The real "war on children"

[Plane]

But bottom line, I don't really think the Bush gang convinced anyone with anything.  Bottom line is they LOST the popular vote and they stole the election in the Electoral College, then used the power of incumbency to lever Bush into a second term.  Either legitimately by a much smaller margin than officially indicated, or, like the first time, illegitimately again.

How can you avoid knowing that to be a lie?


Is there no one willing to take the case to court?

No , but with thousands of Dmocratic lawyers eager to bring the election to court , there s no one found with standing to complain.

The lie of the stolen election is absolutely busted .

[Plane]

It's just mind-boggling.  They can blow half a trillion on the war in Iraq, they can put people in space and send robot probes to other planets, but they can't "save" social security.  And they seem to have no trouble at all finding people willing to believe this ludicrous crap. 
Any country that loses its bullshit detector is in big trouble.

Tee, these are the people who convinced many of the working classes and poor that they need to promote tax cuts for the wealthy so that the wealthiest can begin the "trickle down effect" of supply-side economics. They convinced these people, without any evidence between points A (100% taxation) and points B (0% taxation) that Laffer's curve was a parabola and worked exactly as drawn on a paper napkin.

There are middle ages divine-right Kings who wish they had the ability to influence their peasants and serfs to give them money - willingly. They just used the time-honored tradition of brute force and threatening to throw them off their land and leave them to starve or banditry. But to actually convince people of this idiocy...one has to appreciate the Machiavellian masterstroke of pure Palpatine-like genius, even if one has no respect for neoliberalism at all. 

Social Security is becoming a Cargo cult.

With the belief that Money is created from nothing by the government at will one can actually believe that a Ponzi scheme can continue forever without a collapse.

Lets imagine that every wage earner on Earth could be included in the contritions , lets assume that peace breaks out so severely that no spending on military is needed at all ,lets assume that the contribution of the wealthy is doubled and the number of wealthy doubles also.

It is still a doomed Ponzi scheme , the larger it grows the more it owes .

And the later the fall ,the greater the fall.

There is not a difference between Ponzi schemes and the Social Security as it is.

Not even one.

[Michael Tee]

<<[The military budget and the rich are already] a smaller resource than the present demand.>>

Please, plane, that is just ridiculous.  What is the present demand?  How many Americans can demand SS in 2007 and what's the average benefit each of them will demand?  The combined wealth of this nation won't support it?  That's nonsense.   Utter nonsense.  You can't show me a single study that says that raised taxes and capital taxes combined can't pay SS benefits this year or for any time into the foreseeable future - - long past the time when the "bubble" or "surge" of the baby boomers will have passed on.


<<The potential shortfall is infinite . . . >>

Also ridiculous.  If the number of Americans entitled to benefits is finite and the amount of the benefit is finite, the total amount of the pay-out, let alone any short-fall, is also finite

<< . . . , but the shortfall that can cause crisis is pretty small , just a year with half payments and the colapse will commence.>>

There will never be a shortfall unless the government ALLOWS there to be a shortfall.  If there is a shortfall, be it a year of half-payments, it is anyone's guess as to what the consequences will be.  Personally, I think a lot of people will be motivated to take what they need by force from anyone who seems to have a lot more than he needs.  Armed revolution, for want of a better world. 

<<If the Baby boomers would last only a short time the problem would be surmountable , unfortunately a lot of them will live longer than two years after their retirement.>>

Whatever their life expectancy, there will be enough wealth in the country to support it - - the government will just have to find the backbone to redistribute it fairly and sensibly.

[Michael Tee]

How can you avoid knowing that to be a lie?


Is there no one willing to take the case to court?

No , but with thousands of Dmocratic lawyers eager to bring the election to court , there s no one found with standing to complain.

The lie of the stolen election is absolutely busted .
=============================================================================
Oh ye of little memory - - the case has already BEEN to court, remember?  The court split 5-4 in favour of Bush, not surprisingly since the five were conservatives appointed for their political views.  Interesting enough, while the five had consistently voted AGAINST federal authorities overriding state authorities, in this one case, for some strange reason, the "conservative" five justices were opposed to allowing the Florida courts to decide how to resolve irregularities in the Florida vote, and decided this time that it was OK for a federal court to dictate local matters such as resolution of a flawed Presidential vote to the State of Florida.

People know the Court is fixed.  Why would they go to all the cost and bother of litigating an election which the Court has already thrown to the Republican Party?

[Plane]

Whatever their life expectancy, there will be enough wealth in the country to support it - - the government will just have to find the backbone to redistribute it fairly and sensibly.

Why would you think this?


It is rediculous.


The number of earners is shrinking, the number of entitled is growing and there will never be a time that this will reverse unless we quit retireing (which is the same as cutting benefits).


There will definately be less than the required wealth soon even though it is impossible to project the date.


Are you not the one who statd that the Iraq War would break our economy?

The Iraq war couldtripple in expense and we could handle it , but our SS system is already much bigger than our miltary sending and is more likely to grow expontiality

[Michael Tee]

<<Social Security is becoming a Cargo cult.>>

Absolutely ridiculous.

<<With the belief that Money is created from nothing by the government at will one can actually believe that a Ponzi scheme can continue forever without a collapse.>>

Nice try except nobody believes money is created from nothing.

<<Lets imagine that every wage earner on Earth could be included in the contritions , lets assume that peace breaks out so severely that no spending on military is needed at all ,lets assume that the contribution of the wealthy is doubled and the number of wealthy doubles also.

<<It is still a doomed Ponzi scheme , the larger it grows the more it owes .>>

Bullshit.  The amount it owes will grow as long as the baby boomers are collecting benefits and will start to shrink again as they die off.

<<And the later the fall ,the greater the fall.>>

Again, provided the government has the will to tax, sell bonds and cut the military budget in various combinations, there is no reason on earth why there should be any fall.

<<There is not a difference between Ponzi schemes and the Social Security as it is.>>

Of course there is - - the Ponzi scheme was developed to enrich Mr. Ponzi and the Social Security was developed to protect Americans.  As a result the Ponzi scheme grew with no responsible oversight and the Social Security develops in full public view.  Millions or maybe tens of millions of Americans have already benefited from Social Security while the number of people who ever benefited from a Ponzi scheme apart from Mr. Ponzi himself is relatively tiny.

<<Not even one.>>

That's because you're not looking.

[Plane]

How can you avoid knowing that to be a lie?


Is there no one willing to take the case to court?

No , but with thousands of Dmocratic lawyers eager to bring the election to court , there s no one found with standing to complain.

The lie of the stolen election is absolutely busted .
=============================================================================
Oh ye of little memory - - the case has already BEEN to court, remember?  The court split 5-4 in favour of Bush, not surprisingly since the five were conservatives appointed for their political views.  Interesting enough, while the five had consistently voted AGAINST federal authorities overriding state authorities, in this one case, for some strange reason, the "conservative" five justices were opposed to allowing the Florida courts to decide how to resolve irregularities in the Florida vote, and decided this time that it was OK for a federal court to dictate local matters such as resolution of a flawed Presidential vote to the State of Florida.

People know the Court is fixed.  Why would they go to all the cost and bother of litigating an election which the Court has already thrown to the Republican Party?

There has been NO case of cheating , vote fixing or voter exclusion taken to court.

The case you are refering to was a request by Al Gore to have the rules changed in the middle of the game.

Under the law that Al Gore did not complain about before the election , he very fairly lost.

Whereupon a bunch of liers have commenced and continued to lie about voter exclusion , vote rigging , etc... under circumstances that prove the complaints are lies.

[Plane]

<<The potential shortfall is infinite . . . >>

Also ridiculous.  If the number of Americans entitled to benefits is finite and the amount of the benefit is finite, the total amount of the pay-out, let alone any short-fall, is also finite

Well in the sense that the human population ofthe Earth is  finite I  suppose.

One need not be a citizen to qualify , one need not be old , one need not be present in the US at any time.

Everyone involved in the system is either going to die young or take some money out.


For most of us who have not retired yet ,we will take out less than we put in, so a mattress would have served us better.

[Michael Tee]

<<The number of earners is shrinking, the number of entitled is growing and there will never be a time that this will reverse unless we quit retireing (which is the same as cutting benefits).>>

That is patent nonsense, plane.  The number of earners is shrinking but the profits of the rich and the corporations are growing as are their assets here and abroad.  These are all subject to seizure and taxation.  America has enormous wealth and that wealth invested all over the world produces enormous earnings.  Time to spread some of it around a little more equitably.   Moreover, the nnumber of entitlements will not continue growing.  After a time it will begin shrinking.


<<There will definately be less than the required wealth soon even though it is impossible to project the date.>>


There will never be a time when American wealth and income will be insufficient to support its retired workers.  To prove your case, you would have to have calculated the needs of the system (number of claimants times average benefit) and then shown that the total profits and earnings of the population is insufficient.  That the capital of the nation is insufficient.  There are no such studies.  The idea is preposterous.


<<Are you not the one who statd that the Iraq War would break our economy?>>

Guilty as charged, My Lord.  WOULD, as in "would if allowed to continue."  It will not be allowed to continue.  As was Viet Nam, the war will be abandoned when the drain on the economy comes too close to the point of no return.

<<The Iraq war couldtripple in expense and we could handle it , but our SS system is already much bigger than our miltary sending and is more likely to grow expontiality>>

It's ridiculous to speak of exponential growth here.  There is no exponential growth of population even with the baby boom, and the baby boom is what the coming generation of benefit recipients will consist of.  Incidentally you are wrong about what you could handle in war costs too - - you can't even handle the present rate of expenditure, which is why the plug will be pulled on this war.  Triple you definitely could not handle, not because the money isn't there but because the people would rebel if taxed for the increase, especially a triple increasel

[Plane]

Plane, you are the last person I would believe about Social Security. You are mostly a dittohead, repeating like a large green parrot every stupid thing that Limbaugh and the rest of your ratwing mentors squawk.

I challenge you to find Limbaugh saying the same thing in the same words , previous , not post , when he is copying me that doesn't count.


Get energetic and disprove some of these things if you can , simply pointing out that lots of people agree with me doesn't discourage me much.

[Michael Tee]

<<There has been NO case of cheating , vote fixing or voter exclusion taken to court.>>

Of course not.  I just said that.

<<The case you are refering to was a request by Al Gore to have the rules changed in the middle of the game.>>

You are wrong again.  It was a case that acknowledged flaws in the Florida vote and asked that the Florida courts be allowed to interpret the Florida legislation that specified how the Florida vote was to be conducted and in the light of that interpretation to set a remedy for the flaws that the majority of justices determined had occurred.  In other words, the court was being asked to do what the conservative judges had previously said should be done - - that state courts should set the terms for the observance and rectification of state-legislated proceedings.   Only this time, the "conservatives" decided that the state courts should NOT determine such things any more.

<<Under the law that Al Gore did not complain about before the election , he very fairly lost.>>

Al Gore had no reason to complain about the law before the election, his complaint was over how the state of Florida had conducted the election and enforced or failed to enforce the law.

<<Whereupon a bunch of liers have commenced and continued to lie about voter exclusion , vote rigging , etc... under circumstances that prove the complaints are lies.>>

The "liars" who complained about voter exclusion had their case extensively documented in the Vanity Fair article by three investigative journalists who put together an unanswerable case for voter exclusion.  Vote rigging - - I'm not sure how votes are rigged, or even what the term means, it appears that the main factor in the Republicans' successful theft of the election was voter exclusion, as documented.  If there are complaints about "rigging" not related to voter exclusion, they may also have been part of the Republican plan, but I am just not familiar enough with the topic to discuss it.

"under circumstances thta prove the complaints are lies"

LMFAO, since all the circumstances prove conclusively that the election was stolen by excluding blacks from the rolls, intimidating them in some cases by State troopers, providing faulty machines, creating long voter lineups through misallocation of polling resources in black districts, etc.  The Vanity Fair article and probably many others show the conclusive evidence of election fraud.  The lack of court challenges is explained by the futility as shown by the obviously biased and partisan role played by the five conservative judges in handing the election to Bush in the first place.  Why would they overrule their own handiwork in a second decision?

[Plane]

<<Social Security is becoming a Cargo cult.>>

Absolutely ridiculous.

<<With the belief that Money is created from nothing by the government at will one can actually believe that a Ponzi scheme can continue forever without a collapse.>>

Nice try except nobody believes money is created from nothing.

/////////That is important  , what creates money in your estimation?///////////

<<Lets imagine that every wage earner on Earth could be included in the contritions , lets assume that peace breaks out so severely that no spending on military is needed at all ,lets assume that the contribution of the wealthy is doubled and the number of wealthy doubles also.

<<It is still a doomed Ponzi scheme , the larger it grows the more it owes .>>

Bullshit.  The amount it owes will grow as long as the baby boomers are collecting benefits and will start to shrink again as they die off.

I am a late baby boomer myself , born in 59.
The baby boom is a fifteen to twenty year phenomenon depending on how you count it , with a big surge to start it.
The Die off you are anticipating will not bring relief till the presently 62 reach 75 or so.
This is many times the length of time that a shortfall can be supported .
My guess is a six month period of high unemployment will cause the collapse .

<<And the later the fall ,the greater the fall.>>

Again, provided the government has the will to tax, sell bonds and cut the military budget in various combinations, there is no reason on earth why there should be any fall.

Oh I doubt not that a government with the will to tax can be elected I doubt much that taxes can be raised enough while the tax base is rapidly shrinking to cover a demand that is rapidly growing.

<<There is not a difference between Ponzi schemes and the Social Security as it is.>>

Of course there is - - the Ponzi scheme was developed to enrich Mr. Ponzi and the Social Security was developed to protect Americans.  As a result the Ponzi scheme grew with no responsible oversight and the Social Security develops in full public view.  Millions or maybe tens of millions of Americans have already benefited from Social Security while the number of people who ever benefited from a Ponzi scheme apart from Mr. Ponzi himself is relatively tiny.

<<Not even one.>>

That's because you're not looking.

On the contrary I am looking and I am seeing .

The similarity with a Ponzi scheme is perfect ,skimming did occur, though not to benefit a single individual but the entirety of the US Government , the skimming amounted to 100% of all recits not required for immediate payouts, in the full view of the public not a single dime has ever been set aside to deal with so much as a single days worth of shortfall.

You have not pointed out a difference , but its very chief similarity.

[Michael Tee]

<<Get energetic and disprove some of these things if you can , simply pointing out that lots of people agree with me doesn't discourage me much.>>

That's a laugh.  Why don't YOU get energetic and put together the facts and figures showing the total claims predicted, the resources available to satisfy them, the shortfall, and the inability of the existing or projected tax base to satisfy the short-fall with a tax on the rich?  So far all I've heard from you are blanket allegations that the sky is falling, there isn't enough this for covering that and absolutely no factual back-up whatsoever.  Although words like "exponential" and "infinite"  were freely bandied about, I don't think they qualify as factual support for your theories.

[Plane]

<<There has been NO case of cheating , vote fixing or voter exclusion taken to court.>>

Of course not.  I just said that.

<<The case you are refering to was a request by Al Gore to have the rules changed in the middle of the game.>>

You are wrong again.  It was a case that acknowledged flaws in the Florida vote and asked that the Florida courts be allowed to interpret the Florida legislation that specified how the Florida vote was to be conducted and in the light of that interpretation to set a remedy for the flaws that the majority of justices determined had occurred.  In other words, the court was being asked to do what the conservative judges had previously said should be done - - that state courts should set the terms for the observance and rectification of state-legislated proceedings.   Only this time, the "conservatives" decided that the state courts should NOT determine such things any more.

<<Under the law that Al Gore did not complain about before the election , he very fairly lost.>>

Al Gore had no reason to complain about the law before the election, his complaint was over how the state of Florida had conducted the election and enforced or failed to enforce the law.

<<Whereupon a bunch of liers have commenced and continued to lie about voter exclusion , vote rigging , etc... under circumstances that prove the complaints are lies.>>

The "liars" who complained about voter exclusion had their case extensively documented in the Vanity Fair article by three investigative journalists who put together an unanswerable case for voter exclusion.  Vote rigging - - I'm not sure how votes are rigged, or even what the term means, it appears that the main factor in the Republicans' successful theft of the election was voter exclusion, as documented.  If there are complaints about "rigging" not related to voter exclusion, they may also have been part of the Republican plan, but I am just not familiar enough with the topic to discuss it.

"under circumstances thta prove the complaints are lies"

LMFAO, since all the circumstances prove conclusively that the election was stolen by excluding blacks from the rolls, intimidating them in some cases by State troopers, providing faulty machines, creating long voter lineups through misallocation of polling resources in black districts, etc.  The Vanity Fair article and probably many others show the conclusive evidence of election fraud.  The lack of court challenges is explained by the futility as shown by the obviously biased and partisan role played by the five conservative judges in handing the election to Bush in the first place.  Why would they overrule their own handiwork in a second decision?

If there was anyhing more than fantasy involved there would be persons with standig to sue, and why would they not?

[Michael Tee]

<<You have not pointed out a diffrence , but its very cheif simularity.>>

You are correct.  I owe you a difference. 

Here's a big one:  When the game was up with Mr.  Ponzi, the game was up.  Mr. Ponzi lacked the taxation powers of the Federal Government.  He could not approach anybody and tax their income and their property to pay for the shortfall in his scheme.

Consider now by way of contrast the Federal Government.  Even had they looted the funds to the last penny - - something which I find very hard to believe - - they have not only deeper pockets than Mr. Ponzi ever did, but unlike poor old Mr. P., they can also reach into the pockets of every American citizen and take what they need.

That's why a Ponzi scheme was deeply disappointing to most of the people who believed in it, whereas Social Security will never disappoint anyone.