So what do you haters think....?????

[kbm8795]

That wacko is one of the biggest financial supporters of the Republican Party and is a personal friend of the Bush family. . .

 

[clemson357]

That wacko is one of the biggest financial supporters of the Republican Party and is a personal friend of the Bush family. . .

It must be a conspiracy!!

Just like how all the conservatives want to bring back segregation and outlaw birth control!!

 

[kbm8795]

How did you guess? Why, it happens to be Reverend Moon himself - darling benefactor of the Republican Party, who once said that blacks could take care of their skin color difference by moving to the Arctic for a few generations. . .

And conservatives have already started making their pronouncements that contraceptives should be kept under lock and key in the stores and there be only abstinence education in the schools. Kansas is grappling with that very issue right now, along with several other states. . .


Ahh...vote Republican. . .

 

[kbm8795]

And as an added bonus, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has announced new guidelines for organizations seeking grants to fund abstinence only-education programs.

"Abstinence curricula must have a clear definition of sexual abstinence which must be consistent with the following: "Abstinence means voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage. Sexual activity refers to any type of genital contact or sexual stimulation between two persons including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse."

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2006-ACF-ACYF-AE-0099.html

Guess those gays who can't get married have to spend their lives never having sex. . . And you single dudes, well, get with the program - no sex until marriage. Another step closer to issuing sex permits. . .

"Throughout the entire curriculum, the term "marriage" must be defined as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."


And these are only the official Administration's FIRST steps. . .

Vote Republican! They'll put Jesus back onto your penis where He belongs!

 

[RCfootball87]

Nonsense. You will see every single thin dime promised to you. Of the three projections for benefits made by SS actuaries, the rosy scenario has the trust funding all benefits fully well into the 2nd half of the century. The medium projections show a slight shortfall that's easily fixable w/out raising taxes. The gloomy scenario, the one utilized by the Bush people for its privatization canard, shows a mild shortfall in benefits paid by 2043. In short, unless Bush can privatize SS, your benefit will be there.

No doubt SS was expanded beyond the original intent of providing retirement income from payroll taxes. But thanks largely to all 3 components, the retirement income, disability and death benefit portions of the current form of SS, we have less than 10% of our aged population living in poverty conditions. The idea of SS retirement income is that we won't have to wait until conditions for the aged are so desperate that they are forced into the streets as beggars or buying cat food to eat instead of making heating bill payments or rent. SS's spreading around of the costs of the aged, like insurance, has guaranteed thm a modicum of dignity in one's golden years.

If that pisses you off, then you should be absolutely livid over the annual raping of our governmental budget by defense contractors.

Fiscally speaking, SS is one of the most efficient and wildly successful governmental programs ever. The administrative costs come out to a little less than 1% of the total program's cost. Compare that to the 17-25% overhead of privatized insurance bureacracy.

Also, the pay-as-you go method of funding SS ensures that everyone that pays into it gets a benefit. Current payments pay current benefits. It is not a matter of the government 'taking your money and holding it for you.' That is not how it works.

We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. Franklin Delano Roosevelt




In short, you're wrong. SS is not pathetic. It's vital and effective.

First off, let me start by saying I'm glad I can debate someone without name calling and having a flame war. Secondly, I'd have to double check your numbers but I really don't trust the gov't with my money. And yeah, the program is defendable from a moral standpoint, but I still think it's a little socialist to have the gov't control your retirement income.
"If that pisses you off, then you should be absolutely livid over the annual raping of our governmental budget by defense contractors."
Let me answer that by saying this: I'm too scared to read the number on Bush's "defense" spending (defending who? Iraqis? Not me......) I think if I did, it might drive me to camping myself outside the white house and protesting for the duration of his time in office. I wish he'd get removed from office. They couldn't even censure him without people throwing a fit. I guess what I'm saying is, whether or not the money will be there, I personally could've done better through personal investment, as I consider myself disciplined enough to get it done. Maybe enrollment should be optional, and decided by a certain age?

 

[RCfootball87]

Aside from that, you must be a real supported of BIG government. Just the thought of a mandatory program where the government confiscates more of your money, on top of taxes, no matter what your salary is, as a mandatory retirement plan is just repugnant to me. If it is so advantageous for people without the ability to have a 401K, why don't we make it optional for anyone with a 401k?

of course, the reason we can't make it optional is that the money the government confiscated for the people currently recieving the benefit is long gone, and we depend on the people currently paying in the system to keep it afloat.

Possibly the only statement you've ever made that I whole-heartedly agree with. Listen buddy, I think you're heart is in the right place, but your vote isn't. George Bush is not going to reduce the size of the gov't. This was never his intention. George H Bush was considered a liberal-republican as a vice presidential candidate, to offset Reagan's so called staunch conservatism. His son fools farmers, hunters, blue-collar workers, and the like into thinking he's for smaller gov't, and he indentifies with the "common man". Bullshit. He's a dumbass rich kid who was given almost everything he has. Believe me, he's not shrinking gov't (the military, wiretapping, the "patriot act" etc. proves all this) I'm not saying vote liberal, that won't help. I honestly believe this country is doomed, but you might as well go with an independent or something, because if a candidate receives at least 5% of a presidential popular vote, he get's funding after the election.

 

[Decker]

I'd be more interested in debating your groundless generalizations, such as 'these people would support seperate but equal...'

Of course I speculated with that conclusion. Comparing one form of bigotry to another is fair game. Isn't it?

 

[Decker]

I'll admit, I haven't exactly done days of research on the subject. However, from what I can glean just from keeping my ears open Social Security doesn't 'obviously work,' in fact it is far from it. In fact, aren't there plenty of signs that say SS is failing, and that people entering the work force now have a 0% chance of seeing any money upon retirement unless the system is completely overhauled?

Aside from that, you must be a real supported of BIG government. Just the thought of a mandatory program where the government confiscates more of your money, on top of taxes, no matter what your salary is, as a mandatory retirement plan is just repugnant to me. If it is so advantageous for people without the ability to have a 401K, why don't we make it optional for anyone with a 401k?

of course, the reason we can't make it optional is that the money the government confiscated for the people currently recieving the benefit is long gone, and we depend on the people currently paying in the system to keep it afloat.

Your ears hear right-wing propaganda. It's no wonder you think SS is 'broken'. They've been lying to you for so long that you don't know what to believe. For facts look to the annual statement of SS actuaries and not GWB or Hannity. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ Look for the annual report b/c Bush et al. have already infected the sight with some privatization crapola.

For conclusions, well, that's why I'm here. As I've pointed out before, you will see every penny of SS benefit you're due. IF any private company had the resources and liquidity of SS, it would be considered a monumental success.

SS is not a retirement plan per se but rather a social insurance plan which guarantees income therefore viability of what is generally a vulnerable class--the elderly. All taxation is not confiscatory. I know most so-called conservatives believe all taxation is confiscatory but that's just mindless demagoguery. Taxes are a necessary part of the social contract. Like it or not, government is necessary to civil society and the services provided by government are funded through collective revenue contributions or taxes.

Which brings us to your point about opting out of SS. Society, as a whole, benefits from SS by lifting some 13 million senior citizens out of poverty on an annual basis. SS is 'cheap' compared to the attendant costs of having 13 million poor old people degrade into a state of malnutrition, homelessness, physical/mental degradation requiring medical care, so you see SS is a pre-emptive strike against a sea of misery expenses. And you want to opt out of something as effective as this b/c you don't like Big Government? Like I said, there will always be Big Government...it's necessary to civil society. Does that mean surrender one's vigilance in controlling it? No. Be reasonable.

SS security is a pay-as-you go system w/ current payroll taxes funding current benefits. Reagan raised payroll taxes to cover any future funding problems. The money (and excess) needed to pay current benefits is kept in a trust fund. Thanks to LBJ, he unified the budget to syphon SS funds to pay for the Viet Nam war. The practice of borrowing from SS by irresponsible politcians is disgusting. President Clinton left office with our country soundly in the black. Bush had the opportunity to use the fruits of Clinton's sound fiscal policy to pay the bonds held in the SS trust. Instead he pissed it away on irresponsible tax cuts and proposed a half-baked privatization scheme that guarantees benefit cuts and enrichment of Wall Street money managers at everyone else's expense. Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy--Bush exacerbates the problem then offers up a snake oil solution.

 

[clemson357]

I guess that is the basic difference between liberals and conservatives:

conservatives would rather depend on themselves and keep the government out of everything possible

liberals would rather conclude that people cannot survive without government control.




honestly, what makes you think people cannot plan for their own retirement? I mean, you can drop all the theoretical lecture about the social contract and taxes being necessary. Obviously taxes are necessary in any society that wants a government; the point is not whether taxes are necessary but rather how much government is necessary and consequently, how much tax is necessary.

answer me this: if social security benefits the people who supposedly cannot afford a 401k, then why not make it optional for anyone who has a 401k?

The answer is that the system is fucked, the government DIDNT save the money they took from the first payers of social security (what a surprise). They spent it. That was the plan behind social security, not helping the poor, but finding an immediate source of extra money. Now the US is stuck in this system because they need current payers to give money to current recipients. If they had saved the original money, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

The government is the largest, most inefficient, and most corrupt organization in any society throughout history. If I want to save my money and invest it as I see fit, I should be able to do that.

 

[kbm8795]

I guess that is the basic difference between liberals and conservatives:

conservatives would rather depend on themselves and keep the government out of everything possible

Except the bedroom

liberals would rather conclude that people cannot survive without government control.




honestly, what makes you think people cannot plan for their own retirement?

The Great Depression

 

[Decker]

I guess that is the basic difference between liberals and conservatives:

conservatives would rather depend on themselves and keep the government out of everything possible

liberals would rather conclude that people cannot survive without government control.

I think reasonable people conclude that some people need help to get by in this country. If SS keeps 13 million elderly out of poverty every year, does that mean they are all freeloaders. SS is not investment sensitive (the vagaries of the Market don't affect it). Depend on yourself? I'm sorry but the very nature of historical society is that we stand on the shoulders/achievements of others. Does this mean you can do all these things by yourself too:

• Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
• Public roads.
• Rural electrification.
• Government subsidized telephone wiring.
• Satellite communications.
• Police protection.
• Military protection.
• A criminal justice system.
• Fire protection.
• Paramedic protection.
• An educated workforce.
• An immunized workforce.
• Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control.
• Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies.
• Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices.
• The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights.
• Student loans.
• Government funded research and development.
• National Academy of Sciences.
• Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
• Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now).
• Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency.
• Public libraries.
• Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture)
• National Biological Service.
• National Weather Service
• Public job training.

There would be no free market if not for the above tax subsidized services. i.e. freedom isn't free

honestly, what makes you think people cannot plan for their own retirement? I mean, you can drop all the theoretical lecture about the social contract and taxes being necessary. Obviously taxes are necessary in any society that wants a government; the point is not whether taxes are necessary but rather how much government is necessary and consequently, how much tax is necessary.

answer me this: if social security benefits the people who supposedly cannot afford a 401k, then why not make it optional for anyone who has a 401k?

B/c in system of shared benefits, there are shared burdens. You benefit immensely from not having 13 million seniors in poverty but you don't want to pay for it. You make a good point about how much tax is necessary. That's a moral question. We've already answered it by imposing a nominal progressive income tax rate. The rich pay more. True SS is funded by a flat tax (though the medicare tax is not capped at $95,000) but morally it is worth it. For old people, for the disabled, for the widowed etc. To me, these are the last people in our country that should feel the sting of budgetary cuts. You obviously feel otherwise.

The answer is that the system is fucked, the government DIDNT save the money they took from the first payers of social security. They spent it. That was the plan behind social security, not helping the poor, but finding an immediate source of extra money. Now the US is stuck in this system because they need current payers to give money to current recipients. If they had saved the original money, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

The system is pay-as-you-go so I would hope the government spends the money as it comes in. The corrupt politicians spent the excess in an ignoble way. That's why we as vigilant citizens must call them on it.

The government is the largest, most inefficient, and most corrupt organization in any society throughout history. If I want to save my money and invest it as I see fit, I should be able to do that.

Yeah, some government is corrupt--especially the Bush administration...look to where the gov. farms out work to private businesses and you'll find more corruption than anywhere. Does that sound familiar? Bush and co. have 'privatized' gov. services more than any other administration in history. Is that why there's no surprise that billions 'disappear' from these corrupt fucks? http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

On the other hand some Gov is much more efficient than the private sector, take SS for instance, the administrative costs are less than 1% annually. Compare that w/ private sector insurance companies--17-22% administrative costs or those of Chile--20-30%(depending on which #s you look at) for its privatized version of SS.

Look, WE are the government. We must be vigilant to the governmental operations executing We the People's will.

 

[clemson357]

Does this mean you can do all these things by yourself too:

• Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
• Public roads.
• Rural electrification.
• Government subsidized telephone wiring.
• Satellite communications.
• Police protection.
• Military protection.
• A criminal justice system.
• Fire protection.
• Paramedic protection.
• An educated workforce.
• An immunized workforce.
• Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control.
• Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies.
• Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices.
• The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights.
• Student loans.
• Government funded research and development.
• National Academy of Sciences.
• Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
• Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now).
• Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency.
• Public libraries.
• Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture)
• National Biological Service.
• National Weather Service
• Public job training.

Are you a highschool government teacher? No offense, but you have this habit of explaining and elaborating on what is commonly accepted and understood. I already said taxes and government were necessary, I don't need a list of the services the government provides to convince me of a point I have already stipulated to.

B/c in system of shared benefits, there are shared burdens.

In other words, the government should assume that people cannot plan for their own retirement. We should make a mandatory retirement plan, which takes money out of people's pay checks on top of taxes and prevents them from investing that money in their retirement themselves.

your shared benefits and burdens analysis is a little off. I should share the burden of financing someone's retirement so that I can share in the benefit of not financing their retirement? They are one in the same. How about the alternative, the government stays out of it, and let people plan their own retirement?

The system is pay-as-you-go so I would hope the government spends the money as it comes in.

The point was that the government didn't take the money of the first people to pay social security, and invest it, and give it back to them when they retired. That is how the system should have worked. Instead, they took the money and spent it on whatever tickled their fancy, and now we are stuck in a never ending cycle of unneccessary government intervention.

And don't get on a high horse and say that I don't care about the elderly because I don't believe in social security. I choose to assume that people can't invest in their own future, you chose to assume that they can't. If anything, you are the one degrading the elderly by assuming that they are all mindless idiots in need of big brother to tell them how to live.

 

[brogers]

My favorite part of the liberal logic regarding income redistribution/welfare/SS:

Individuals with their own well-being at stake are incapable of planning for their retirement, however, the government, which is ran by individuals (the same individuals who are too stupid to do it themselves, right?) who have basically no accountability for their actions and will not be harmed by bad decisions they make with others' wealth, will do the right thing and plan properly!

Why? Because the government cares more about your well-being than you do! .....

 

[brogers]

as for gays, I don't think they deserve an endorsement of their lifestyle like biologically correct, normal married couples do.

 

[Decker]

Are 13 million elderly simply idiots needing SS to avoid the poor house? The world needs ditch diggers too. 50% of americans do not own 1 share of stock. America as a whole has a negative savings rate. 1/2 of the people out there are below the average intelligence quotient. So I suppose my answer is, "Yes" some people need a helping hand in organizing/managing/financing their affairs. Is that so difficult to see. Some people need help.

That's a baseline. You are free to go as high as you please. Just leave the helping hand of gov. to those in need and pay your damn taxes. You can assume all you want about the virtues of 'everybody getting out of the cart and pulling it' but that's just starry-eyed dreaming. The fact is, is that we have a segment of society that's not fully competent requiring gov. assistance. I don't like that brute fact either but it happens to be true.

If I get pedantic about the role of taxation in our society it's only b/c I like to hear myself talk and people generally forget those facts and attribute any of their own successes to mere individual accomplishment.

Supplementing the population's retirement staves off much more costly things that will happen down the road absent that supplement. How is that the same thing? Pay a little now up front or pay a shitload later.

Investing in one's future is fine. But that also leaves open the possibility of losing one's investment. It happens. That's why SS is funded w/ gov. bonds and practically risk free. SS is not a wealth creating enterprise--it never was. It's a safety net.

 

[clemson357]

My favorite part of the liberal logic regarding income redistribution/welfare/SS:

Individuals with their own well-being at stake are incapable of planning for their retirement, however, the government, which is ran by individuals (the same individuals who are too stupid to do it themselves, right?) who have basically no accountability for their actions and will not be harmed by bad decisions they make with others' wealth, will do the right thing and plan properly!

Why? Because the government cares more about your well-being than you do! .....

Exactly.

Assume that I am a savvy investor, and I turn a large profit on my own investments. Say at an inflation rate of 4%, my profit is an average of 12%. The money the government so wisely invested for me comes back at a rate of 5% profit, so ruffly the same as inflation. Is the government going to give me the 7% difference? Of course not.

 

[clemson357]

Are 13 million elderly simply idiots needing SS to avoid the poor house? The world needs ditch diggers too. 50% of americans do not own 1 share of stock. America as a whole has a negative savings rate. 1/2 of the people out there are below the average intelligence quotient. So I suppose my answer is, "Yes" some people need a helping hand in organizing/managing/financing their affairs. Is that so difficult to see. Some people need help.

That's a baseline. You are free to go as high as you please. Just leave the helping hand of gov. to those in need and pay your damn taxes. You can assume all you want about the virtues of 'everybody getting out of the cart and pulling it' but that's just starry-eyed dreaming. The fact is, is that we have a segment of society that's not fully competent requiring gov. assistance. I don't like that brute fact either but it happens to be true.

If I get pedantic about the role of taxation in our society it's only b/c I like to hear myself talk and people generally forget those facts and attribute any of their own successes to mere individual accomplishment.

Supplementing the population's retirement staves off much more costly things that will happen down the road absent that supplement. How is that the same thing? Pay a little now up front or pay a shitload later.

Investing in one's future is fine. But that also leaves open the possibility of losing one's investment. It happens. That's why SS is funded w/ gov. bonds and practically risk free. SS is not a wealth creating enterprise--it never was. It's a safety net.

So what about the question you keep avoiding: why not let SS be optional for anyone who invests a certain amount in their own 401K?

SS gets paid to everyone, even the millionares. Why not let the system apply to those who don't invest in their own well being, and let the people who want to be independant do so?

 

[SuppAddict]

Exactly.

Assume that I am a savvy investor, and I turn a large profit on my own investments. Say at an inflation rate of 4%, my profit is an average of 12%. The money the government so wisely invested for me comes back at a rate of 5% profit, so ruffly the same as inflation. Is the government going to give me the 7% difference? Of course not.

why would they give you 5% if you made 12%? is it taxed?

 

[Decker]

My favorite part of the liberal logic regarding income redistribution/welfare/SS:

Individuals with their own well-being at stake are incapable of planning for their retirement, however, the government, which is ran by individuals (the same individuals who are too stupid to do it themselves, right?) who have basically no accountability for their actions and will not be harmed by bad decisions they make with others' wealth, will do the right thing and plan properly!

Why? Because the government cares more about your well-being than you do! .....

See my post above about a certain segment of our society managing their own affairs...they are less than competent.

Are individuals in the gov. of the same intellect and competence as the bottom 1/2 of our country? Not really.

Gov. workers have accountability and standards--look at any annual report from any agency. The SS trust fund is not open to speculative investment.

Other than those things, your post is right on.

 

[Decker]

So what about the question you keep avoiding: why not let SS be optional for anyone who invests a certain amount in their own 401K?

SS gets paid to everyone, even the millionares. Why not let the system apply to those who don't invest in their own well being, and let the people who want to be independant do so?

I answered that. But here's the gov. rationale why everyone gets it:

Almost all workers pay in and almost all workers get a benefit. That leaves the insurance aspect of SS intact. That's why SS is not means tested. It's not a handout but an earned benefit.

On the larger question of why no opt out, that's why I gave you that list of things that taxes pay for. The moral of that story is that we are individuals and a society all at once. One cannot pick and choose how one's tax dollars are spent b/c of disagreement. If that were so, I'd pay only 1/2 my income taxes to reduce defense spending. The old need help so they get help. The SS system retains a contribution in and benefit out arrangement to preserve dignity in work...even for the ditch diggers who couldn't possibly fund their own retirement through personal savings.

It's Society's retirement safety net...NOT a wealth creating vehicle subject to loss.

 

[DOMS]

I answered that. But here's the gov. rationale why everyone gets it:

Almost all workers pay in and almost all workers get a benefit. That leaves the insurance aspect of SS intact. That's why SS is not means tested. It's not a handout but an earned benefit.

On the larger question of why no opt out, that's why I gave you that list of things that taxes pay for. The moral of that story is that we are individuals and a society all at once. One cannot pick and choose how one's tax dollars are spent b/c of disagreement. If that were so, I'd pay only 1/2 my income taxes to reduce defense spending. The old need help so they get help. The SS system retains a contribution in and benefit out arrangement to preserve dignity in work...even for the ditch diggers who couldn't possibly fund their own retirement through personal savings.

It's Society's retirement safety net...NOT a wealth creating vehicle subject to loss.

Well said.

 

[brogers]

It's Society's retirement safety net...NOT a wealth creating vehicle subject to loss.

It has lost tons of money.. it just isn't manifesting itself yet(because the current generation is picking up the tab), it isn't a sustainable program, I thought this was highly publicized?

People have to be responsible for themselves.

 

[Decker]

Well said.

Thanks DOMS. The tensions btn acute individualism, responsibility and societal obligations are always fun to look at. It is so easy to go overboard either direction.

 

[Decker]

It has lost tons of money.. it just isn't manifesting itself yet(because the current generation is picking up the tab), it isn't a sustainable program, I thought this was highly publicized?

People have to be responsible for themselves.

It hasn't lost tons of money and it is eminently sustainable...just ask any actuary. You are correct, the unsustainability and fragile state of SS has been highly publicized. That doesn't mean it's correct. Those statements are propaganda.

One big selling point of privatization was it's rate of return.

"a landmark paper co-authored by economists Olivia Mitchell, a member of the President Bush???s Commission to Strengthen Social Security and a supporter of private accounts, John Geanakopolos, and Stephen Zeldes found that ???the popular argument that Social Security privatization would provide higher returns for all current and future workers is misleading, because it ignores transition costs and differences across programs in the allocation of aggregate and household risk.??? The paper states: ???A popular argument suggests that if Social Security were privatized, everyone could earn higher returns. We show that this is false.???["

Like I said before, SS is not a wealth creating program, it's a safety net. It's as conservative a financial arrangement as one could get and still realize a rate of return. No money in the mattress here.

 

[DOMS]

Thanks DOMS. The tensions btn acute individualism, responsibility and societal obligations are always fun to look at. It is so easy to go overboard either direction.

Like most things in life, it's a balancing act. Ensuring that different points in a system must be in agreement to initiate action helps to prevent extremism (in all things).

That's why the Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances. Yes, Bush is one fucked up individual, but he's only one third of the system. Simply put, it's not just that Bush is fucked up, it's that the (vast) majority of politicians are fucked up.

 

[Decker]

Like most things in life, it's a balancing act. Ensuring that different points in a system must be in agreement to initiate action helps to prevent extremism (in all things).

That's why the Founding Fathers created a government of checks and balances. Yes, Bush is one fucked up individual, but he's only one third of the system. Simply put, it's not just that Bush is fucked up, it's that the (vast) majority of politicians are fucked up.

Exactly. It's off topic a bit but the fastest way to fix that corruption is public financing of elections. Remove the temptation from these weak individuals/politicians to play to special interests. That's really what is going on when we speak of corruption...how can politicians do the will of the people if they serve the private interests of lobbyists in the pursuit of holding on to office?

 

[kbm8795]

as for gays, I don't think they deserve an endorsement of their lifestyle like biologically correct, normal married couples do.

There is nothing biologically correct or normal about marriage. It's a heterosupremacist-created institution.

 

[kbm8795]

Exactly. It's off topic a bit but the fastest way to fix that corruption is public financing of elections. Remove the temptation from these weak individuals/politicians to play to special interests. That's really what is going on when we speak of corruption...how can politicians do the will of the people if they serve the private interests of lobbyists in the pursuit of holding on to office?

One interesting aspect of that is when we have a candidate who refuses to accept PAC money, is for term limits, and will not accept contributions from any special interest group, they can't win public office. I was just reading about such a candidate in Missouri running for Congress in the Republican primary against Roy Blunt, a notorious GOP PAC-infested incumbent.

Problem is, the candidate is transgendered and county Republican officials contend that with her "background" (which includes being a Navy vet) she won't be elected.

 

[DOMS]

There is nothing biologically correct or normal about marriage. It's a heterosupremacist-created institution.

I see you've taken you ball and decided not to play with reality anymore.

It's people like you that give gays a bad name.

 

[kbm8795]

I see you've taken you ball and decided not to play with reality anymore.

Marriage was created as a man-made institution of control. That's reality. Pretending that it is biological is fantasy, unless you can explain to us that your peepee only gets hard over one person for eternity.


It's people like you that give gays a bad name.

No, it's people like you who give gays a bad name - just like everyone else who you call the boogeyman because it's easier than looking into the mirror.