Bill, I never said you were off base about veterans issues. What I was saying is that on one hand you want us to take things like veterans issues and the war on iraq seriously. Yet on the other hand you say this is all entertainment. Which is it?
If he knew anything at allabout the VA Health Care System, he would know that this is already the case...and I said, just days ago.
Yeah, I admit I do not know a whole lot about VA stuff and I missed where you said anything about the VA in the last couple days, but that is not the point (nice job of avoiding the question though). I do remember you pissing and moaning at one time because there was the thought that those with money and insurance should use it for themselves in order to save our resources to help those that do not have money and resources. If I remember correctly, you stated that they paid their dues and deserved it.
Which brings me to my point now. Why is it that those who paid their dues into social security don't deserve it in your oppinion? What is wrong with asking people to give up their case of beer each week so they can pay for their own retirement with their own money? Under what is being talked about, they won't even have to do that much. There will not be people left out in the cold as liberals claim, so what is the problem?
"What is wrong with asking people to give up their case of beer each week so they can pay for their own retirement with their own money? "
Why isn't the deduction for Social Security their own money? Do you think employers are giving enough options these days? I've been reading more stories lately about companies raiding pension funds. A person can still count on the government to come through, but what about their employers' commitments?
Who do you think is drinking a case of beer a week and ignoring their retirement? That's a pretty elitist charge. But liberals are the intellectual elitists, conservatives are the moral elitists.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 9, 2005 at 11:29am.]
Re "A Tale of 2 Systems," by David Brooks (column, Jan. 4):
Mr. Brooks says that the reason we don't have to fundamentally revamp our safety net system is that we have not taken the advice of liberals for the past 50 years.
I would like to remind him that the only reason we have a safety net system at all (Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid) is because of the efforts of liberals, not in spite of them.
What we see now is a concerted conservative effort to dismantle the programs that have allowed the elderly and the poor to live with dignity.
Why isn't the deduction for Social Security their own money?
As THX pointed out, it is used to pay those collecting now. There is no guarantee at all that you will ever see a penny of SS. Congress on a whim can take it away for no reason at all. If you die right before collecting, not one penny goes to your heirs. It is not your money but the governments.
Do you think employers are giving enough options these days?
Some are, some aren't. That is why we need to save for ourselves.
I've been reading more stories lately about companies raiding pension funds.
Not legally they aren't. Companies do not have a legal access to retirement accounts.
A person can still count on the government to come through, but what about their employers' commitments?
Yes, the government can come through by raising taxes and collecting them by gun point if neccessary, but is that really what is best for the country? The employer? I don't know, that depends on the company and is something you should look at when you are job hunting.Â
A person can still count on the government to come through, but what about their employers' commitments?
I doubt that they could use gun point to collect money for retirement accounts. What the government does can ahave a much larger effect on the economy and the country as a whole though.
Who do you think is drinking a case of beer a week and ignoring their retirement? That's a pretty elitist charge.
Hardly. It is based on the fact that only 42 percent of workers participate in an employment-based  retirement plan http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37924 while we drink an average of 27.1 gallons of beer per capita http://www.beersoaksamerica.org/consumption.htm. I am sure that there are those that drink beer and have no retirement money. Poor life choice that the rest of us have to pay for.
But liberals are the intellectual elitists, conservatives are the moral elitists.
Liberals, with all their "intellect" can not figure out that social security is not our money, but if we are allowed to set some of that money aside into our own accounts, then it will be our money.
What we see now is a concerted conservative effort to dismantle the programs that have allowed the elderly and the poor to live with dignity.
Not much dignity in living off of other peoples hard work. I would have more dignity living off of money I had set aside.
So what would be the effect of pulling a percentage out for private investment? Would that mean less to pay current recipients?
That would be part of the conversion cost that some are speaking of. It would also pay benefits in the future as people are able to take care of themselves with dignity and the satisfaction of knowing they did it themselves instead of us having to take care of them.
Let's assume you die today, shortly before you're eligible to collect. Most likely your children would be past the age to collect survivor benefits. However, is you leave a wife, she could start collecting as early as age 60 based her earnings, or yours, whichever is the highest amount. So in a kind of back-handed way, it is still your money.
It's clear to me that you think the Social Security is a needless program, and not worthy of a free nation.
"collecting them by gun point if neccessary, but is that really what is best for the country? "
Maybe you have an alternative, maybe you don't. But if that is how you see your government, and by extension it's people, I don't know how you could live in such an awful place.
My wife could collect a partial at age 60. She makes more than I do however, so mine would not mean a thing. She would have to wait until 67 (assuming she lives that long) to get full benefits. Considering what we both have paid in, it would be quite a while before she sees any return on investment if the government decides to allow her to collect any at all.
My profit sharing and 401k on the other hand will be there no matter what congress says and through the magic of compounding interest will be quite a lot of money she can draw on. Some of it she can draw as a lump sum penalty free at age 59 1/2. The rest she can get later or leave for our children. This money will not be a drain on society and she will be more dignified knowing that we worked hard to build it.
See, I betsomeone in here that no matter how much I explained what I meant, you would come back with that. The people in Washington always ask us little guys to be "
Pa
tri
otic ", to "Back The War Effort", to "Stand By The Prez", etc., etc., etc... And now I(and millions of others by the way) suggest a way to prop-up the system for 50+ years, and you stand up for millionaires, those who don't have the same investment in the War and in fact are PROFITING from it, who never will have the same investment as you do, and can survive just-fine-thank-youwithout taking money OUT of the SSI system, and you stick up for them? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What in the hell are you talking about. You sound like Michael Moore.
I'm not sticking up for anyone. Just stating my opinion.
This country wasn't founded on punishing success. Here's the deal, those bastard millionaires wouldn't be getting a nickel from S.S. Niether would the average person who opts out of it. I want everyone to be successful. I don't care if they're a millionaire, middle class etc. That's the difference between you and I. I think people ought to be able to take the money they pay into SSI and invest it. Hell they could put it in a government bond and make 4 times what they ever will living on S.S. Not only that, but their family would get what's left when they die. What a novel idea.
Our economy is not dependent on a select few current workers supporting those already in retirement.
a select few?
and those already in retirement are just getting back what they put in.
our economy requires growth... broadening the base always. When the base gets narrower (less consumers, for instance), business has a problem.
the solution to social security is for people to start copulation like mad and create another baby boom, then by the time SS dries up, there will be a huge influx of new workers to put back into it.
and those already in retirement are just getting back what they put in.
Not quite.
SS is entirely dependent on those currently working paying the benefits of those collecting.
our economy requires growth... broadening the base always. When the base gets narrower (less consumers, for instance), business has a problem.
Not necessarily.
the solution to social security is for people to start copulation like mad and create another baby boom, then by the time SS dries up, there will be a huge influx of new workers to put back into it.
And then when that generation of baby boomers retires, everyone is screwed again, because it's a big pyramid scheme.
The social security administration. It was set up that way from the beginning.
If I save money at a bank, it's not like I'm dependant on the other investors who just bagan saving.
No, you're not. And that's how a personal savings account differs from SS.
I'm gonna need some proof.
Proof of what? That SS started out with current workers paying the benefits of those in retirement? It's a common known fact, and that's why it was destined to fail. Everyone knows that pyramid schemes don't work.
Well, there's a real firm response... I guess that settles everything.
You're argument, while generally true, isn't completely accurate.
You can have a stable economy with zero growth. As long as inflation is in line with said growth.
so, I take it you don't think the rate of population growth or lack thereof has anything to do with it.
It's a factor, but not as important as you're making it out to be. Too high a population growth can cause more problems for an economy than any benefits gained.
Investment group? If I die at age 63, what happens to my "investment"? Do my children get even one penny of it? No. To call it an investment means that you have some control over it and that your heirs will inherit it when you die.
As for the surplus, you know that money has been spent long ago. It is not there. Even Bill Fold acknowledges that much. In a little over a decade, that "surplus" will be needed. Where will it come from and what effects will that have on our economy?
If I die at age 63, what happens to my "investment"? Do my children get even one penny of it?
It's a retirement plan... you got children retiring? When they do, they get a check too.
To call it an investment means that you have some control over it.
You get a check every month when you retire. From the government. The government IS you. It's all of us.
and that your heirs will inherit it when you die.
what your heirs get (besides the security of a check every month when they retire) is to live in a healthier society. To not have to take care of their parents because they are already part of a group that sends them a check every month.
You know, if you don't ever crash your car, the insurance company isn't going to give your kids your premiums back, right?
As for the surplus, you know that money has been spent long ago.
I wasn't aware that they stopped collecting SS. I think my paychecks still show they are.
As for the surplus, you know that money has been spent long ago. It is not there.
uh... yes it is.
For the 10-year period from 2002 to 2011, the CBO calculates the nation will have a total surplus of $3.4 trillion -- three-quarters of which would be made up of excess monies in the Social Security trust fund.That number, however, is $2.2 trillion less than was projected just last May, and the reason for most of that drop is the $1.35 trillion tax cut championed by President Bush. Â Â
"If I save money at a bank, it's not like I'm dependant on the other investors who just bagan saving."
And if you save money at a bank and you die your family gets the rest of it. And YOU get to decide when you want to start drawing out those savings and to retire.
Invest in my company. I ten years I'll give you back a dollar for every dollar you invest.
They'll be lining up around the block.
And if you fail to give their beneficiary the money when they die you'll be in prision and the government will shut you down. Yea I'm sure they'll be lining up around the block for your product. Here's a new product from Crabs investments inc. You put money in, if you die, your family gets zilch. Crabs investments will decide when you can take withdrawls. Gee where do I sign.
Guess what Crabs, you can have a stable economy without growth because it's based on averages. Yea if there was no growth for 20 years it would be a problem. But you might have 3 years of zero or negative growth and then 7 years of positive growth. Compainies and economines have good and bad years.
Means testing.
YES.
Would you suggest means testing the VA benefits also?
"You wonder where are the people? What has happened to them?" Annan said as he toured Aceh province, one of the areas hardest hit by the December 26 disaster.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/07/asia.tsunami/index.html
Do we really want this idiot leading the tsunami relief?
Hey fold.. I'm curious... are you yourself a veteran?
Bill, I never said you were off base about veterans issues. What I was saying is that on one hand you want us to take things like veterans issues and the war on iraq seriously. Yet on the other hand you say this is all entertainment. Which is it?
If he knew anything at allabout the VA Health Care System, he would know that this is already the case...and I said, just days ago.
Yeah, I admit I do not know a whole lot about VA stuff and I missed where you said anything about the VA in the last couple days, but that is not the point (nice job of avoiding the question though). I do remember you pissing and moaning at one time because there was the thought that those with money and insurance should use it for themselves in order to save our resources to help those that do not have money and resources. If I remember correctly, you stated that they paid their dues and deserved it.
Which brings me to my point now. Why is it that those who paid their dues into social security don't deserve it in your oppinion? What is wrong with asking people to give up their case of beer each week so they can pay for their own retirement with their own money? Under what is being talked about, they won't even have to do that much. There will not be people left out in the cold as liberals claim, so what is the problem?
[Edited by on Jan 9, 2005 at 10:55am.]
"What is wrong with asking people to give up their case of beer each week so they can pay for their own retirement with their own money? "
Why isn't the deduction for Social Security their own money? Do you think employers are giving enough options these days? I've been reading more stories lately about companies raiding pension funds. A person can still count on the government to come through, but what about their employers' commitments?
Who do you think is drinking a case of beer a week and ignoring their retirement? That's a pretty elitist charge. But liberals are the intellectual elitists, conservatives are the moral elitists.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 9, 2005 at 11:29am.]
Why isn't FICA tax their own money?
Because their money doesn't actually pay for their own benefits.
Those currently contributing are paying for those drawing benefits.
I'm not saying it's their fault. It's the fault of the dumbasses that set it up that way from the beginning.
To the Editor (Today's New York Times):
Re "A Tale of 2 Systems," by David Brooks (column, Jan. 4):
Mr. Brooks says that the reason we don't have to fundamentally revamp our safety net system is that we have not taken the advice of liberals for the past 50 years.
I would like to remind him that the only reason we have a safety net system at all (Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid) is because of the efforts of liberals, not in spite of them.
What we see now is a concerted conservative effort to dismantle the programs that have allowed the elderly and the poor to live with dignity.
Salomeh Keyhani
New York, Jan. 4, 2005
"Those currently contributing are paying for those drawing benefits."
So what would be the effect of pulling a percentage out for private investment? Would that mean less to pay current recipients?
Why isn't the deduction for Social Security their own money?
As THX pointed out, it is used to pay those collecting now. There is no guarantee at all that you will ever see a penny of SS. Congress on a whim can take it away for no reason at all. If you die right before collecting, not one penny goes to your heirs. It is not your money but the governments.
Do you think employers are giving enough options these days?
Some are, some aren't. That is why we need to save for ourselves.
I've been reading more stories lately about companies raiding pension funds.
Not legally they aren't. Companies do not have a legal access to retirement accounts.
A person can still count on the government to come through, but what about their employers' commitments?
Yes, the government can come through by raising taxes and collecting them by gun point if neccessary, but is that really what is best for the country? The employer? I don't know, that depends on the company and is something you should look at when you are job hunting.Â
A person can still count on the government to come through, but what about their employers' commitments?
I doubt that they could use gun point to collect money for retirement accounts. What the government does can ahave a much larger effect on the economy and the country as a whole though.
Who do you think is drinking a case of beer a week and ignoring their retirement? That's a pretty elitist charge.
Hardly. It is based on the fact that only 42 percent of workers participate in an employment-based  retirement plan http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37924 while we drink an average of 27.1 gallons of beer per capita http://www.beersoaksamerica.org/consumption.htm. I am sure that there are those that drink beer and have no retirement money. Poor life choice that the rest of us have to pay for.
But liberals are the intellectual elitists, conservatives are the moral elitists.
Liberals, with all their "intellect" can not figure out that social security is not our money, but if we are allowed to set some of that money aside into our own accounts, then it will be our money.
What we see now is a concerted conservative effort to dismantle the programs that have allowed the elderly and the poor to live with dignity.
Not much dignity in living off of other peoples hard work. I would have more dignity living off of money I had set aside.
So what would be the effect of pulling a percentage out for private investment? Would that mean less to pay current recipients?
That would be part of the conversion cost that some are speaking of. It would also pay benefits in the future as people are able to take care of themselves with dignity and the satisfaction of knowing they did it themselves instead of us having to take care of them.
Let's assume you die today, shortly before you're eligible to collect. Most likely your children would be past the age to collect survivor benefits. However, is you leave a wife, she could start collecting as early as age 60 based her earnings, or yours, whichever is the highest amount. So in a kind of back-handed way, it is still your money.
Well, Dan, clarity is better than agreement.
It's clear to me that you think the Social Security is a needless program, and not worthy of a free nation.
"collecting them by gun point if neccessary, but is that really what is best for the country? "
Maybe you have an alternative, maybe you don't. But if that is how you see your government, and by extension it's people, I don't know how you could live in such an awful place.
[Edited by on Jan 9, 2005 at 07:10pm.]
My wife could collect a partial at age 60. She makes more than I do however, so mine would not mean a thing. She would have to wait until 67 (assuming she lives that long) to get full benefits. Considering what we both have paid in, it would be quite a while before she sees any return on investment
if
the government decides to allow her to collect any at all.
My profit sharing and 401k on the other hand will be there no matter what congress says and through the magic of compounding interest will be quite a lot of money she can draw on. Some of it she can draw as a lump sum penalty free at age 59 1/2. The rest she can get later or leave for our children. This money will not be a drain on society and she will be more dignified knowing that we worked hard to build it.
Which is the better deal?
Well, Dan, clarity is better than agreement.
We won't agree on everything.
It's clear to me that you think the Social Security is a needless program, and not worthy of a free nation.
Wrong, just poorly set up. You will see why in about a decade or so when the cost outway the income.
"collecting them by gun point if neccessary, but is that really what is best for the country? "
Maybe you have an alternative, maybe you don't.
I have tried for many posts now to give you an alternative to SS.
But if that is how you see your government, and by extension it's people, I don't know how you could live in such an awful place.
Ah, the old "love it or leave it" ploy. Come on Rick, you can do better than that.
Not when your vision is that bleak, Dan. I can't interpret it any other way.
And the old "at the point of a gun" is a pretty old ploy in itself.
[Edited by on Jan 10, 2005 at 05:08am.]
See, I betsomeone in here that no matter how much I explained what I meant, you would come back with that. The people in Washington always ask us little guys to be "
Pa
tri
otic
", to "Back The War Effort", to "Stand By The Prez", etc., etc., etc... And now I(and millions of others by the way) suggest a way to prop-up the system for 50+ years, and you stand up for millionaires, those who don't have the same investment in the War and in fact are PROFITING from it, who never will have the same investment as you do, and can survive just-fine-thank-youwithout taking money OUT of the SSI system, and you stick up for them? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What in the hell are you talking about. You sound like Michael Moore.
I'm not sticking up for anyone. Just stating my opinion.
This country wasn't founded on punishing success. Here's the deal, those bastard millionaires wouldn't be getting a nickel from S.S. Niether would the average person who opts out of it. I want everyone to be successful. I don't care if they're a millionaire, middle class etc. That's the difference between you and I. I think people ought to be able to take the money they pay into SSI and invest it. Hell they could put it in a government bond and make 4 times what they ever will living on S.S. Not only that, but their family would get what's left when they die. What a novel idea.
[Edited by on Jan 10, 2005 at 09:13am.]
LOL thanks.
to define SS as a "ponzi" or "pyramid" scheme is to call our entire economy the same thing.
our economy is based on growing the base larger.
to define SS as a "ponzi" or "pyramid" scheme is to call our entire economy the same thing.
our economy is based on growing the base larger.
That's bull. Our economy is not dependent on a select few current workers supporting those already in retirement.
For some reason you guys are having difficulty being honest about SS.
[Edited by on Jan 13, 2005 at 05:20am.]
We've given honest opinions. We just don't agree with your point of view. And I for one am honestly thankful it's not the prevailing point of view.
[Edited by on Jan 13, 2005 at 05:49am.]
Yeah, real honest.
For some reason you guys are having difficulty being honest about SS.
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.....
You're honestly boring, jethro.
[Edited by on Jan 13, 2005 at 10:49am.]
You're honestly boring, jethro.
I know boring, though.
a select few?
and those already in retirement are just getting back what they put in.
our economy requires growth... broadening the base always. When the base gets narrower (less consumers, for instance), business has a problem.
the solution to social security is for people to start copulation like mad and create another baby boom, then by the time SS dries up, there will be a huge influx of new workers to put back into it.
and those already in retirement are just getting back what they put in.
Not quite.
SS is entirely dependent on those currently working paying the benefits of those collecting.
our economy requires growth... broadening the base always. When the base gets narrower (less consumers, for instance), business has a problem.
Not necessarily.
the solution to social security is for people to start copulation like mad and create another baby boom, then by the time SS dries up, there will be a huge influx of new workers to put back into it.
And then when that generation of baby boomers retires, everyone is screwed again, because it's a big pyramid scheme.
::slams head on desk::
says who?
If I save money at a bank, it's not like I'm dependant on the other investors who just bagan saving.
I'm gonna need some proof.
Well, there's a real firm response... I guess that settles everything.
no...
wait...
I've got a reaction to that...
Well, maybe.
so, I take it you don't think the rate of population growth or lack thereof has anything to do with it.
I guess all I could say to that is "not necessarily"
says who?
The social security administration. It was set up that way from the beginning.
If I save money at a bank, it's not like I'm dependant on the other investors who just bagan saving.
No, you're not. And that's how a personal savings account differs from SS.
I'm gonna need some proof.
Proof of what? That SS started out with current workers paying the benefits of those in retirement? It's a common known fact, and that's why it was destined to fail. Everyone knows that pyramid schemes don't work.
Well, there's a real firm response... I guess that settles everything.
You're argument, while generally true, isn't completely accurate.
You can have a stable economy with zero growth. As long as inflation is in line with said growth.
so, I take it you don't think the rate of population growth or lack thereof has anything to do with it.
It's a factor, but not as important as you're making it out to be. Too high a population growth can cause more problems for an economy than any benefits gained.
[Edited by on Jan 13, 2005 at 07:41pm.]
so, you are then saying that SS has ALWAYS been in deficit?
I don't believe you.
It hasn't failed. It's worked beautifully.
zero growth, zero inflation?
oh yea... now there'sa real successful business model.
Invest in my company. I ten years I'll give you back a dollar for every dollar you invest.
They'll be lining up around the block.
[Edited by molegrass on Jan 13, 2005 at 07:51pm.]
and "too high a population growth" (the baby boomers) is the only "problem" SS has.
so, you are then saying that SS has ALWAYS been in deficit?
In a way yes. Just as pyramid schemes all start out as such.
It hasn't failed. It's worked beautifully.
You're either in denial or a liar.
zero growth, zero inflation?
oh yea... now there's a real successful business model.
It's a great business model if the economy and your peers in the marketplace are experiencing negative growth.
and "too high a population growth" (the baby boomers) is the only "problem" SS has.
No it's not.
Why are you having so much trouble with this?
You do know why pyramid schemes fail don't you?
[Edited by on Jan 13, 2005 at 07:55pm.]
The change in the rate of population growth is the only reason SS appears to be anything like a pyramid.
otherwise, it's just a really big retirement investing group.
Those that originally started collecting, didn't contribute enough to pay their own way.
They didn't invest enough to get a return.
[Edited by on Jan 13, 2005 at 07:57pm.]
another FIRMresponse.
What you mean is "no, SS has had a surplus, it's not a deficit operation"
Tell that to the millions and millions of people who received it when they retired. Everyone's got their checks. It's been a huge success.
if the economy is experiencing negative growth, the economy is in the shitter, which was my point.
Thanks for pointing out that, by it's very nature, not everyone will be getting a check if SS is privately invested.
fortunately, we were such a huge investment group, we were collectively able to pick up the slack.
Investment group? If I die at age 63, what happens to my "investment"? Do my children get even one penny of it? No. To call it an investment means that you have some control over it and that your heirs will inherit it when you die.
As for the surplus, you know that money has been spent long ago. It is not there. Even Bill Fold acknowledges that much. In a little over a decade, that "surplus" will be needed. Where will it come from and what effects will that have on our economy?
It's a retirement plan... you got children retiring? When they do, they get a check too.
You get a check every month when you retire. From the government. The government IS you. It's all of us.
what your heirs get (besides the security of a check every month when they retire) is to live in a healthier society. To not have to take care of their parents because they are already part of a group that sends them a check every month.
You know, if you don't ever crash your car, the insurance company isn't going to give your kids your premiums back, right?
I wasn't aware that they stopped collecting SS. I think my paychecks still show they are.
uh... yes it is.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/28/budget/
The only problem we have is keeping these supposed fiscal conservatives from using it for something else.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 1/13/05 9:58pm
Bingo.
Â
Crabs.
A few posts back you said.
"If I save money at a bank, it's not like I'm dependant on the other investors who just bagan saving."
And if you save money at a bank and you die your family gets the rest of it. And YOU get to decide when you want to start drawing out those savings and to retire.
Invest in my company. I ten years I'll give you back a dollar for every dollar you invest.
They'll be lining up around the block.
And if you fail to give their beneficiary the money when they die you'll be in prision and the government will shut you down. Yea I'm sure they'll be lining up around the block for your product. Here's a new product from Crabs investments inc. You put money in, if you die, your family gets zilch. Crabs investments will decide when you can take withdrawls. Gee where do I sign.
You missed the point ENTIRELY.
The point was, without GROWTH, the ecomony doesn't work.
In the case of SS, the entire country is my family.
It is in everyone'sbest interest that the nation's citizens don't starve when the retire.
Everyone.
The point was, without GROWTH, the ecomony doesn't work.
Wow, thanks for that stunning revalation! You're a shoo in to replace Greenspan!
You are welcome... now, want to tell it to THX?
the sarcasm from someone who thinks SS doesn't have a surplus is quite amusing
[Edited by molegrass on Jan 14, 2005 at 09:13am.]
Guess what Crabs, you can have a stable economy without growth because it's based on averages. Yea if there was no growth for 20 years it would be a problem. But you might have 3 years of zero or negative growth and then 7 years of positive growth. Compainies and economines have good and bad years.
and without the growth, the economy doesn't work.
[Edited by molegrass on Jan 14, 2005 at 09:23am.]