Discussion may be pointless but the problem is simple. Money paid into SS in excess of outlays has ALL been used, "borrowed", by congress to fund anything and everything. Now SS has "promises" from congress to fund the ever increasing benefit outlays and the money will need to be appropriated as a line item in each and every budget into perpetuity.

Question is: what else could SS have done with the money? Invested in the stock market, real estate, or what?

Ask this: Why was SS allowed to collect more than it paid out in the first place? Answer: Congress needed more for other things and convinced us that we were insuring the future solvency of SS. Mendacity.

__________________
DS
2010 CL550 - Heaven help me but it's beautiful
87 300D a labor of love
11 GLK 350 So far, so good
08 E350 4matic, Love it.
99 E320 too rusted, sold
87 260E Donated to Newgate School
www.Newgateschool.org - check it out.
12 Ford Escape, sold, forgotten
87 300D, sold, what a mistake
06 Passat 2.0T, PITA, sold

Las Vegas NV

Good Lord.

Funny you should mention race. When I drove cab, I encountered blacks who were the salt of the earth. Some great encounters. I also encountered blacks who had apparently relied on cons and scams for years to get by. Good lord, the worn out routines, 'hey man, you got change for a fifty?'

After a while, one begins to note non verbal clues to help one determine whether or not to trust the particular person.

*EDIT* Let me add, there are white pimps, especially in Europe. Pimps were another phenomenon I saw plenty of in the cab days. Theyr'e real, they are out there.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Why would discussion be pointless?You say "promises" as if it were a bad word. IMHO, a promise to pay from the United States government is a good promise to have.Haven't they accomplished that goal, for the most part? SS needs some adjustments, but there is no reason it can't remain solvent for generations to come.

No, it is not solvent. The congress' promises to pay back the money borrowed from the SS trust fund are a liability that can only be paid with money collected from citizens who already paid the money to the SS system in the first place. Currently, the amount you pay out of payroll that goes to SS is paid out immediately. In fact, congress is adding to that with money from the general fund of the treasury - a current account budget line item - to meet it's obligations.

You might say, well, yes that's ok, the government has the money and OWES SS Trust fund. But in the current situation with around 40% of all expenditures by the federal gov't being borrowed money, something has to give. Add to that that half of the borrowed money is from a printing press and not even real assets and you have a prescription for hard times. AKA, inflation, dollar depreciation, $5 - $10 per gallon gas and $6 per lb hamburger - and guess what, your wages are not going to go up at that inflation rate. Wages in an inflationary period always lag.

Back to SS, yes the gov't has the money, but it is going to have a harder time getting it back to the SS Trust fund.

__________________
DS
2010 CL550 - Heaven help me but it's beautiful
87 300D a labor of love
11 GLK 350 So far, so good
08 E350 4matic, Love it.
99 E320 too rusted, sold
87 260E Donated to Newgate School
www.Newgateschool.org - check it out.
12 Ford Escape, sold, forgotten
87 300D, sold, what a mistake
06 Passat 2.0T, PITA, sold

Las Vegas NV

Yeah right: You have lots of friends who are conservative. Have them over for dinner. Heard it a million times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Honus
So kind of you to replace the substantive part of his post with "..." That technique is right out of the Fox News editing handbook.

The only appropo response would be " touche' ".

I don't think "touche' " quite captures it. I would be more inclined to go with "nice try." My criticism of Botnst had nothing to do with whether we should stick with substantive issues. I criticized his selective editing. So, as I am sure you can see, his response was not really responsive.

Congress Madoff with the excess.

Good grief.

Yeah right. I've known a lot of racists who use precisely that same line, Bubba.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Bot referred to "aesthetic appearance." I'm guessing in spite of all the words traded on this vital topic, he thinks I'm referring to matinee idol good looks. You have to really try to miss the point that badly. I sorta like Christie of NJ. At least he projects a calm thoughtfulness, some sort of honest character. Romney is, by average standards, probably considered better looking by many but I'd take Christie in a heartbeat over him. Romney is playing some nice, polite role that life has prepared him for. Just weird.

But the the R I'm really big on is likely to not go over because he isn't handsome enough: Mitch Daniels. Not tall enough, not good enough hair, not highly good looking.

Me? I like what he says and I like his vibe, man.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Perhaps you could explain why it's OK to change someone's statement by deleting a relevant portion and then ridicule what's left. How is that honest?

No. I said, "Aesthetic appearance." That is what I said. Not what you said I said. Do you know the definition of "aesthetics"?

Ah, ah, I see. You didn't refer to aesthetic appearance, rather you said Aesthetic appearance." Forgive me for getting it wrong.

I was pretty sure I knew what it meant but I went to m-w.com so as to have a standard:

1plural but sing or plural in constr : a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty

2: a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight

That's what I thought it meant. Oh yeah, all this time I've been referring to this or that person's lack of beauty when I spoke of not trusting someone's dishonest comportment.

I'm sorry you don't get this. I'm not going to be able to explain it to you.

Safe travels.

When we quote from a presidential speech, do we use the entire tirade? No, we excise the portion that interests us. When we wish to cite a portion of the Bible, do we start with "In the Beginning..." and run for a thousand pages? Clearly not if we're quoting from Proverbs.

Context is necessary to make certain we are not changing the intent of the portion excised.

Clearly the context was consistent.


QED