Ken wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

Ken wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

Ken wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:

Sun Disk wrote:

The rich white ruled states of the
Northeastern Snob Corridor was Kerry's stronghold, white
elitists that want a national plan of
socialized welfare. Wealthy ivy-leaguers with inherited
wealth are Kerry's constituency.
Workers in Ohio, Texas, the south rejected the
vain silver-spoon Massachusetts dandy Kerry,

So why did they accept the vain retarded
drug-store cowboy cheerleader with the platinum
spoon in his mouth?

the red states do not listen to New York Dan
Blather's nonsense, preferring the reality of families,
work, and love of the USA.

You'll soon learn the reality of the Bush
agenda -- kiss your Social Security goodbye.

Just out of curiosity, if you think Bush's
plan is terrible, what would YOU suggest for Social Security? Please
don't respond with "Nothing," as there IS a problem that needs
to be addressed. This is a serious question on my part.

In a word, "means-testing." Now.

You know means testing would not be a bad idea
except for the fact that many who do not have the "Means," are that
way because of their own behavior. I have seen many
around me who gambled, smoked, and drank most of their money away and
now resent the
fact that I have some savings and they don't.

Exactly what do you propose, Ken? That we simply
throw these people away? There but for the grace of
God goes you. And you're one serious illness -- or one scrape with a John
Edwards --
from the poorhouse.

What I propose is helping those who through no fault
of their own are in need. Those who find themselves broke because
they pissed away their earnings or failed to save or
invest for their future should not be rewarded.

Who makes the determination, and what are the standards?

If we reward those who were irresponsible, it would tell
everyone there is no price to pay for poor behavior or
judgment.

You mean, like George W. Bush?

I don't know what it is like in your community, but in
mine when a disaster strikes such as a fire or storm,
people help one another. On the other hand, if a person fails to take care
of his
family when he could have rather than buying a bass boat, there is no
where near the compassion or sympathy.

Ken, do you see why I have exactly *no* time for a George
W. Bush and his spendthrift ways? As a Republican, I believe the
government should live within its means, and as one trained
in such matters, I think that Bush's ill-conceived tax
stimulus package couldn't possibly work.

If Bush would clean house by firing the neo-cons,

return
to PAY-Go (a Republican idea!), and govern closer to the
center (and heal the rifts taking us to the precipice of
civil war), I'd feel a *lot* better about having him in
office.

(Right now, he's running this country into the
ground, like he has every other business venture he's ever
tried.)

In my opinion the government has gotten too involved
in such matters and people have become dependent on the
government to bail them out whenever they screw up. Even
the criminals look everywhere except to themselves for
the cause of their incarceration. We have become a society of victims
rather than a society of those seeking
advancement. It goes without saying that the Democratic party has
fostered this attitude in order to get voters. The
people would be better served if someone would encourage
them to keep improving themselves rather than feeling
sorry for themselves.

I guess I just don't want Grandma eating dog food.

Much has been written and said about racial
discrimination. I will not argue that there are not
still some stupid people (both white and black) who
discriminate. But can you imagine the damage to a young person whose
parents tell them that they do not have a
chance to get ahead because the white race won't let them? Such
behavior is far more common and detrimental than any they
are likely to see from a white person.

My guess is that I am not unlike a lot of people
where I have compassion for the unexpected bad luck that befalls a
person, but little for those who made bad decisions all their
life and expect someone to bail them out.

You mean, like George W. Bush?

Not really, I was thinking more of Bill Clinton and
others.

Bill Clinton started life in a broken home, and the only
thing he's ever done is engage in extramarital dalliances -- something
Republican politicians engage in with distressing
regularity. So, what has George Bush *EVER* succeeded at
in his life on his own merits?

I watched one of the debates, and was angered when a
question about high unemployment and a 50% high school drop out
level in a major city. The question was "What will you do to reduce
the unemployment level?" or something like that. That scenario is much
like the one above, in that if
a person continually makes bad decisions, (In this
case dropping out of high school) sooner or later you
must live with them instead of expecting a handout.

Fine. People will do whatever it takes to survive,
and if one of them pulls a .38 revolver and shoots your brains out to
grab the contents of your wallet, well, life's a *****, right?

Could be. It is unfortunate that such a person
screws up their life and feels he is entitled to take
what another worked for. I am not for rewarding poor
decisions nor understanding them when used as an excuse for criminal
activity. Maybe you are?

I'm not for it but rather, pointing out the fact that,
when we take care of the least of us -- such as those of us who made
decisions like George W. Bush, but didn't have Poppy to
bail him out -- we as society actually receive tangible
benefits.

I like the idea that at least in theory, no one is so
desperate that he or she needs to resort to that.

Unless you are very young, we all have had desperate
times in our life. Most all of us struggle through those
times and overcome those obstacles. If you are a parent,
you hopefully have taught that to your children.

Some times we do and others, we don't. I'm loath to
second-guess with perfect hindsight how others might have made "better"
decisions, for all courses may run ill.

It is also noteworthy to say that since SS
payments are taxed depending upon your total taxable
income, you might say it is already means tested.

The effective tax rate is rarely more than 30%,
although there are situations in which it can be higher
at the margins. I'm talking about a 100% tax for payments to those who
averaged,
say, $200,000 a year for the past three years.

Now I don't make anywhere near that kind of income,
so it would not effect me. It does sound however like
you are approaching the endorsement of a socialist state. Since most people
in
this country are not in favor of such a state, you might
want to look elsewhere if you believe that is the ideal
place to live.

Please don't misunderstand me:

That's ONLY on Social
Security income. I'm talking about the Terezas and the
Bush Stepford Wives, who have so much that they don't legitimately need
government
assistance.
Let me give you a tangible example: Back in the old days,
when I was learning the accounting trade, there was an old
dowager who gave away far more in charity than I made in salary. Back when
she was starting out, SSI only took 2% of your income; it took 15% from me.
Now, how do you morally justify that transfer of wealth -- giving her
the benefit of a government program that she didn't pay her fair share to
participate in?