BANG! SMACK! TO DA MOON BUSHY!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It wouldn't suprise me if Jmf was a fan of Rev Malthus...

Is that a name Im suppose to look up?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Farming is a major part of our economy. We need food to live, and farmers need to make a living. End the prescription drug program and let millions of people die, all because they have to make the choice wtih their money-whether to eat or buy their necessary drugs. If it wasn't for Medicaid covering my drugs, for the most part at least, I would have been dead already, that's a fact. It just goes to show how RUTHLESS and EXTREME some in the Republican party are. Are you a big Thomas Malthus fan or something?

1st) Farm aid only supports low productive farming.  Ending the aid would force sell outs to more effective management.

2nd) The vast majority of Social Security goes to pay for the care of those who could be living with their grown kids.  Society is basically paying so that people no longer have care for their own parents.

The government should only take care (Social Security and medical care) of those who have no family.

Far from being "RUTHLESS and EXTREME", it's perfectly moral and has a proven track record dating back thousands of years.

[12th Doctor]

It wouldn't suprise me if Jmf was a fan of Rev Malthus...

Acctually, Malthus was really more of a doomsday liberal elite( in the american sence), I think.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

We could easily afford $800 million for NASA...just reduce the size of the tax cuts by $800 million. So the richest 1% of Americans would each only have to give up $300/year to make it happen.

Right on Brother!

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Farming is a major part of our economy. We need food to live, and farmers need to make a living. End the prescription drug program and let millions of people die, all because they have to make the choice wtih their money-whether to eat or buy their necessary drugs. If it wasn't for Medicaid covering my drugs, for the most part at least, I would have been dead already, that's a fact. It just goes to show how RUTHLESS and EXTREME some in the Republican party are. Are you a big Thomas Malthus fan or something?

1st) Farm aid only supports low productive farming.  Ending the aid would force sell outs to more effective management.

2nd) The vast majority of Social Security goes to pay for the care of those who could be living with their grown kids.  Society is basically paying so that people no longer have care for their own parents.

The government should only take care (Social Security and medical care) of those who have no family.

Far from being "RUTHLESS and EXTREME", it's perfectly moral and has a proven track record dating back thousands of years.

Putting a burden upon people's children to care for their elderly parents? I have seen people squabble continually over caring for a parent while at the same time trying to be a spouse or a parent themselves. The parents who need care have lived their lives, now let their children do the same.
     Now, regarding your ridiculous belief that Medicare and Social Security should only cover those with no family? I have family, but there's no way they'd be able to pay my increasing Medical Expenses. I cannot work, not until after I get a Transplant. I get SSI [Supplemental Security Income] each month. It is very little, and most people wouldn't be able to survive on it. If it weren't for my Medicaid coverage and SSI, I would be dead by now, that's a fact. I am on drugs just to keep me alive.
   None of what you would like to see happen, save maybe the farm proposal, is at all compassionate, none could, in the real world, come to fruition without causing mass divorce, and casualties of those who perished because their families weren't in a position to help them.
     What is with you? Dude, get out of your cocuun. You are probably wealthy, and don't have to worry about real life concerns of those in need. As far as what's moral, keeping families from falling apart  [from stress] is moral. I do believe, however, that people should be kept in their own homes for as long as possible, with tolerated Activities of Daily Living, until they can no longer do those things for themselves. Then, families should have the option of caring for their loved ones, or placing them in a nursing home.

[dazzleman]

I don't agree with the idea that government should only "take care of" those who have no family, with respect to Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security is really not a social program per se, since eligibility for it is contingent upon having paid into it for a period of time, and the level of support from it is tied to how much is paid in.  That is why there is a ceiling on income subject to the social security tax; once the income that leads to the maximum benefit level has been reached, it is unfair to ask a person just to keep paying.  

SSI is not tied to amounts paid in, and I do think it has been abused by people faking disabilities, or claiming that diseases that they refuse to treat properly, such as alcoholism or drug abuse, entitle them to SSI.  But this is another case where the left has fought curbing of abuses, which has undermined support for the program itself.  The same thing happened with welfare.  I think there is a need for the program, but that it should be limited to those who are truly sick.

Many on the left have tried to turn social security into a social program by proposing lifting the ceiling on social security taxes, and I hate to see people on the right inadvertently give in to that argument by saying that the level of benefit should be determined by something other than what has been paid in.

Having said all that, I think social security needs to be overhauled before it collapses.  It can't survive the retirement of the baby boomer generation, and represents a huge tax on the young in favor of the elderly.  And at this point, the elderly are the richest segment of the population.

Social security was set up as a pyramid scheme, with money collected from present workers being paid directly out to retirees.  This works fine as long as the number of people paying in grows faster than the number collecting.  This situation allowed benefits to be greatly expanded in the 1950s and 1960s without a great cost to those paying in at the time, effectively giving free benefits to those retired at the time.  Now, the number of retirees is growing faster than those who are paying in, and many now collecting are getting huge benefits in comparision to what they actually paid in.  The politicians have used it to buy votes, and in the process fatally compromised its long term viability.

The only real solution is for at least a portion of the taxes paid in to be set aside for a retiree's personal use rather than just paid out to current retirees.  A regulated type of quasi-privatization would remove total control from the unscrupulous politicians of both parties, and give individuals more control over their own retirement income.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I don't agree with the idea that government should only "take care of" those who have no family, with respect to Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security is really not a social program per se, since eligibility for it is contingent upon having paid into it for a period of time, and the level of support from it is tied to how much is paid in.  That is why there is a ceiling on income subject to the social security tax; once the income that leads to the maximum benefit level has been reached, it is unfair to ask a person just to keep paying.  

SSI is not tied to amounts paid in, and I do think it has been abused by people faking disabilities, or claiming that diseases that they refuse to treat properly, such as alcoholism or drug abuse, entitle them to SSI.  But this is another case where the left has fought curbing of abuses, which has undermined support for the program itself.  The same thing happened with welfare.  I think there is a need for the program, but that it should be limited to those who are truly sick.

Many on the left have tried to turn social security into a social program by proposing lifting the ceiling on social security taxes, and I hate to see people on the right inadvertently give in to that argument by saying that the level of benefit should be determined by something other than what has been paid in.

Having said all that, I think social security needs to be overhauled before it collapses.  It can't survive the retirement of the baby boomer generation, and represents a huge tax on the young in favor of the elderly.  And at this point, the elderly are the richest segment of the population.

Social security was set up as a pyramid scheme, with money collected from present workers being paid directly out to retirees.  This works fine as long as the number of people paying in grows faster than the number collecting.  This situation allowed benefits to be greatly expanded in the 1950s and 1960s without a great cost to those paying in at the time, effectively giving free benefits to those retired at the time.  Now, the number of retirees is growing faster than those who are paying in, and many now collecting are getting huge benefits in comparision to what they actually paid in.  The politicians have used it to buy votes, and in the process fatally compromised its long term viability.

The only real solution is for at least a portion of the taxes paid in to be set aside for a retiree's personal use rather than just paid out to current retirees.  A regulated type of quasi-privatization would remove total control from the unscrupulous politicians of both parties, and give individuals more control over their own retirement income.

Dazzleman, could you please explain that last paragraph. I don't quite get what you mean. THX, Chris

[dazzleman]

I meant that we need to gradually convert from a system in which social security taxes from people current working are paid out directly to retirees to a system in which at least a portion of the social security taxes paid in by people currently working are actually set aside for the individual paying them to use when he/she retires.

That way, there is a direct relationship between the amount contributed and the amount collected on retirement, and it is not as subject to manipulation by the politicians.  I have not thought out all the details, but I know there have been some detailed studies done on how the whole thing would be implemented.  The bottom line is that it would eventually remove the dependence on future workers to fund the retirements of people working today.

Social security is going to be a big issue because it amounts to a huge tax on the younger generations which I don't think can be substantially increased as the population ages.  People who spent a good part of their working lives in the years before the massive social security tax increases (beginning in 1983) are receiving a huge return on what they paid in, while those who are paying at today's rates can expect only a paltry return from the current system, IF it can be kept from collapsing.  

Those who are against immigration should recognize that a shortage of workers relative to retirees would be devastating to our whole economy, and in particular the health of our retirement systems as long as they are dependent upon current taxpayers to fund today's retirees.

I think that both parties have badly mismanaged social security, but that the Democrats have been particularly bad and demagogic on the issue.  Not one person in one hundred really understands how social security works, and Democrats in particular have played upon this ignorance to score political points against anybody who proposes making a necessary change.  They have people thinking that the taxes they pay to social security are in a lockbox for them to draw on in the future, while nothing could be further from the truth.  

In addition, elderly people vote in large numbers, and I think that many of them are very selfish, caring only that the system doesn't collapse before they die.  The elderly are organized, but the average younger taxpayer is not, and most are not focused on the issue.  Any proposal to change the current system is threatening to people currently collecting it, in the short run, but the long run demands that something be done.  So it is a very difficult issue to solve, but it will have to be dealt with.

[Gustaf]

I meant that we need to gradually convert from a system in which social security taxes from people current working are paid out directly to retirees to a system in which at least a portion of the social security taxes paid in by people currently working are actually set aside for the individual paying them to use when he/she retires.

That way, there is a direct relationship between the amount contributed and the amount collected on retirement, and it is not as subject to manipulation by the politicians.  I have not thought out all the details, but I know there have been some detailed studies done on how the whole thing would be implemented.  The bottom line is that it would eventually remove the dependence on future workers to fund the retirements of people working today.

Social security is going to be a big issue because it amounts to a huge tax on the younger generations which I don't think can be substantially increased as the population ages.  People who spent a good part of their working lives in the years before the massive social security tax increases (beginning in 1983) are receiving a huge return on what they paid in, while those who are paying at today's rates can expect only a paltry return from the current system, IF it can be kept from collapsing.  

Those who are against immigration should recognize that a shortage of workers relative to retirees would be devastating to our whole economy, and in particular the health of our retirement systems as long as they are dependent upon current taxpayers to fund today's retirees.

I think that both parties have badly mismanaged social security, but that the Democrats have been particularly bad and demagogic on the issue.  Not one person in one hundred really understands how social security works, and Democrats in particular have played upon this ignorance to score political points against anybody who proposes making a necessary change.  They have people thinking that the taxes they pay to social security are in a lockbox for them to draw on in the future, while nothing could be further from the truth.  

In addition, elderly people vote in large numbers, and I think that many of them are very selfish, caring only that the system doesn't collapse before they die.  The elderly are organized, but the average younger taxpayer is not, and most are not focused on the issue.  Any proposal to change the current system is threatening to people currently collecting it, in the short run, but the long run demands that something be done.  So it is a very difficult issue to solve, but it will have to be dealt with.

We did that kind of reform in Sweden, and it was really hard. I believe Sweden and the UK are the only countries in Europe to have pension systems which will survive the baby boom generation retiring. The rest are in for a lot of trouble (like they didn't have that already, hehehehe...)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Christopher Michael,

<<Putting a burden upon people's children to care for their elderly parents? I have seen people squabble continually over caring for a parent while at the same time trying to be a spouse or a parent themselves. The parents who need care have lived their lives, now let their children do the same.>>

1Tim 5:3-14 Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God….8 If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.  No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over 60 years of age…As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. ….16 If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

So, if the NT can insist that the first line of care must come from the family, how can you justify me having to pay for the care of JohnDoe’s parents simply because John Doe wants to “live his life”?

---

<<Now, regarding your ridiculous belief that Medicare and Social Security should only cover those with no family? I have family, but there's no way they'd be able to pay my increasing Medical Expenses. I cannot work, not until after I get a Transplant.>>

That’s fine, then after your family is finished paying all that they possibly can, then, and only then, should socity be put into a position to give you further assistance.  After all, why should money come out of my pocket and away from my kid’s futures simply to help your family maintain their lifestyle instead of them helping to support you?  Your family is first and foremost responsible for your care, not me and my kids.

---

<<None of what you would like to see happen, save maybe the farm proposal, is at all compassionate>>

Companies that can’t compete go out of business and sell out to a more efficient company.  Why should farmers get special status?  Farmers already receive very significant tax breaks.  Must we continue to subsidize them also?

---

<<You are probably wealthy, and don't have to worry about real life concerns of those in need.>>

Why is it that anyone believing in self-sufficiency is automatically labeled “wealthy”?  Go look into the mirror – you are probably 10 times wealthier than the average person of any generation prior to 60 years ago.

Today’s “poor” in America would be considered extremely wealthy by 80% of the world’s population today….and probably 98% of the world population 100 years ago.

Next time you’re in Houston Texas, go visit Forrestal Road in zip code 77033.  That is where I grew up.  And although my mother was eligible for government help, she refused to sign up for it because she wanted to scrape by on her own and not teach her four boys to rely on the government for their every existence.

So, please, spare me the class warfare song-and-dance.  

 

[NHPolitico]

Bush wants to go back to the moon......your thoughts?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3910698/

It's just something to be in the news about that is not about the WOT.  He wants a mix of coverage-- the guest worker plan, the mission to Mars. He wants to control the way the media portray him. If it's Iraq 24-7, he doesn't think that's a great portrayal.

[Sibboleth]

There are some serious problems with our pension system, all revolving around debt and people not saving up enough.
There are not many problems with the state pension, although they[OAP's] like whining about it all the time...

But compared to, say France, we are doing very well. It's not going to collapse for example...

[Gustaf]

There are some serious problems with our pension system, all revolving around debt and people not saving up enough.
There are not many problems with the state pension, although they[OAP's] like whining about it all the time...

But compared to, say France, we are doing very well. It's not going to collapse for example...

Yeah, that was my point. I am no expert on the British system though, I just heard that it was, like ours, sustainable.