In a recent column, I wrote, "Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are wonderful benefits, especially since we don't actually have to pay for them…" and was taken to task by a few readers for "not knowing" about the payroll tax.
Trust me, I do know about the payroll tax, having been paying it for these past 30-some years… but that's not what I was referring to when I said, "we don't have to pay for" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Instead I was talking about the fact that Congress has authorized these benefits without being able to point to a sufficient revenue source to actually fund them. Oh yes, the politicians talk and blather and obfuscate and promise that they will never default on their commitment to the American voters who have paid into the system for many years. But convicted-felon financier Bernie Madoff told his clients that their money was safe, too.
Yeah, sure - safe in Bernie's bank account in the Bahamas (or wherever).
Well, the fact of the matter is that, if you are my age - 54 - your Social Security and Medicare benefits are safe, too - in your children's and grandchildren's overdrawn piggy bank.
The numbers are abysmally astounding:
As of Jan. 1, 2008, the obligation for future payouts of Social Security was $6.6 trillion. I know, I know - that doesn't sound like much. After all, the federal government this year authorized nearly $1 trillion in spending on 'stimulus spending." But let's not forget that the $1 trillion that Congress generously appropriated to help fund government building projects was $1 trillion of "funny money" - money borrowed from China to be paid off later with money leveraged from new investors in the Ponzi scheme formerly known as the American government.
But Social Security is just the 900-pound gorilla on the ship of state. There is also the 190-ton blue whale of Medicare flopping dangerously on deck. Get ready for this: Medicare has an unfunded liability of $34 trillion. That's how much more the feds have promised to pay through the program than they actually have available.
I'm not making this stuff up. The Obama administration released a report by the trustees for Medicare and Social Security in May that told the dread story. According to the May 12 New York Times, "The administration said the Medicare fund that pays hospital bills for older Americans is expected to run out of money in 2017… The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2037."
Of course, the Times dutifully reported that, "Lawmakers say they would never allow Medicare's trust fund to run out of money," but they also noted that "beneficiaries could be required to pay higher premiums, co-payments and deductibles to help cover the costs."
Yeah, and taxpayers will be required to cough up blood, but for how long? Or more to the point, for how long will taxpayers put up with the sham?
The fact of the matter is that seniors have been paying into the system for a long time under the impression that they would be taken care of now that they need the money. And just like Bernie Madoff's early investors, most Medicare beneficiaries are still making out like bandits. On average, they collect at least two times more money from Medicare than they paid in. Wow! A 100 percent rate of return. No wonder seniors say they are 'very satisfied" with their health care.
But can we be serious for a minute? If all the beneficiaries are getting twice as much as they paid in, then who is paying for all that extra expense? Any guesses? (Remember, Uncle Sam is a fictional character, so he won't be picking up the tab!) OK, you figured it out… it's me and you, and there won't be anybody at the back of the line to pay for our Medicare or our Social Security when we want to collect for ourselves. That's the nature of a pyramid scheme. The people at the beginning get paid off handsomely, and the people at the end get the shaft.
I'm not sure whether the growing taxpayer rebellion can actually force the government to stop playing games with our money or not, but I am sure that it represents the best hope we have to stop the collapse of the American economy.
Is that fear-mongering? Not according to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, a think tank which calculated the 'real national debt" at $56.4 trillion in 2008. That includes the Medicare and Social Security debts, plus all the other publicly held debt, and debt for money the government has borrowed from itself.
In my mind, it's not fear-mongering; it's paying attention.
Or maybe it's an opportunity?
Shortly after the 2008 election, President Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was quoted by the New York Times as saying: "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things."
One of the "big things' that Emanuel has been hoping to do is pass "health-care reform," a big-ticket liberal wish-list item that has been a political orphan since Hillary Clinton got her clock cleaned in the early 1990s.
But health-care reform is small potatoes. If fiscal conservatives ever hope to regain the high ground in Washington, D.C., they had better start talking about the real crisis … the pending bankruptcy of the entire nation.
n Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com
Rob123
Let's not forget the 400 Regional Banks on the almost broke FDIC's watch list......Humm....How much do we spend each year on the Dept. of Defence (almost an oxymoron considering it's role in our economic collapse). It is fixable, but,,,,,a lot of us will need to stay at home and have the kids change the bed pans during our "Golden Years". At least we'll have that rectangular box to stare at, with lots of reruns.
Blake
Department of clarification â The picture is basically grim, as Mr. Miele indicates. However, it's worthwhile to anticipate a couple of likely objections. (1.) The "$6.6 billion problem" for Social Security is NOT the obligation for future payouts. That obligation (actually, just a promise, not a legally binding contract) is much larger. Instead, the $6.6 billion is the amount, in 2009 dollars, that projected payroll taxes (FICA) will fall short of the promised benefits over the next 75 years. One fix would be to immediately increase FICA from 12.4 percent to 14 percent of taxable earnings. Maybe that doesn't sound draconian for an added burden, but it would be only a modest part of the pain, as Medicare will be a substantially bigger problem. (2.) The exhaustion of Social Security's "trust fund" (I use the quotation marks advisedly) in 2037, as currently projected, won't mean that Social Security is thereupon flat broke. Instead, a substantial fraction of the continuing obligations can be met from the contemporary FICA collections. Of course, this is all based on demographic and economic projections. And on the underlying assumption that the U.S. will still be a going concern in 75 years. A dubious bet.
sensible
again, frank, where were you the past 8 years (past 28 years, sans clinton)? you proudly quote these debt figures from 2008, but you never addressed them until a new administration took over. yes, our current account deficit is enormous, but if health care costs can't be contained (because republicans don't see a problem there). if defense spending can't be lowered (because dems are supposedly"unpatriotic"), or taxes can't be raised on undeserving millionaires (because repubs "worship" wealth - not jesus) then we are stuck with few alternatives. SOLUTIONS. PLEASE. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOUR SOLUTIONS? .............and a quick reference to your" "health-care reform," a big-ticket liberal wish-list item that has been a political orphan since Hillary Clinton got her clock cleaned in the early 1990s." .................former president truman failed long before hillary failed. thanks to ignorant repubs like yourself, who refuse to acknowlegde that double digit yearly increases in health costs CANNOT be sustained. bitch and moan....bitch and moan.......bitch and moan.
sensible
in 1980, payroll taxes were near 10%. upon taking office, reagan established a task force to solve future insolvency questions. the head of that task force? alan greenspan. the solution? RAISE TAXES!!! PAYROLL TAXES WERE RAISE TO OVER 15%,..........A 50% TAX INCREASE ON working americans and small business. then reagan decided to borrow all that new found revenue, rather than bank it for its legislative ourpose, to make his soaring deficits appear smaller...........and until this year, that "creative" accounting was still practiced................smoke and mirros from the repubs for 20 of 28 years since 1980. SHAMEFUL LIES. DAMNED SHAMEFUL LIES
SorrySOB
Let's see now. Social Security and Medicare has been around for how many years now? Oh 50 or 60 give or take I suppose. All of a sudden Frank decides to imply that it is Obama's fault now. What else is new? Maybe next week we will hear Frank's theory on how Obama was behind 9/11 or the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Give me a break. Going on about making parallels to Madoff is crap writing at best. Talk about sick desperation.
Editor
SOB and Sorry: There was no criticism of the Obama administration in this column about the debt or really about anything else. I used the "Obama administration" to confirm the debt existed, and I mentioned Rahm Emanuel late in the column for the purposes of saying that "fiscal conservatives" should not "let the crisis go to "waste." Obviously Bush recognized the Social Security crisis, and even tried to deal with it, but, like most he did, unsuccessfully. It's the partisan approach to Social Security, etc., that makes it beyond repair. --Frank Miele, Managing Editor
Editor
Oops. Too much Sorry and not enough Sensible. That should have been addressed to both of you. -Frank
ValleyViewer
I recall that we had a balanced budget (even a surplus) in the fall of 2000. In fact, G.W. Bush was so tickled to inherit a balanced budget when he entered the White House that he proclaimed the federal budget under Clinton was in such good shape that the taxpayers needed a rebate (and tax cuts). So, Bush pushed through his tax cuts, but he forgot to stop spending on the other end. In fact, he ramped up spending to historic levels. He even invaded and occupied Iraq, and we're still spending U.S. tax money on streets and bridges and schools and health care for Iraqi people to this very day. I seem to recall that even the Interlake supported (and still supports) our endeavor in Iraq?
rls
To Frank, Great article and right on the money with comparing the federal government to Madoff when it comes to it being a Ponsi scheme where we pay in and they make NO money off it for future use and spend it all before we get to see any of it.
rls
It appears that some of these posters don't know histtory and just like to make things up as they go along. To ValleyViewer the first G.W. Bush did NOT occupy Iraq at all but like most of you liberals you get so mad you can't see the light of day when someone like Frank points the truth out to you.
WillK
After a long career of very hard work, I note that since 1963 that I have paid $350K into Social Security. The Feds keep close track of this. However, there are ZERO funds in my account. What should be worth two to three million dollars and be MINE is GONE. Stolen by the government and given to others. Of course the congress voted themselves a law to opt out of such a corrupt system. Social Security is the main reason that "seniors" have such a rough time financially. Monies that they have been paid in are returned at about 3 cents on the dollar due to no interest and investment growth allowed under this corrupt system. We are not going bankrupt as a nation, we are already there.
SorrySOB
I'll give you that Frank, but then why can't we consider the proposed heath plan as an alternative to dealing with Medicare at least? You seem so against the health plan yet recognize Social Security and Medical as a boondoggle. What is your proposal?
SorrySOB
By the way Frank, did you see how rls confirmed the perception of your article? It comes across as something that is associated with the current administration - whether you planned that way or not is up for debate.
rls
Here are the facts on how the government is cheating us when it comes to Social Insecurity. I am 55 and have paid in all my life and like âWillk has stated it is somewhere around 350K and at 62 I will receive $1500 a month. I am going to be putting 206K into an annuity this year of my own money and at 65 I can start drawing $1600 a month for the rest of my life and if my wife out lives me she can keep drawing on it. Let see if all that money would have been put into the private sector I would have been able to draw over $5000 to $6000 a month at 62 instead of letting the government steal it from me. MY THOUGHT IS WE HAVE HAS ENOUGH GOVERNMENTAL LIES WITH THEM STEALING OUR MONEY UNDER FAULTS PRETENTSES AND I FOR ONE CANâT AFFORD THE GOVERNMENT RIPPING ME OFF WITH HEALTH CARE TOO.
Bronco
Criticism by implication, Editor. I think that's the sore spot. Mention Obama with bad news and it kinda becomes a Mobius strip of blame for the unpatriotic anti-POTUS factions so well represented here. SOB and sensible are just reminding you with one spank of the beating you got when you imposed "Hussein" so "innocently." Just because you never applaud any of our current president's accomplishments and you take every opportunity to bash him and his proposals, subtly or blatantly, many of us believe your discouragement from the results of last November's election fuels some perpetual attitude machine that possesses your judgment and narrows your doors of perception. Unlike Junior Rush, maybe you think just a sip of the red Kool Aid, sans Jack Daniels, is Ok, a journalist' prerogative. After all, how can one be objective without a wider perspective?
rls
To Bronco, Please try looking up the facts that have been presented to you here instead if living by your imotions. Imotions do nothing to improve anything. The rest of us are pointing out facts with REAL money situations which points out the corruption of governmentaly funded programs. The private sector is always and will always be the best way to go. I especially liked the coment of we can be proud of the fruits of our labor statement. There is NO pride in governmental handouts.
SorrySOB
God it is hard to take someone seriously when they ramble on with really bad spelling. Like I said last week rls, keep on posting - y0u make a great representative for the GOP. You and Palin should get together. Like they say, two half brains are almost better than one.
rls
$200,000 times 5% a year interest with an annuity at 55 equals $10,000 a year times 7 until I get to be 62 equal a total of $270,000. Now I am retired and taking $1,600 a month which equals $19,000 a year. $19,200 a year away from $270,000 equals $250,000 and I still get the 5% on top of that so it goes back up to $263,340. This is enough compounded at 5% to last any ones normal life time and is guaranteed to continue at $1,600 a month even if the account goes to zero. "ANNUITY" OK now lets look at the government social insecurity plan which most people are at $350,000 at retirement. Letâs assume for the last 30 years we would have received 5% of 150,000 which brings it to half of a life times worth of savings âSocial Insecurityâ so an uneducated and emotional liberal can understand it more easily. $150,000 times 5% equals $7,500 a year. $7,500 times 30 years worth of work equals a minimum of $225,000. "Now the government plan" At 62 WITHOUT the 5% interest you would have $350,000 so you need to add the $225,000 interest plus the $350,000 which would
rls
cont----- amount to what you would have if it wasnât for the government if your money was in the private sector â$575,000â. Anyone with an eighth grade education can see that the government just stole over $370,000 from you and retirement is half what it would be if you had control of your retirement from birth to death including you could give the remainder to your kids after you die which the government plan doesnât allow. And NOW they want to force us into their health care, NO THANK YOU.
Bronco
Here we have Social security, a flawed and maybe failed government-run program, verses private sector retirement packages which are hands down winners. But we also have private health care which is costly and has profit-generated policies which fail to cover way too many people and way too many procedures verses national health care which would forgo profit and cover everybody and everything. Forgive this old codger for not understanding the reasoning behind comparing these two scenarios to prove a point. So far the only point Junior Rush has shown us is the one under his John Deere cap.
Blake
In response to the various misunderstandings about Social Security enunciated by "wjr," "sensible," "WillK," and "rls", here are some facts that, indeed, aren't widely known. (1.) Nobody has a contract with Social Security, and nobody has any contractual rights to payments. This was established in the Supreme Court cases of Helvering vs. Davis and Flemming vs. Nestor. (2.) Nobody has an "account" with Social Security. The statements that you receive from the Social Security Administration are records of taxes paid by you and by your employer, but there's no commitment that you'll get any particular return. That's up to Congress, dealing with the exigencies of the time. (3.) Congress has never "stolen" from the "trust funds." From the beginning, the FICA taxes collected were to be mingled with all other government revenues and spent, with equivalent amounts of treasury bonds credited to the "trust funds." In general, Congress hasn't spent wisely, favoring current consumption (e.g. welfare and farm subsidies) over investment (e.g. infrastructure maintenance and upgrade), but NO THEFT WAS INVOLVED. (continued)
Blake
(continued) (4.) Contra to "WillK" who wrote "Monies that they have been paid in are returned at about 3 cents on the dollar," lots of people have made out like bandits in their returns from Social Security. But the returns are, indeed, getting poorer and poorer over time, as the demographics change. And at some point, some people (perhaps most people) will, indeed, experience negative returns. (This may already have happened.) (5) Those who think, based upon the historic returns in the stock market, that people would have been better off, in general, by investing their FICA taxes for themselves in the stock market are forgetting that if investment capital had, thus, been super abundant, the returns to capital would have likely been much lower than actual stock market returns have been without that huge slug of capital. Conclusion: At root, the problems of Social Security (and Medicare) are ones of demographics. Social Security and Medicare are both bad ideas, but it's not obvious that there were better ideas out there.
bimmermt
Mouse brain rewires its neural circuits to recuperate from damaged neural function after stroke 8/27/2009 (: It's a joke rls
rls
To Paul you are looking at it from a stock point of view with a falling market in the last year. That is not how you would invest if it were for retirement. PGP âPimco Global Stock Plusâ for instance pays 18 cents every month in dividends which would have more than compensated for the falling market and it is now coming back so you would still be WAY ahead. Tons more out there like it too. That is why the government has made it so hard to opt out of Social Insecurity, They know if people got educated they would bail on the tax and steal of social insecurity program in a heart beat. The only way the government will let you out of their bondage of Social Insecurity is if you DENOUNCE your citizenship. Everyone knows it will be the same way with government health care, The health care will be rationed just like ALL the other socialist countries including Canada. The health Care will deteriorate just like it has in ALL other socialist countries including Canada. Opting out will not be an option once the government gets its hands on health care.
rls
To Paul if you denoince your citizanship you don't have to pay social insecurity but you do STILL have to pay Federal Taxes "Social insecurity excluded" and state taxes. That tells me the government is stealing from me with Social insecurity.
rls
To Paul, By the way if I denounce my citizenship at this late date in my life I would not get social insecurity and the government would steal all of it that I have paid in. If that isn't theft I sure don't know what is... By the way if I were 20 again and know what I do now I would have denounced my citizenship and become a state citizen instead of a government citizen. The government doesnât want you to know that you can do this because they canât steal half what they do now if you opt out of their governmental stealing program. It is a subject that is near and dear to my heart and I almost did it in my late 30âs but after weighing out what the government had stole from me and what I would lose it was almost a wash so I took the easy way out and stayed a slave of the government.
bimmermt
rls, you want to keep everything you make. To hell with the country. By country, you mean the so called worthless individuals who steal from you who live here also? Just how would you see this Country working if people with more didn't pay more. Or, where would our seniors be if they had no coverage? Home with rls? Do you have parents who are living? Do you think you are the only one who paid into SS or Medicare? You sound like you will have a pretty comfy life style come age 65. From my standpoint, money is the least of your worries. This attitude/anger/spittle/selfishness will NOT allow you to enjoy anything. You will ALWAYS need an enemy in your life, as you have a victims mentality. If it just were not for blah blah I would be a happy sumbitch! Nothing can bring you happiness but yourself!
ValleyViewer
RLS, you are mistaken. There is only one G.W. Bush (George Walker Bush). He was the first and only to occupy Iraq. Look it up. His father, G.H.W. Bush (George Herbert Walker Bush), of whom I made no mention in my post, but you did in yours, surrendered to Hussein in 1991 (by letting Hussein stay in power).
rls
To bimmermt, Not to worry there will always be liberal losers looking for handouts that I can torment. Ever hear of states rights and ever think of the states taking care of their own. I could careless if people in California have roads or not. The only thing the government was meant for was to make sure we were united states for protection for our enemies."Just look how distorted that plan got with all the tax and steal programs".
DoubtingThomas
Willk, You cannot have paid that much into social security yourself, the number you quote is more than you could have paid through maximum wages every year from 18 to 65. You have made nearly 6 million in your lifetime, and somehow were forced to pay more than the taxable social security amount in some years? I highly doubt it.
rls
To Valleyview, My apologizes, You are correct with that. However the Kenyan has tripled the budget with what Bush left him and yet you didnât mention that and the really sad part is the Kenyan has only used it for campaign pay backs âAIG, Fanny Mae, Freedy Mac, Governmental motors you name it. Cash for clunckers, Why not cash for washing mashines, TV's, boats you say, Oh yeah they didn't give enough to the Kenyans campaign fund.
Blake
To rls: Apparently you misunderstood several of the points I made. (1.) Your paying the FICA tax doesn't bind the government to paying you benefits, since there's no contract involved in Social Security. You don't own an account. It's best to view FICA as simply a tax, not fundamentally different from income tax. If you regard the income tax as "theft," then it's sensible to also regard the FICA tax as "theft." Otherwise not. Anyway, what I was dismissing before was the supposed "looting" of the "trust funds" by Congress. (2.) About being able to stop paying FICA tax if you REnounce your citizenship, probably not. People who are here as noncitizen legal permanent residents have to pay both FICA (if they're employed) and income tax. (3.) My remark about investment returns was that people who think they could have invested on their own to beat Social Security's performance are assuming ceterbis paribus â OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. But if everyone had been investing in the stock market like that, other things very likely WOULDN'T have been equal. Because of diminishing returns, the stock market's AVERAGE performance over the long run would probably have been much poorer.
rls
To Paul, This is an interesting conversation to say the least. I disagree with you on having to pay FICA tax if you denounce your citizenship and have checked into it in-depth. It is what separates a state citizen from a government slave or government citizen as you consider it. I do agree with you that Social Insecurity is not a contract, However it was just put into place so the government had another deception with stealing from us if not they would have just raised taxes and not had the FICA show up on our pay roll checks. As for people being able to do much better with their retirement money that is probably where I disagree with you the most. I believe it should be a mandatory class in high school to make young people knowledgeable about preparing for their future, Stock market, Annuities, Bonds, Treasuries, personal investments and etc. but the government doesnât want it citizens educated so they are NOT enslaved to the government. âITâS the same old keep them dumb so you can keep them under control attitudeâ.
ValleyViewer
RLS, I'm not defending President Obama. I just think fical conservatives who think it was right to invade and occupy Iraq need to remember our nation-building experiment over there isn't cheap. Bush inherited a budget surplus a little over 8 years ago. He converted the surplus into the largest deficit in history. And now some people sound like Obama invented deficit-spending. It's a laugher. How many millions will we spend tomorrow between breakfast and lunch on roads, bridges, water and sewer lines, and schools for Iraqi citizens a whole hemisphere away froms us?
rls
To ValleyView, Yes a better way to have done it would have been to bomb the Iraqies back into the stone age and just walk away and leave it for the Alqida terrorists or Iran to take over. Are you really sure that would be a good idea?????? I do agree it would be nice if the Kenyan would quit with the campaign pay backs however and start paying back the deficit instead of spending us into Bankruptcy since it is getting to the point the Chinese donât even want to buy our treasuries any more.
ValleyViewer
I can't quarrel with you there, RLS.
Bronco
I have it on good authority Al Qaeda is headquartered in the Vatican. Very camouflaged operation though. Very clever of them to hide the Islamic Dogma of Mass Destruction alongside the Christian Delusion of Mass Salvation. Smart bombs and looting should get us out of this financial mess. We could send the Kenyan back to Africa and put GW back in command. What could possibly go wrong? I mean, he did get us all that oil, didn't he?
rls
To Bronco, Another words you have nothing intelligent to say and are one of those people the government has succeeded in keeping ignorant so you never amount to anything and stay dependant on the government so they can control you.
Blake
To rls: Again, that would be "renounce" your citizenship, not "denounce." And I think you should point us to some source about being able to stop paying FICA taxes if you renounce your citizenship. Wouldn't that make you a stateless person? Probably not a good situation. Regarding investments, it seems that you still don't grasp my point. You could have terrific, mandatory classes on personal finance in high school (a fine idea, I agree) that everyone studies hard and does well in, but that still wouldn't make the investment universe any different. Once EVERYBODY starts saving a lot, returns on investments will go down, so the markets' long term average performance that we're used to would no longer apply. And the underlying problem is demographics. (Also, please don't mistake me for a defender of Social Security and Medicare. If I were running things, they would have been phased out decades ago, and it would have been made clear to people that the character of their retirement years was mostly up to them.)
rls
To Paul, You remind me of a Fed monitoring the internet and trying to keep people ignorant of the law in order to make sure tax and spend governmental thieves are allowed to steal from us. It is easy to look up âhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renunciation_of_citizenshipâ and follow the links. -------------------- Yes the Kenyan is doing everything he can right now to stop this to make sure NO ONE is out of reach of his tax and steal programs I will give you that since he has put us many trillions in debt in only a few months and he has no idea how he will recover from his campaign pay backs. By the way you are TOTALLY incorrect with what you posted when it comes to us NOT being better off if we controlled our own retirement money. âSocial Insecurityâ. A half a million that would be the minimum if we controled it instead of the pittance the government gives us back with social insecurity with a life times worth of work and savings just doesn't make since. Note: Your comment that if too many people were in the market it would go down and you would lose money is ludicrous since
rls
cont----ludicrous since it would also promote new companies to start up and we would have an even better and more powerful USA but it doesnât appear that is what you and the liberals want.
rls
BREAKING NEWS !!!! Democrats, realizing the big success of the President's "Cash For Clunkers" rebate program, have revamped a major portion of the Obama Nationalization - Health Care Plan. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reid are expected to make this major announcement at a joint news conference later this week. I have obtained an advanced copy of the proposal which is named.... "CASH FOR CODGERS" and it works like this... Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person on the day of delivery. The amount the government grants them will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent codgers will garner the highest amounts. Special "Bonuses" will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their government prescribed weight, - and any member of the Republican Party.
Bronco
Lunacy having been given full rein here, serious debate has become farcical. I propose a literacy test to weed out those unable to construct a lucid argument and an IQ test to filter out those incapable of rendering a substantial contribution. Humor is permissible; with special dispensation given for acerbic wit, cleverness, and arcane references. Blatant ignorance should be tolerated until its cousin, obvious stupidity, becomes manifest. Given that even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn, all submissions should be allowed until proved marginalized. Exclusion from meaningful participation must be implemented then, until evidence of knowledge of topics emerges. All in favor say âAye.â
Rob123
rls:"....----ludicrous since it would also promote new companies to start up and we would have an even better and more powerful USA...." Excuse me, but didn't you just explain the current real estate/commercial building bubble that collapsed and now you want us to return to easy money, light regulation, and everyone building each other's dream on other people's money? The unregulated Republican Bubble Machine with Democrats subsidizing those who want to join? Sooner or later, when the bills come due, such nonsense collapses (S & L boondoogle from the late 80's/current banking mess). Xcalif said it best "We may even see the voting age population emerge from its prolonged adolescence. But only because they now have no other choice. ". It's fixable, but it's going to hurt. P.S. And for gGod sakes, your love of annuities? What a drag on the Insurance Industry. I'd be real watchful on the company that has yours. Geez, what a dishonest way to make money off of unsophisticated investors, during good times. And what a lousey way to stay in business during bad times. Good Luck, but be nervous/skeptical.
Rob123
Father Bronco: google "YouTube - Die, Sweet Roadrunner, Die HQ".....I think it might fit into your " Humor is permissible; with special dispensation given for acerbic wit, cleverness, and arcane references."?