Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

Thank you to Tracy Coxx for providing such a vivid lesson in dissembling the truth. Tracy Coxx has been called out on specific claims regarding how much of the deficit is Obama's "fault." Called on the lie, Tracy Coxx tries to divert your attention away from the actual numbers, because Tracy Coxx cannot justify the hyperbolic bullshit that is the substance of the claim. So, Tracy Coxx tries to shift the goalpost from the dollar figure to something else.

Kudos to Kaiti for joining the chorus calling out the deliberate misrepresentations of Tracy Coxx.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

Thank you to Tracy Coxx for providing such a vivid lesson in dissembling the truth. Tracy Coxx has been called out on specific claims regarding how much of the deficit is Obama's "fault." Called on the lie, Tracy Coxx tries to divert your attention away from the actual numbers, because Tracy Coxx cannot justify the hyperbolic bullshit that is the substance of the claim. So, Tracy Coxx tries to shift the goalpost from the dollar figure to something else.

Kudos to Kaiti for joining the chorus calling out the deliberate misrepresentations of Tracy Coxx.

I for one would like to hear from Tracy how Obama has decimated high tech jobs. Also, I wonder now as I have often wondered in the past, is the idea of universal healthcare (which I'm pretty sure is not what the Democrats passed) really so anathema to the American population.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by ila

Except that under Clinton it went up before reducing slightly and under Obama it has gone up.

Debt was rising when Clinton comes into power, Clinton slows the rise then reverses it, you can't expect an upward trend to be reversed instantly, as rapid spending cuts lead economic contraction, ditto rapid tax increases. With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

Difference between your graph and mine is simple. Mine correlates to what we were actually discussing, government debt. Note yours says total debt, mine says federal debt, yours includes private debts. This new graph will explain the difference, note that it is a stacked graph, you want t be looking at the thickness of the bands here..

[ila]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

...With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan...

That's quite funny, Anna, and also true.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by transjen

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government! Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by tslust

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

About 43% (that seems to be the average figure, I saw one number that had it as low as 39% and another put it as high as 51%) of Americans pay NO taxes, with at least ONE IN THREE of these nonpayers actually getting money form the government! Whereas, the top 1% wage earners, "those evil rich" pay 38% taxes. Now that's just on the Federal level. If you add in the local, county, and state it's more like 50% to 60% tax.

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

A flat tax that is too high will throw millions into the poverty zone and tax too low will result in a major loss of tax revenue. I dunno where your statistics come from but does that mean "43%" of adult citizens in the workforce "do not pay taxes"? Or just overall population?

I do agree that a flat tax would be hard to figure a correct percentage. Perhaps some sort of sliding scale, starting at 5% for the lowest income bracket and increasing by 2-5% from there.

I would assume that the statistics come from the number of people who filed their taxes.

[GRH]

Another common misconception that the right likes to spread...The old "half the population pays no taxes." Due to the myriad of deductions and credits, it's more accurate to say that a certain percentage of the population pays no INCOME TAX. Nobody (except for kids or people that have no income) pays NO taxes. This percentage that pays no income tax still pays payroll taxes on their earnings as well as a myriad of state and local taxes.

Personally, I don't know where they derive this statistic. My family has never made in excess of $50,000 annually and yet we've ALWAYS had income tax liability. It seems like clever accounting to me to arrive at this statistic.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

As stated before though, many times, Obama has only spent like ~$1.5 trillion and that's from ongoing wars started by Bush

Yes, SOME of that was from the Iraq war, but let's not forget that Obama's stimulous package cost more than 8 years of war.

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

and also then the bailouts, which we shouldn't have bailed out those banks, let them fail and take them over under government authority.

I agree, we should have let them fail.

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Also "Obamacare" actually will save money in the long run, as also pointed out in earlier posts.

That's nice. The CBO says otherwise. They say by 2019 it will raise deficits $226 billion/year.

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Also it is one of the most helpful pieces of legislation passed by him, regardless of cost, to protect people from corporate corruption. If it wasn't for Obama's healthcare bill, I wouldn't have health coverage right now.

Yeah, but federal courts have declared it unconstitutional. I won't deny it would be great for everyone to get health coverage. It would also be great if the government would buy us all houses and cars. The problem is we can't afford it and if the rest of the world isn't having 2nd thoughts about whether we can repay our debt, they sure should be having doubts now.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I for one would like to hear from Tracy how Obama has decimated high tech jobs. Also, I wonder now as I have often wondered in the past, is the idea of universal healthcare (which I'm pretty sure is not what the Democrats passed) really so anathema to the American population.

After letting the shuttle retire without a follow on plan an estimated 30-50,000 high tech jobs will be lost. As for the 2nd part of your post, Obamacare was one of the main reasons the democrats got routed in the 2010 elections.

[Suckslut]

I support the fair tax.

Note: I am not a right wing republican, so you can't attack me for being that.

Here is what the fair tax does.

Eliminate the federal income tax and replaces it with a federal sales tax.

That way, the IRS only has to collect info from all the businesses in America instead of every citizen. (probably 3 million vs. 200 million). This way we can shrink the IRS by about 90%, and eliminate headaches for filling out taxes for most citizens. This replaces the chaotic system we have now with lots of loopholes, deductions, and different tax rates for different kinds of income (work, long and short term capital gains, rent, etc).


The way it is written now is that every purchase would be subject to the federal sales tax, and then the federal government would send a rebate to every family the amount of sales tax that a person subject to the poverty line would pay. So if the poverty line is $12,000 per person per year with the federal sales tax at 25%, the government would send a check to every person for $3,000 a year.

The way I would do it, is that the basic standards such as milk, bread, water, rent will not be subject to the sales tax (so that poor people do not pay a disproportionate share of their income to taxes).

This will encourage people to automatically save. This will help them for retirement and in emergencies such as job loses.

Plus I believe that lots of businesses will start up and come to the US, because we would be one of only a few countries in the world without an income tax.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by tslust

First of all, what is considered rich? People who earn $125,000 or maybe people who earn $250,000, or how about obama who gets $400,000?

...

My point is: Perhaps instead of focusing on making those "evil rich" pay more taxes, they could simply widen the tax base. Or even better, the democrats are always talking about the rich not paying their "fair share", what could be more fair than a flat tax?

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

[Suckslut]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding who's "rich". And I agree about flat tax.

What do you think about the fair tax?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

What do you think about the fair tax?

I haven't looked at it real close, but it looks like there's many advantages to it, like allowing people to keep all their income, promoting savings, being able to tax even illegal aliens, and the elimination of the IRS. Might be a good idea.

But like flat tax or any other fundamental change in the tax system there's going to be a lot of resistance in changing it.

[smc]

This speaks volumes ...

[TracyCoxx]

... if this home is so bad probably need to stop fixing other people's homes, and the able bodied people in this home need to get a job.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

This speaks volumes ...

Yep, this is where we are heading. Unfortunately, its not just the Republicans ruining the country, the Democrats and Obama are complicit. Instead of pouring billions into the fuckedup financial industry, the government could have taken over the banks and invested in infrastructure and energy efficiency creating new industries and thousands of jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead we bailed out the rich and preserved their dominance over congress.
Obama didn't betray, us he conned us. He is just another corporate lackey.
The rich have a strangle hold on us and I have no idea how we are going to break their hold. Elections don't work, voting doesn't work, complaining doesn't work. What would work?
Somehow, develop enough support to raise taxes on the rich back where they were before Reagan. The government would then have sufficient funding to sustain the type of society the majority of Americans want.

[TracyCoxx]

So we possibly have some kind of deal where we raise the debt ceiling by up to $2.5 trillion and we cut a matching amount over 10 years.

Whoopty doo.

That won't mean 10 years from now our debt will be back to where it is now at $14.5 trillion. It means we cut up to $2.5 trillion off of the next $8 trillion we're going to add to the debt in 10 years! So this debt cutting deal actually allows $5.5 trillion to be added to the debt in the next 10 years bringing us up to $20 trillion in debt. And they're all patting themselves on their backs for these huge "cuts". We still have a lot of work to do.

And to add $5.5 trillion they're telling us they're going to have to make huge cuts to defense and entitlements.... ???

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

...the Democrats and Obama are complicit. Instead of pouring billions into the fuckedup financial industry, the government could have taken over the banks and invested in infrastructure and energy efficiency creating new industries and thousands of jobs and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead we bailed out the rich and preserved their dominance over congress.
Obama didn't betray, us he conned us. He is just another corporate lackey.

Obama really didn't do anything here other than agree to sign this latest compromise. He didn't promote any plan of his own and just made veto threats in all this. Some leader.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... if this home is so bad probably need to stop fixing other people's homes, and the able bodied people in this home need to get a job.

Typical Tracy Coxx bullshit.

Thank goodness that despite the best efforts of political leaders of all stripes, we still live in a country where there is at least a tiny bit of safety net left to forestall the full effects of the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest (i.e., rich exploiters) America that Tracy Coxx advocates.

[franalexes]

Thank goodness that despite the best efforts of political leaders of all stripes, we still live in a country where there is at least a tiny bit of safety net left to forestall the full effects of the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest (i.e.,wagon riders) America .

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Thank goodness that despite the best efforts of political leaders of all stripes, we still live in a country where there is at least a tiny bit of safety net left to forestall the full effects of the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest (i.e.,wagon riders) America .

Surely, franalexes has carefully calculated her federal and Maine state taxes and does not accept anything from the government that she does not choose to buy and pay for directly.

[randolph]

Here in Californicatus there is increasing discussion of getting political control back to the local level, control of school and property taxes that were lost with Prop. 13. has left local schools and city and County operations depleted. Sacramento is arguably even mode dysfunctional than Washington.
We are now in the process of redistricting by an independent commission. This may bring back some accountability to Sacramento and kick out some of the entrenched corrupt politicians.

[Suckslut]

I hope the California citizens repeal the Amazon Sales Tax.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Suckslut

I hope the California citizens repeal the Amazon Sales Tax.

A sales tax in addition to shipping fees might make Amazon somewhat less competitive. I am already finding it cheaper to order a product from a local supplier rather than ordering it on the internet. Twice now I have checked the price of a repair part on the internet and the shipping fees were almost twice the value of the part.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

Surely, franalexes has carefully calculated her federal and Maine state taxes and does not accept anything from the government that she does not choose to buy and pay for directly.

As a matter of fact, that is true. The one thing I have got from the government AND did not choose to buy ( not that one could) is the down-turn in the housing market. My net worth is no longer expressed in seven figures.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

As a matter of fact, that is true. The one thing I have got from the government AND did not choose to buy ( not that one could) is the down-turn in the housing market. My net worth is no longer expressed in seven figures.

So, you partake of no services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine? You plan on collecting no Social Security? Were you to be in an accident on the Maine Turnpike, you would reject ambulance services or the assistance of the State Police? Etc.?

[randolph]

The libertarian icon Ayn Rand in spite of ranting against government and proselytizing the stand alone independent self centered ego dominated pristine individual received social security and medicare.

During the Neut revolution many conservatives pledged to run for only one term Guess what, many of them are still in Congress.

Hypocrisy rules on the far right.

[Suckslut]

Ayn Rand was also in favor of abortion, because she said that an unborn baby was a parasite, because it couldn't live without its host (mother).

But the far right ignores that part of her.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

So, you partake of no services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine? You plan on collecting no Social Security? Were you to be in an accident on the Maine Turnpike, you would reject ambulance services or the assistance of the State Police? Etc.?

YOU do not direct what I plan or do not plan to do.
I wilfully do not partake of services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine. ( if I have a choice)
note: The Maine Turnpike Authority does not provide ambulance services nor does the Maine State Police. ( you should do your research before you embarrass yourself publically)
Furthermore, a "wagon rider" is not someone that uses services, but someone that PLANS on services in eccess of what they pay for or could do for themselves. Or better said," they take more out of services than they put in." ie: Some, not of their doing, are un-employed while others plan on being un-employed.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

YOU do not direct what I plan or do not plan to do.
I wilfully do not partake of services offered by the federal government or the State of Maine. ( if I have a choice)
note: The Maine Turnpike Authority does not provide ambulance services nor does the Maine State Police. ( you should do your research before you embarrass yourself publically)
Furthermore, a "wagon rider" is not someone that uses services, but someone that PLANS on services in eccess of what they pay for or could do for themselves. Or better said," they take more out of services than they put in." ie: Some, not of their doing, are un-employed while others plan on being un-employed.

I haven't "publically" embarassed myself. If an hypothetical question intended to make a point (i.e., the one about the ambulance services) is the equivalent of public embarrassment, then every person who has ever had a serious discussion is walking around red as a beet.

As for directing what you "plan or do not plan to do," I ended each sentence with a question mark. Thus, they were not directives.

Finally, as for your definition of "wagon-riders," now one wonders what in the world you meant by adding it to my quote in your earlier post. It makes no sense in the context of what I wrote.

[randolph]

This clip from "The Town" was played at the Republican caucus to stoke up opposition to the democrats prior to the debt cap negotiations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxYjJ5bcv0

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

This clip from "The Town" was played at the Republican caucus to stoke up opposition to the democrats prior to the debt cap negotiations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxYjJ5bcv0

I give them credit for honesty: they do hurt people.

[franalexes]

Wagon Riders take note:
This is a INSULT, a KICK in the butt, a SLAP in the face, a KNIFE in the back to all of us...

Get mad and pass it on - I don't know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.

If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a
woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.

She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924.
It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.
Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.

This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement..

Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees !

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

Wagon Riders take note:
This is a INSULT, a KICK in the butt, a SLAP in the face, a KNIFE in the back to all of us...

Get mad and pass it on - I don't know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.

If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a
woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.

She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924.
It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.
Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.

This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement..

Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees !

Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years.

Of course, it doesn't occur to those who support dog-eat-dog capitalism that the solution might be to reallocate federal monies so the pensioners get enough to have a full, rich retirement. It's simply a matter of priorities: don't take their money and spend it on aircraft carriers, subsidies for corporations that already make billions in profits, etc., etc., etc.

But I understand ... it just feels better to beat up on, say, a refugee.

The truth is that the United States, the richest country in the world, has the resources to make a better life for everyone in our land. But those who would consistently support the policies that go against their economic interests have been taught in our schools to be against social solidarity. It's the greatest shame of America.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I haven't "publically" embarassed myself.

Actually I kinda felt bad for you. It didn't look good.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Actually I kinda felt bad for you. It didn't look good.

Do you feel better about yourself for your lame attempt at insulting me, despite the complete lack of content in your post?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Do you feel better about yourself for your lame attempt at insulting me, despite the complete lack of content in your post?

lol loosen up big guy

[TracyCoxx]

Looks like Putin hit the nail on the head:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday accused the United States of acting as a "parasite" on the world economy by accumulating massive debts that threaten the global financial system.

"The country is living in debt. It is not living within its means, shifting the weight of responsibility on other countries and in a way acting as a parasite,"

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

lol loosen up big guy

I cannot find anything to laugh about in any of your posts (other than the absurdity of your political positions), since the root of your posts is always your dangerous and harmful ideas, whether you are expressing them directly or using failed or fake attempts at "humor."

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

I cannot find anything to laugh about in any of your posts (other than the absurdity of your political positions), since the root of your posts is always your dangerous and harmful ideas, whether you are expressing them directly or using failed or fake attempts at "humor."

LMAO Generaly when someone on a forum openly says they don't see the joke it is a cover for being extreemly pissed off

[randolph]

I hope we don't have to administer banned-aids if this keeps up.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

LMAO Generaly when someone on a forum openly says they don't see the joke it is a cover for being extreemly pissed off

Speak for yourself. I don't see jokes that aren't there, and in any case I always consider the source when responding to anything directed at me personally. Hence, I wouldn't waste any energy being pissed off by an insult from Tracy Coxx.

[GRH]

Fran's distaste for the social safety net finally makes sense. The comment "my net worth is no longer measured in seven figures" makes her Republican ideology make sense. If you have no need of social security or medicare, why not destroy it to save you from having to pay into a program that the less fortunate DO need?

[randolph]

by Sam Pizzigati

Against a Congress where zealously rich people-friendly conservatives hold the upper hand, how much can a President of the United States committed to greater equality realistically hope to accomplish?

The answer from today?s White House: not much. Advocacy for equality has to take a backseat, Obama administration insiders insist, once fanatical friends of the fortunate in Congress recklessly put at risk our nation?s full faith and credit.
But history offers another alternative. Back in 1943, halfway through World War II, a President of the United States confronted a debt ceiling crisis eerily similar to our own. That President, Franklin Roosevelt, faced a congressional opposition to inconveniencing the rich ? with higher taxes ? every bit as rabid as ours.
FDR?s choice, in the face of this opposition? He doubled down on equality.
Roosevelt?s debt ceiling battle actually began in the months right after Pearl Harbor. The nation needed dollars ? and lots of them ? to wage and win the new war. FDR wanted those dollars raised as equitably as possible.
That would require, FDR and his New Dealers believed, a steeply graduated income tax, with tax rates on income in the top income brackets much higher than rates on income in the bottom brackets.
How high should the top rates go? All the way, FDR proposed, to 100 percent. At a time of ?grave national danger,? the President told Congress in April 1942, ?no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year,? an income just shy of $350,000 in today?s dollars.
The year before, gun executive Carl Swebilius had pulled in $243,204 after taxes, the equivalent of over $3.7 million today. Steel exec Eugene Grace had grabbed $522,537, over $8 million today, in 1941 salary. But conservatives in Congress looked the other way. They never gave FDR?s plan any love.
Four months later, Roosevelt would try again. In his Labor Day message, FDR repeated his $25,000 ?supertax? income cap call. Again Congress ignored him.
FDR would not back down. In early October, the President flexed his authority under the newly enacted Emergency Price Control Act and issued an executive order that limited top corporate salaries to $25,000 after taxes, a move, he pronounced, needed ?to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort.?


Obama is no FDR.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Fran's distaste for the social safety net finally makes sense. The comment "my net worth is no longer measured in seven figures" makes her Republican ideology make sense. If you have no need of social security or medicare, why not destroy it to save you from having to pay into a program that the less fortunate DO need?

Kind of like in DO need social security because I can't afford to properly pay into my 401k because I'm required to put money into my social security.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by smc

, I wouldn't waste any energy being pissed off by an insult from Tracy Coxx.

That's probably true, but then I've never seen Tracy post an insult.

[smc]

Originally Posted by franalexes

That's probably true, but then I've never seen Tracy post an insult.

Well, since you want to beg the issue, I will respond without specificity.

Moderators routinely delete posts that insult other members and issue violations. Some members have a history of such violations and have received bans of increasing number of days over time; often, this ends up leading to a permanent ban. We both know that you are well aware of this fact. For instance, one member recently received a 7-day ban for a particularly nasty insult against one of the transwomen very active on this site.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Kind of like in DO need social security because I can't afford to properly pay into my 401k because I'm required to put money into my social security.

Many people lost everything in their 401Ks. That doesn't happen with Social Security. Social Security is basically an insurance policy that is paid into in order to have at least some funds for old age. Privatizing SS would make it vulnerable to stock market fluctuations, an insane idea.

[franalexes]

A lot of people put what they had into a home; above and beyond what they could really afford, thanks to Barney Frank and his Fannie-May and Freddie-Mack. Not only are these people upside down on their mortgage but the housing market for those above water has been adversly affected.

So having housing connected to the government did not create a safety net. As you say," insane idea."
It is more of a black hole.