To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (425355 ) 7/11/2003 2:35:39 PM From: Lazarus_Long Respond to of 769670 You're obviously just trying to agitate me No, I'm trying to get some answers. I am trying to point out what appears to be holes in your arguments, though. I don't see any reason for young people to get 0 or negative returns on a ponzi scheme SS "insurance program" (sic) I don't think "(sic)" is needed there. "Ponzi scheme" is just an accurate description.elderly voting block Hmmmm...... The fact that the young are partying too heavily to bother with nits like voting is NOT the fault of the elderly. The young outnumber the old. The old keep dying off. Bad consequence of that condition. If the young care to correct this, they can. And they should not blame others for the consequences of their own failings.Should the wealthy get their money back from SS? Absolutely YES. Lets shut the system down right now, all those over 60 get their money and leave it at that. New participants can opt out, that is the answer. And that I will agree with 100%. I should live long enough to see it, though. What you forget here is that the young hope to enjoy the same benefits themselves. CDonsidering that a fair fraction of them have trouble adding 2-digit numbers, it's not surprising that they don't understand this won't work. But ignorance always has been a punishable offense.As a true republican (you sure don't sound like one BTW) Funny. I had the same feeling of you.you know that entitlement programs and freebies for the middle class don't work. If you create a giant welfare state for literally every citizen for 40% of their life, and act like its a god given right to collect 10x your money in this "system", you will bankrupt the other half of the population that has to pay for the scam. I'm not arguiong that it CAN work. Ponzi schemes ultimately must fail. Were you or I to do what the gov't is doing here, we'd be jailed. The solution is for the SS system to revert to what it was originally intended to be- a SAFETY NET for the elderly. The wealthy elderly should get their money back at some reasonable level of simple interest and leave it at that. That is sure more than my generation will ever get out of the scheme. Once we pay out to this current crop, shut the system down. Sounds good to me. I don't think you can sell it to American Spirit, X, tsifprofit, Considine, Phillips, ...., though. Speaking of Republican:Those drugs that cost 100K/year for example, I wouldn't allow that. Suppose that's a reasonable cost. If it costs $100 million to develop a drug, 5% on that is $5M a year, and there are are only 50 cases a year.... Do you prefer that the people simply be left to die? I hate to bring up the same old cliches, but babies and children in this society are technically the poorest. The elderly are the wealthiest demographic. We don't need wealth redistribution laws for the elderly. Hmmmm...... Then why are you proposing wealth redisribution? Because that is precisely what you are proposing.Why don't we kill SS and Medicare and outlaw AARP while we're at it? That was my comment. We can't outlaw AARP. Free speech and free assembly. YOU: I don't want to pay for your services thats why. ME:GIMME A BREAK! How do you propose to avoid this? I've paid for welfare all my life; I've never collected a dime. UNFAIR! I don't have kids. I shouldn't have to pay a penny for schools, should I? Oh, I've spent zero time in a jail or prison cell. Why am I paying for them? OTHER PEOPLE pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S services all the time. The rich pay by far the largest part of federal taxes- -and hence of welfare. Why? They don't collect it. That remains to be addressed.