Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#61
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:10:55 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:15:34 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in about 20 years That is 10 according to the 2006 trustee's report. SSA.GOV You're right. You said and I said it. Fix it. The fix is right there in the conclusion posted below. It's right there in black and white. Pick any suggested method. I'm fine with any of them. None will even show a blip on the economy. Let's see if the Dems get it legislated. Then everybody can quit crying about the "Looming SS Crisis" and how it's a Ponzi scheme for the next 75 years and start worrying about Medicare instead. Or maybe they'll just keep whining about SS "because it's there." . http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/T...s.html#wp76460 quote Conclusion Annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2017 for the combined OASDI Trust Funds, which are projected to become exhausted and thus unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2040 under the long-range intermediate assumptions. For the trust funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, the combined payroll tax rate could be increased during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.02 percentage points, benefits could be reduced during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 13.3 percent, general revenue transfers equivalent to $4.6 trillion (in present value) could be made during the period, or some combination of approaches could be adopted. Significantly larger changes would be required to maintain solvency beyond 75 years. The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers. The sooner adjustments are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be. Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of this year's 49 million beneficiaries, and 162 million covered workers and their families. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, we will ensure that Social Security continues to protect future generations. end quote --Vic Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? |
#62
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? Willie Wonka's Money Factory? Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed back. |
#63
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Calif Bill wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? Willie Wonka's Money Factory? Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed back. Kevin must be demonstrating once again why he is the "king" |
#64
![]()
posted to alt.sailing.asa,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only alternative is gridlock. Three observations: 1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the other one. 2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather than personal attacks. 3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other words, nothing new. I agree. I hope #3 is wrong. Dreamer. Max |
#65
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:13:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork. Didn't pay attention to the Republicans' Contract With America? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional. It violates the Presentment clause of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...ty_of_New_York " On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nathan A. Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center testified by written statement before the House Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed legislation.[21] Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal operations. The proposed Act was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006 by a vote of 24-9.[1] " |
#66
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Harsh.
(But so true...and so delicious) "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:42:21 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only alternative is gridlock. Three observations: 1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the other one. 2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather than personal attacks. 3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other words, nothing new. I agree. I hope #3 is wrong. Dreamer. It's already starting. Murtha wants to be Majority Whip. And all those Blue Dog Democrats - oh, boy, this is going to be interesting. And now I just read that the new head of the House Intelligence Oversight committee is going to be Alycee Hastings. Anybody remember Alycee Hastings? And now, it appears that Rep. Jane Harmon who was in line to get the job until the new Speaker decided she was too "hawkish" is under investigation by Justice because of her close ties to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) itself under investigation for violating the Espionage Act in the Lewis Franklin case. Harrumph - hell, it ain't even been two days and already the Dems have ethics problems. It's only a matter of time until some gay Democrat starts taking 17 year old male page to Spain on a trip and essentially rape him. Or maybe even start a prostitution ring out of his apartment. Oh wait - that's already been done. My bad. |
#67
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#68
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:27:08 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: I just want to get my boat and do some fishing before the **** hits the fan. Now that's the smartest thing anybody has said in this thread yet. :) Just need a boat, fishing poles and guns and a list of the local Mormons. |
#69
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:13:04 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Duke Nukem" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? Willie Wonka's Money Factory? Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed back. Of course - why didn't the politicians listen? Why - why - why? Why, Oh Why Why can't a dish break a hammer? Why oh why oh why?! 'Cause a hammer's a hard head. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why, oh why, oh why oh, why? Why, oh why, oh why? Because because because because Goodbye goodbye goodbye Why can't a bird eat an elephant? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause an elephant's got a pretty hard skin. Goodby goodbye goodbye. Why can't a mouse eat a streetcar? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause a mouse's stomach could never get big enough to hold a streetcar. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why does a horn make music? Why, oh why, oh why? Because the horn-blower blows it. Goodbye goodbye goodbye Why does a cow drink water? Tell me why n why? Because the cow gets thirsty just like you or me or anybody else. Goodye goodbye goodbye. Why don't you answer my questions? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause I don't know the answers. Goodby goodbye goodbye. What make the landlord take money? Why, oh why, oh why? I don't know that one myself. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why's there no pennies for ice cream Why, oh why, oh why? You put all the pennies in the telephone. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why can't a rabbit chase an eagle? Tell me why, oh why? 'Cause the last rabbit that took out and chased after an eagle didn't come out so good and that's why rabbits don't chase after eagles that's all I know about rabbits and eagles? Because because because. Why ain't my grandpa my grandma? Why, oh why, oh why? Same reason your dad's not your mommy. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why couldn't the wind blow backwards? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause it might backfire and hurt somebody and if it hurt somebody it'd keep on hurting them Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Words and Music by Woody Guthrie |
#70
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:13:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork. Didn't pay attention to the Republicans' Contract With America? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional. It violates the Presentment clause of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...ty_of_New_York " On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nathan A. Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center testified by written statement before the House Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed legislation.[21] Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal operations. The proposed Act was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006 by a vote of 24-9.[1] " Actually do not need the line item veto, just overturn the court ruling that the Executive branch had to spend all money allocated by the legislative branch. Worked for nearly 200 years, until after Nixon was tossed and the Congress got such a ruling. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pete Clinch - Congratulations. | UK Paddle | |||
Congratulations Chuck | General | |||
Congratulations | General | |||
Congratulations Bobsprit | ASA | |||
Congratulations, boys! | ASA |