fuel economy in car commercials

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:
>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article >,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Raise taxes, which will only push the break even date further out.
>>>>>>>But you were arguing to do nothing parker.
>>>
>>>>>> I've never argued that. A combination of a 1% increase in payroll
>> tax,
>>>>>> eliminating the income cap subject to SS tax, and increasing the
>> retirement
>>>>>> age will easily keep SS solvent for the next century at least.
>>>
>>>>>How do you know? Your democrat party tell you? Just some more taxes.
the
>>>>>usual answer. It just keeps ballooning.
>>>
>>>> Go to the AARP website. They've got about 10 solutions for SS
solvency,
>>>> with how much each one will contribute, and then they endorse some of
>> them.
>>>
>>>AARP.... The organization for wealth transfer to seniors.
>>
>> Right-wingers -- the people for debt transfer to children?
>
>I don't agree with the government taking money from one citizen to give
>to another regardless of who they are giving it to. I'll remind you that
>I disagree with most republican and most democrat polices and behaviors.
>
>You simply support taking my money for your own uses. You use government
>as a weapon. Just because you don't have the guts to use a gun on the
>street.
>
>>>Of course they
>>>want more taxes for social security.
>
>> That's just one part of the picture.
>
>No, that's the function. To take money from one group of citizens to give
>to another.
>
>>>That's their reason for existance
>>>wrt government. To get elected officals to take from other groups of
>>>citizens and given their group.
>>
>> So you don't believe in democracy.
>
>I believe in LIBERTY.

You believe in imposing your view of how society should be run on everybody
else, regardless of what they believe. That's not liberty, that's a
dictatorship.


>That's why this REPUBLIC has LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT
>so that DEMOCRACY doesn't FAIL because people are voting money for
>themselves from the treasury. However those limits have been erroding for
>a very long time and with it the republic is failing.

At least we're not drinking lead from our pipes!

>
>Liberty means you can't take my money.


Yes it does, unless you live on a desert isle. Living in a society brings
with it certain obligations.

>Think of it this way. You are in a
>bar. There are 30 people there with you. 24 of them decide you should buy
>everyone a drink. They won't allow you to leave until you do. That's your
>apparent vision of democracy. Rule of the majority without liberty.
>
>>>The hell with liberty, up with greed. No
>>>better than lobbiests for any corporation.
>
>Once again, silence from dr. parker.
>
>>>> What's being taxed amounts to gains.
>>>
>>>THERE ARE NO GAINS IN SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ME. What about a break even
>>>date of age 90 do you not understand?
>
>> Sure there are. Most people get back what they've paid in during the
first
>> few years. The rest is gain.
>
>What about break even age of 90 do you not understand? That's where I
>break even given the assumptions and information on the statement sent to
>me THIS WEEK.
>
>Most people born well before me, break even in the first few years.
>People my age and younger get screwed. That's how pyramid schemes work,
>people in early do well, those in late are left holding the bag.
>
>>>>>So can the US government. The US government is heading towards
>>>>>bankruptcy like a run away train. The first thing to go will be SS.
>
>>>Once again, Parker goes silent.
>
>> If you think the US gov't is going to go bankrupt, there's no point
>> debating with you, any more than with a religious fundamentalist.
>
>Oh, so your previous ranting about the defict spending is just political
>bluster on your part? Which is it? Either all this defict spending and
>IOUs to SS and bad accounting practices in government are a problem or
they
>aren't. Make up your mind.
>
>You can't trash GWB and others on the defict and debt and at the same time
>say there is no problem because of it. If there is no problem, then they
>might as well spend like they are.


Where have I said there is no problem? The problem is, future generations
will have to pay the debt, plus we're paying interest on it. What I said
is there is no way on heaven or earth the US gov't will go bankrupt.
>
>>>>>Ok, I'll scan for it you.
>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyll...atement001.jpg
>>>>>Right from the statement. Social security is telling me to multiply
that
>>>>>the benefit value by .73 to get the actual value I can expect.
>
>>>Yep, parker silence facing the proof.
>
>> If nothing is done. Like saying, "If nothing is done about that forest
>> fire, it'll burn Los Angeles" and then declaring "that fire is going to
>> burn LA!"
>
>And I'm hearing from democrats nothing needs to be done.

Then you're not listening. None of them are saying that. None.


>Also, how am I
>supposed to make the estimate of a break even date other than to follow
what
>is on the statement?

How can I calculate my break-even point on my IRA, without knowing future
contributions, interest rates, tax rates, etc.?

>
>Oh, and Parker, would you put hundreds of thousands of dollars where your
>return was based on the whims of those running the fund? If so, I want
>about $300,000 from you. Your return is based on my whim. Meanwhile, I'll
>buy an Aston Martin with it.
>
>

In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Raise taxes, which will only push the break even date further out.
>>>>>>But you were arguing to do nothing parker.
>>
>>>>> I've never argued that. A combination of a 1% increase in payroll
> tax,
>>>>> eliminating the income cap subject to SS tax, and increasing the
> retirement
>>>>> age will easily keep SS solvent for the next century at least.
>>
>>>>How do you know? Your democrat party tell you? Just some more taxes. the
>>>>usual answer. It just keeps ballooning.
>>
>>> Go to the AARP website. They've got about 10 solutions for SS solvency,
>>> with how much each one will contribute, and then they endorse some of
> them.
>>
>>AARP.... The organization for wealth transfer to seniors.
>
> Right-wingers -- the people for debt transfer to children?

I don't agree with the government taking money from one citizen to give
to another regardless of who they are giving it to. I'll remind you that
I disagree with most republican and most democrat polices and behaviors.

You simply support taking my money for your own uses. You use government
as a weapon. Just because you don't have the guts to use a gun on the
street.

>>Of course they
>>want more taxes for social security.

> That's just one part of the picture.

No, that's the function. To take money from one group of citizens to give
to another.

>>That's their reason for existance
>>wrt government. To get elected officals to take from other groups of
>>citizens and given their group.
>
> So you don't believe in democracy.

I believe in LIBERTY. That's why this REPUBLIC has LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT
so that DEMOCRACY doesn't FAIL because people are voting money for
themselves from the treasury. However those limits have been erroding for
a very long time and with it the republic is failing.

Liberty means you can't take my money. Think of it this way. You are in a
bar. There are 30 people there with you. 24 of them decide you should buy
everyone a drink. They won't allow you to leave until you do. That's your
apparent vision of democracy. Rule of the majority without liberty.

>>The hell with liberty, up with greed. No
>>better than lobbiests for any corporation.

Once again, silence from dr. parker.

>>> What's being taxed amounts to gains.
>>
>>THERE ARE NO GAINS IN SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ME. What about a break even
>>date of age 90 do you not understand?

> Sure there are. Most people get back what they've paid in during the first
> few years. The rest is gain.

What about break even age of 90 do you not understand? That's where I
break even given the assumptions and information on the statement sent to
me THIS WEEK.

Most people born well before me, break even in the first few years.
People my age and younger get screwed. That's how pyramid schemes work,
people in early do well, those in late are left holding the bag.

>>>>So can the US government. The US government is heading towards
>>>>bankruptcy like a run away train. The first thing to go will be SS.

>>Once again, Parker goes silent.

> If you think the US gov't is going to go bankrupt, there's no point
> debating with you, any more than with a religious fundamentalist.

Oh, so your previous ranting about the defict spending is just political
bluster on your part? Which is it? Either all this defict spending and
IOUs to SS and bad accounting practices in government are a problem or they
aren't. Make up your mind.

You can't trash GWB and others on the defict and debt and at the same time
say there is no problem because of it. If there is no problem, then they
might as well spend like they are.

>>>>Ok, I'll scan for it you.
>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyll...atement001.jpg
>>>>Right from the statement. Social security is telling me to multiply that
>>>>the benefit value by .73 to get the actual value I can expect.

>>Yep, parker silence facing the proof.

> If nothing is done. Like saying, "If nothing is done about that forest
> fire, it'll burn Los Angeles" and then declaring "that fire is going to
> burn LA!"

And I'm hearing from democrats nothing needs to be done. Also, how am I
supposed to make the estimate of a break even date other than to follow what
is on the statement?

Oh, and Parker, would you put hundreds of thousands of dollars where your
return was based on the whims of those running the fund? If so, I want
about $300,000 from you. Your return is based on my whim. Meanwhile, I'll
buy an Aston Martin with it.

In article >,
Lloyd Parker > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>In article >,
>>Lloyd Parker > wrote:
>>>In article >,
>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Lloyd Parker > wrote:
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>Vendicar Decarian > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <Vtm3e.6169$Fh2.6053@trnddc04>,
>>>>>>>> Joshua Halpern > wrote:
>>>>>>>> >Ah, yes, turning the INTERNET from a government/university system
>to
>>>>>an
>>>>>>>> >open one had nothing to do with anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>> So you're giving G.H.W.Bush the credit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For being a mass murderer and a war criminal yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gore gets the credit for creating and pushing through the legislation
>>>>>that
>>>>>>>created the internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That deserves an Aunt Judy guffaw:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm
>>>>
>>>> 'Despite a spirited defense of Gore's claim by Vint Cerf (often
>>>> referred to as the "father of the Internet") in which he stated "that
>>>> as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be
>>>> as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround
>>>> it," many of the components of today's Internet came into being well
>>>> before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977, and it's hard to
>>>> find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a
>>>> Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation)
>>>> that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less
>>>> validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating
>>>> the Internet."'
>>>>
>>>>You really should read your own sources.
>>>
>>>WQell, first, I was debunking the idea the right makes that Gore ever
>>>claimed he invented the internet.
>>
>>Nice try, Lloyd, but nobody made that claim in this thread. Gore said
>>he "took the initiative in creating the internet". And fools like
>>"Decarian" try to defend that statement as if it were true.
>>
>>>Here's what Vint Cerf said:
>>>
>>>"Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of
>the
>>>Internet and to promote and support its development.
>>
>>Which, even if completely true, means the Internet existed before Al
>>Gore's involvement with same. Which, in fact, it did.
>
>If you'll agree with Cerf that it wasn't developed before.

Nyet. If true, no politicians promoted and supported its development
before Gore. That is all.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote:

<more no reply items from parker deleted, too bad he cannot defend his
position of tryanny>

>>>>That's their reason for existance
>>>>wrt government. To get elected officals to take from other groups of
>>>>citizens and given their group.

>>> So you don't believe in democracy.
>>I believe in LIBERTY.

> You believe in imposing your view of how society should be run on everybody
> else, regardless of what they believe. That's not liberty, that's a
> dictatorship.

This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever seen a liberal
micromanager post. The greatest bit of projection ever.

Exactly what am I telling people to do Dr. Parker? How am I controlling
them? I want to to post your charges.

Oh, heaven forbid I want people to make decisions for THEMSELVES. To
control their OWN LIVES. To RETAIN THEIR PROPERTY. Rather than have
tyrants like yourself from the self-appointed elite tell them what to do,
and take their propery to be redistributed at your whims. To control
every facet of their lives as if they were children. To force them to
'save' for the future because you deem them unable to discipline
themselves.

>>That's why this REPUBLIC has LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT
>>so that DEMOCRACY doesn't FAIL because people are voting money for
>>themselves from the treasury. However those limits have been erroding for
>>a very long time and with it the republic is failing.

> At least we're not drinking lead from our pipes!

In other words Dr. Parker, you cannot justify your views.

>>Liberty means you can't take my money.

> Yes it does, unless you live on a desert isle. Living in a society brings
> with it certain obligations.

The obligation not to interfere with the business of others and try to
control their lives the way you do by taking from one citizen to give to
another.

>>Think of it this way. You are in a
>>bar. There are 30 people there with you. 24 of them decide you should buy
>>everyone a drink. They won't allow you to leave until you do. That's your
>>apparent vision of democracy. Rule of the majority without liberty.

No answer from parker. Once again, Parker refuses to answer a practical
example of his view on how a society should work.

>>>>THERE ARE NO GAINS IN SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ME. What about a break even
>>>>date of age 90 do you not understand?

>>> Sure there are. Most people get back what they've paid in during the first
>>> few years. The rest is gain.
>>
>>What about break even age of 90 do you not understand? That's where I
>>break even given the assumptions and information on the statement sent to
>>me THIS WEEK.
>>
>>Most people born well before me, break even in the first few years.
>>People my age and younger get screwed. That's how pyramid schemes work,
>>people in early do well, those in late are left holding the bag.

Parker goes silent with regard to the math, Again.

>>>>>>So can the US government. The US government is heading towards
>>>>>>bankruptcy like a run away train. The first thing to go will be SS.

>>>>Once again, Parker goes silent.

>>> If you think the US gov't is going to go bankrupt, there's no point
>>> debating with you, any more than with a religious fundamentalist.

>>Oh, so your previous ranting about the defict spending is just political
>>bluster on your part? Which is it? Either all this defict spending and
>>IOUs to SS and bad accounting practices in government are a problem or they
>>aren't. Make up your mind.

>>You can't trash GWB and others on the defict and debt and at the same time
>>say there is no problem because of it. If there is no problem, then they
>>might as well spend like they are.

> Where have I said there is no problem? The problem is, future generations
> will have to pay the debt, plus we're paying interest on it. What I said
> is there is no way on heaven or earth the US gov't will go bankrupt.

I'm just pointing out your illogical and inconsistant views. If the US
government can never go bankrupt, then there is no need to care about the
debt or the rate it's piling up. If it can never possibly occur.

Future generations will have to pay, you'll be dead by then so you don't
care. You don't care. You use the power of the US government to make me
give up my earnings to line your own pockets. You might as well break
into my home and steal things, or hold a gun to my head. It's the same
thing.

The fact you admit that somewhere down the road, the bill has to be paid,
means that the government can go bankrupt. At some point, it may have to
be paid, and if the money isn't there *poof*. Bankruptcy. Or printing so
much currency that the same or worse result is reached.

>>>>>>Ok, I'll scan for it you.
>>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyll...atement001.jpg
>>>>>>Right from the statement. Social security is telling me to multiply that
>>>>>>the benefit value by .73 to get the actual value I can expect.

>>>>Yep, parker silence facing the proof.

>>> If nothing is done. Like saying, "If nothing is done about that forest
>>> fire, it'll burn Los Angeles" and then declaring "that fire is going to
>>> burn LA!"

>>And I'm hearing from democrats nothing needs to be done.

> Then you're not listening. None of them are saying that. None.

Well back in 1999 and earlier democrats presented some options...
including *gasp* some private accounts. So, present proposals. You
didn't. You had to go to AARP!

>>Also, how am I
>>supposed to make the estimate of a break even date other than to follow what
>>is on the statement?

> How can I calculate my break-even point on my IRA, without knowing future
> contributions, interest rates, tax rates, etc.?

I used the same assumptions that the SSA used. Do you ever read your mail
Dr. Parker? This statement comes every year. I made an estimate based on
their method of determining benefits. It's quite straight forward.
Surprised someone with a PhD in chemistry can't figure it out.

>>Oh, and Parker, would you put hundreds of thousands of dollars where your
>>return was based on the whims of those running the fund? If so, I want
>>about $300,000 from you. Your return is based on my whim. Meanwhile, I'll
>>buy an Aston Martin with it.

Once again, Parker ducks the practical example.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:
>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>
><more no reply items from parker deleted, too bad he cannot defend his
>position of tryanny>
>
>>>>>That's their reason for existance
>>>>>wrt government. To get elected officals to take from other groups of
>>>>>citizens and given their group.
>
>>>> So you don't believe in democracy.
>>>I believe in LIBERTY.
>
>> You believe in imposing your view of how society should be run on
everybody
>> else, regardless of what they believe. That's not liberty, that's a
>> dictatorship.
>
>This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever seen a liberal
>micromanager post. The greatest bit of projection ever.
>
>Exactly what am I telling people to do Dr. Parker? How am I controlling
>them? I want to to post your charges.

No programs if I have to be taxed for them. Heck, no programs I don't
like.

>
>Oh, heaven forbid I want people to make decisions for THEMSELVES. To
>control their OWN LIVES.

What if their decision is members of society need to pay some taxes, as
pretty much every society in history has decided?


>To RETAIN THEIR PROPERTY. Rather than have
>tyrants like yourself from the self-appointed elite tell them what to do,
>and take their propery to be redistributed at your whims. To control
>every facet of their lives as if they were children. To force them to
>'save' for the future because you deem them unable to discipline
>themselves.
>
>>>That's why this REPUBLIC has LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT
>>>so that DEMOCRACY doesn't FAIL because people are voting money for
>>>themselves from the treasury. However those limits have been erroding
for
>>>a very long time and with it the republic is failing.
>
>> At least we're not drinking lead from our pipes!
>
>In other words Dr. Parker, you cannot justify your views.
>
>>>Liberty means you can't take my money.
>
>> Yes it does, unless you live on a desert isle. Living in a society
brings
>> with it certain obligations.
>
>The obligation not to interfere with the business of others and try to
>control their lives the way you do by taking from one citizen to give to
>another.

So you think what, either society doesn't need police, hospitals, roads,
courts, schools, etc.; they would be available only to the very rich; or
people would voluntarily contribute to these. All 3 are false.

>
>>>Think of it this way. You are in a
>>>bar. There are 30 people there with you. 24 of them decide you should
buy
>>>everyone a drink. They won't allow you to leave until you do. That's
your
>>>apparent vision of democracy. Rule of the majority without liberty.
>
>No answer from parker. Once again, Parker refuses to answer a practical
>example of his view on how a society should work.
>
>>>>>THERE ARE NO GAINS IN SOCIAL SECURITY FOR ME. What about a break even
>>>>>date of age 90 do you not understand?
>
>>>> Sure there are. Most people get back what they've paid in during the
first
>>>> few years. The rest is gain.
>>>
>>>What about break even age of 90 do you not understand? That's where I
>>>break even given the assumptions and information on the statement sent
to
>>>me THIS WEEK.
>>>
>>>Most people born well before me, break even in the first few years.
>>>People my age and younger get screwed. That's how pyramid schemes work,
>>>people in early do well, those in late are left holding the bag.
>
>Parker goes silent with regard to the math, Again.
>
>>>>>>>So can the US government. The US government is heading towards
>>>>>>>bankruptcy like a run away train. The first thing to go will be SS.
>
>>>>>Once again, Parker goes silent.
>
>>>> If you think the US gov't is going to go bankrupt, there's no point
>>>> debating with you, any more than with a religious fundamentalist.
>
>>>Oh, so your previous ranting about the defict spending is just political
>>>bluster on your part? Which is it? Either all this defict spending and
>>>IOUs to SS and bad accounting practices in government are a problem or
they
>>>aren't. Make up your mind.
>
>>>You can't trash GWB and others on the defict and debt and at the same
time
>>>say there is no problem because of it. If there is no problem, then they
>>>might as well spend like they are.
>
>> Where have I said there is no problem? The problem is, future
generations
>> will have to pay the debt, plus we're paying interest on it. What I
said
>> is there is no way on heaven or earth the US gov't will go bankrupt.
>
>I'm just pointing out your illogical and inconsistant views. If the US
>government can never go bankrupt, then there is no need to care about the
>debt or the rate it's piling up. If it can never possibly occur.

The US isn't going to go bankrupt because it can raise money to pay its
debts. That dreaded "T" word.

>
>Future generations will have to pay, you'll be dead by then so you don't
>care. You don't care.

Sure I do; that's why I supported Clinton, who balanced the budget, and not
Bush, who's created more debt than any other president.


>You use the power of the US government to make me
>give up my earnings to line your own pockets. You might as well break
>into my home and steal things, or hold a gun to my head. It's the same
>thing.
>
>The fact you admit that somewhere down the road, the bill has to be paid,
>means that the government can go bankrupt. At some point, it may have to
>be paid, and if the money isn't there *poof*. Bankruptcy. Or printing so
>much currency that the same or worse result is reached.
>
>>>>>>>Ok, I'll scan for it you.
>>>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyll...atement001.jpg
>>>>>>>Right from the statement. Social security is telling me to multiply
that
>>>>>>>the benefit value by .73 to get the actual value I can expect.
>
>>>>>Yep, parker silence facing the proof.
>
>>>> If nothing is done. Like saying, "If nothing is done about that
forest
>>>> fire, it'll burn Los Angeles" and then declaring "that fire is going
to
>>>> burn LA!"
>
>>>And I'm hearing from democrats nothing needs to be done.
>
>> Then you're not listening. None of them are saying that. None.
>
>Well back in 1999 and earlier democrats presented some options...
>including *gasp* some private accounts. So, present proposals. You
>didn't. You had to go to AARP!
>

Private in addition to SS, not taking funds away from it. That's actually
one of AARP's proposals now.

>>>Also, how am I
>>>supposed to make the estimate of a break even date other than to follow
what
>>>is on the statement?
>
>> How can I calculate my break-even point on my IRA, without knowing
future
>> contributions, interest rates, tax rates, etc.?
>
>I used the same assumptions that the SSA used.

You made one assumption however -- that no changes are going to be made.
That's not a likely scenario.


>Do you ever read your mail
>Dr. Parker? This statement comes every year. I made an estimate based on
>their method of determining benefits. It's quite straight forward.
>Surprised someone with a PhD in chemistry can't figure it out.
>
>>>Oh, and Parker, would you put hundreds of thousands of dollars where
your
>>>return was based on the whims of those running the fund? If so, I want
>>>about $300,000 from you. Your return is based on my whim. Meanwhile,
I'll
>>>buy an Aston Martin with it.
>
>Once again, Parker ducks the practical example.
>

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:
>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>> You believe in imposing your view of how society should be run on
everybody
>>>> else, regardless of what they believe. That's not liberty, that's a
>>>> dictatorship.
>
>>>This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever seen a liberal
>>>micromanager post. The greatest bit of projection ever.
>
>>>Exactly what am I telling people to do Dr. Parker? How am I controlling
>>>them? I want to to post your charges.
>
>> No programs if I have to be taxed for them. Heck, no programs I don't
>> like.
>
>Again, how am I controling anyone? How is NOT taking money from one
>citizen and giving to another control?

Because society has to be funded.

>
>Control _IS_ what you want, the POWER of taking from one citizen and
>giving to another. That's mostly what government in this nation does now,
>taking from one group of citizens to give to another group. (note:
>corporations are groups of citizens too)

Yeah, democracy is such a terrible thing.



>
>
>>>Oh, heaven forbid I want people to make decisions for THEMSELVES. To
>>>control their OWN LIVES.
>
>> What if their decision is members of society need to pay some taxes, as
>> pretty much every society in history has decided?
>
>SOME taxes. For things like roads, defense, etc. Not retirement schemes
>with negative returns.

So which section of the constitution lets you decide which things get
funded?

>
>>>To RETAIN THEIR PROPERTY. Rather than have
>>>tyrants like yourself from the self-appointed elite tell them what to
do,
>>>and take their propery to be redistributed at your whims. To control
>>>every facet of their lives as if they were children. To force them to
>>>'save' for the future because you deem them unable to discipline
>>>themselves.
>
>Of course parker doesn't answer this. Like Bill Clinton, Parker thinks
>government should take care of people like a parent takes care of a
>child. However, children don't get to choose anything, they aren't free,
>they are _CONTROLLED_ by their parents.

Are you free to choose to drive on the left side of the road, or to not
stop at red lights?

>
>
>>>> Yes it does, unless you live on a desert isle. Living in a society
brings
>>>> with it certain obligations.
>
>>>The obligation not to interfere with the business of others and try to
>>>control their lives the way you do by taking from one citizen to give to
>>>another.
>
>> So you think what, either society doesn't need police, hospitals, roads,
>> courts, schools, etc.; they would be available only to the very rich; or
>> people would voluntarily contribute to these. All 3 are false.
>
>Strawman alert! Never said anything of the kind. I stated not taking
>from one citizen to give to another.

If I don't use the fire department and you do, isn't that taking my money
and in effect giving it to you?


>You like social security as is,
>or as is with higher taxes because A) It offers _CONTROL_ over the people.
>B) It lines your pockets at the expense of younger people such as myself
>who'll never see a payback of what they put in.
>
>Your idea of 'democracy' and 'obligation' is something like this: You are
in a
>bar. There are 30 people there with you. 24 of them decide you should buy
>everyone a drink. They tell you, it's your obligation as part of the
>society of the bar. When you object, they say that means you wouldn't pay
>for fire departments, police departments, national defense, schools, etc.
>They call you someone who wants to control others. They won't allow you to
>leave until you buy the round of drinks. That's your apparent vision of
>democracy. Rule of the majority without liberty.
>
>>>>>Oh, so your previous ranting about the defict spending is just
political
>>>>>bluster on your part? Which is it? Either all this defict spending and
>>>>>IOUs to SS and bad accounting practices in government are a problem or
they
>>>>>aren't. Make up your mind.
>
>>>>>You can't trash GWB and others on the defict and debt and at the same
time
>>>>>say there is no problem because of it. If there is no problem, then
they
>>>>>might as well spend like they are.
>
>>>> Where have I said there is no problem? The problem is, future
generations
>>>> will have to pay the debt, plus we're paying interest on it. What I
said
>>>> is there is no way on heaven or earth the US gov't will go bankrupt.
>
>>>I'm just pointing out your illogical and inconsistant views. If the US
>>>government can never go bankrupt, then there is no need to care about
the
>>>debt or the rate it's piling up. If it can never possibly occur.
>
>> The US isn't going to go bankrupt because it can raise money to pay its
>> debts. That dreaded "T" word.
>
>Then GWB's out of control spending, the cost of the occupation of Iraq,
>the cost of rebuilding Iraq, etc and so forth shouldn't bother you. If
>there is no way of going bankrupt, and no unpleasantries from avoiding it
>with printing money, or taxing the people into poverty later, after
>you're dead, then the spending of GWB and congress shouldn't worry you.
>
>>>Future generations will have to pay, you'll be dead by then so you don't
>>>care. You don't care.
>
>> Sure I do; that's why I supported Clinton, who balanced the budget, and
not
>> Bush, who's created more debt than any other president.
>
>The 'balanced budget' was nothing more than half-assed smoke and mirrors
>government accounting methods.


no, for the last 2 years under Clinton, revenues exceeded expenses, not
even counting the SS surplus.

>Sure, with GWB, the accounting tricks
>can't make it look that good. The budget/accounting practices of the
federal
>government make those of enron and worldcom look like alter boys. (And
>we all know you'd vote for an ape if that's what the D's put up)
>
>Here is a PhD economist's take on the 'surplus' of the Clinton
>adminstration.
>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...dget-hoax.html

Considering the surplus was in 1999 and 2000, was this person psychic?

>
>-> Boiled down to its basics, that's the budget "surplus" hoax that's
coming
>-> from the president and Congress. In 1998, there was approximately $120
>-> billion spent out of revenue earmarked for trust funds like the Social
>-> Security, highway and unemployment compensation trust funds. There's
>-> absolutely nothing in those trust funds except Treasury Department
IOUs.
>->
>-> That means that when Congress reports there is a $60 billion surplus,
we
>-> should subtract $120 billion from that so-called surplus. That would
>-> leave us with minus $60 billion -- a $60 billion deficit for 1998. As
>-> such, budget surplus talk is nothing less than a sleight-of-hand
>-> accounting hoax perpetrated on the American people.
>
>>>You use the power of the US government to make me
>>>give up my earnings to line your own pockets. You might as well break
>>>into my home and steal things, or hold a gun to my head. It's the same
>>>thing.
>
>>>The fact you admit that somewhere down the road, the bill has to be
paid,
>>>means that the government can go bankrupt. At some point, it may have to
>>>be paid, and if the money isn't there *poof*. Bankruptcy. Or printing so
>>>much currency that the same or worse result is reached.
>
>no answer from parker....
>
>>>>>>>>>Ok, I'll scan for it you.
>>>>>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyll...atement001.jpg
>>>>>>>>>Right from the statement. Social security is telling me to
multiply that
>>>>>>>>>the benefit value by .73 to get the actual value I can expect.
>
>>>>>>>Yep, parker silence facing the proof.
>>>>>> If nothing is done. Like saying, "If nothing is done about that
forest
>>>>>> fire, it'll burn Los Angeles" and then declaring "that fire is going
to
>>>>>> burn LA!"
>
>>>>>And I'm hearing from democrats nothing needs to be done.
>
>>>> Then you're not listening. None of them are saying that. None.
>>>
>>>Well back in 1999 and earlier democrats presented some options...
>>>including *gasp* some private accounts. So, present proposals. You
>>>didn't. You had to go to AARP!
>
>> Private in addition to SS, not taking funds away from it. That's
actually
>> one of AARP's proposals now.
>
>But the opposition is based on the concept of people having ownership.

You're free to invest in an IRA, a 401(k), a 403(b), an annuity, whatever
you want. But you're not free to refuse to pay what society has determined
to be a legitimate program to be funded.

>
>>>>>Also, how am I
>>>>>supposed to make the estimate of a break even date other than to
follow what
>>>>>is on the statement?
>
>>>> How can I calculate my break-even point on my IRA, without knowing
future
>>>> contributions, interest rates, tax rates, etc.?
>>>I used the same assumptions that the SSA used.
>
>> You made one assumption however -- that no changes are going to be made.

>> That's not a likely scenario.
>
>That's the assumption of the SSA.

No, that's ONE possible scenario.

It's like calculating how much you'll be out if Klingons attack the earth
in June.

In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> You believe in imposing your view of how society should be run on everybody
>>> else, regardless of what they believe. That's not liberty, that's a
>>> dictatorship.

>>This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever seen a liberal
>>micromanager post. The greatest bit of projection ever.

>>Exactly what am I telling people to do Dr. Parker? How am I controlling
>>them? I want to to post your charges.

> No programs if I have to be taxed for them. Heck, no programs I don't
> like.

Again, how am I controling anyone? How is NOT taking money from one
citizen and giving to another control?

Control _IS_ what you want, the POWER of taking from one citizen and
giving to another. That's mostly what government in this nation does now,
taking from one group of citizens to give to another group. (note:
corporations are groups of citizens too)


>>Oh, heaven forbid I want people to make decisions for THEMSELVES. To
>>control their OWN LIVES.

> What if their decision is members of society need to pay some taxes, as
> pretty much every society in history has decided?

SOME taxes. For things like roads, defense, etc. Not retirement schemes
with negative returns.

>>To RETAIN THEIR PROPERTY. Rather than have
>>tyrants like yourself from the self-appointed elite tell them what to do,
>>and take their propery to be redistributed at your whims. To control
>>every facet of their lives as if they were children. To force them to
>>'save' for the future because you deem them unable to discipline
>>themselves.

Of course parker doesn't answer this. Like Bill Clinton, Parker thinks
government should take care of people like a parent takes care of a
child. However, children don't get to choose anything, they aren't free,
they are _CONTROLLED_ by their parents.


>>> Yes it does, unless you live on a desert isle. Living in a society brings
>>> with it certain obligations.

>>The obligation not to interfere with the business of others and try to
>>control their lives the way you do by taking from one citizen to give to
>>another.

> So you think what, either society doesn't need police, hospitals, roads,
> courts, schools, etc.; they would be available only to the very rich; or
> people would voluntarily contribute to these. All 3 are false.

Strawman alert! Never said anything of the kind. I stated not taking
from one citizen to give to another. You like social security as is,
or as is with higher taxes because A) It offers _CONTROL_ over the people.
B) It lines your pockets at the expense of younger people such as myself
who'll never see a payback of what they put in.

Your idea of 'democracy' and 'obligation' is something like this: You are in a
bar. There are 30 people there with you. 24 of them decide you should buy
everyone a drink. They tell you, it's your obligation as part of the
society of the bar. When you object, they say that means you wouldn't pay
for fire departments, police departments, national defense, schools, etc.
They call you someone who wants to control others. They won't allow you to
leave until you buy the round of drinks. That's your apparent vision of
democracy. Rule of the majority without liberty.

>>>>Oh, so your previous ranting about the defict spending is just political
>>>>bluster on your part? Which is it? Either all this defict spending and
>>>>IOUs to SS and bad accounting practices in government are a problem or they
>>>>aren't. Make up your mind.

>>>>You can't trash GWB and others on the defict and debt and at the same time
>>>>say there is no problem because of it. If there is no problem, then they
>>>>might as well spend like they are.

>>> Where have I said there is no problem? The problem is, future generations
>>> will have to pay the debt, plus we're paying interest on it. What I said
>>> is there is no way on heaven or earth the US gov't will go bankrupt.

>>I'm just pointing out your illogical and inconsistant views. If the US
>>government can never go bankrupt, then there is no need to care about the
>>debt or the rate it's piling up. If it can never possibly occur.

> The US isn't going to go bankrupt because it can raise money to pay its
> debts. That dreaded "T" word.

Then GWB's out of control spending, the cost of the occupation of Iraq,
the cost of rebuilding Iraq, etc and so forth shouldn't bother you. If
there is no way of going bankrupt, and no unpleasantries from avoiding it
with printing money, or taxing the people into poverty later, after
you're dead, then the spending of GWB and congress shouldn't worry you.

>>Future generations will have to pay, you'll be dead by then so you don't
>>care. You don't care.

> Sure I do; that's why I supported Clinton, who balanced the budget, and not
> Bush, who's created more debt than any other president.

The 'balanced budget' was nothing more than half-assed smoke and mirrors
government accounting methods. Sure, with GWB, the accounting tricks
can't make it look that good. The budget/accounting practices of the federal
government make those of enron and worldcom look like alter boys. (And
we all know you'd vote for an ape if that's what the D's put up)

Here is a PhD economist's take on the 'surplus' of the Clinton
adminstration.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...dget-hoax.html

-> Boiled down to its basics, that's the budget "surplus" hoax that's coming
-> from the president and Congress. In 1998, there was approximately $120
-> billion spent out of revenue earmarked for trust funds like the Social
-> Security, highway and unemployment compensation trust funds. There's
-> absolutely nothing in those trust funds except Treasury Department IOUs.
->
-> That means that when Congress reports there is a $60 billion surplus, we
-> should subtract $120 billion from that so-called surplus. That would
-> leave us with minus $60 billion -- a $60 billion deficit for 1998. As
-> such, budget surplus talk is nothing less than a sleight-of-hand
-> accounting hoax perpetrated on the American people.

>>You use the power of the US government to make me
>>give up my earnings to line your own pockets. You might as well break
>>into my home and steal things, or hold a gun to my head. It's the same
>>thing.

>>The fact you admit that somewhere down the road, the bill has to be paid,
>>means that the government can go bankrupt. At some point, it may have to
>>be paid, and if the money isn't there *poof*. Bankruptcy. Or printing so
>>much currency that the same or worse result is reached.

no answer from parker....

>>>>>>>>Ok, I'll scan for it you.
>>>>>>>>http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyll...atement001.jpg
>>>>>>>>Right from the statement. Social security is telling me to multiply that
>>>>>>>>the benefit value by .73 to get the actual value I can expect.

>>>>>>Yep, parker silence facing the proof.
>>>>> If nothing is done. Like saying, "If nothing is done about that forest
>>>>> fire, it'll burn Los Angeles" and then declaring "that fire is going to
>>>>> burn LA!"

>>>>And I'm hearing from democrats nothing needs to be done.

>>> Then you're not listening. None of them are saying that. None.
>>
>>Well back in 1999 and earlier democrats presented some options...
>>including *gasp* some private accounts. So, present proposals. You
>>didn't. You had to go to AARP!

> Private in addition to SS, not taking funds away from it. That's actually
> one of AARP's proposals now.

But the opposition is based on the concept of people having ownership.

>>>>Also, how am I
>>>>supposed to make the estimate of a break even date other than to follow what
>>>>is on the statement?

>>> How can I calculate my break-even point on my IRA, without knowing future
>>> contributions, interest rates, tax rates, etc.?
>>I used the same assumptions that the SSA used.

> You made one assumption however -- that no changes are going to be made.
> That's not a likely scenario.

That's the assumption of the SSA. That's how they calculated the benefit,
that's how I calculate the break even date. It could *GET WORSE* with the
changes too. In fact, that is the more likely event, that I'll loose more
money to this pyramid scheme that I am forced into.

Also, Dr. Parker, are you accustomed to making investments, saving your
money, etc into funds where the rules change at the whim of those running
it? If so, you really should invest in my Aston Martin Fund. I get to
take your money, drive an aston martin, and when payback time comes,
change the rules so you get nothing back. Sounds like a great plan
doesn't it? Cept I wasn't supposed to tell you to you get nothing back
until later.

>>>>Oh, and Parker, would you put hundreds of thousands of dollars where your
>>>>return was based on the whims of those running the fund? If so, I want
>>>>about $300,000 from you. Your return is based on my whim. Meanwhile, I'll
>>>>buy an Aston Martin with it.

>>Once again, Parker ducks the practical example.

In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote:

>>>>This has got to be the funniest thing I've ever seen a liberal
>>>>micromanager post. The greatest bit of projection ever.
>>>>Exactly what am I telling people to do Dr. Parker? How am I controlling
>>>>them? I want to to post your charges.

>>> No programs if I have to be taxed for them. Heck, no programs I don't
>>> like.

>>Again, how am I controling anyone? How is NOT taking money from one
>>citizen and giving to another control?

> Because society has to be funded.

What sort of cryptic non-comment is that? DEFINE YOUR CHARGES PARKER.

>>Control _IS_ what you want, the POWER of taking from one citizen and
>>giving to another. That's mostly what government in this nation does now,
>>taking from one group of citizens to give to another group. (note:
>>corporations are groups of citizens too)

> Yeah, democracy is such a terrible thing.

Once again:

Your idea of 'democracy' and 'obligation' is something like this: You are in a
bar. There are 30 people there with you. 24 of them decide you should buy
everyone a drink. They tell you, it's your obligation as part of the
society of the bar. When you object, they say that means you wouldn't pay
for fire departments, police departments, national defense, schools, etc.
They call you someone who wants to control others. They won't allow you to
leave until you buy the round of drinks. That's your apparent vision of
democracy. Rule of the majority without liberty.

This is tyranny of the majority. Limited government in the form of a
republic was designed to prevent such actions. However, the constitution
and it's protections of liberty and the Bill of Rights have gone by the
way side.

Once again, I believe in LIBERTY. Without liberty, democracy is nothing
more than mob rule.

>>>>Oh, heaven forbid I want people to make decisions for THEMSELVES. To
>>>>control their OWN LIVES.

>>> What if their decision is members of society need to pay some taxes, as
>>> pretty much every society in history has decided?

>>SOME taxes. For things like roads, defense, etc. Not retirement schemes
>>with negative returns.

> So which section of the constitution lets you decide which things get
> funded?

Figures that you haven't read it. Point out the part that allows you to
take from one citizen and give to another. Point out the part that allows
you to take from citizens and give to corporations. (Hint: It's not the
'general welfare'). The constitution LIMITS government. The constitution
does not give the federal government that power so thusly they do not
have the power to take from citizens to give to other citizens. Such is
contrary to the concept of liberty.

>>>>To RETAIN THEIR PROPERTY. Rather than have
>>>>tyrants like yourself from the self-appointed elite tell them what to do,
>>>>and take their propery to be redistributed at your whims. To control
>>>>every facet of their lives as if they were children. To force them to
>>>>'save' for the future because you deem them unable to discipline
>>>>themselves.

>>Of course parker doesn't answer this. Like Bill Clinton, Parker thinks
>>government should take care of people like a parent takes care of a
>>child. However, children don't get to choose anything, they aren't free,
>>they are _CONTROLLED_ by their parents.

> Are you free to choose to drive on the left side of the road, or to not
> stop at red lights?

You have trouble grasping basic concepts don't you? Your rights end where
mine begin. Thusly we have rules of the road. However, your rights do not
extend to pulling money out of my wallet for yourself or your chairitable
causes.

>>>>> Yes it does, unless you live on a desert isle. Living in a society brings
>>>>> with it certain obligations.

>>>>The obligation not to interfere with the business of others and try to
>>>>control their lives the way you do by taking from one citizen to give to
>>>>another.

>>> So you think what, either society doesn't need police, hospitals, roads,
>>> courts, schools, etc.; they would be available only to the very rich; or
>>> people would voluntarily contribute to these. All 3 are false.

>>Strawman alert! Never said anything of the kind. I stated not taking
>>from one citizen to give to another.

> If I don't use the fire department and you do, isn't that taking my money
> and in effect giving it to you?

No. There is no way you can conclude it does. Plus, local governments run
fire departments, not the federal government. BIG DIFFERENCE.

>>You like social security as is,
>>or as is with higher taxes because A) It offers _CONTROL_ over the people.
>>B) It lines your pockets at the expense of younger people such as myself
>>who'll never see a payback of what they put in.

>>Your idea of 'democracy' and 'obligation' is something like this: You are in a
>>bar. There are 30 people there with you. 24 of them decide you should buy
>>everyone a drink. They tell you, it's your obligation as part of the
>>society of the bar. When you object, they say that means you wouldn't pay
>>for fire departments, police departments, national defense, schools, etc.
>>They call you someone who wants to control others. They won't allow you to
>>leave until you buy the round of drinks. That's your apparent vision of
>>democracy. Rule of the majority without liberty.

No answer, it's repeated above since you keep bringing up the subject but
fail to deal with the practical example.

>>> The US isn't going to go bankrupt because it can raise money to pay its
>>> debts. That dreaded "T" word.

>>Then GWB's out of control spending, the cost of the occupation of Iraq,
>>the cost of rebuilding Iraq, etc and so forth shouldn't bother you. If
>>there is no way of going bankrupt, and no unpleasantries from avoiding it
>>with printing money, or taxing the people into poverty later, after
>>you're dead, then the spending of GWB and congress shouldn't worry you.

No answer from parker, he cannot address the basic disconnect of 'not
worrying about bankruptcy' and complaining about the deficit.

>>>>Future generations will have to pay, you'll be dead by then so you don't
>>>>care. You don't care.

>>> Sure I do; that's why I supported Clinton, who balanced the budget, and not
>>> Bush, who's created more debt than any other president.

>>The 'balanced budget' was nothing more than half-assed smoke and mirrors
>>government accounting methods.

> no, for the last 2 years under Clinton, revenues exceeded expenses, not
> even counting the SS surplus.

Cite?

>>Sure, with GWB, the accounting tricks
>>can't make it look that good. The budget/accounting practices of the federal
>>government make those of enron and worldcom look like alter boys. (And
>>we all know you'd vote for an ape if that's what the D's put up)

>>Here is a PhD economist's take on the 'surplus' of the Clinton
>>adminstration.
>>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/econo...dget-hoax.html

> Considering the surplus was in 1999 and 2000, was this person psychic?

Note the word budget.... BUDGET for 1999 is in 1998. Just like the
complaining about GWB's 2005 BUDGET in 2004.

But anyway, I have a better cite for you:
http://cox.house.gov/annreport/ann_rep1999.pdf
1998 1999
Surplus8 . . . . . . . . . . . $ 69,242,000,000 $ 122,743,000,000

8. For fiscal years 1991 and beyond, the excess of Social Security taxes
over outlays for Social Security is excluded by law
from deficit or surplus calculations. The Clinton administration,
however, has elected to include the Social Security Trust
Fund in their deficit and surplus calculations, which has the effect of
increasing the reported surplus by $86 billion in 1998
and by $124.7 billion in 1999.

Can you read that Dr. Parker? Now do the math. 69 billion MINUS 86
billion is NEGATIVE 17 billon. 122 billion MINUS 124 billion is NEGATIVE
2 Billion. Both years are deficits without social security IOUs ALONE.

If a corporation or a republican pulled this on investors or
taxpayers you'd be screaming bloody murder. But it's ok, because
democrats did it. Of course you'll just claim this house member who is
boasting about the budget success is lying. So, find yourself a cite or
STFU.

Just for backup:
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/s...inton.surplus/
"The Social Security surplus last year was $124 billion, and the rest of
the government ran a $1 billion deficit, creating a combined $123 billion
surplus."
http://www.concordcoalition.org/rele...getdeficit.htm

Without Social security IOUs it was another defioit year, just a very small
one.


>>> Private in addition to SS, not taking funds away from it. That's actually
>>> one of AARP's proposals now.

>>But the opposition is based on the concept of people having ownership.

> You're free to invest in an IRA, a 401(k), a 403(b), an annuity, whatever
> you want. But you're not free to refuse to pay what society has determined
> to be a legitimate program to be funded.

Not free to be stolen from. Controled. Forced. No liberty. You are
talking tryanny of the majority parker. Elect the people that will bring
you home the most goodies from other citizens. That's what you are
advocating parker. Mob rule. You better hope the population doesn't turn
against college professors.


>>>>>>Also, how am I
>>>>>>supposed to make the estimate of a break even date other than to follow what
>>>>>>is on the statement?

>>>>> How can I calculate my break-even point on my IRA, without knowing future
>>>>> contributions, interest rates, tax rates, etc.?
>>>>I used the same assumptions that the SSA used.

>>> You made one assumption however -- that no changes are going to be made.
>>> That's not a likely scenario.

>>That's the assumption of the SSA.

> No, that's ONE possible scenario.

Huh? It's the assumption of the SSA. Read the statement they sent you.

> It's like calculating how much you'll be out if Klingons attack the earth
> in June.

Your reply is much like that.

So, when are you going to invest in my aston martin fund, Dr. Parker?
You send me money, I buy and drive an aston martin with those funds. I
promise you 'benefits' at some later date, but I can change the rules of
the plan at any time, including droping your benefits to zero.
Are you going to be sending me a check?

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> <.previous social security topic..>
>
> Hey Dr. Parker..
> Guess what I got in the mail yesterday? My Social Security Statement.
>
> With this handy document, using their assumptions and the bold printed
> notice that I will only get 73% of the predicted benefit if nothing is
> done I was able to calculate my break even age for social security under
> the do-nothing plan. The age where Social Security becomes equal to
> stuffing cash in a mattress.
>
> That age for me is........ AGE 89.8 years.

Don't you intend to live that long Brent?

Excellent. The world will be better off without you, so the shorter your
stay the better.

By the way Brent....earlier you had claimed that SS was going bankrupt.
And now you admit that it isn't.

Why were you lying earlier?

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> Raise taxes, which will only push the break even date further out.

Why raise taxes to save Social Security? Why not cut Military spending?


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> But you were arguing to do nothing parker. Nothing. That all is well. The
> sheet says in bold print, if nothing is done, you get 73% of the number
> above. I'll scan it for you if you want proof.

And why should you preseume that nothing will be done? Further, why are
you presuming that you will die before you are 90?

Finally Social Security is an insurance system. When do you expect to
recoup the payments you make on your home and car insurance?

Snicker....

Stupid... Stupid... Republican...


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> I worked for that, that's the contribution.

Now how can that be when Conservative Bill, has just finished telling us
that all American savings are gifts from investment bankers on Wallstreet?



"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> There is no free money Dr. Parker.

You mean the 7.8 trillion borrowed by Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 will have to
be paid back?

When do you plan to do so? Certainly Repuibicans are nothing but Borrow
and Spend.



"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> If I had such concerns I could buy a life insurance policy for much less
> money than what SS is costing me.

And you would never see a penny because in order to collect you would have
to die.

Stupid... Stupid... Republican....