> Welfare reform limits cash received to 5 years, I see no reason not to
> impliment term limits in SS as well. It would certainly stop those from
> taking it before they really needed it as opposed to taking it just because
> it's there.
>
>
Boy I am Glad I pulled out of this thread!


Geeze

---

>The potential for greater returns NOT at the expense of those already paying for it. I'm not implying that it's the best solution out there, just better than the current situation for those responsible for footing the bill.

One of the things that made this country great is the collective will we exercise to attempt to ensure that all our citizens have access to a reasonable quality of life. We take care of our own to the best of our ability.

You would chuck that for the gamble that you personally may be able to beat the odds and to hell with those less fortunate. So what's better than the present is that you don't care what happens to others, only that you be given the chance to grab for the golden ring.

That's pitiful.

---

>....
> >....
>
> Jsut because you will not learn doesn't mean I will stop trying to teach even
> though I know it's a waste of my time. Notice me explaing this to you yet
> AGAIN, because it's my time to waste.

Oh, so you're a teacher now, and you're trying to teach me? I learn things everyday, and the only thing I learned
from you is that you're a "head-banger from Louisiana". No wonder you logic is flawed.

> > We[/b] are not "outside" of SETI, now are we?
> Yep, I'm at home.

Hmmmm.... later....

> >....
> Lack of logic? To imply that SETI users are the end all of opinions is the
> most illogical response I've ever heard.

I implied nothing of the sort! LISTEN UP! This discussion is taking place on the SETI message boards in Cafe SETI.
It is NOT taking place in your home or my home or anyone elses. The ONLY opinions here are yours (tatally
illogical), mine (logical) and the others (logical) in this thread.

>
I believe not!
>
> Of course not, you're liberal and cannot be pleased. Did I not already state
> I was aware of that?

You have never said that I cannot be pleased! I believe your brain has turned to mush from all that head-banging. You
cannot remember what you say to anyone here.

I re-iterate:
> >
I would appreciate it if, in the future, you respond to me, that you
respond to me alone. Don't mix replies to me in
with 2 or 3 others.
> >
> To bad, so sad. The earth does not revolve around you and neither does this
> forum.

You're right, Earth does not revolve around me or the forum. I never implied nor said it did. Ever heard the word respect?
I believe my request was reasonable and just. I respect others out here, I expect the same in kind. If you haven't enough
respect to abide with my request, DO NOT REPLY! Just don't expect me not to reply to any of your posts.

> >....
>
> ....
>
> In the interest of conserving resources. I will continue to make 1 post when
> 1 post is all that is needed.

1 post per post you reply to.... with respect.
[/i]
>
> .... liberal.
>

Liberal? If I were a liberal, I would be agreeing with/accepting every word you type.

My Time: Wednesday, 02 February 2005 - 09:03 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Welfare reform limits cash received to 5 years, I see no reason not to impliment term limits in SS as well. It would certainly stop those from taking it before they really needed it as opposed to taking it just because it's there.
Oh. I didn't know that... yeah, limits should be in place. That makes a lot of sense.

I have yet to see a suggestion....have I missed it or did you not offer one?
I didn't offer it because I'm gonna get so flamed that snow will melt for miles around!

It's been four hours or so since I head the President's Social Security ideas, and I'm still not convinced that he's on the right track -- Or anyone in govenment for that matter. It still hinges on "Is Social Security a pension-plan or a safety net?" It's a lose-lose decision, but the way it is now, it's both.

I'm going to discuss this with my pillow. Goodnight!

---

PZ
If you listened to the president you would have heard that the government will only allow low risk investments.

Like I said before if the congress can have a private pension plan why can't the normal worker have one?

If the social security plan was such a good one why did the congress choose a private pension instead of using the social security plan they setup for us?

Every time someone states an opinion that disagrees with what your saying you attack the person.

Why can't you try to support your opinions with some facts and not your blah blah rhetoric of extremes (losing everything or completely dismantle)?

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

P. Zimmerman,

> kong,
>
> your little weak attempt at a dig? alluding to what you term a yellow dog
> Democrat?
>
> I am neither cowed by your lack of imagination, nor was I ever a Democrat.
>
> Playground games for sissies......

If you understood what the phrase 'yellow-dog Democrat' meant, you would understand why I applied it to you. You are letting your anti-Bush zeal blind you to the realities of the situtation under discussion. Like a pit bull, you have attached your 'jaws' to the 'bone' of the most favorable possible 'prediction' from the SocSec Trustees' report. For that projection to come to pass, virtually every factor in our economy would have to quickly reach and remain at permenantly its projected *best possible* value. Guess what? They won't. Booms and busts are a natural part of the economy, and one good recession will ruin that projection. In other words, that 'optimistic' projection is very unlikely to take place. The trustees made their own 'best guess' and favor the middle, 'intermediate' projection. And *they* are in a much better position than you (or I) to be able to accurately predict what will happen in the future. It is their *job*.

>
> I noticed that when it came down to discussing specifics and taking an indepth
> look at your assertions, you chose to leave off, to ignore any continuation of
> that discussion.

Oh, I DID research two of the countries you mentioned. Brazil and Venezuela.

Brazil:
http://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfm?objectid=E112D7EC-1FCC-11D6-A38D0008C7720D25&method=display

That report (from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta) states that Brazil's SocSec system is in trouble because the benefit levels are too high, and payroll taxes are too high (forcing most new jobs (8 out of 10) in Brazil into the underground economy to avoid the high taxes). What *little* Brazil has done to privitize their SocSec system is effectively too little, too late.

Venezuela: I was able to find a partial description of their program, but nothing substantive on the health of said program.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2002-2003/americas/venezuela.html

Perhaps you could post a link or two about Venezuela's SocSec system's financial health (from government sources... US or Venezuela's).



>
> I'm just saying, ......talking about what's yellow...

I am not yellow... Just busy. You try going back to university at my age (as a full-time student) to 'retrain' yourself because the IT job you had got eliminated in a corporate merger (not to mention a generally depressed IT industry, or that employeers are looking for someone younger, with fresher skills)... While supporting a wife... And while not taking any govt. grants or loans to do so. It ain't easy.


>
> And now you come back to defend unethical acts by saying someone else acted
> that way at some other time, so it's perfectly ok today.

And you claim that *I* misunderstand what *you* say... I did not defend the Republicans for doing what the Democrats have done for years. I only said that I didn't blame them for using the same tactics as their opponents. Politics is a dirty game, and the Democrats wrote the rules. Please see later on in the post you refered to for my comdemnation of both parties' behavior (as well as some of my other posts).
>
> More playground logic.....
>
> Let's hope there are some grownups around to assist in your supervision.
>
> Address the issue as best you can..... but save your PeeWee Herman act for
> your buddies over on the Free Republic board...

More insults... I must have hit very close to the truth with that 'yellow dog' remark. By the way, what is this 'Free Republic' board? Is that any relation to your claiming to be a 'freeper'?
>(my nickname ain't freeper for nutin'.)



>
> (my apologies to the rest of you... but such fetid gas from overly
> self-inflated windbags is not easily suffered)
>

Yes, the fetid gas that you are spewing is a bit hard to take. Sorry about your 'condition', dude.

> Booms and busts are a natural part of the economy, and one good
> recession will ruin that projection. In other words, that 'optimistic'
> projection is very unlikely to take place.

Trouble is, the optimistic projection is the one that tracks through history. You didn't read the material, did you?

(Besides the fact that you seem to want to ignore that those booms and busts you are so sure of would negate any of the promises you like about the piratization schemes.)

and kong, I'm not interested in your personal drama either, it's not gemaine to the statement I made, whatever you want to pass off as your 'excuse' is not pertinent at all, I said you ignored the specifics and came back only when it suited you to defend unethical acts, and that's what you did. Weaseling now and looking for sympathy on unrelated issues only makes you look like you think you should be excused for your lack of responding to the issue. Your most recent post is not the only post in the intervening period which you also ignored the earlier discussions. So save the whiny drama.

You claim not to have come back and defended unethical acts?

Excuse me ?..... Here's what I said, "And now you come back to defend unethical acts by saying someone else acted that way at some other time, so it's perfectly ok today."

That in response to what you did say, and here I quote you, "One cannot blame the Republicans for using it as well."

""One cannot blame the Republicans....."'' indeed.

So that's clear.... you did what I said, you said one cannot blame the Republicans for partaking in unethical actions.

..........you just don't like my pointing it out so clearly, did you?. Tried to weasel out of it. Tried to say, not so....


You're a piece of work, kong. You can compress an impressive number of words into some of the smallest ideas of anyone I've had the occassion to meet.

And your partisanship, and your need to label others as some stereotypical partisan enemy is affecting your thought processes. You're so blind to reality that you won't know it when it passes you by.

If you care to discuss the issues without your petty pretentious crap, I'd be more than happy to help you find some more information you can't seem to find. Other than that, all you've done is try to derail any in depth discussion of what's really going on with your yammering about the 'lefties' or your attacks on the character of others.

---

> One of the things that made this country great is the collective will we
> exercise to attempt to ensure that all our citizens have access to a
> reasonable quality of life. We take care of our own to the best of our
> ability.

What a load of CRAP. What made and still makes this country great is that if you put forth the effort, you will succeed. What's sending it to the crapper is that today, those of us trying to succeed are being weighted down by those citizens who are collectively sitting on their butt asking for hand-outs.

> You would chuck that for the gamble that you personally may be able to beat
> the odds and to hell with those less fortunate.

Damn straight. If you've been paying attention, the plan is for the younger generation to be able to divert SOME of their money, not all of it.


> So what's better than the
> present is that you don't care what happens to others, only that you be given
> the chance to grab for the golden ring.

It's called the natural course of things. Support yourself, find someone else to do it for you, or starve and die.

> That's pitiful.

Working for a living and providing for yourself and your off spring versus leeching off the government. Obviously we have a very different concept of what a pitiful person is. BTW, I don't need your pity, save it for the lazy and incompetent, they are the ones asking for hands out anyway.

> and the only thing I learned
>from you is that you're a "head-banger from Louisiana". No wonder you logic is >flawed.

You didn't learn that from me, you learned that from my profile. My logic isn't flawed, you just don't seem to be very bright.

>This discussion is taking place on the SETI message boards in Cafe SETI.
>It is NOT taking place in your home or my home or anyone elses.

That's funny, because I'm reading it at home, how about you, Einstein? I also watched the President discuss it last night, and I'm 100% sure it wasn't on this forum either.

>You have never said that I cannot be pleased! I believe your brain has turned to >mush from all that head-banging. You
>cannot remember what you say to anyone here.

The term liberal is used collectively so that I don't discriminate against an individual. Wasn't it YOU that wanted me to be PC?

>Ever heard the word respect?

Yeah, it's something you earn

>I believe my request was reasonable and just.

I do not, specifically because it's a waste of resources.

>I expect the same in kind. If you haven't enough
>respect to abide with my request, DO NOT REPLY! Just don't expect me not to >reply to any of your posts.

LAF, Keep living in your fantasy land little buddy. I enjoy hearing the tales it makes you think will become reality.

>If I were a liberal, I would be agreeing with/accepting every word you type.

Liberal: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

You see genius, you don't have to agree wtih me to be liberal, just be more concerned with those who can't protect/provide/contribute to society than those who can.

>Oh. I didn't know that... yeah, limits should be in place. That makes a lot of >sense.

Right on, then we BOTH get something out of this. You get the help you want for people, I get the 100% elimination after a period of time.

It's nice to hear a reply from someone who actually understands compromise.

>I didn't offer it because I'm gonna get so flamed that snow will melt for miles >around!

Understood, but I cannot support inaction. The squeaky wheel get's the grease, not the one rolling along silently wishing for change.

>It's been four hours or so since I head the President's Social Security ideas, >and I'm still not convinced that he's on the right track

Of course not. No one is 100% satisfied with their elected officials. I doubt Identical twins would agree 100% of the time. I am satisfied that we both agree that "something" needs to be done.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> > ....
> > and the only thing I learned
> >from you is that you're a "head-banger from Louisiana". No wonder you
> logic is >flawed.

Example of flawed logic:
> You didn't learn that from me, you learned that from my profile. My logic
> isn't flawed, you just don't seem to be very bright.

Did you not write your own profile? Or, is everything written in it someone elses thoughts? If the former is true, then,
I learned it from you! If the latter is true, then excuse me for thinking you could speak for yourself!

> >This discussion is taking place on the SETI message boards in Cafe SETI.
> >It is NOT taking place in your home or my home or anyone elses.
>
> That's funny, because I'm reading it at home, how about you, Einstein?
> I also watched the President discuss it last night, and I'm 100% sure it
> wasn't on this forum either.

Wake up to reality! I really don't care if you're sitting in your bathroom taking a crap while spewing said crap all over
this thread. This discussion only exists in this thread, not in your home!

> >You have never said that I cannot be pleased! I believe your brain has
> turned to >mush from all that head-banging. You
> >cannot remember what you say to anyone here.
>
> The term liberal is used collectively so that I don't discriminate against an
> individual. Wasn't it YOU that wanted me to be PC?

Look at your response above, to my statements above that. Now I know your brain is mushed. Your brain must be in a turmoil
trying to keep up.

> >Ever heard the word respect?
>
> Yeah, it's something you earn

Something which you have not earned here....

> >I believe my request was reasonable and just.
>
> I do not, specifically because it's a waste of resources.

You and your resources. Are you afraid of spending a little bandwidth replying to me, using my posts only? And, your
lack of respect is the reason you refute my statement above.

> >I expect the same in kind. If you haven't enough
> >respect to abide with my request, DO NOT REPLY! Just don't expect me not
> to >reply to any of your posts.
>
> LAF, Keep living in your fantasy land little buddy. I enjoy hearing the tales
> it makes you think will become reality.

How dare you belittle me, LITTLE BUDDY! If you think it's a fantasy for someone the ask that you abide with a simple
request, you need to WAKE UP TO REALITY!

> >If I were a liberal, I would be agreeing with/accepting every word you
> type.
>
> Liberal: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform
> and the protection of civil liberties

You forgot one definition, out of many others: Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others. Makes me non-liberal
where you are concerned.

> You see genius, you don't have to agree wtih me to be liberal, just be more
> concerned with those who can't protect/provide/contribute to society than
> those who can.

I don't agree with you. And, I'm more concerned with those who can than those who can't, in some respects. And, I'm
more concerned with those who can't than those who can, in other respects. Figure that one out, genius.

> > ....
> ....
>

My Time: Thursday, 03 February 2005 - 07:46 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

It's a pity your preconceived notions about people cause you to be so screwed up.

Your preconceived notions about SSI and Bush's plan are just as screwed up.

It's amazing to hear you 'defend' and promote something you don't know anything about.

Turn off the Fox news, mushbrain. What you think is not reality.

Reading your attempts to justify yourself is pretty humorous though..
___________________________________________________________
Seems a little news came out of the White House today, ...... surprise.

Even more curiously, a "senior administration official" who briefed reporters on the Social Security proposal earlier today disclosed details of the White House plan that I don't think will play well in Peoria.

Most significantly, this official revealed that most or all of the earnings from new "personal" or privatized accounts will be paid not to the holder of the account, but to the government. The senior official called this a "benefit offset." It's one way to finance the creation of these private accounts, but it's going to cause quite a political stir, I think.

But, this shouldn't be a big surprise. Benefit offsets have always been part of the whispered plans.

Facts:

A lot or even most of the money in your private account is just going to deducted from your benefits. Zero sum game.

A lot or even most of the money in your private account is not going to be able to be left as an inheritance -- you'll be required to buy an annuity upon retirement, and if you die one day later the money will be all gone.

Washington Post... and by now, probably some more... watch for much backpedaling tomorrow.

---

> Did you not write your own profile? Or, is everything written in it
> someone elses thoughts? If the former is true, then,
> I learned it from you! If the latter is true, then excuse me for
> thinking you could speak for yourself!

Yes, I understand how your narrow mind thinks, but the simple fact is that I did not provide you with that information. Just like if you read a book, the author did not provide YOU with that information. YOU obtained it by other means.


> Wake up to reality! I really don't care if you're sitting in your bathroom
> taking a crap while spewing said crap all over
> this thread. This discussion only exists in this thread, not in
> your home!

I had the very same SS discussion with the guy in the other apt....as in this house. All of us are not bound by the constraints of your fanstay.


> Look at your response above, to my statements above that. Now I know your
> brain is mushed. Your brain must be in a turmoil
> trying to keep up.

Right, that's why you resorted to person attack and stopped debating SS.


> Something which you have not earned here....

What possible made you think I want or care about the respect of a liberal?


> You and your resources. Are you afraid of spending a little bandwidth
> replying to me, using my posts only? And, your
> lack of respect is the reason you refute my statement above.

I'm not liberal, and I don't believe in wasting resources ESPECIALLY on those to LAZY to work for themselves.


> If you think it's a fantasy
> for someone the ask that you abide with a simple
> request, you need to WAKE UP TO REALITY![/i]

Nope Einstein, your fantasy is thinking I will stop responding to you just because I don't use a format you prefer. This is a free country and a free forum. If you don't like it, you can leave, stop reading, stop responding, any thing you choose EXCEPT tell me how to post.


> You forgot one definition, out of many others: Tolerant of the ideas or
> behavior of others. Makes me non-liberal
> where you are concerned.

One aspect does not make you not liberal. I'm pro-choice, but you would be hard pressed to find a more militant Republican.


> > You see genius, you don't have to agree wtih me to be liberal, just be
> more
> > concerned with those who can't protect/provide/contribute to society
> than
> > those who can.
>
> I don't agree with you. And, I'm more concerned with those who can
> than those who can't, in some respects. And, I'm
> more concerned with those who can't than those who can, in other respects.
> Figure that one out, genius.

LAF....I figured you out days ago. You're a regular ole wishy-washy liberal.....haven't you been paying attention?

>Reading your attempts to justify yourself is pretty humorous though..

Well they say ignorance is bliss. I've yet to see it proven wrong. Especially by liberals.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

I think I may have come up with a solution for Social Security, but it's more like answering a question with a question: &ldquo;What does the individual who is receiving Social Security benefit(s) spend it on?&rdquo; The answer to that question will dictate whether or not Social Security is a safety net or a pension plan.

If, for instance, a beneficiary is spending 75% of his/her benefit on prescriptions, medicine, and other medical expenditures, then that's a medical-coverage problem, and should be addressed via MediCare/MedicAid instead of through Social Security. Let's say that a beneficiary is spending 75% of his/her benefit on electricity, heating fuel, and other utilities - Then it's an issue of cost-of-living, and should be addressed accordingly. And if 75% of the benefit is spent on food, then we've got a poverty problem, and the FDA(?) has to get food stamps out. And, finally, if a beneficiary is spending the money on DVDs, CPUs, and Masaratis... You get the picture.

Now that I've mulled it over, I know what two things bug me most.

<li>People who are benefitting from Social Security who don't need it.
(BTW, this includes the little old lady who lives down the street whose pills I've paid for).
Social Security should not pay out to those who have the financial wherewithal, but to those who haven't. I don't know where that would put (for example) Enron employees who got screwed and lost their pensions - My train of thought ran out of steam.</li><li>The personal savings account (read: privatized retirement accounts) that the President described to already exist, but his description of it suggests that such accounts are compulsory.
It would make more sense (to me at least) if paying into Social Security were an option. I should be able to chose between managing my own money, or chipping into a federally run retirement system - but by my own volition. If voting and military service aren't compulsory, the why should my paycheck be deducted without my consent?
I'd prefer to be able to say on my W2s what percentage of my paycheck should be withheld, and to which retirement account it should be sent. It's money I've earned, and I'd like to be able to say "Put 2.5% to Social Security, 7.5% to a Merryl Lynch account, 7.5% to a David Lerner account, 2.5% to Retirements-&#x042f;-Us, and 10% to IRS."

Just a few thoughts...

---

> > Did you not write your own profile? Or, is everything written in it
> > someone elses thoughts? If the former is true, then,
> > I learned it from you! If the latter is true, then excuse me for
> > thinking you could speak for yourself!
>
> Yes, I understand how your narrow mind thinks, but the simple fact is that I
> did not provide you with that information. Just like if you read a book, the
> author did not provide YOU with that information. YOU obtained
> it by other means.

This is nonsense! So, according to your argument above, since you didn't direct that paragraph directly to me, I can't have an oppinion on it!!! But I do, and what you state there is rubbish! If an author writes a book filled with nonsense and somebody criticize him for it, he can say "Oh, my book wasn't meant for you personally, so you are not allowed to have an oppinion and criticize me!!" What an immature and childish attitude!

[snip]

>
> I'm not liberal, and I don't believe in wasting resources ESPECIALLY on those
> to LAZY to work for themselves.
>

So, who are you wasting your ressources on here? An international board with participants from all over the world, who couldn't care less how you feel about the social system and the social policy in the United States of America!

Honestly, I haven't read much of your posts here, as I give a s*** about your oppinion about your local conditions, but since the thread keep popping up, I open it and scroll down, but I have started to notice your very rude, immature, and very unintelligent statements here!

>
> Nope Einstein, your fantasy is thinking I will stop responding to you just
> because I don't use a format you prefer. This is a free country and a free
> forum. If you don't like it, you can leave, stop reading, stop responding,
> any thing you choose EXCEPT tell me how to post.
>

Excuse me for saying this, but you don't look like an Einstein yourself in your argumentation! And talking down to people here is a very bad strategy, but again, it only shows your ill-mannered, immature behaviour. It's really hard to show someone respect, who doesn't show any respect himself. Respect is not something you can claim, respect is something you must earn!


[snip]

Somewhere I wish for you that you may get some experiences in your life that could give you some life-experince and maturity!

---

You're not reading the material, are you mushbrain?

The White House just revealed that all you argue for is not their plan.

You're at sea... as they say. Your saviour has forsaken you.

You better go down and see about some more insurance... I see more of your paycheck leaving your pocket. Never to be seen again.

When it happens, you can blame the liberals, .....but you'll know the truth.

They played you perfectly....

You've been indoctrinated very comprehensively, they appreciate your subservience, ....but they won't be rewarding you.

When I said it was humorous to watch, it wasn't my ignorance that compelled the punch line.

Back to work with you now, they'll call on you again soon, and obediantly, you'll respond again, just as they wish.

---

> This is nonsense! So, according to your argument above, since you didn't
> direct that paragraph directly to me, I can't have an oppinion on it!!!

Nope, Didn't say that at all. Try reading it again. You might notice this time where I said I didn't teach anything to him/her. She/He obtaind the information by other means. No need to respond to the rest of that jibberish because you didn't pay attention to what was stated in the first place.

> So, who are you wasting your ressources on here?

No one, I WILL NOT make multiple posts when 1 will do. What is so hard to understand about that? I assumed everyone here was above moron in intelligence!!


> An international board
> with participants from all over the world, who couldn't care less how you feel
> about the social system and the social policy in the United States of America!

That's funny, because I certainly didn't start the topic, and last time I checked, it was open for all to post. If no one cared about our opinions, it would be a locked topic.

> Excuse me for saying this, but you don't look like an Einstein yourself

Never claimed to be, but I can read a sentence and understand the authors intentions.....more than I can say for several folks here.

> It's really
> hard to show someone respect, who doesn't show any respect himself.

For the second time, where did I claim to want or care about respect from liberals? It's the same reason I don't knowingly socialize with thieves and dope dealers. I don't want their characteristics rubbing off on me.

>The White House just revealed that all you argue for is not their plan.

My argument is that change must take place. ANYTHING is better than the current situation. Never said I agree 100% with the Bush plan. I went as far as to say identical twins would not agree 100% of the time.

Please pay attention when you read my posts If you want to discuss issues with me, otherwise we get more of the CRAP, like I had to post above, explaining very simple ideas to folks who are supposed to be adults....or at least think like they are.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

>My argument is that change must take place. ANYTHING is better than the current situation.

What kind of foolish maxim is that?

Some changes should take place, but to make a statement that anything is better than the current situation only demonstrates how little you understand about the current situation and what is being proposed.

ANYTHING is not necessarily better.....

Not when that change is much, much worse, and the much, much worse is what's being proposed.

I would suggest you educate yourself on the issue, so you can avoid making such ludicrous statements. I'm afraid your credibility is suffering from your lack of perspective on the reality of what's currently in place and what's proposed as 'fixing' it.

---

>>My argument is that change must take place. ANYTHING is better than the current situation.
>What kind of foolish maxim is that?
"Anybody But Bush" ring a bell? How about "If you're not for the war then you're a terrorist"? Or the one that I hate most, "Think of the children"?

---

> Some changes should take place, but to make a statement that anything is
> better than the current situation only demonstrates how little you understand
> about the current situation and what is being proposed.

LAF, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you havemore collecting than you have paying, that a shortage will occurr. In terms ofmoney, that'scalled bankruptcy

> ANYTHING is not necessarily better.....

When disaster is imminent, ANYTHING is better than maintaining your present course.

> Not when that change is much, much worse, and the much, much worse is what's
> being proposed.

That's your opinion, and it happens to be in the minority. Take a look outside of Berkley once in a while.

> I'm afraid your credibility is suffering from your
> lack of perspective on the reality of what's currently in place and what's
> proposed as 'fixing' it.

LAF, I'll keep that in mind, if things don't change, when I'm not collecting Social Security because it failed.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> > ....
> Yes, I understand how your narrow mind thinks, but the simple fact is that I
> did not provide you with that information. Just like if you read a book, the
> author did not provide YOU with that information. YOU obtained
> it by other means.

The author provides information in his/her book, allowing me to learn something from the author. If you cannot
see the logic in that, give up.

> > ....
> I had the very same SS discussion with the guy in the other apt....as in this
> house. All of us are not bound by the constraints of your fanstay.

What the hell is fanstay. [Getting dictionary.... Nope, not in my 1920 page dictionary. Hmmmm....] The guy in the
other apt. is NOT in this message board thread. He is not part of this discussion!

> > ....
> Right, that's why you resorted to person attack and stopped debating
> SS.

What person[al] attack? I just started busting up your assumption of logic. You drifted off topic with me.

> > ....
> What possible made you think I want or care about the respect of a liberal?

Your statements are becoming garbled. I try to respect everyone that returns in kind.

> > ....
> I'm not liberal, and I don't believe in wasting resources ESPECIALLY on those
> to LAZY to work for themselves.

You must be speaking of yourself. You cannot be speaking of me. I work for a living in the general aviation industry. What
do you do?

> > ....
> Nope Einstein, your fantasy is thinking I will stop responding to you just
> because I don't use a format you prefer. This is a free country and a free
> forum. If you don't like it, you can leave, stop reading, stop responding,
> any thing you choose EXCEPT tell me how to post.

I have never been complimented so much as I have been by you. Einstein, genius? Cool, thanks! It is NOT a fantasy
to request that someone shows a little respect. Do I add my responses to you with that of 3 or 4 other responses to other posts?
NO! I have, at least, that much respect for you! Think about how you would feel finding a reply that way. It's aggravating and
disprespectful.

> > ....
> One aspect does not make you not liberal. I'm pro-choice, but you would be
> hard pressed to find a more militant Republican.

You do not know me. Am I republican, or am I democrat? You do not know. Am I on the left, or am I on the right? You do not know.
You cannot tell from a simple request that I am liberal or whatever. I could say that you're an asshole, but I do not know you, so
I won't. You may very well be a very nice person to be around, as unlikely as it appears in this thread.

> > > ....
> > ....
> LAF....I figured you out days ago. You're a regular ole wishy-washy
> liberal.....haven't you been paying attention?

You haven't figured anything out. You cannot even show anyone a little respect unless they agree with you 100%. What's that
say about you?

> >Reading your attempts to justify yourself is pretty humorous though..

You know what they say: "Laughter is the best medicine." I'm glad you so easily humored.

> Well they say ignorance is bliss. I've yet to see it proven wrong.
> Especially by liberals.

You must be speaking of yourself again. ;-)

One last thing: Get a spell checker or a dictionary. Your spelling is atrocious!

My Time: Friday, 04 February 2005 - 10:12 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

> I think I may have come up with a solution for Social Security, but it's more
> like answering a question with a question: “What does the individual
> who is receiving Social Security benefit(s) spend it on?” The
> answer to that question will dictate whether or not Social Security is a
> safety net or a pension plan.
>
> If, for instance, a beneficiary is spending 75% of his/her benefit on
> prescriptions, medicine, and other medical expenditures, then that's a
> medical-coverage problem, and should be addressed via MediCare/MedicAid
> instead of through Social Security. Let's say that a beneficiary is spending
> 75% of his/her benefit on electricity, heating fuel, and other utilities -
> Then it's an issue of cost-of-living, and should be addressed accordingly.
> And if 75% of the benefit is spent on food, then we've got a poverty problem,
> and the FDA(?) has to get food stamps out. And, finally, if a beneficiary is
> spending the money on DVDs, CPUs, and Masaratis... You get the picture.
>
> Now that I've mulled it over, I know what two things bug me
> most.

<li>People who are benefitting from Social Security who don't need
> it.
(BTW, this includes the little old lady who lives down the street whose
> pills I've paid for).
Social Security should not pay out to those who have
> the financial wherewithal, but to those who haven't. I don't know where that
> would put (for example) Enron employees who got screwed and lost their
> pensions - My train of thought ran out of steam.</li><li>The personal savings
> account (read: privatized retirement accounts) that the President described to
> already exist, but his description of it suggests that such accounts are
> compulsory.
It would make more sense (to me at least) if paying into Social
> Security were an option. I should be able to chose between managing my own
> money, or chipping into a federally run retirement system - but by my own
> volition. If voting and military service aren't compulsory, the why
> should my paycheck be deducted without my consent?
I'd prefer to be able to
> say on my W2s what percentage of my paycheck should be withheld, and to which
> retirement account it should be sent. It's money I've earned, and I'd like to
> be able to say "Put 2.5% to Social Security, 7.5% to a Merryl Lynch account,
> 7.5% to a David Lerner account, 2.5% to Retirements-&#1071;-Us, and 10% to
> IRS."

Just a few thoughts...
>

Are you sure you're not Vulcan? There's quite a lot of logic behind your thoughts, NA. And, I happen to agree.... :-)

L8R....

---

My Time: Friday, 04 February 2005 - 10:24 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath