F n A, this should separate the men from the boys.
The cuts include a reduction in president's salary to 39K, think Obama is going to go for that?
Article text: ************************************************************************************************************** Ron Paul’s opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he’ll get specific: the Texas congressman will lay out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.
There will even be a symbolic readjustment of the president’s own salary to put it in line with the average American salary.
During an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday’s debate, Paul will say that his plan for $1 trillion in cuts will create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.
“Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget,” says an executive summary of the plan, which POLITICO obtained, along with detailed spending and taxation levels, ahead of its release. “This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.”
Many of the ideas are familiar from Paul’s staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he’ll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”
The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”
Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.
And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. Paul, a longtime Federal Reserve critic, would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”
I don't see where he is cutting the pay of ALL the representatives. I know that is a small part, but every thing counts towards the long haul. Let's be realistic, he won't get elected and if he did, how likely is all of this to actually happen?
------------------ Out of a week I stay in a lab for 6 days.
I don't see where he is cutting the pay of ALL the representatives. I know that is a small part, but every thing counts towards the long haul. Let's be realistic, he won't get elected and if he did, how likely is all of this to actually happen?
I don't know why people keep saying he won't get elected, he will if they vote for him. Just because the media says he won't doesn't mean it's true. We all have the choice to vote for him if we want to.
As for will this happen...good question. I actually compared it to Obama-care, which was passed (but will likely be repealed)....but which plan do you suppose would be less popular with the voting public?
IP: Logged
11:08 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
I don't know why people keep saying he won't get elected, he will if they vote for him. Just because the media says he won't doesn't mean it's true. We all have the choice to vote for him if we want to.
As for will this happen...good question. I actually compared it to Obama-care, which was passed (but will likely be repealed)....but which plan do you suppose would be less popular with the voting public?
He will shake up the GOP establishment too much.
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:
which is why he wont get elected. and - wont even get serious consideration.
threatening the Pentagon Gravy Train. There is no bigger troth of unaccountable taxpayer dollars.
EXACTLY. He won't even be the GOP party nomination. Why would they give up all the money. His agenda is too much for the good of the nation.
EXACTLY. He won't even be the GOP party nomination. Why would they give up all the money. His agenda is too much for the good of the nation.
He will win if enough people vote for him in the primaries. Why would you let the establishment determine your vote? Why are so many of you allowing the media to tell you who is "electable"?
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 10-17-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:20 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
Allowing young workers to "opt out" of social security is a terrible idea.
When these young workers grow old and don't have anything saved, you really think the government is going to let them wither and die on the streets? What's really going to happen - these folks will be eligible for some other social assistance program provided by the government. Politicians will get programs passed for this purpose with taglines such as "are you really going to let an old man go hungry on the street?" and they will get votes.
In a perfect world were people are accountable, this is a great idea. In the real world, everyone needs to pay for a safety net like social security.
IP: Logged
11:30 AM
Rallaster Member
Posts: 9105 From: Indy southside, IN Registered: Jul 2009
Allowing young workers to "opt out" of social security is a terrible idea.
When these young workers grow old and don't have anything saved, you really think the government is going to let them wither and die on the streets? What's really going to happen - these folks will be eligible for some other social assistance program provided by the government. Politicians will get programs passed for this purpose with taglines such as "are you really going to let an old man go hungry on the street?" and they will get votes.
In a perfect world were people are accountable, this is a great idea. In the real world, everyone needs to pay for a safety net like social security.
I don't agree. I will happily forfeit all my SSI payments to date to opt out. I didn't vote for the program. I don't like the program...and yes if you do not prepare, I am comfortable with you starving. Why would anyone think the government would invest MY money better than [b]I[/b} would? Also, upon it's inception it was voluntary.
I don't agree. I will happily forfeit all my SSI payments to date to opt out. I didn't vote for the program. I don't like the program...and yes if you do not prepare, I am comfortable with you starving. Why would anyone think the government would invest MY money better than [b]I[/b} would? Also, upon it's inception it was voluntary.
You're absolutely right. The government was NOT constructed to be our rescuer under any circumstances. The fact that people have come to expect that of the government is the problem. Not to mention, as long as you know the government will bail you out of whatever situation you get yourself into, what motivation is there to be responsible for yourself? We have to get the federal government out of the people-rescuing business.
IP: Logged
11:43 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Taijiguy: He will win if enough people vote for him in the primaries. Why would you let the establishment determine your vote? Why are so many of you allowing the media to tell you who is "electable"?
I just go my own futile efforts to support him. I may as well have a cuckoo bird popping out of my forhead on a spring.
we live in a nation divided. and the divisions are forcing the only option to "vote against". you cannot vote "for" anything. this is why the "Tea Party" could not be a party of its own. they would not have the power to "vote against" democrats. and that is what it has distilled down to. those in power enjoy their positions. they do not want the power returned to the people. they will continue to blow smoke and create BS to continue the divide. as long as the R's & the D's are chasing each others tales - they can continue unihibited.
IP: Logged
11:44 AM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by ls3mach: I don't agree. I will happily forfeit all my SSI payments to date to opt out. I didn't vote for the program. I don't like the program...and yes if you do not prepare, I am comfortable with you starving. Why would anyone think the government would invest MY money better than [b]I[/b} would? Also, upon it's inception it was voluntary.
and, that is great for you. but - most people DONT know how to invest. most can barely "save". yes, its fun to prop yourself up, and say "well screw em" but - there are many thing you cant do, which others can. do you think "well screw em" is the right answer?
I do see the validity of the "opt out" option. but - what if someone opts out & DOESNT invest/save? or does so poorly? this person now becomes "a load".
IP: Logged
11:56 AM
spark1 Member
Posts: 11159 From: Benton County, OR Registered: Dec 2002
and, that is great for you. but - most people DONT know how to invest. most can barely "save". yes, its fun to prop yourself up, and say "well screw em" but - there are many thing you cant do, which others can. do you think "well screw em" is the right answer?
I do see the validity of the "opt out" option. but - what if someone opts out & DOESNT invest/save? or does so poorly? this person now becomes "a load".
Exactly. The people who trusted Bernie Madoff with their retirement accounts come to mind. The only thing many of them had left was their Social Security income.
I just go my own futile efforts to support him. I may as well have a cuckoo bird popping out of my forhead on a spring. <snip>.
I've not generally had that experience. Most people "think" they know who he is (which is based on what the media tells them) but if I can get 2 minutes in to to set the record straight on a couple of things (everyone throws out the drugs and abortion issues, which has of course been whittled down just enough to make them controversial) that once they realize what he is actually trying to do, they're generally pretty interested. It's getting past their preconceived (incorrect) notions that's a challenge.
And this. If you agree with what he says, VOTE FOR HIM. I plan to. Hell, he couldn't do any worse than Obummer...
As will I, and plenty of other people. there are groups devoted to just doing write in's for him if he doesn't get the GOP nomination. He has support and honestly I don't see why he couldn't other than the GOP completely ignoring both the people and the polls which have Ron Paul consistently at the top if not at the top. Does this mean that hes going to get it? of course not, does it mean the politicians will be politicians? absolutely. But when Ron Paul says that he will do something I always refer back to his track record.
and, that is great for you. but - most people DONT know how to invest. most can barely "save". yes, its fun to prop yourself up, and say "well screw em" but - there are many thing you cant do, which others can. do you think "well screw em" is the right answer?
I do see the validity of the "opt out" option. but - what if someone opts out & DOESNT invest/save? or does so poorly? this person now becomes "a load".
It is not and should not be mine or anyone else's responsibility to take care of the people who chose not to be act accordingly. If you wish to contribute to that, I have no qualms. This being a mandatory program is extortion. Legalized extortion.
I don't see where he is cutting the pay of ALL the representatives. I know that is a small part, but every thing counts towards the long haul. Let's be realistic, he won't get elected and if he did, how likely is all of this to actually happen?
It isn't thier paycheck that makes them wealthy and powerful. They can and do sell their favors for big bucks in the form of free trips, campaign contributions, stock tips, and cushy do nothing seats on corporate boards.
IP: Logged
01:25 PM
NEPTUNE Member
Posts: 10199 From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places. Registered: Aug 2001
When the republicans were in Orlando for one of their keep the status quo conventions last month, (P5) they let Ron Paul have a little room at the end of the hall in the Convention Center. Here is what the man said to the cheering (but small) crowd:
quote
“Do we need tyrants? Do we need to be totally dependent?” “Yes, there’ll be discrepancy [in wealth],” he said. “This is what bugs a lot of people. In a free society, some people may be more effective, and more efficient and produce more. But you know, as long as somebody becomes wealthy in a free society by serving the consumer, and getting no special benefits from the government or anybody else, we shouldn’t resent people making money under those conditions.” /
Gee, he sounds just like many OWSers there. Ron Paul hates 'corporate welfare'.
But here comes the reality check:
quote
in the midst of gushing over President Paul, [supporter] Thom DiGirolamo spotted a group of 30-something Ken Dolls strutting purposefully along, their suit coats sporting elephant lapel pins. “Here we go,” DiGirolamo coaxed. “Any Ron Paul fans?” he asked. “No sir,” one replied without bothering to turn around. Then, the back of his colleague’s head delivered the punch line: “We’re Republicans.”The men’s bodies shook with rancorous laughter, and DiGirolamo was left to smile tightly.
We already know who the Republican nominee will be. The RNC has already decided, and they have the money. The question is, will he (they) pick an unqualified person from the extreme fringe for a running mate? That didn't work out so well in 2008.....
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-17-2011).]
Well, he won't win, because he won't have old supporters where it counts... politics and businesses. How do you think Obama got in?
Also, proposing $1T in cuts is a lot different than signing it into law. Just ask Obama about this....
He's not getting corporate sponsorship, no. But he runs successful money drives left and right. He routinely crushes everyone else in his online fund raising efforts. Right now they're driving towards a gigantic bomb on the 19th referring to it as the "Black This Out" money bomb, referring to the way the media ignores him.
And it's true about actually having it pass, but at least he has a plan. I think it's relevant that he says the budget would be balanced in 3 years. No one else has the balls to make those kinds of cuts, popular or not. But I would think if he gets into office that would be a pretty profound statement about what the public wants, and the state reps can either take the hint or not, but we saw what happened last election cycle after they ignored "we the people".
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
PFF
System Bot
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
He's not getting corporate sponsorship, no. But he runs successful money drives left and right. He routinely crushes everyone else in his online fund raising efforts. Right now they're driving towards a gigantic bomb on the 19th referring to it as the "Black This Out" money bomb, referring to the way the media ignores him.
And it's true about actually having it pass, but at least he has a plan. I think it's relevant that he says the budget would be balanced in 3 years. No one else has the balls to make those kinds of cuts, popular or not. But I would think if he gets into office that would be a pretty profound statement about what the public wants, and the state reps can either take the hint or not, but we saw what happened last election cycle after they ignored "we the people".
For these exact reasons he won't be elected. too many pet projects would be cut to make this happen and congress won't let it happen, therefore no support for him. As for a plan, anyone can have a plan, but Ron doesn't have support to make it happen, therefore, it wouldn't happen. Nothing against Ron, but we are talking politics and in this world Ron is an outsider.
It isn't thier paycheck that makes them wealthy and powerful. They can and do sell their favors for big bucks in the form of free trips, campaign contributions, stock tips, and cushy do nothing seats on corporate boards.
I agree with that. I don't think they make a TON of money by any stretch. Their favors and such are were the money is.
I don't agree. I will happily forfeit all my SSI payments to date to opt out. I didn't vote for the program. I don't like the program...and yes if you do not prepare, I am comfortable with you starving. Why would anyone think the government would invest MY money better than [b]I[/b} would? Also, upon it's inception it was voluntary.
Nor do I agree. With an ever increasing # of younger people realizing and even admitting they don't expect (unless they've just kept thumbs on a keyboard and head up their behinds) SS to be around for them, and most saying they are now making plans for their own senior years (duh!) I suspect the prospect of millions of people being without assts in the future is very much debatable if not ridiculous. If I can do it--anyone can.
For these exact reasons he won't be elected. too many pet projects would be cut to make this happen and congress won't let it happen, therefore no support for him. As for a plan, anyone can have a plan, but Ron doesn't have support to make it happen, therefore, it wouldn't happen. Nothing against Ron, but we are talking politics and in this world Ron is an outsider.
Those "pet projects" were supposed to have already been cut. "No more earmarks!"
IP: Logged
02:01 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
Paul, a longtime Federal Reserve critic, would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”
Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts
The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the left), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning: http://sanders.senate.gov/n...e2-a753-62060dcbb3c3
Yep. And that bill that got passed was just a mere shadow of the bill Paul originally was trying to push through. The original bill would have called for more in-depth audits, and would have called for them annually.
And of course, for whatever reason, the seemingly new darling of the tea party, Herman Caine doesn't think the fed needs to be audited at all. And let me think, oh yeah, he was chairman of the bank in Kansas City. Yeah, I see no conflict there....
IP: Logged
02:51 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
F n A, this should separate the men from the boys.
The cuts include a reduction in president's salary to 39K, think Obama is going to go for that?
You could cut the salaries to zero. No one runs for election because of the salary. It's the contributions (kick backs, bribes, whatever you want to call them) that they are running for plus a lobbyist job and the money they can get for that after they leave office. Color me cynical. ************************************************************************************************************** Ron Paul’s opinions about cutting the budget are well-known, but on Monday, he’ll get specific: the Texas congressman will lay out a budget blueprint for deep and far-reaching cuts to federal spending, including the elimination of five cabinet-level departments and the drawdown of American troops fighting overseas.
There will even be a symbolic readjustment of the president’s own salary to put it in line with the average American salary.
During an afternoon speech in Las Vegas ahead of Tuesday’s debate, Paul will say that his plan for $1 trillion in cuts will create a balanced federal budget by the third year of his presidency.
“Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget,” says an executive summary of the plan, which POLITICO obtained, along with detailed spending and taxation levels, ahead of its release. “This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.”
Many of the ideas are familiar from Paul’s staunch libertarianism, as well as tea party favorites like eliminating the departments of education and energy. But Paul goes further: he’ll propose immediately freezing spending by numerous government agencies at 2006 levels, the last time Republicans had complete control of the federal budget, and drastically reducing spending elsewhere. The EPA would see a 30 percent cut, the Food and Drug Administration would see one of 40 percent and foreign aid would be zeroed out immediately. He’d also take an ax to Pentagon funding for wars.
Medicaid, the children’s health insurance program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would all be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy.
And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican primary, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”
The federal workforce would be reduced by 10 percent, and the president’s pay would be cut to $39,336 — a level that the Paul document notes is “approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.”
Paul would also make far-reaching changes to federal tax policy, reducing the top corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, eliminating capital gains and dividends taxes, and allowing for repatriation of overseas capital without tax penalties. All Bush-era tax cuts would be extended.
And like the rest of his GOP rivals, Paul would repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, along with the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform law enacted last year. Paul, a longtime Federal Reserve critic, would also push a full audit of the central bank, as well as legislation to “strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.”
I donated to Ron Paul's campaign and I've tried to spread his word.
But the reason he won't win is because the media won't let him.
I keep telling everyone I know about Ron Paul, and their only opinions of him are from the media, therefore they all think he's some kook. It's impossible to set them all straight in time for voting... that's why he won't win. Yes, I'll vote for him, but he won't get it.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON I know personally (so not including PFF) that is actually educated on politics supports Ron Paul in this next election, with the exception of one man who will remain a strict Obama supporter no matter what happens. But there are very few people that are actually educated on politics...
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 10-17-2011).]
It sounds like I need to read up on this guy more. I will just barely be able to vote in the next election (not the primaries) and I really need to do some homework. I like that he has a plan that's drastic and formulated without giving a damn what the higher ups think. It's a shame the media portrays him as a kook.
IP: Logged
08:11 PM
PFF
System Bot
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Allowing young workers to "opt out" of social security is a terrible idea.
When these young workers grow old and don't have anything saved, you really think the government is going to let them wither and die on the streets? What's really going to happen - these folks will be eligible for some other social assistance program provided by the government. Politicians will get programs passed for this purpose with taglines such as "are you really going to let an old man go hungry on the street?" and they will get votes.
In a perfect world were people are accountable, this is a great idea. In the real world, everyone needs to pay for a safety net like social security.
X2 I'm for eliminating the Dept of Education. Please get politicians out of my classroom!
[This message has been edited by carnut122 (edited 10-17-2011).]
Originally posted by Taijiguy: The cuts include a reduction in president's salary to 39K, think Obama is going to go for that?
Sure, why not? Obama was a self-made millionaire before taking office. He got his wealth the old fashioned way, by being a published author. Y'all can laugh and joke about his success as an author, but until you get a paycheck from your own writing efforts you're just blowing wind.
Though, if I were him I'd donate all my presidential salary to charity. As it is, he only donates three hundred thousand bucks or so to charity every year. Not to mention the million four he donated the year he won the Nobel.
How much have you guys donated to charity recently? A dollar? And no, tossing a quarter into the cup of the local beggar doesn't count.
As well as investing in Wall Street. Like most modern era Presidents, his portfolio is in a blind trust, (Placing investments in blind trusts is voluntary--always has been) and not even he knows exactly what it's worth tho the Vanguard fund he and his wife have been invested in for years is estimated to be worth between $500k and $1.5 million. He plays it pretty safe, holding conservative risk funds and occassionally has opted for some odd staocks. In 2005, he held Skyterra Communications (SKYT) and AVI Biopharma (AVII). He sold the Skyterra and reinvested the proceeds into mutual funds right before the blind trust was set up, as Skyterra gets lots of $$ from the Federal Govt. The divestiture was done to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. He actually showed a loss on that investment. I have no info on what happened with the AVI he held. AFAIK all his holdings are now in the Vanguard FTSE Social Index fund (VFTSX). As of 2009, just after the blind trust was sealed, the fund consisted mostly of: JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500) Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) Intel (INTC, Fortune 500) Qualcomm (QCOM, Fortune 500) McDonald’s (MCD, Fortune 500) Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) Amgen (AMGN, Fortune 500) CVS Caremark (CVS, Fortune 500) Gilead (GILD, Fortune 500) Obama's big mioney is still in US Tbills and US T Bonds (long term debt) unless something has changed that hasn't been reported, which very well could be.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-18-2011).]
Sure, why not? Obama was a self-made millionaire before taking office. He got his wealth the old fashioned way, by being a published author. Y'all can laugh and joke about his success as an author, but until you get a paycheck from your own writing efforts you're just blowing wind.
Though, if I were him I'd donate all my presidential salary to charity. As it is, he only donates three hundred thousand bucks or so to charity every year. Not to mention the million four he donated the year he won the Nobel.
How much have you guys donated to charity recently? A dollar? And no, tossing a quarter into the cup of the local beggar doesn't count.
So now we have to donate to a certain type of charity for it to count?
Man, you really don't think this crap through do you?
Say President Obama (really it's rude for you to not refer to him by his proper title) has a net worth of Oh, lets say 10 million dollars.
Of that 10 million or so dollars The President gave $245,075 (not 300,000+ as you claimed) about 2% of his net worth to Charities in 2010. Way up from the less than 1% he gave when he wasn't running for office, but I digress. That does NOT take into account the money from the Nobel Prize since he never claimed it on his taxes, that money was donated directly from the foundation.
Now we could go by yearly income, but would that really be fair since you keep talking about what he's worth?
Brad
IP: Logged
03:40 AM
MidEngineManiac Member
Posts: 29566 From: Some unacceptable view Registered: Feb 2007
He will win if enough people vote for him in the primaries. Why would you let the establishment determine your vote? Why are so many of you allowing the media to tell you who is "electable"?
Are you fracking jokin ???....its electronic voting machines...the winner is who diebold says the winner is, votes have nothing to do with it.
Sure, why not? Obama was a self-made millionaire before taking office. He got his wealth the old fashioned way, by being a published author. Y'all can laugh and joke about his success as an author, but until you get a paycheck from your own writing efforts you're just blowing wind.
Though, if I were him I'd donate all my presidential salary to charity. As it is, he only donates three hundred thousand bucks or so to charity every year. Not to mention the million four he donated the year he won the Nobel.
How much have you guys donated to charity recently? A dollar? And no, tossing a quarter into the cup of the local beggar doesn't count.
If you want to get technical about it, Lori and I donate a much larger percentage of our income than he does, (close to or slightly more than 10% pre-tax) and we don't have a fraction of his net worth. We give close to 300 a month to our church, we donate to various wildlife and nature conservancies, universities, and a smattering of other organizations. I donate goods and services through my shop (still money out of my pocket as a sole proprietor) to a couple of local community organizations and main street groups. We also volunteer our time for various community organizations. Lori has climbed 3 mountains at her own expense for the benefit of Alzheimers and Parkinson's research, (Hood, Washington and Kilimanjaro)and has flown all over the country (still at her own expense) to help promote a movie produced about the organization :
(She shows up at 0:0:35)
Last year we hosted a fund raising event (again, at our own expense) for those same organizations. Any more questions? What have you done?
IP: Logged
10:58 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
I don't agree. I will happily forfeit all my SSI payments to date to opt out. I didn't vote for the program. I don't like the program...and yes if you do not prepare, I am comfortable with you starving. Why would anyone think the government would invest MY money better than [b]I[/b} would? Also, upon it's inception it was voluntary.
Again I agree in principal 100%, but accountability in the public space is basically non-existent and in reality, the government would step in to help those who didn't save and are now starving.
It's too easy to paint the unfortunate as victims, even when they aren't, and politicians who do so get votes - that's always how it works.
If you want to get technical about it, Lori and I donate a much larger percentage of our income than he does, (close to or slightly more than 10% pre-tax) and we don't have a fraction of his net worth. We give close to 300 a month to our church, we donate to various wildlife and nature conservancies, universities, and a smattering of other organizations. I donate goods and services through my shop (still money out of my pocket as a sole proprietor) to a couple of local community organizations and main street groups. We also volunteer our time for various community organizations. Lori has climbed 3 mountains at her own expense for the benefit of Alzheimers and Parkinson's research, (Hood, Washington and Kilimanjaro)and has flown all over the country (still at her own expense) to help promote a movie produced about the organization :
Last year we hosted a fund raising event (again, at our own expense) for those same organizations. Any more questions? What have you done?
Not as much as you, mainly volunteering. A lot of my time went to Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts, local food banks, that sort of thing. I've never had a lot of money to donate so my focus has been with my time.
Glad to see that you and Lori have accomplished so much in your lives, that's something to really be proud of.
