Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (100111)	5/6/2001 5:28:56 PM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Ah Les, a little history lesson is in order here. Originally, Franklin D. Roosevelt had been adamant about funding Social Security; he was convinced that amassing large unfunded obligations was unfair if not immoral. But after passage of the original Social Security Act in 1935, Congress repeatedly rolled back scheduled payroll tax increases, much to FDR's chagrin, and later increased benefits...Those were Democratic and Republican led Congresses alike. By the mid-1950s, the statutory payroll tax rate very closely approximated the pay-go tax rate for the program. The 1972 amendments to Social Security formally established pay-go financing, but the 1983 amendments implicitly moved the system back toward some prefunding of obligations.

To: Les H who wrote (100111)	5/6/2001 5:30:44 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Blake murder background gets weirder dailynews.yahoo.com

To: Les H who wrote (100111)	5/7/2001 1:48:20 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

les interesting debate on politics and "buying votes," with ss or otherwise. i'll chime in with my view, the republicrats and demicans are each going to do what is in their self interest. they both screw the public. when the bay area military bases were shut down in the early 90s... i heard feinstein say "but what about the jobs?" first thing off her lips. that is when i realized that the military complex can easily turn into a welfare jobs program - you know, $20k toilet seats and the like. guess who gets the contracts? that's right... it is those who contribute to the empowered in some shape or form. in fact, i'm inclined to believe that this "star wars" gig will enrich many of bush's (republican) friends as well as increase contributions. so, call it what you will, both sides have their own welfare program, imho. btw, funny how ss tax stops at about $80k. seems both sides are protecting the wealthy to some degree. i believe ss s/h been welfare for the elderly - not an "entitlement." contributions could be greatly reduced and the ponzi scheme greatly reduced. if you ever figure out that you get back less than you put in (forget about any type of interest!), it is a bonehead system. god forbid you die at 50 - you contribute to a system and don't get jack back and your kids are worse off for it. both republicrats and demicans have had ample time to correct this screwed up program. but they haven't and, imho, they won't.