And Crabby if anyone sees the Government as his saviour.
I see the government as me, you and everyone. The government is us. It's not something separate from me or you or anyone. It's us.
You see the government as something separate from yourself. That isn't very American. Take a civics class for cryin' out loud. Start with "WE The People".
I see the government as me, you and everyone. The government is us. It's not something separate from me or you or anyone. It's us.
No, you see it as you, and your agenda.
You see the government as something separate from yourself. That isn't very American. Take a civics class for cryin' out loud. Start with "WE The People".
Let's see... the word "I" three times and the word "my" once... the words "us", "we" or "everyone"... zero times.
I've come to the conclusion that you're insane.
You simply cannot comprehend personal freedom. You wish to force people to believe the same as you. To give to the same causes as you. ... It's that simple.
You think being an American, being a part of society is a "cause"?
No, I think you have an agenda and you don't give a shit about "America". You wish to force the entire country to hold your same beliefs, and damn personal freedom.
Personal freedom is a right. Being part of a free society is a responsibility.
Who says I'm not taking responsibility? The problem is jackasses like you trying to tell me what my responsibility is.
When the Government takes away our personal freedom, damn straight it's "us vs them".
JT, where do you draw the line? If you think your neighbor is the type that "needs killin'," do you think you should you be allowed to shoot him without punishment? I doubt it, but the law against murder takes away your freedom to kill people you don't like.
Speed limits on the publicly built roads are a diminution of your personal freedom; after all, your car can do about 100 mph, why should you have to slow down just because there might be people in the area? You gotta look out for yourself, after all; fast drivers keep the slow-witted and uncoordinated from reproducing, improving the gene pool. Suppose we're talking about your kids -- should everybody (besides you) have to drive slowly near your house, or do they have the right to drive however they want? Or should you be allowed to shoot them if you think they're endangering your children?
Every law diminishes your personal freedom. Which laws are you willing to keep, and which ones can we do away with?
Care to talk about personal freedom vs. Matthew 25:31-46?
Matthew 25:31-46 seems to apply to individuals not governments. Simply because your government provides charity, which ours does in abundance, doesn't mean that you will be rewarded. In your personal life you could turn the poor and needy away. God will judge you on your personal actions as well as your love of Him.
Bill, I said that the economy grows by increasing production and capital. Productivity increases usually mean greater output per person. And when an individual's wealth increases, he/she has more money to invest in the economy. Neither of these requires an increase in the number of people. Thus the economy can grow when the population remains level.
Social Security is a pyramid scheme which by definition requires increasing the number of people paying into it.
I am not too familiar with politics in the 50s but I'm guessing that Republicans didn't scream to change SS because it wasn't in bad shape then and Congress was dominated by Democrats.
By the way, I heard on the radio the other day that when SS was first created, the Senate wanted to make it individually owned accounts, like Bush wants, but the House voted that down. So it's not a new idea.
Social Security is a pyramid scheme which by definition requires increasing the number of people paying into it.
nah.
if production per person and wealth per person increases, the amount paid in will increase as well, and a dwindling workforce can still support it. According you your idea of how the economy works. It's the same deal. It SS is a pyramid scheme, so is our economy. It our economy isn't a pyramid scheme, neither is SS.
The reason it's not a pyramid scheme is that the earlier recipients don't get ever increasing payment. Everyone can get the same out of it.
"I heard on the radio the other day that when SS was first created, the Senate wanted to make it individually owned accounts, like Bush wants, but the House voted that down. So it's not a new idea."
If it involved playing the Stock Market, I can't imagine there were many people interested in the 1930s.
There is a way to appease the fascists and still get Soc. Sec. reform.
It's easy really.
Step1: Abolish the ceiling on income subject to Social Security withholding.
Step2: Lower the overall percentage to 10% (5 %from employer, 5% from individual.
Step3: Allow the individual to keep 1% (one fifth) for investment if he elects to do so.Individuals would be required to put the money into an investment of some kind and of their own choosing.
Do the math. You get tons of revenue, you lower everyone's taxes, and you let millions of people allocate investment money that is currently managed by the government.
Until it suited some demographic comparisons currently being bandied about, 1960 was considered the cutoff between Baby Boomers and Generation X. I should know. My parents are boomers, and my generation was calling itself Generation X long before a baby boomer journalist decided to appropriate the term to write an article putting us down.
We called ourselves Generation X in the late seventies. It was a part of the punk surrealist art scene. The underground that was the wellspring of dissent from baby boomer corporate sellout bullshit.
The Social Security actuaries took into account the fact that life expectancy increases. They estimated a couple of decades ago that the percentage of the population that would be over 65 in the year 2000 would be 12.65; it was actually 12.45, because life expectancy isn't increasing quite as rapidly as their estimates.
There's a lot of bilge being bandied about, and the underlying meme is that Social Security is run by a bunch of amateurs. It ain't. Administrative costs are below 1%. Try to find an equity investment plan that efficient, but don't hold your breath while looking.
President Bush's inaugural speech was interrupted by chants from protesters sitting in the front of the crowd, near the podium — a spot usually reserved for VIP's and big supporters of the President.
Turns out, those protesters were from the liberal women's activist group Code Pink. How did they get choice seats within shouting distance of the President? They say they got the tickets to the VIP section from Democratic members of congress from California and New York.
You are not worth my time, pieter. You have nothing to offer except ignorance. Not quite as much ignorance as crabs offers, but a substantial amount. So as they say good riddance to bad rubbish.Â
You don't know crap, JT.
You don't know crap, JT.
The hell I don't.
I read him every day.
I see the government as me, you and everyone. The government is us. It's not something separate from me or you or anyone. It's us.
You see the government as something separate from yourself. That isn't very American. Take a civics class for cryin' out loud. Start with "WE The People".
I see the government as me, you and everyone. The government is us. It's not something separate from me or you or anyone. It's us.
No, you see it as you, and your agenda.
You see the government as something separate from yourself. That isn't very American. Take a civics class for cryin' out loud. Start with "WE The People".
Doctor, heal thyself.
No, I see it as everyone.
WEThe People
We the people doesn't mean you surrender yourself, and that's what you ask of us.
Surrender yourself?
WTF are you talking about?
You really can't even comprehend anything beyond your own self-interest, can you.
What do you think it means?
What you call "surrender", society calls "responsibility"
WTF are you talking about?
Are you that oblivious? Every post of yours expects something from me and the rest of the world.
You really can't even comprehend anything beyond your own self-interest, can you.
Of course I can. That's why I donate my time and money to causes I see worthy.
But I shouldn't have dumbasses like you telling me what a worthy cause is when you can't even comprehend freedom of choice.
[Edited by on Jan 19, 2005 at 07:46pm.]
Let's see... the word "I" three times and the word "my" once... the words "us", "we" or "everyone"... zero times.
Let's see... the word "I" three times and the word "my" once... the words "us", "we" or "everyone"... zero times.
I've come to the conclusion that you're insane.
You simply cannot comprehend personal freedom. You wish to force people to believe the same as you. To give to the same causes as you. ... It's that simple.
[Edited by on Jan 19, 2005 at 08:06pm.]
You think being an American, being a part of society is a "cause"?
Personal freedom is a right. Being part of a free society is a responsibility.
You think being an American, being a part of society is a "cause"?
No, I think you have an agenda and you don't give a shit about "America". You wish to force the entire country to hold your same beliefs, and damn personal freedom.
Personal freedom is a right. Being part of a free society is a responsibility.
Who says I'm not taking responsibility? The problem is jackasses like you trying to tell me what my responsibility is.
That's not personal freedom, that's oppression.
You only want to take responsibility for yourself. You don't even see yourself as being part of our government.
me me me
You only want to take responsibility for yourself.
That's far from the truth.
You don't even see yourself as being part of our government.
Yes I do.
You see it as the saviour. You're truly a communist. Damn the individual.
me me me
Yeah, nice try switching it around. The truth is, you want to dicate.
You've been mindfucked or something.
There's a difference between us directing our government and our government directing us.
Even when you use "us", it's still "us vs them" with you.
When the Government takes away our personal freedom, damn straight it's "us vs them".
You only want to take responsibility for yourself.
Wow, if you only knew just how wrong you are about that one.
When we allow our government to take away our rights. Isn't that what you mean?
I guess not.
You want personal freedom from taking responsibility for our society.
JT, where do you draw the line? If you think your neighbor is the type that "needs killin'," do you think you should you be allowed to shoot him without punishment? I doubt it, but the law against murder takes away your freedom to kill people you don't like.
Speed limits on the publicly built roads are a diminution of your personal freedom; after all, your car can do about 100 mph, why should you have to slow down just because there might be people in the area? You gotta look out for yourself, after all; fast drivers keep the slow-witted and uncoordinated from reproducing, improving the gene pool. Suppose we're talking about your kids -- should everybody (besides you) have to drive slowly near your house, or do they have the right to drive however they want? Or should you be allowed to shoot them if you think they're endangering your children?
Every law diminishes your personal freedom. Which laws are you willing to keep, and which ones can we do away with?
Care to talk about personal freedom vs. Matthew 25:31-46?
the rat wrote: "You don't know crap, JT."
Yes he does he knows you! I'm sorry that I couldn't resist!
Who says I'm not taking responsibility? The problem is jackasses like you trying to tell me what my responsibility is.
That's not personal freedom, that's oppression.
Matthew 25:31-46 seems to apply to individuals not governments. Simply because your government provides charity, which ours does in abundance, doesn't mean that you will be rewarded. In your personal life you could turn the poor and needy away. God will judge you on your personal actions as well as your love of Him.
[Edited by on Jan 21, 2005 at 10:28am.]
SSSSSWWWWOOOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!!!!!!
trying to imagine bodine feeding the hungry or clothing the poor or visiting the imprisoned or sick
nope, can't see it
Bill, I said that the economy grows by increasing production and capital. Productivity increases usually mean greater output per person. And when an individual's wealth increases, he/she has more money to invest in the economy. Neither of these requires an increase in the number of people. Thus the economy can grow when the population remains level.
Social Security is a pyramid scheme which by definition requires increasing the number of people paying into it.
I am not too familiar with politics in the 50s but I'm guessing that Republicans didn't scream to change SS because it wasn't in bad shape then and Congress was dominated by Democrats.
By the way, I heard on the radio the other day that when SS was first created, the Senate wanted to make it individually owned accounts, like Bush wants, but the House voted that down. So it's not a new idea.
Â
Â
[Edited by on Jan 22, 2005 at 06:22am.]
nah.
if production per person and wealth per person increases, the amount paid in will increase as well, and a dwindling workforce can still support it. According you your idea of how the economy works. It's the same deal. It SS is a pyramid scheme, so is our economy. It our economy isn't a pyramid scheme, neither is SS.
The reason it's not a pyramid scheme is that the earlier recipients don't get ever increasing payment. Everyone can get the same out of it.
[Edited by molegrass on Jan 22, 2005 at 01:07pm.]
"I heard on the radio the other day that when SS was first created, the Senate wanted to make it individually owned accounts, like Bush wants, but the House voted that down. So it's not a new idea."
If it involved playing the Stock Market, I can't imagine there were many people interested in the 1930s.
ÂÂ
There is a way to appease the fascists and still get Soc. Sec. reform.
It's easy really.
Step1: Abolish the ceiling on income subject to Social Security withholding.
Step2: Lower the overall percentage to 10% (5 %from employer, 5% from individual.
Step3: Allow the individual to keep 1% (one fifth) for investment if he elects to do so.Individuals would be required to put the money into an investment of some kind and of their own choosing.
Do the math. You get tons of revenue, you lower everyone's taxes, and you let millions of people allocate investment money that is currently managed by the government.
Like every other SS plan: Caveat emptor
Lots of those folks born between 1946 and 1960 have informed me in the past that they have "gotten theirs."
Usually they do it with a smug smirk, like this
"I got mine!"
Since they already have theirs, they don't need any of mine. Logical, no?Â
Between 1946 and 1964.
Torpedo-8 1/22/05 1:42pm
Until it suited some demographic comparisons currently being bandied about, 1960 was considered the cutoff between Baby Boomers and Generation X. I should know. My parents are boomers, and my generation was calling itself Generation X long before a baby boomer journalist decided to appropriate the term to write an article putting us down.
We called ourselves Generation X in the late seventies. It was a part of the punk surrealist art scene. The underground that was the wellspring of dissent from baby boomer corporate sellout bullshit.
1946 to 1960 is 15 years. Not enough for a generation according to most.
The Social Security actuaries took into account the fact that life expectancy increases. They estimated a couple of decades ago that the percentage of the population that would be over 65 in the year 2000 would be 12.65; it was actually 12.45, because life expectancy isn't increasing quite as rapidly as their estimates.
There's a lot of bilge being bandied about, and the underlying meme is that Social Security is run by a bunch of amateurs. It ain't. Administrative costs are below 1%. Try to find an equity investment plan that efficient, but don't hold your breath while looking.
Raising the cap will destroy a lot of small businesses.
President Bush's inaugural speech was interrupted by chants from protesters sitting in the front of the crowd, near the podium — a spot usually reserved for VIP's and big supporters of the President.
Turns out, those protesters were from the liberal women's activist group Code Pink. How did they get choice seats within shouting distance of the President? They say they got the tickets to the VIP section from Democratic members of congress from California and New York.
Not to worry, jethro -- I'm sure the adminstration will have them shot. Bsck to your nap.
damn, they bought this event and now they can't even manage to exclude those they don't like. oh, the humanity!
Not to worry, jethro -- I'm sure the adminstration will have them shot. Bsck to your nap.
I'm crushed, I tell you, crushedthat jethro's threatening to put me on ignore. What will I tell the children?
I'm crushed, I tell you, crushedthat jethro's threatening to put me on ignore. What will I tell the children?
You are not worth my time, pieter. You have nothing to offer except ignorance. Not quite as much ignorance as crabs offers, but a substantial amount. So as they say good riddance to bad rubbish.Â
[Edited by on Jan 25, 2005 at 10:51am.]
bodine wouldn't know ignorance if he bit himself on the ass