muddysmind.com

sad.. Sky you said this a while back I remember.
Too bad our government doesn't have you on the payroll. :-)

oh get real. the main decrease in birth rate has been Education of women. no woman wants 11 kids.
keep your rabid fantasies about abortion decreasing the population out of this. even if it was true, abortion is a good thing, but i wont get into that.

privatizing social security is NOT the way to go. part of the damn reason its going insolvent is because presidents keep spending the money. as much as i would like to say this is a Shrub problem, it goes back before him and even clinton. if presidents would stop going into social security and "borrowing" 9, 10, 20 billion at a time as if it were some large bank account there wouldnt be half the "crisis".

the last thing that EVER needs to happen is privatization of social security. the money would be GONE in 5 years. i can gurantee if its ever "privatized" something would come up and somehow a large chunk of money would wind up "missing" by fraud or some scandal and people that run the banks would wind up with it.

So you're saying most women in the 40s and 50s had 11 kids? Oh sir, I would so beg to differ. I know women today who have 13 kids and counting. Come on, our birthrate has decrease, pregnancy rate increased. I don't have a rabid fantasy. It is a fact. We had birth control during the time of the baby boomers. We had no abortion. Family size has gone down very slightly, pregnancy rate increased, birth rate decrease, fatal childhood disease virtually eliminated, lifespan increased, yet my generation s smaller than the previous? And you think that's solely because women are getting pregnant less?! (Which is not even true.)

As for it being a good thing, I can't see how, it's known to create psychological issues for women. Not to mention that it is taking a human life, usually (>=90% of the time) for no reason other than convenience and to avoid the consequences of actions.

As for social security you are wrong and there is plenty of evidence to prove it. Though you are right about Presidents dipping into it and that started with "The Great Society" bologna. But even if they hadn't dipped into it, that would only delay the inevitable. Simple fact is that people social security for the generation recieving it is paid for but the currently working generation. With people living longer and less people putting money in, that will simply mean that there is not enough money to pay it. No 2 ways around that.

Now, Galveston, Texas. 20 years ago, local governments were allowed to opt their employees out of social security. Galveston is the only one I know of off hand, that actually did it. They created a private pension plan. When the first employees to enter the plan started to retire, they actually were making more money in retirement than when they were employed, by as much as $15k per year! This was in the mid-80s, and they had only been using the private plan for a couple years at that point! Our government can overnight, switch social security and medicare over to the TSP. It would be virtually seamless and would provide a private investment plan with a rate of return. (TSP is outsourced to places like TIAACREF and other such mutual funds and money market accounts.) As it is now, you put moeny in and get less money out. Something doesn't make sense with that, but hey that's why it is called a ponzi scheme.

None of this is mentioning that the government has no business forcing people to save for retirement and converting SS and Medicare to the TSP would be a good step towards getting them out of it.

TSP by the way, has been around for several years, no scandals. Why? Because the only thing the government does is transports the money with TSP. You can manage which TSP funds your money is going into, and after that it is basically a mutual fund. The only major modification they would need ot make would be for medicare. But that's another problem altogether.

BTW, the people who should be bitching the most about social security is black men. Due to their shorter life expectancy, a large chunk of their social security contributions are sent to white women who live the longest. Wouldn't black men like to be able to pass that money down to their children instead?

"the main decrease in birth rate has been Education of women. no woman wants 11 kids."

Actually, I agree with skywalker. I even agree with you to a degree. However, I don't ever remember meeting many (if any) women of the "baby boom" era who has had 11 kids unless they were catholic and even then...
Besides, education of women...yeah, actually you have a good point (though it's not the *main* reason). BUT they were also educated in the ways of birth control too. And I'm not talking about abortion as I don't consider that "birth control". Besides...

"...abortion is a good thing"

Really? Do you resent your mother for *not* aborting you then? Hey, *you* brought it up...*I'm* just asking a question.

As far as SS goes....I would LOVE to have a way where we could continue to help out our elderly with it and yet still wean us off of it and totally be clean of it within the next 20+ years. I don't have the highest respect nor regards for the SSA anyway. They're a bunch of jerk-offs (Long story...don't ask). Besides, Why can't we have a choice in how we invest that money? It *is* ours.

who the hell has 13 kids? even in foreign countries thats is more rare than it once was. maybe in africa it isnt. 13? damn. i know a woman with 7 kids and i have no idea how she keeps track of them all, so twice that is crazy.

i love it when a man knows how to control his woman and her body. i would be Willing to bet there are Alot, or at least several women in your life, related to you, working with you or in some capacity around you that have had abortions and you would NEVER know it. and their life is probably better because of it. the point of abortion is NOT having a kid. the reasons why are regardless. much better for a woman to NOT have a child if she cant afford it or doesnt want it than to have.

arnt you talking about social security? im sure you would NEVER want anyone on welfare for any reason, but you would have abortion outlawed? that makes for a strange conundrum in my mind but i guess its smooth sailing in yours. as far as birth and pregnancy rates, your way off. i just did a simple search in google and it pregnancy rates were the lowest in 20 years.

Ok, wihtout trying to stray from the subject at hand....

"Not to mention that it is taking a human life, usually (>=90% of the time)..."

Usually? When is abortion *not* taking a human life?

"...for no reason other than convenience and to avoid the consequences of actions."

Actually, some girls/women are scared and confused.

Anyway....back to the main discussion.

ive talked to my mother about abortion, no problem. she said she doesnt "belive in it", but she doesnt know anything anyway. :)

sure abortion is a good thing. most people are too scared to characterize it like that, but dont fool yourself for one second and to think if a poor woman who has no means to take care of a child has an abortion its wrong. im not saying kill the poor here, its just a better option. NO WOMAN should get pregnant under age 22. forget about adoption. all that does is run up TAX PAYER money and most kids just wind up being bounced around and abused in the foster kid system.

as far as social security, california has something simmilar to that. you can OPT out of paying social security if you want, or at least teachers cans. there is also something called CAL-STRS which is something you must put a little money into, but if you work Less than 5 years you can withdraw the money you saved. my sister was a teacher for a few years and she chose to Not put money in social security, then had the money witdrawn she had saved up in cal strs.

If you don't want the inconvenience of a baby, use birth control or don't have sex. Like I Said...consequences of actions. I know of several women who have had abortions. I know of a couple who will openly tell you they wished they hadn't. Not because of anything anyone has said to them either. They just can't help but wonder about their baby. But that's the major issue: it is a human life and you're taking it. You can say it's a woman's body and she can do what she wants with it. And normally I'd agree...but that baby has a body too, but we don't like to think about that baby having a say in the matter do we?

I know about the 13...I think it is crazy to have that many kids too! But hey...they keep having em so. Their oldest has children the same age as some of their youngest ones! Crazy huh?

the usually was referring to the reasons...not to the taking a human life.

Oh and I'll disagree about adoption. If they are given up for adoption as a baby, then they do not enter the foster care system. To many people are lined up at DFACs and adoption agencies to adopt a baby. The kids in the foster care system are the ones who come from abusive households and ar etaken away. And yes I know first hand as my parents were foster parents for some years.

And that progrma you speak of for teachers to opt out of social security no longer exists to the best of my knowledge, as I recall the SSA ended all such programs, though California is such a special case...they have alot of oddball laws when it comes to California. Hollywood too (like the film industry being exempt from all labor laws.)

"I know about the 13...I think it is crazy to have that many kids too! But hey...they keep having em so."

Actually, come to think of it, i'm going to have to retract my earlier claim. I do know of a family who has *14* children. however, they may have started before the baby boom era...though I don't think so. AND they're not catholic, however, birht control didn't seem to be a consideration on their part either so....

"Their oldest has children the same age as some of their youngest ones! Crazy huh?"

Crazy AND wierd....that family with 14 kids I just mentioned has a granddaughter who is (I believe) 1 year *younger* than *their* youngest. of course, these people live in WV so that explains *everything*, of course.:-)

I thought you might like that comment

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=144

lmao

Only one problem. Several of those things we're republican or non government ideas.

For instance, labels on food and drugs was an idea of the Heinz corporation. They began doing it and pushed for the government to mandate it. Heinz was a republican and a capitalist. He did it as a competitive advantage. By the time the government got around to it, many companies already did it.

Social Security, wow...that was a stupid one for reasons I've already illustrated: you pay in money to get back less money than you put in, and you can't pass it on to your family.

Insurance was not a union thing. Unions helped to make it widespread though. It was doing by companies to attract the best employees. It was a capitalist thing. Course, it wouldn't be a big deal and people would probably have higher salaries if healthcare and insurance were not so God awful expensive thanks to liberal introduced regulations and frivolous malpractice suits.

Clean Air...yes my air is so clean, very very very clean. Actually, my air sucks. It sucks because people have to sit in traffic forever and a day every morning going to work because the clean air act prevent the state from expanding highways until we meet clean air standards. Yet somehow we keep getting further and further from the standards thank to population growth and despite stricter standards and emissions testing (which drive the cost of automobiles and automobile insurance up and thus my cost of living.) Yeah, makes sense. That's not mentioning liberal activists forcing us to use coal and oil power instead of much nuclear power. (And then they bitch about us storing the waste fromt he few reactors we have in an uninhabitted mountain in the desert. They also bitch whenever we try to build hydroelectric plants and they bitch about beautification when we try to set up wind power farms.

Come on Michael, you're full of crap.

I'm sorry sky but all the countries with a full social security system provide more healthcare with reduced costs...

It comes from less managing and marketing fees (its one single financing body with economies of scale) and much less litigation...
You can also add the fact that since the government pays for health it fights unhealthy products.
The government is starting to fight advertisement for candies during children hours ... I would tax all advertisement on ready made food... IT's the first cause of overweight and a big cost on the health system.

Apart from that yes many ideas of local enterpreneurs are generalised by unions or consumer movements. What you do not say is that if they had not, the local entrepreneurs might well have returned to mainstream because of competition ... Or they would remain just that, local entrepreneurs. Some people are always ready to pay more for quality. Others don't have the means or don't care ... But once they get ill, you bet they are a cost for society.

That's the reason the security belt is mandatory.

How many things must be mandatory is a good question. Sometimes there's too much, sometimes too less. And democracy allows to debate of those things.

The true part in michael moore's speech however is that reduced taxes for the riches are fueling an asset bubble ... Property prices and stock prices are overevalued. People cash money out of these "riches" and spend... And you get fake growth of the 90's and faker recovery now ...
With clinton there were fiscal surpluses ... Now all remains is debt. And this is going to kill your US economy. ANd I've got a bet of 50 dollars with cwilli that in 2007 the economy will be lower than in 2003.
I feel more confident that I will win it than in 2003 when I made it.

I have issues with governments limiting advertising. I have a problemw ith the government limiting unhealthy products. It is your body, if you want to make yourself fat by eating and being dormant (eating does not make you fat, being inactive does, i do not eat "healthy" due to my always being on the run, but I am not overweight because I exercise.)

If you want to die of a drug overdose you should be allowed to do so.

Now, if the governments wants to limit suchs things in public places for public safety, that is a different story, such it is with giving these things to children.

The rich had their taxes increased witht he largest peace time increase EVER in the 90s. Other events caused the techno bubble then. On recovery now is so liited due to 9/11. It had a HUGE effect on our economy. The place I was working at when it happened, and we watched it's sales figures go overnight from new records to where they were 5 years before (half or less.) The impact of 9/11 on small businesses (which make up the majority of our economy) has been profoundly underestimated.

If we continue to use an income tax system, I'll agree with you about our economy being worse in 2007. If we can ditch it for a sales tax, I would bet it will be better."

And what do you do of your fiscal deficit ?
You hope for the world to continue to lend to overindebted america ?
The techno bubble was an asset mania, there always have been bubble in market economies ... That's the main flaw of market economies : bubbles. It hits them regularly. Better phrased : it is inherent to them, mania optimism fuels them, and then comes of course bursting pessimism.
ANd you'll always found people to blame the pessimists... as if pessimism was not deeply rooted in overoptimism. You lend your money free to young dotcomers with no prospect for profit ... and then they go bankrupt ... Stocks falls and nobody won't lend anymore ... Hey... You can not be fooled and pessimistic about the world unless you first fool yourself by being optimistic about it.

Whoa whoa whoa, lending to an overindebted america?! How much money do we give to the UN EVERY year? How much more do we pour into the Germany economy by placing the military there? Ho wmuch more do we give in foreign aid every year? The world ought not lend us a thing: it should pay us back.

A fiscal deficit can be overcome by maintaining spending levels. IF we could get politicians to do that. Or maybe we could stop giving the rest of the world money.

I don't think you have an idea of the numbers in question ...
Non financial debt in the US is twice GDP. A bit more that in the 30's. That's the sum of all debt including debt of americans to americans.
If it goes too high, at one point lenders fear that debtors will not pay it back, they stop lending and here comes the crash.

You seem to be unable to differenciate between federal deficit and balance of payment deficit.
The federal deficit is yes in part related to the spending the US does abroad for the military or to the UN. This spending in part is done for the security of the world, that is why I favor the US armies being placed under direct command of the UNO and paid by worldwide tax payers ...
But I know you'd oppose such a thing... Though it will come ... in some 40 years if we work hard.

So a part of the fiscal deficit is related to overseas spending. BUt that's really not much. Remember there was a fiscal surplus 4 years ago. Increased spending was not overseas spending, except in Iraq. And it would be difficult to say that the Iraqi war was waged with a mandate of the international community.
In fact that's the main difference between Bush sr and jr. Sr had the war costs paid by Germans and Japanese. Jr pays it all with borrowed money (borrowed to the japanese and chinese)...

Balance of payement deficit is related to the difference between exports and imports, or saving and investment.
THe US overspend, undersave, overimport. They pay the goods they import in dollars, and instead of selling the dollars, chinese and japanese exporters save them in US bonds (government bonds but also private ones). This is the only reason why the US can go on spending like this with the dollar not depreciating (the asians don't want it to depreciate, they want to export, the US don't want it to appreciate, they want to import and continue to feel rich)...
Sooner or later however ... Asians will have too much money in US treasuries, the dollar will start to fall ... And there goes the panic and crash.

RIght now the buildup is really well advanced .. And we're not far from the crashing point. How long can it go on ? I don't know. But not forever.
I d say some months, not more.