions. But thats a tough one because all medical insurance provides a greater payout than contributions. With employer provided medical, its closer to 3-1 rather than 10 but medicare is for seniors who will have a lot more health expenses. I dont know what the right number should be. I think tackling the actual expense side of things is a better what to go rather than who pays what portion.

If any of the candidates claim they can control the borders with a fence then you know they are wrong. I don't know how many tunnels the border patrol has found so far but that should give all the candidates a hint that fences aren't working. The illegal aliens are either going under or around the fences.

Mr. Gingrich didn't state how he planned to control the borders but I believe he will come up with a plan other than fences. If not, it would still be better than Obama's plan of letting them enter and giving them citizenship with free medical, Social Security, food stamps, etc..

If you want social security to be in treasury bonds, there's nothing stopping that now and still keep it under our government's control. (Not Communist China)

Kirk -- Below is a link from WSJ online/SmartMoney. The article is basic but does refute the statement you posted earlier on SS payout vs. contribution. Specifically number 3 addresses the myth many continue to believe. As you seem to be struggling finding answers for help with small business owners/franchises the WSJ online has an excellent section dedicated to small business. Good luck.

http://www.smartmoney.com/retirement/planning/10-things-social-security-wont-tell-you-1314999788631/#articleTabs

Dont, interesting link. Although the link supports somewhat my comment and stats. Current social security recipients are getting benefits at 3 to 1 like I said. Its not a myth. I think the disconnect is the future recipients in which I said it was going to get worse. Based on their math, future recipients will actually get less than they pay in because they paid on higher rates and higher wage bases. What I have seen in the past is where the prediction is that in order to fund social security, the rates go up and the base goes up but also the future benefits to as a result. But thats all speculation as this article assume things stay static

No Kirk, it refers to 1980 payout and jumps to a figure for 2030, nowhere does it state where it is at for a retiree about to enroll in 2011. I would suspect it is near the 1 to 1 ratio.

I just read it again and it said retiree at 1980 is currently getting 3-1 payouts and a person paying in today retiring in 2030 will get a 1-1 payout. It uses static info as if there wont be any changes which based on my comments make me wrong for the 20 year future but not as of today. What I saw assumed changes in payroll contributions and longer life spans for 20 years from today which may or may not be correct.

I do appreciate the sites though because it is interesting how different WSJ articles use different information to make their conclusions.

OK Kirk, I will play along. Privatizing SS means according to you means personal contributions to to where, savings accounts, money market funds, bonds, stock ? what in your view is a non risk investment? what would be the fee that banks, insurance companies, or investment funds would take to handle and service these accounts?

Kirk, Newt is just just doing a "back to the future" GOP retread.

SS can easily be fixed for decades to come: raise the limit now imposed on wages for FCIA contributions. Raise the SS age slowly over the long term to 68 and early SS withdrawal to 65again over a long period of time.

Kirk,

Since we already have private accounts (401K/IRA) why do we need to convert Social Security? By the way, how many folks who lost 50% or more of their savings when the market meltdown began in 2007 do you think would support trading in the Social Security guaranteed payment for another Wall Street-Vegas experience?

Northstar, no different than any pension or retirement account you may have now with a union or corporation, you get statements with your benefit and there is no choice of investment you just get a stated return or you can have a IRA or 401(k) type of account managed by a ton of private providers but in all proposals, the funds are not yours to manage. They must be invested in Treasuries or certificates of deposit. No proposal has investment speculation so not sure why people keep saying that. If invested in treasuries it would mirror the current arrangement right? I assume there would be a fee for it but I guarantee that fee would be far less than our current social security administration burden on the government so that would be a clear savings to the country.

As for fixing it by raising the limit on FICA contributions you really cant do that without increasing the benefits for the people contributing more can you? Are you suggesting a welfare type plan were you take from current people making over 106 to give more money to seniors who are even wealthier? That makes no sense or are you talking about wealth equality?

Kirk,

I think there is flaw in your logic. You correctly state that Treasury Certificates are ultra safe investments. You fail to recognize, however, that they are just loans to the government that will be paid back by future tax revenues. They, of their own, do not create wealth, as an investment in a private company's bonds or stocks would if it succeeds. Your privatization scheme then would be exactly the same situation we have today, where the government borrows from the Trust Fund directly (bypassing us, the contributors) and then spends it to reduce the appearance of the annual deficit. The only change then would be that we would become accomplices. The only solution would be Al Gore's lockbox.

The only problem with Social Security is the government sees the funds as a big cookie jar and they can't resist dipping their hands into it. If anything, the money should be drawing interest. Could you imagine how much interest would be on it if the government would use it only for what it was intended ?

Cal, I agree and its not a flaw in my argument. What I am pointing out is that privatization has nothing to do with wall street, speculation in the market etc. So many people think that privatization means that people could lose all their retirement savings in the market and I dont understand why they have that misperception but they do. Personally what I think privatization does is highlight the disconnect from contributions and actual benefits. Because people are living longer, the amount of contributions as borrowed from the government are 1/3 of the benefits paid out today and getting worse as the baby boomers retire. It is possible and very likely that privatization would clearly highlight that our younger generation will get lower future benefits and it will have to be phased in to pay for current recipients.

It's so complicated even Newt doesn't understand it; if he did, he'd explain it.

sorry guys newt is in the wrong place and time.....they don't want smart they want revenge for what i don't want to imagine...defending poor newt he is so misunderstood...he missed his window...and doesn't even know it...that aint that smart....he screwed his own pooch....no richard nixon rising from the ashes...

dbo,

[...drawn here like a moth to a porch light...]

...touche`...

TomF what are you talking about? Your comments show a total lack of understanding of social security, privatization and senior wealth in this country. You do realize that 80% of this country's wealth is held by our seniors collecting social security right? A very small minority use social security as their only means of support. Second, social security funds are already bailed out today by the government because the contributions are used by the government to pay for other services making the deficit worse. So how can privatization be worse than that? Plus we arent talking private pension plans but private 401(k) accounts that can only invest in safe secure treasuries or certificates of deposit. the accounts will be totaly funded by your contributions totally opposite of whats done today. How can you be against that? What does Tea Party fiscal responsibility and not wanting to help victims of hurricanes have to do with this especially since you have it completely wrong. The tea party said heres the money now go cut $1.5 billion from a $1.4 trillion deficit to fund it. How hard was that?

Your are right Kirk, corporations use to give retirement programs. Unions provided good retirements, but republicans have been killing unions. The company I worked for ended retirement 5 years after I started. I will only get the minimal hardly enough to live on without social security. More and more corporations are ending retirements and turning solely to 401 K's with matching company benefits. They even have plans for recommended investing for your date of retirement.

I warned them, moved my 401K money out of the stock market, and they lost half in 2008. It is hard to save enough money to retire when you keep losing half. Who knows how much they lost this last crash.

Privatization is bad plan for social security. There is plenty of opportunity to gamble with your life without including the safety net for your old age.

But why do you think its gambling? From a pure investment perspective its safer than the promise today because the only thing funding social security is current contributions as there is no funding for the future. In a seperate account you can put it aside but prevent investment speculation which is the proposals since the 2006 and invest in Treasuries (no different than todays benefit back by treasuries) but held in your name and account fully vested and yours. You can certainly keep wall street etc out of it and not sure why people are against it.

Kirk, Not quite right. Currently SS payments that come into the government are running a surplus to what they pay out until something like 2031. With some small fixes it is good to good way into the future. Your first reason about senior wealth being 80% and very small group living only on SS , is something I would like to see the reference for you opinion. And are you suggesting mean testing for wealthy seniors?

Kirk, privatizing or transforming SS is not going to happen, no matter what old Newt thinks or other Tea party folks want.

Northstar, I havent seen anything regarding Tea Party folks supporting privatization. Thats irrelevant as privatization is a totally seperate issue from government spending issues and fiscal discipline they support. I tend to agree that privatization of SS isnt going to happen mainly because like the people n this blog show, they dont get it. Its not a GOP vs Democrat issue but it seems to have become one and almost a belief by each side they cant trust whatever is proposed by the opposing party as it must be bad. Also I dont think congress would really privatize as it may eliminate an easy source of revenue that they tap today to fund general budget expenses. That would create a huge problem if they actually had to address that shortfall by not being able to borrow from social security.

I think most studies and you can look it up would show wealth even higher than 80% but I was being conservative and it makes sense as where do you concentrate wealth but as you age and save for retirement so thats an easy answer. Yes, I am not opposed to means testing. But I dont get what you mean by SS surplus as SS as run a deficit on a current basis for the last two years because of the payroll temporary cut and there is zero surplus as all historical surpluses have been borrowed by the government to pay for other services in return for treasury bills. As those bills come due to pay for social security you have to borrow more money from the general account to pay so SS isnt good until 2031. Its only good as long as current contributions equal current pay outs which continues to shorten all the time including the last two years of deficits.

Kirk I see a potential problem with mandates, you can't let people opt out of SS without a mandate that they participate in a private account, other wise some would opt out not set up the private account and reach old age broke, many people would have to be forced to participate or they would not. The mandate will be a huge problem for republicans just as the medical insurance mandate is. Plus where does the contribution money come from, how does the employer transfer tax money into a private account, just wondering about the mechanics of the option plan. Oh and what about disability, and minor dependent children and such, now they are paid through SS, if people are taking the other option wouldn't there have to be some kind of a surcharge on their accounts, otherwise the SS plan would be underfunded with regard to those groups. I think people who opted for a private account would have to pay a portion of their private account into the general SS fund, they won't like that I suspect. But if you did not then where would disability payments come from.

Forrest, couldnt agree more. I see a whole host of potential problems that have nothing to do with investment speculation. I think some of your issues could be solved in different contribution methods and making funding happen differently. I hadnt thought of the mandate issue as you make a great point. I am against Obamacare for totally different reasons than the GOP are and dont think the mandate is economically a bad thing. I do understand the constitutional issue but my issue with Obamacare is more about the way it is addressing health care and how it got politicized and became a bad bill as a result versus being against it because Obama wanted it. I actually give him high marks for tackling this issue. Would love to have an honest discussion at some point.

I don't know how you can do either without forceing some people to participate, I am okay with mandates, if they are across the board and fair, but I think some people would pitch a fit. Bills get so screwed up in Congress because half the politicians are too dumb or too lazy to do the work, so they let the lobbyists write the bills for them, and then people wonder how the bill turned out like it did.

I should have added I admire him for tackling the problem as well, he has taken a political beating for it that he does not deserve it is not his bill Congress made a mess of it. It needs to be worked out, health care and health care insurance are a huge cost to everybody, and they have been rising at a breakneck pace for over 25 years, people want to avoid the issue but the fact is we all need health care we all get sick and then old and sicker, personally I don't think you can call yourself a great country, if young kids and old people can not get the health care they need even if they are too poor to pay for it. The rest of us should be willing to pick up the slack for the very poor, and the crippled who have no way to earn their way. There will always be people who will try to scam the system, but that is no reason to turn our backs on those who are innocent and are truly in need. We could solve this if we wanted to.

Thats one of the most ignorant asinine posts I have read on here. Your as bad as the imbeciles that make some racist remark about Obama on here.

To kirk and rickster the truth does hurt doesn't it? I noticed neither one could or would deny my posting to be anything but accurate.Being a rich repub I can understand but the rest of the adjectives sadly describe the vast majority of your party.

Papa D, no the truth doesnt hurt, whether it was true or not is actually irrelevant it was just an ignorant statement. By the way this blog in of itself proves you wrong--do you actually read any of the posts or have a critical thought?

Again you guys should pay attention. Your money wouldnt be put into the market, it would be kept in treasuries (just like today by the way) or certificates of deposit. You wouldnt be allowed to speculate in the market. So why would you be against that?

Kirk

Are you a Wall Street Trader by chance? You seem very determined to have be suckered again

Ha not even close. I dont even understand how I could get suckered? This really isnt a suckered issue. Privatization doesnt impact wall street much at all. The reason the democrats dont like it has nothing to do with privatization but all about benefits and entitlement payments. Philip explain to me how we all would get suckered? I havent seen any of the California or Illinois state union retirees get suckered. Can you tell me how that would work?

All those Enron employees got their retirements stolen, right? Didn't Ken Lay die and then the widow couldn't be sued for the money he stole. That is one way it works.

Kirk

If Wall Street starts gambling again w/ people money and takes another crap shoot, who wins. Bush 42 wanted to create 'Private Accounts', put the money in Wall Street, they can handle far better than the Government. Well what happened, Wall Street took a dump, Pensions and 401k suffered, and oddly enough not one person has been prosecuted for anything and your saying, lets give them the Billions in Social Security? Why the hurt wasn't big enough, not pain was generated to go around?

Philip--no Bush didnt you have your facts incorrect. His original idea he floated did have private accounts that were self managed and the money was at wall street risk but the actual proposal he made eliminated that concept and all contributions were invested in Treasuries. You wouldnt have lost anything and the private accounts would be just fine. Speculation isnt the problem with private accounts, its that congress loses a potential source of revenue for themselves.

dont you think that newt as a player is done.....no ones listening anymore that's got to be hard on the guy....

So called American-2051576

Really?

Newt's a big, old troll with a weird name. And proof that bad ideas recirculate.

him and clinton did create alot of jobs i wish boehner was as smart as newt but the meparty won't let him....we were successful under the split goverment in the 90's boy those days are gone...

Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who is the smartest of them all?

Realistically? The person who made the mirror. If it weren't for their intelligence you'd be staring into space wondering where the heck you are.

We still haven't had the "historic" first black president yet. Cain should be the first. We are saddled with a marxist plant whose handlers groomed from childhood and who played on his black half to take advantage of the system. Remember, his mother was a "typical white woman."

A marxist plant with "handlers"?

If you don't like Obama just say so. You don't have to invent ridiculous bs.

Or are you also a "birther". In that case you may be beyond rational thought.