The real "war on children"

[Michael Tee]

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

Why not?  I just TOLD you why not - - the case would come to the Supreme Court at the end of the day and the Supreme Court has already given ample indication to anyone with eyes to see where it would stand on that issue.  It's a Republican, partisan court.

Your question is very naive.  It's like asking, if Hitler was really arresting Jews for no reason and stealing all of their property, why didn't any of them take him to court?  I mean, COME ON.

[Plane]

<<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.

This is a fact the number of persons requireing payment is riseing.

This is a fact the number paying in is shrinking.

These two trends are near the point at which the lines cross at this very point in time.

If you understand these two simple facts and their relationship you get my point , and everything elese is quibbleing that doesn't matter.

Already the Social entitlement dwarfs our military spending , this problem could swallow the Pentagon like a pill.

[Plane]

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

Why not?  I just TOLD you why not - - the case would come to the Supreme Court at the end of the day and the Supreme Court has already given ample indication to anyone with eyes to see where it would stand on that issue.  It's a Republican, partisan court.

Your question is very naive.  It's like asking, if Hitler was really arresting Jews for no reason and stealing all of their property, why didn't any of them take him to court?  I mean, COME ON.

With the number of Democrats that exist in Florida being nearly 50% they are not even going to try to sue in a state court?

There is nothing to try , the accusation is a lie.

[Michael Tee]

<<If you understand these two simple facts and their relationship you get my point , and everything elese is quibbleing that doesn't matter.>>

Of course I understand those two simple facts.  What you don't seem to understand, or are unable to answer, is:  AFTER the two lines have crossed on the graph, where is the proof that the tax base in America is insufficient to fund, through increased taxes on the rich, any shortfall in the social insurance program, this year, next year or any other year?

[Michael Tee]

<<Whith the number of Democrats that exist in Florida being nearly 50% they are not even going to try to sue in a state court?>>

Oh, they could probably win in a state court.  The problem being, as you may not realize, the state court decision is appealable to the United States Supreme Court.

<<There is nothing to try , the accusation is a lie.>>

No, unfortunately the accusation is the truth.  It is the denial of the accusation that is a lie.

[Plane]

<<If you understand these two simple facts and their relationship you get my point , and everything elese is quibbleing that doesn't matter.>>

Of course I understand those two simple facts.  What you don't seem to understand, or are unable to answer, is:  AFTER the two lines have crossed on the graph, where is the proof that the tax base in America is insufficient to fund, through increased taxes on the rich, any shortfall in the social insurance program, this year, next year or any other year?

There is nothing that will ever re-expand the shrinking worker base , of course if we annex our neighboring countrys we can reset the clock with their youth butthat only resets the clock and gains a few years , not even does it do that if we have a period of unemployment after the annexation.

You state that the boomers will die off again , makeing the problem temporary , but how long will that tae compared to the time required for a beaurocracy to loose the faith of its people?

I doubt that the 2041 estimate is anything other than wildly optomistic ince it is a pojection of the present trends and we have already set a record for the longest good economy in our history.

Depending on never haveing a year of high unemployment for the next thirty three years is more than the usually optomistic.

And how would the  Social Seurity system deal with a few mounths of high unemployment?

[Plane]

<<Whith the number of Democrats that exist in Florida being nearly 50% they are not even going to try to sue in a state court?>>

Oh, they could probably win in a state court.  The problem being, as you may not realize, the state court decision is appealable to the United States Supreme Court.

No , it isn't , and even if it were the poitical benefit would be the demonstration of the truth , if it were the truth.

<<There is nothing to try , the accusation is a lie.>>

No, unfortunately the accusation is the truth.  It is the denial of the accusation that is a lie.

Your faith is strong , but it is placed poorly.

If there were Democrats actually driven off from the polls yu would know them by name , and you don't do you?

[Michael Tee]

<<If there were Democrats actually driven off from the polls yu would know them by name , and you don't do you?>>

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't know any of them by name.  The reporters for Vanity Fair certainly do, because they told numerous stories of blacks excluded unfairly from the polls.  By the purging of the rolls, where "errors" were made in (I think) about 100,000 cases, almost all blacks.  Funny thing, though, almost no Hispanics were wrongly identified as felons.

 I hope you don't mind if I correct you on a minor point - - I believe I spoke of blacks being excluded from voting, not "driven off from the polls."  Again the Vanity Fair reporters had numerous stories of how they were excluded, many on their way to the polls being stopped by state troopers who had picked that day out of all 365 in the year to conduct random traffic stops to detect forged driver licences.  Funny thing, though - - that the day they picked for the "random stops" was election day.  Funny too how most of the people they stopped that election day were blacks, in black areas.

My daughter's a journalist who has written for American magazines like Vanity Fair.  So I'm very familiar with the fact-checking routine and how far the editors go in reviewing reporters' notes, tapes and signed statements before going to press.  There are names, there are statements, there is evidence of which the actual magazine stories are just the tip of the iceberg.

So you better believe, whether I know them or not, there ARE people with names and faces who are black and who were excluded from the polls deliberately as part of the Republicans' successful effort to steal the Florida vote.

[Plane]

<<If there were Democrats actually driven off from the polls yu would know them by name , and you don't do you?>>

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't know any of them by name.  The reporters for Vanity Fair certainly do, because they told numerous stories of blacks excluded unfairly from the polls.  By the purging of the rolls, where "errors" were made in (I think) about 100,000 cases, almost all blacks.  Funny thing, though, almost no Hispanics were wrongly identified as felons.

 I hope you don't mind if I correct you on a minor point - - I believe I spoke of blacks being excluded from voting, not "driven off from the polls."  Again the Vanity Fair reporters had numerous stories of how they were excluded, many on their way to the polls being stopped by state troopers who had picked that day out of all 365 in the year to conduct random traffic stops to detect forged driver licences.  Funny thing, though - - that the day they picked for the "random stops" was election day.  Funny too how most of the people they stopped that election day were blacks, in black areas.

My daughter's a journalist who has written for American magazines like Vanity Fair.  So I'm very familiar with the fact-checking routine and how far the editors go in reviewing reporters' notes, tapes and signed statements before going to press.  There are names, there are statements, there is evidence of which the actual magazine stories are just the tip of the iceberg.

So you better believe, whether I know them or not, there ARE people with names and faces who are black and who were excluded from the polls deliberately as part of the Republicans' successful effort to steal the Florida vote.

You are comeing close to proof that you hae been lied to by a very specific sorce.

There is nothing to prevent suit in a state court and the political payoff would be immense ,there is every reason to do it but it lacks one thing .

A real person who was so treated .

[sirs]

Didn't you get the memo, Plane.  It works like this, a lack of proof, a lack of evidence, a lack of examples is proof positive       

[Plane]

<<If you understand these two simple facts and their relationship you get my point , and everything elese is quibbleing that doesn't matter.>>

Of course I understand those two simple facts.  What you don't seem to understand, or are unable to answer, is:  AFTER the two lines have crossed on the graph, where is the proof that the tax base in America is insufficient to fund, through increased taxes on the rich, any shortfall in the social insurance program, this year, next year or any other year?

"AFTER the two lines have crossed on the graph""where is the proof"

That they cross is the proof , that they can't recross for many years is the downfall of the Social Security system.

If the government tries to get out of this problem by simply printing more money , they will have to roll the presses faster than Wiemar Germany ever tried to the WWI war debt of Germany is small in comparison to the scale of this.

If the Government tries to raise taxes enough to cover the short fall they will cripple the economy and the resulting high unemployment will just accelerate the process.

I am 48 but I would eagerly opt out of the Social security for the sake of the single decade of 6% benefit, I am very confident that I could look out for myself better and they can keep the difference they owe me to alleviate the problem a tiny bit.

[Amianthus]

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.

Actually, that's not true. Under Clinton and a Republican House, an actual "set aside" was created for SS, to be added to yearly. However, last time I checked, they had only set aside about 400 million. Not nearly enough to keep the system going for any length of time, but at least it was a start.

[Amianthus]

The problem being, as you may not realize, the state court decision is appealable to the United States Supreme Court.

No, they can't. The Supreme Court normally only reviews Federal decisions.

And the Supreme Court hears very few of the cases that are submitted anyway, so it would be unlikely to get there. The Supreme Court normally only reviews cases that have different rulings in multiple Federal courts. At most, one Federal court would review Florida cases, so there would be no disagreement between Federal courts, and a very slim chance that the Supreme Court would even take it on.

[Plane]

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.

Actually, that's not true. Under Clinton and a Republican House, an actual "set aside" was created for SS, to be added to yearly. However, last time I checked, they had only set aside about 400 million. Not nearly enough to keep the system going for any length of time, but at least it was a start.

Did they set aside Gold or cash or some real estate?

No , they set aside IOU's didn't they?

The set aside is imaginary.

[Amianthus]

Did they set aside Gold or cash or some real estate?

No , they set aside IOU's didn't they?

The set aside is imaginary.

Cash. In an interest bearing account.