First! BAM, BAM.

I am beginning to wonder what the difference between a tax and spend Dimocrit and a tax and spend Repubickan!!!! Seems like as soon as they all get to DC the first thing they want to do is steal from those who produce and work to give it to the people whose vote they want to buy. I miss the days of Hamilton and Burr. At least people understood the issues. I am fast becomming a libertarian if the Republican party doesn't straighten up and return to its principles of fiscal restraint.

Old Sailor ... make it two.

Whatever happened to the idea of a "representative government" where the people we elect actually represent the interests of their constituency instead of the "party"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Remember during the Reagan era, when a Republican majority in both houses of Congress was the Holy Grail of conservatives?

And now, having achieved it, what has changed?

Unfortunately, Bill Clinton's Mantra of "I feel your pain" has moved the masses to a point where they expect an socially active government to fix their woes and heal their economic booboos. Couple this withthe fact that Senior citizens vote in incredibly high numbers, are not disqualified by senility, and demand that somebody give them enough money and medicine to allow them to live until they are 120 and you have a recipe for disaster. That is why the Republicans are trying to have a social agenda. It is betterto be in office and a little bit socially active than to be out of office and intellectually pure.

Time to make Soilient Green a reality

NOW wait a d--- minute! Just who is going to step up to the bar and take me out? I am a senior (well almost) citizen and I did not get the child tax credit (would like to try if there are any volunteers----dirty ole man laugh on the side---). That is just a government redistribution of stolen money and has nothing to do with old people and their medicines, etc. I agree that we need to look real closely at Social Security, Medicare, etc. but to blame the old folks solely is just not right either. It is much to late to stop the government largesse now. Cassandra put it in writing yesterday when she quoted why a democracy will not survive after people learn to vote themselves a share of the pie with no consequences. Our job is to make it painful for them so that there are consequences to votes that make dimocrats and those of their ilk suffer for the bad votes. I.E. since we are in power for however long, end government welfare. How about it Republican leaders? Can you do that? ------- I doubt it.

BRITISH SCIENTIST GIVES ODDS ON APOCALYPSE

Scientist and bookmaker Martin Rees has laid even money odds on the end of the world as the result of an apocalypse associated with technology.

Mr Rees bases his scientific theories on works of science fiction and formulates the proper odds of them occurring. He allows betters to place bets on a general world coming to the end as the result of man made science going out of control, even money, or specific scenarios with longer odds.

"The novel 'Prey' shows the danger to man kind of nanotechnology, specifically the danger of microscopic machines that wipe out man kind, I put the odds of this happening at 3-2 and betting has been very heavy", stated Rees. "I've also seen a recent upsurge in betting on the long shot Jurassic Park apocalypse scenario ... the threat of out of control genetic engineering is very popular with the average better coming in at apx 25 - 1".

The 60 year old scientist predicts a summer boost in betting on the killer robot apocalypse scenario with the release of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines this summer for which he has place odds at 10-1.

Old Sailor,
WHen asked about the impending social security crisis, seniors have repeatedly stated, "I do not care how you do it, just give me what is mine." This is why any attempt at reform has bogged down. AARP misinforms some seniors and others act out of selfish interests to guarantee that no one touches social security. And if this trend continues, the "trust fund" will go belly up in a few years and taxes will be raised on everyone to insure that this demented and yet still voting section of the populace gets what's theirs.

Before anyone says it, I know that post didn't fit in this thread, however I thought it was my moral obligation to ridicule that article and this was as good a spot as any to do so.

KJC, that's the reason I do not belong to the AARP (as well as their stance on gun control). However; would you not want returned to you money plus interest you have invested for 40 years? Especially if you had no say in whether it was taken from you in the first place? I would, and do. The problem is that the concept when initiated was a supplement to a persons retirement income. It (SS) has become a catch all by the libs to buy additional votes. There is no SS trust fund and has not been for over 30 years. The SS is funded solely by the general fund.

BTW do you remember me? I met you in 1970 in Madrid at the palace. I was the one with the wife and baby seeing Madrid while I was stationed in Spain. We were living in Rota at the time.

Old Sailor

Ah, you were that one. Of course I remember you. It has indeed been a long time my old friend.

You are correct that some, as much as possible, of the Social Security Fund should be paid out. However, since it might not be possible to pay it all out without imposing crippling new taxes on the working, some adjustment might be needed. SOme suggest means testing. I favor counting social security payments as income and applying the same income tax rates to seniors that everyone else pays. This would not hurt the impoverished seniors, but would get some money back from the well to do (those who really do not need it)

Remember, social security was created by that near communist, FDR. Seniors were hit particularly hard bythe Great Depression. He knew that he could not sell the country on a hand out program, so he created the myth of a trust fund. SInce payments and taxation began the same year, it was blatently obvious to anyone who cared to look, that the working generation was funding the retired generation.

And social security was founded in a time when children helped care for their aging parents. It was never intended to guarantee total independence.

The other great thorn in my flesh is medicare. Sure, seniors need health insurance. But they do not need to have bionic implants to keep them alive indefinately. In many cases, medical technology has far outstriped wisdom. My father is a prime example (King Juan Carlos. SR) He has lived several years past his last series of strokes. He has had quadruplie heart bypass surgery. Now, all he does is sit in a chair, watch tv, and grunt. He will occasionally utter a few words, but that is not really any quality of life. And it drains his wife tremendously.

Smeagol wants to place $1000 on Nanotechnology to win, $500 on genetic engineering to place, and $150 on killer robots to show.

Social security is easy. If you are over 60, you get it as planned. If you some age between X and 59 (say 35), you choose -- I want SS, or I want a lump sum payment of what I've put in to go into an IRA or 401K. If you are under X (again, say 35) and under, you loose it, maybe proportionately. It is the price I am willing to pay (as an under 35 person). Just let me out.

Politically, you can't get rid of it. So you can still force my retirement contributions -- just let me put it in my IRA or 401K, and let me keep what I earn when I retire, or pass it on when I die.

BTW, how do the Dimocrats (and Republikans) keep SS in its current form w/o critisicm from minorities. The average black male contributes, but doesn't live long enough to collect hardly a dime, while the average white woman collects her share and the black male's contribution.

Old Sailor, I was already a libertarian, but I'll be glad to welcome you when you make that leap to consistent thoughts about freedom.

KJ

The funding for S.S. would have been OK by now, but Eisenhower broke into it to build the interstate highway system. Remember that adventure he and Macarther had during the thirties trying to get a military convoy from one end of the country to the other. He saw Hitlers autobans and wanted the same for us. When he broke into the S.S. fund for a national security reason that opened it up for Pork Barrel projects in every Senator's and Representative's district. Y'all are right, there isn't much difference between the Dim's and the Repub's. That is why Alexander Hamilton recommended a bloody revolution every twenty years. That sounds drastic even to me.

I'm glad to see the invisible hand is back - hopefully soon I will think up something clever to say about it...

A long time ago, in a capitol far far away...there used to be a separate fund for SS. A *ahem* lock-box. But then the Executive branch and Congress saw this great pile of money under there control. It wasn't "tax revenue" exactly, but it was close enough that they felt justified in using it to "help" the country.
Weren't there some union officials and corporate types who were prosecuted and imprisoned for raiding their workers' pension funds?
How is this any diferent?
Money is taken out of my check (as Chris Rock said "not a tax, but a jack!") and supposedly put into a sort of "group fund" not unlike a 401K. I even have an account number. Then, instead of leaving the money alone, or investing it, the fund managers spend it on often times useless things, or they use the money in my account to pay-out on other accounts that the money was taken out of years ago.
This sounds like a violation of the fund managers' fiduciary duty.
I may sue.
In fact, it sounds like a class action suit with every tax-payer and SS recipient as a member of the class.
(the cash register in my head just went *KA-CHING!!* when I thouhgt of the attorney's fees. I may wind up owning a few states.)

srg: never was a lock box, never will be. That is another lie of the left and was made up out of someones fevered imagination. Whom do you wish to lock up, the liberal dimocrats have been in control for almost 50 years. That encompasses a number of Congresses and Presidents and Supreme Court Justices that held what was being done was Constitutional. What was done over time must be corrected over time. It is most unfortunate that the Republicans who now have partial control can not get their act together because of fear of failure, not getting reelected and allowing the Clintonistas in again. You pick the reason.

srg is right. If you haven't noticed by now, the US Government is not opperated according to GAAP, GAAS or any other accounting standards applied to real world companies that would be in deep doo-doo if were they to account like the Feds. Enron, WorldCom, Health South etc weren't examples of bad accounting, they were examples of Federal Government accounting. There never was a surplus for Bush to "waste" and there never will be, under private practice accounting, so long as inter-government IOU's are not accounted for as liabilities (just one example of many Fed accounting sins).

KJ:

re: the US Government is not operated according to GAAP, GAAS or any other accounting standards applied to real world companies

***C'mon - the feds use "FAAP", which is what you hear when you submit your 1044 every year.. "FAAP (upside the head) - there go your tax dollars..."

I think I meant 1040F...stands for [FAAP!]

Cassandra:

That explains the ringing in my ears.

Eric the Red 'The funding for S.S. would have been OK by now, but Eisenhower broke into it to build the interstate highway system.'

Doesn't matter who hit the fund for other purposes first, the whole system was fiscally obsolete soon after it was implemented. For social security to fiscally survive required two things:

1. Most people had to die young so they don't collect more in benefits then they paid in to the system.
2. For there to be a reasonable percentage of people paying in to the number of people collecting, see point 1.

The system never was set up a proper retirement fund where excess money was to be reinvested to generate income, nor was there any intention of ever putting all the excess money in a 'lock box' awaiting the day it was needed! In fact, I think the system was originally designed never to have a surplus, just pay out what came in.

In effect, the whole system was set up a government sponsored pyramid scheme. People who've run similar investment schemes have been jailed and in some cases shot (see most recently events in Albania)!

The whole concept was doomed when demographic and social changes after WWII invalidated the two principles the system depended on to survive ... people are living longer combined with the post WWII baby boom, it threw the future worker to retiree ratio far out of any reasonable proportion. Like any pyramid scheme, once the number of people coming into the system dwindles in proportion to the number of people on the top .. the whole thing collapses in on itself.

A cogent argument my dear Frodo!

Roughly 1/3 Americans are retired or "disabled". How can the rest of us afford to feed, clothe, house, medicate and entertain the others?
Often I find myself asking "Where does all the money go?"

Won't ask that question again.

Frodo, FR Guido Sarducci, et. al. This brings up my favorite senario, the end of everything. Complete economic and social collapse due to the multitude feeding at the public trough. Want to buy some bullets, guns for sale, how about a bowl of rice or beans. Sell 'em to you cheap!!! The only real way to stop the nonsense of Socialism is to let it collapse like in the USSR (Old Soviet Union for those educated in the public school system --- y'all have heard of it, right, right,,??) and then rebuild on Constitutional principles and not allow them to be contaminated by the have nots taking from the haves by government intervention. My rant for the day!!!!

Well, I hope it doesn't come to that old sailor. I do believe it's probable that social security will collapse, that's why I've done my best to up my 401(k) and personal investments so I don't need to rely on it (and my military pension) when I retire.

As someone pointed out, any reasonable attempt to change the system is doomed. Cuts in benefits will be opposed by those currently collecting (through the AARP) which will prevent any politician from attempting it.

Increasing the future retirement age is a isn't reasonable solution; while people are living longer, most aren't living longer in good enough health to continue working. It is not reasonable that all people in their late 60's into their 70's will be able continue to work in their professions, especially, but not exclusively those in manual labor positions like construction.

Bush's partial privatization idea was too little too late and would at best postpone the systems collapse.

Gore's solution passed the debt from one government agencies ledger to another, i.e. his grand lock box basically called for investing the SSI surplus in government bonds before the government spent the money .... well when SSI goes into deficit it will need to cash those bonds which will be paid out of tax revenues. So in truth, his solution to the problem was to raise our income taxes in 2020 when the system goes into the red, instead of increasing our SSI tax.

I'm planning for retirement on my own. I expect nothing from SS when I retire. If I retire. I may just work till I die. Beats getting bored.
Besides, I've seen too many people just deteriorate after they retire. No hobbies. No outside interests. They just, for want of a better word, rot.

And once their brains begin to rot, they can't figure out how to punch the ballot for Gore. Or is it the other way around?

Yeah, they call them hanging "chads???". Oh well, maybe it was a "Butterfly" ballot???? Nope they were just morons. Frodo, I too hope that it will never come to that for my children and grandchildren's sakes. I spent 30 years in the Navy in order to take care of my retirement as well as investing in a 401k and my company so that my wife and I may live in comfort in our old age. It seems though that I am now rich so I will not qualify for SS anyway, or least at a reduced rate. I sometimes wonder if it has all been worth it. Maybe I should have just set back and let the government take care of me, you know, food, shelter, medicines, beer, tv, car, no taxes, tax credits to buy my vote, too bad I was raised to look out for myself. What a life I could lead on the government roll of voters to be bought.

Father Sarducci:

re: Often I find myself asking "Where does all the money go?"

Hint: Cheetos...

Capitalism Lite: Higher costs, less efficiency. And someone else pays the bill. You gotta love it. Almost sounds like...socialism.

This isn't a site to support free gubnament cheetos is it? If so I want a refund, a big hefty refund. Preferably larger than what I paid in. (Read earned income credit.)

A sailor noted above, why the heck should one work when you can get more by being pathetic? I work with "disabled" children and they "earn" nearly $600.00 a month for their parents due to Social Security Income. Have lots of ill mannered brats (read behaviorally disordered) and you never have to work again. If I had four of em it would equal my pay each month. If I proved I was psychotic it would be another $600.00. If my shacked up concubine-of-the-month was an irrascible biscuit, another $600.00 (less if we were married of course).

I honestly can't stand it!!!!

Can we canabalize those idiots for spare parts or something useful?

Hmmm that reads as a bit harsh. Perhaps we should post-partum liquidate them for scientific endeavors?

My generation will never be able to retire, I don't think by 401k or by any method. Just not enough production to have so many people living well without working.

In Engineering when a system is unstable it normally will expire in a puff of smoke when power is applied. Our social system the government has fostered upon us is unstable. It will not long survive rewarding non-producers by taking from the producers in society. I am afraid that the SS mess could very well be the catalyst that begins a chain reaction that no one wants to happen. I plan to vote NO at every opportunity. Eventually we might have enough people saying no and kick out the worthless politicians and keep the good politicians. (God what a dichotomy in terms.) Ya think???? Nahhhh never happen. The system will just go on making wider and wider swings until it comes apart.

Your eminence Fr Sarducci - 'why the heck should one work when you can get more by being pathetic? '

Which brings me to another favorite rant of mine when discussing the politicians 'solutions' to the impending SSI crash, Means testing. I liken this solution to the old practice (at least in Massachusetts) of giving teenage single mothers government funded apartments; well meaning, but when in practice it encourages a negative behavior.

In the case of SSI, we will punish those people who actually were responsible, those who planned and saved for their retirement by denying them full benefits from a program they paid into their entire working life!!!

Soylent Green!

"Human: the Other Other White Meat!"

"People season!"
"Wabbit season!"
"People season!"
"Wabbit season!"

Gives 'French Fries' a whole new meaning.

Your Eminience... no one expects the spanish inquisition! Another skit another day and time, still funny none the less.

The Bible institutionalizes giving for the poor in the Old Testament. Though the giving was more in the manner of "opportunity". The specific example I am thinking of was not gathering all the produce in a field or vineyard so that the poor could come and gather up the seconds and left-overs in the corners.
I have tried of a clever way to modernize this practice and no real ideas pop to mind.

A righteous practice would balance largess to the poor elderly etc. with the injunction of "If they will not work neither shall they eat" (II Thes.).

Just a note of reminder to all of those (like me) relying on 401K, IRA and other private forms of retirement b/c we know the Ponzi scheme that is called Social Security. The government desire for your money is insatiable. The feds will, I promise, try to tax as a lump sum all "wealth" in your 401K and IRAs at some point. They will try to take some percentage of all of that "tax free" savings you have, and call it necessary to protect the "unfortunate" (as if being an adult poor person were purely random chance) who don't have enough to retire. It has been attempted once, and will be again, perhaps successfully as the demise of Soc Sec is imminent.

KJ