I guess that might be a subject for debate... I notice you completely ignored
my correction of yet another of your errors, i.e. I was not the one who
introduced that term here.
Caught in another falsehood. These are your exact words:
"Oh my Rush, you are so right ! Let's put a nice, clean, motherland
program in its place: we'll round up all of those poor, lazy, good-
for-nothing untemensche and stick `em in camps somewhere, out
of sight, out of mind (and hey, if their keepers come up with some
sort of clever fake shower gimmick, why, that would make it nice &
cheap for the Rest of Us, wouldn 't it ? Just make sure to destroy
the pictures...) "
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
| 1) increase taxes and pay off the debt. dont want to increase
| alaska and pay off the debt. have a bake sale and pay off the
| off the god damned debt.
| 2) stop deficit spending. period. do whatever it takes.
dont run the
| government on the credit card method.
| 3) lower taxes by 15% and STILL have more money to spend than
we do now to
| fund social security, schools, health care, and the other
programs the 'evil
| liberals' want, save a little for a rainy day, and STILL have
| 4) if you dont NEED social security, you dont GET it. dont
5) Don't start wars on false pretenses.
6) Don't hire private contract firms (especially ones that have
the appearance of conflict-of-interest) to perform former
7. Don't run a war and occupation on the credit card method (see
7. Don't spend millions of taxpayer money on public relations
firms to hoodwink the American people under the pretense that the
material came from independent news reporters and columnists --
this is called "propaganda." It's most distasteful to use it
against your own people; the practice betrays democracy.
Just how much did the 2000 "surplus" reduce the national debt?
So, the solution is to do nothing or increase the SS taxes and keep
increasing the national debt so that our heirs can repay it with increased
So you are all for increasing the national debt by 5 to 9 trillion more
than the 1.5 trillion accrued by the SS trust fund to this point by
spending the SS trust fund on us and passing on the debt to our heirs?
BTW, turn of your html
To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)
ok I'll chip in here, mostly because this is probably more relevant to me
then most of the rest of the posters here, mostly because I'll be 65 years
old in 2043, and the idea of paying more and more for benefits that I'm not
going to get upsets me a little, I like the Idea of having the option of
setting up a private account something akin to a 401k or IRA if you think
back how nice it would have been to set up a 401k with .48%(this isn't all
of SS just the proposed amount you can contribute 3% of 16% (8% you put in
and 8% your employer dose) )of your earnings from the time to turned 16 or
when ever you started working to the time your 65 ok now lets put it in an
account earning say 9% like Prudential Financial's Lifetime40 Fund (last 10
years has preformed at 9.09%) lest say you earn an average of 40,000 for 44
years (last I heard that was the average yearly income) .048 * 40,000 = 192
a(-----) = Amount
r - 1
1.09 - 1
1.09 - 1
192(687.25) = 131,953.87
add this to your other retirement investments and that's not to shabby (it's
more than my house cost) I wish they would let us invest more, like say 1/2
Stewart Schooley wrote:
Require members of Congress and the Senate and other Government officials to
abandon their current "salary for life" plan, and make them participate in
SS benefits alone!
I'm starting an OT discussion because I want to follow up on some things
that were mentioned here.
To understand SS problems you have to understand the national debt. It is
listed as 7 trillion dollars, but that is not the whole truth. Only 60% of
it is "debt owed <snip>
<snip a bunch of irrelevant dribble...>
So - you start an OT thread because you want to follow up on some things
that were mentioned here... and you throw in some cross-posting to unrelated
newsgroups for good measure? Why not just go to alt.politics where this
sort of thing belongs?
well, at least william is honest. it never ceases to amaze me how
people think you can "make" money on an investment. where does this
money come from??? pete...stewart? a good answer please. not...we
should "take care of each other".... taking care of each other costs
money. are you willing to double your contributions so everyone can be
"took care of." are you willing to accept the inflation that the
"everybody wins" scenario brings. you people aren't thinking this
through at all. we must cut payouts or increase taxes to fund SS. it
is the big elephant in the room nobody will talk about because they
don't want to be deemed as uncaring....or be the bad guy who promotes
the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. time to get real
people. it is a system that will fail eventually. the question is when
and at what cost. do we suffer the costs, or do we pawn it off on our
kids and grandkids as past generations have done?
Basically, wealth is produced by human labor. The money you make on an
investment came indirectly from people growing crops, or working in a factory,
There is a clear distinction by creating wealth by working to produce something
of value, and receiving money via a paycheck.
For example, a gunsmith who makes and sells rifles can easily quantify the added
value that represents the wealth he has created for himself. It's his wealth,
and no one (including the government) has any real right to take it from him. In
fact, I'm in favor of abolishing Federal taxes for unincoporated individuals who
own their own manufacturing or service businesses and do all the work
On the other hand, managers and directors don't actually do anything to create
wealth, other than seeing to it that their companies are run efficiently. That
certainly deserves a reward, but millions of dollars every year, year after
Tell me... What did Carly do to justify a $20M golden parachute? She left HP in
worse condition than she found it. She ought to give her salary back.
As to "helping each other..." Here's a question I don't have an answer to.
Suppose our gunsmith hires an assistant. Shouldn't the assistant receive a wage
that allows him to live in reasonable comfort, without living in a rat-infested
tenement or having to worry where the next meal is coming from? This means the
assistant would have to produce sufficient goods and services such that their
profit covered at least that "living wage."
But employers tend to try to pay as little as possible, so they can profit from
the employees' labor. Should the employer look after only his own interests? If
the assistant is unusually productive, should he share the extra profits?
You see, the problem with both Capitalism and Communism is that there is no real
incentive to work hard to create wealth.
As long as the wealthy have the right to take wealth they didn't create, I see
no reason why working people shouldn't try to take it back.
PS: Montaigne wrote that, in his opinion, wealthy people were wealthy due to
Karl Marx must be your hero.
Whew! What a relief to know that we can stop paying actors and singers and
athletes since they don't produce something. And we can get rid of all
managers since they don't add anything and just trust everyone to do their
jobs with no supervision. Sounds like we should just either disband all
companies or just turn them all into cooperatives so that everyone gets paid
the same amount. Then we can all hold hands in a big circle and sing "Kum
Ba Yah". Yep...the dream of the socialist: misery spread around evenly.
In a capitalist society, people get paid in part by taking risks. When
someone invests his life savings into starting a company, he should expect
that that risk will be rewarded in the future. If you choose to be a worker
bee, you will be paid what someone else thinks you are worth. The great
thing about capitalism is that if you think there's a big disconnect between
the value of your labor and your wage, you can start your own company. And
if you work enough 80 hour weeks and turn your company into something, you
can eventually look forward to some liberal coming along and deciding how
much of your investment you should give to them.
Since he himself was rich, I guess he was speaking from personal experience.
No can do. It's an un-moderated usenet news group.
And it's cross posted. Use your news reader software
to marks the thread as "Ignore" or "read" and it
won't bother you anymore. If it's that big of an issue,
Lew Hodgett wrote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.