OT - Social Security

[Bill]

Our time? So I have to compare it to a paying job? You seem to view it as loosing an income! We view it as living reasonably. AND we save YOU federal, state and local dollars!

Our cost is offset because we DON'T (want) need the extras that some seek. Out priorities are on our children! So we make the choice to live in a $100k house (instead of a $200k house) and drive two used cars (instead of two newer cars).

I think the cost of my childrens future is as they say...Priceless?

Cost of home schooling

No, she picked up on his moveon.org speech a few weeks back. I haven't said a thing about Gore. He's never been a factor in my life. If we were talking Bill Clinton, that'd be a different story.

Excuse me? Calling teachers every word in the book was deemed a "First Ammendment Right" because of an ACLU law suit!

[Bill]

I stand corrected! Thank You

[Kevin]

[Charlie Self]

Bill stutters:

If you're comparing costs, you must compare all costs to reach a reasonable basis for comparison. No one said anything about you considering it a paying job or losing time from your own work, but...ah, fergit it!

Who raised the little turds? The ACLU?

Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton

[Tom Watson]

My financial planning is based on the concept that what I get back from SS will pay for my various taxes and that, if I would like to continue to eat, wear clothes and buy gas - I'll have to take care of that myself.

Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) (Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet)

[Bill]

Not funny. I AM a stutterer.

Then I made a good comparison.

Point Taken, but who stopped the disciplinary action?

ACLU and the parents.

Hence this reinforces my point, no matter HOW MUCH MONEY you throw at the school system, you will never overcome parents that don't care to be involved. Even more so when you take away the schools ability to show any guidance and discipline in school.

Was this instance REALLY a first ammendment problem?

Do we think this is what the founders meant to become of free speech?

[D. Mo]

Umm # 3 has already been done. At least half way. Those of us born in the

60"s and after won't get full retirement bene's until age 67.

D. Mo

[Larry Blanchard]

I was afraid this would happen. Many responses and not one addressed the question I asked. Are the percentages quoted correct?

[Phil]

[Norm De Plume]

Being a republican has nothing to do with taxes but only with being against royalty and for democracy.

That should be "better than me."

I hope she doesn't pick up those deficiencies of yours.

[Al Reid]

Not to make this a partisan issue but: Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic party.

Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security? A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.

Oh well, I guess I just did.

--

Al Reid

[Doug Winterburn]

The rate of growth of the economy has nothing to do with the underlying problems with the SS or any other trust fund. Perhaps that is why no one has responded in the manner you would like.

[George E. Cawthon]

It isn't true. And it is easy to o a google under federal retirement. I don't remember the site but it had the formula for figuring out the retirement.

[George E. Cawthon]

I don't know either, but it doesn't make any difference. In 2035 less than 2 people will be working support one retired person. That isn't going to result in a very good retirement no matter how you try to fund it.

[Doug Winterburn]

The point is the demographics have changed radically, and something will have to to be changed - radically.

[George E. Cawthon]

Don't get tied up in the life expectancy of 65 years since that was based on 0 Years and lots of babies and children died. There person that reach 65 years old had a life expectancy of several more years.

[mp]

I believe the number is much higher than you suggest. I read a report a few months back that listed 30 or so nations, and ranked the quality of education and the average amount spent by each country per student, all referenced in US dollars.

I don't have the report in from of me, but I think it was put out by Unesco. If I recall correctly, the US spent more than any other nation, around $12,000 per student. The US placed 26th on the quality of education, somewhere behind Poland, but ahead of Romania and Mexico. The top countries were Finland, Sweden, Japan, and Canada, and the amount they spent per student was in the $6,000 range. If anyone's interested in the actual report, I'll see if I can dig it up and post a link.

[Nortwoods]

People should go up 7 posts to the one from Al Reid. I couldn't post it here. This tells you exactly where your Social Security $$ has gone. Down the democrat party Social Engineering sinkhole!

[Joe "Woody" Woodpecker]

Social Security funds are designed so that no politition can get their hands on them. Just imagine what would happen if President Bush or some other politition got their hands on SS funds thinking that they could invest them better and lost it all. This is what an IRA is for and it still allows the SS funds to grow.

According to the SSA, there will be plenty of funds until the year 2030 at least. No doubt long after I'm gone and maybe even you. Last year the increase was 2.1% not the 1.6 or 1.8% you spoke of in your post.

I do believe the SSA also predicted the funds to last until 2030 with an average 2.0% increase each year. This still=A0isn't enough money to live on and for most, a part time job willbe needed until you die.

[Joe "Woody" Woodpecker]

Boy you must have had your ass up your head when you asked these questions.

Al=A0Reid wrote Not to make this a partisan issue but: =A0=A0=A0=A0Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? =A0=A0=A0=A0A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

!n 1935, social security was created. Believe it or not, people had to be convinced that the social security number was to be used only for social security and nothing else. Creditors can not refuse credit because ou fail to give a SS number. According to the credit bureaus, all they have to do is positively identify you and by using computers that cross search age, birthdate, name and address they usually wind up with only one name.

SS was set up and the amount that is in the SS fund, even though it may be in the general fund can not be used for anything other than SS.