Originally Posted by dc koop

Well it could be made a criminal offence. Politicians are elected by the ordinary people to represent their interests not to pander to wealthy special interest groups.

If you are liable to arrest by a police officer for offering him or her a bribe why shouldn't lobbyists be subject to the same.

Originally Posted by Boiler

An eloquent demolishment of the ACA.

Originally Posted by Boiler

It could, but who would make it a criminal offence, Turkeys voting for Christmas?

Originally Posted by dc koop

Whys is Social Security a flawed system that needs to be reformed? it's worked well enough for the past 80 plus years.

What needs to be done is to send every lobbyist in Washington packing with a hard kick up the ass. The drug manufacturers for instance have been lining the pockets of politicians of both parties for years. The rise of the cost of drugs is a crisis that will in the near future parallel that of the collapse of the lending institutions, banks and housing market in 2008

Lobbying and the influencing of politicians through monetary donations is quite plainly blatant corruption. Both Obama and Trump have spoken out against it. Obama failed to put an end to it. Let's hope that Trump succeeds

Originally Posted by Leslie

Unless you can show an example of left-wing extremism, in recent US history, then your comment is simply a useless platitude. The implication of this platitude is that 'both sides do it and they should just stop their silly nonsense'.

I'm not talking about rude people mouthing off on internet forums or the personal beliefs that private citizens hold. I'm talking about people in positions of power who affect public policy. The video I linked (of the preacher calling for the death of gay people) was at a conference where three presidential candidates also spoke. Ted Cruz, a sitting US Senator, spoke directly after the preacher. As a matter of fact, the preacher actually introduced the lawmaker (Mr. Cruz). Bobby Jindal, who at that time was sitting governor in the state of Louisiana, also spoke at the conference; as did Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and (at that time) a candidate for POTUS. How can gay people possibly feel safe in their own country?

This country, that I love, is taking a concerning turn toward nationalism and intolerance directed at alternate cultures and lifestyles. It is becoming acceptable to publicly threaten and ridicule gay people and those with non-Christian belief systems as well as racial and ethnic minorities.

There are no current equivalencies on the left. This is not the 1960s. The Weather Underground is not out there bombing anybody. Even at the height of left-wing radicalism, the left-wing radicals never held a position of political power. They were a small minority and were overwhelmingly reviled. They may have made their point but they didn't run this country.

If you want to re-litigate the 1960s, that's fine. But at least be honest about it. Earlier in this thread, comments were made about about communism being more influential, and higher in numbers, than the KKK. Not only was that a false equivalency it was a flat-out lie. You did acknowledge the untruth of that statement but then you went on to say 'but the left does it too'.

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Originally Posted by morpeth

The post that was made saying the communists had a great influence than the KKK the person posting that as you well pointed out, was factually incorrect.

I believe extremists on either side are objectionable. Maybe one side has more extremists than the other but I find extremists of the right and the left appear to me to share similar personality traits.

Originally Posted by morpeth

Even the administrators of social security admit under the current system it will run out of money. The money is not saved and invested, or even a portion of it. And to add insult to injury, it is a regressive tax. If the system wasn't flawed the increase in the age for full retirement to try to keep system solvent, if this continues, may result in quite a few people who will never even collect it.

As far as medical costs neither party has the courage to address out of control medical costs.

Special interest groups whether the teachers union or chambers of commerce, or whomever, will always find a way to try to influence politicians.

Originally Posted by dc koop

I don't buy this "running out of money in year X" bit We have plenty of money to give away to such undesirables as Pakistan and Israel, the former which hates us anyway and the latter which manipulates us for it's own expansionist ends in the middle east. I think the money sent to both these countries runs around a total of 8 billion annually. Use it for people here instead. Raising the S.S contributions to a realistic level would also help.
It's no good people sniveling and whining about having to pay more for pension contributions if at retirement they expect a pension to help them out in their old age. Americans seem to think that money and benefits are something that is an entitlement without having to pay dues on beforehand.

Another problem today with the aging baby boomers is that they grew up without being able to see beyond tomorrow. Very few have accumulated anything near what's needed for retirement despite most of their working life living in a period that was booming and prosperous for anyone who was willing to work.

Originally Posted by Wintersong

Social security has had a surplus every year since 1984. That surplus was required by law to be invested in bonds. When anyone talks about the social security fund running out, I believe they are talking about the projected time in the future when social security has ceased to run a surplus and all the bonds have been cashed in. The fund of stockpiled social security excess will have been exhausted, but social security itself won't have run out of money since it will still be mostly financed by payroll taxes.

I'm no economist, but it would seem as though the solution to this problem is to raise payroll taxes until social security is funded 100% instead of only 75%.

Originally Posted by dc koop

They will of course keep putting back the age for Social Security retirement benefit no doubt hoping that potential recipients will die of old age before they get the first check

Originally Posted by Wintersong

Social security has had a surplus every year since 1984. That surplus was required by law to be invested in bonds. When anyone talks about the social security fund running out, I believe they are talking about the projected time in the future when social security has ceased to run a surplus and all the bonds have been cashed in. The fund of stockpiled social security excess will have been exhausted, but social security itself won't have run out of money since it will still be mostly financed by payroll taxes.

I'm no economist, but it would seem as though the solution to this problem is to raise payroll taxes until social security is funded 100% instead of only 75%.

Originally Posted by dc koop

They will of course keep putting back the age for Social Security retirement benefit no doubt hoping that potential recipients will die of old age before they get the first check. .....

Originally Posted by Pulaski

But social security was exactly like that when it started - about one third of men died before they reached retirement age, and the average man received social security for two years after he retired. I would guess that 90%+ people today live to claim some social security, and the average man who retired at 65 is already receiving SS for 12 years. On a like-for like basis, retirement age for men should now be 75!