This is good

On Oct 24, 3:07*pm, wrote:

Do you think our Country should take care of its elderly? How?

Dave

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:02:53 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

Do you think our Country should take care of its elderly? How?

Feed them soylent green. We elderly want a piece of the pie too, and
Barry is gonna do it for us.

Sort this.

d;o)

On Oct 24, 4:39*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
DaveS wrote:
sorting

You know, the last time an elderly crank got so out of sorts
(pun intended ;-) about "on" versus "off" topic posts he
worked himself into such a tizzy he had to resort to posting
on alt.flyfishing.

Please, don't be going all Fred on us. This is roff, embrace
the chaos.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Oh I like chaos almost as much as you. But we are not the world.
I also like a healthy, robust membership because it produces more
interesting fly fishing content. And it's a fact that some of the
better content had traditionally come from people with less of an
appetite for chaos and political content than you, I, Dean, Dave etc..
Vive la différence. So . . .

Whats wrong with marking the ON TOPIC threads so folks can choose and
navigate? Its a no-cost potential improvement. Marking off topic
posts "OT" is something of a protocol, right? Kinda like posting
below . . . . I know how politely you react to top posting.

Its not like someone has changed the sand in the box to gravel, Why
not give it a few weeks?

Dave

On Oct 24, 5:55*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:

And businesses that don't pay their bills go out of business (except
in a few States where the cleptocracy is so intrenched that scammers
are protected. Texas and Florida for example.) Governments pay their
bills with the taxes they collect. The Bush tax "cuts" were a sham.
Instead of paying the bills, the rich were let off the hook, the
Bushies just said "charge it," and now my kids and grandchildren will
be paying triple for the foolishness of this failed ideology of greed.
On principle I have not yet taken my "tax rebate." Have you spent
yours?

One of the things I did as a consultant was to uncover fraud and waste
in job training programs. The majority of the cheats and scammers were
middle class and well off people. I never found a church run program
that WAS NOT at least a partial scam. (Catholic, Protestant or,
Jewish,) The majority of SSI and medicare cheats have not been poor or
Black. The biggest medicare cheats are immigrant doctors. I bet you
would be surprised to learn how many people in your neighborhood,
church group, extended family, business associates etc cheat, or try
to cheat various programs. As Pogo said, I have seen the enemy and he
is us.

Dave
It might also surprise you that the majority of White and Black
correctional inmates I came into contact with in a 35 year career
shared your beliefs, IE criminals in general do not appear to be a
politically "liberal" group.

DaveS wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You know, the last time an elderly crank got so out of sorts
(pun intended ;-) about "on" versus "off" topic posts he
worked himself into such a tizzy he had to resort to posting
on alt.flyfishing.

Please, don't be going all Fred on us. This is roff, embrace
the chaos.

Oh I like chaos almost as much as you. But we are not the world.
I also like a healthy, robust membership because it produces more
interesting fly fishing content. And it's a fact that some of the
better content had traditionally come from people with less of an
appetite for chaos and political content than you, I, Dean, Dave etc..
Vive la différence. So . . .

Whats wrong with marking the ON TOPIC threads so folks can choose and
navigate? Its a no-cost potential improvement. Marking off topic
posts "OT" is something of a protocol, right? ...

On some newsgroups, sure, that's the convention. But on roff
nothing is considered OT. And if folks can't choose and navigate
among what they want to read as opposed to what they don't want
to read then they're probably not bright enough to survive here
anyway. cf Fred.

Kinda like posting
below . . . . I know how politely you react to top posting.

First The Loony, now you. I'm getting a little weary of the
hero worship I have to endure around here.

Its not like someone has changed the sand in the box to gravel, Why
not give it a few weeks?

Knock yourself out, I think it's silly but I know better than
to argue with someone who's as stubborn as a Dutch uncle.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Oct 24, 6:07*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:54:46 -0400, Jeff wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"jeff miller" wrote in message
t...
Calif Bill wrote:

The sad part is blah, blah, blah...

given the deep economic hole we're in, without regard to who should be
blamed, how do you propose we cut taxes and spending? *how do you propose,
as a society and country, that we treat our senior citizens and the
impoverished? i think you are wrong about obama and his ability and his
worth to our country. ... why do you think principled and experienced
republicans are endorsing obama?

jeff

When you have little money in the family account, do you spend your way out
of debt?

no, i work harder, collect accounts due, etc. *but it's not really the
same thing or even a good analogy in my opinion. *again...how do you
propose we cut taxes and spending under the existing circumstances, and
what do we do about our seniors and poor?

Which "seniors" and which "poor?" *Some of them should be left to fend
for themselves, while others should have their capital input returned
with a reasonable rate of interest and still others should receive
_minimal_ assistance without having contributed. *For example, as one
who is "affluent" in the overall scheme of things, are you prepared to
volunteer to accept your contributions to SSI back with a small rate of
return?

TC,
R



jeff

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.

I doubt that the political will exists to do it.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Why don't all of you take a weekend off and do some fly fishing? :-)

On Oct 25, 3:07*pm, "
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.- Hide quoted text -


Well before you get to expound you ought to know that SSI stands for
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME. It is NOT the Social Security payments
that people invest in for their retirement. Like lots of folks,
(mostly men because the truth is that most men know **** about
schools, medical insurance or Social Security)who talk of what they
THINK they know about the basic social support infrastructure in this
country, your assumptions are not based on the realities of the fund.

Even if NOTHING were done to increase money flowing INTO the fund, OR
cut benefits OUT of the fund, folks paying into the fund now would get
at least 70% of the promised benefit.
Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Remember that the majority of working Americans 24 months ago
supported the idea of privatizing Social Security. And the majority of
Americans would have seen the value of their individual accounts fall
thru the floor the first day of privatization because the SUPPLY of
equities would have been the same as the day before, AND . . .

.. . . they would have lost as mush as half of what remained in their
"privatized individual account" in the last month. The Social Security
fund would have been privatized all right. . . right into the
collapsed stock market. There is no free lunch.

Dave
We were required to stay awake in econ classes at both BYU and the U
of Utah.

On Oct 25, 3:39*pm, rw wrote:
wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.

I doubt that the political will exists to do it.

I'm sure if you gave them the option to opt out of the program
most would. I know I'd agree not to take any SS if they agreed
to stop taking the money from my paychecks.....
.....or was that not what you meant? :-)
- Ken