Excellent posts Badger!!!!

Hog

Badger wrote: "Rick, you and I are two among the few on this board who clearly remember the Presidential election of 1964. I was in high school..."

I remember the election very well. I was a college junior, waiting to see how SE Asia would ultimately explode. Within three years I was in uniform, and a few months later beginning my first tour in Vietnam.

alaska_badger

blood subscribed for me, "the american conservative,"

after reading several issues, i decided i would think of myself a rachmones conservative.

isn't rachmones a self-obligation; a matter of individual conscience, and not of law?

"he who is convinced against his will

is of the same opinion still"

That government is best which governs least.

b

alaska_badger

rachmones is the quintessential word that lies at the heart of jewish thought and feeling. it means a heightened sensitivity to others. to feel what they feel. to understand what they need. to walk in their shoes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6979993/ 

The following is an exerpt of a lengthy article published this afternoon by the Associated Press and placed on the net via MSNBC

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. - President Bush says he has not ruled out raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security’s finances.

Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages. Bush has repeatedly said that he opposes raising taxes, but his advisers have been intentionally vague about whether he would also rule out subjecting a greater share of pay to the existing tax. Asked directly, President Bush said that he would not rule out raising that cap, though he does not want to see the payroll tax rate go up. The rate is now 12.4 percent of pay, split between workers and employers.

Some have suggested that taxing a greater share of earnings would be a good way to either help bring the system into long-term solvency, or to help pay for the transition to private investment accounts that Bush is pushing. White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush will consider this option along with many others proposed. Some critics of Bush's plan have sought to raise the tax ceiling to $150,000.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Sunday he expects any reform would include a ceiling above $90,000. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages. That ceiling rises each year with inflation — last year it was $87,100.

According to one economic analysis, if Congress did nothing but lift the cap entirely and therefore subjected all wages to the tax, Social Security would be financially balanced for 75 years, though the system would again face trouble after that.

The White House has said the aim now is to sell Americans on the idea that there is an immediate Social Security problem, even though the system doesn’t run out of money for decades, in hopes that they will put pressure on their representatives in Washington. Bush aides say the time for the legislative nitty-gritty of writing bills and negotiating with lawmakers will come after this intense public relations phase.

President Bush wants to make certain that workers age 55 and over understand that their Social Security benefits will not change under his proposal for private accounts. Political advisers see that as crucial, especially to protect Republicans who fear that Democrats will use their tangling with the popular retirement benefit against them in the 2006 midterm elections. The president portrayed his plan as both good for the Social Security system and as a crucial step in building ownership for more Americans.

He did not mention that investing in stocks and bonds means workers with private accounts risk seeing their assets shrink, nor did he talk about lower benefits or the enormous transition costs of the accounts, estimated in the trillions of dollars. He did

acknowledge that the private accounts “don’t fix the system.”

I understand that, Rick... and it derives, I believe, from the Jews' corporate and individual recollections of having been being used as a scapegoat by world religious and political leaders from Caesar to Muhammad to the Popes of the Middle Ages to the Nazi leadership in Germany to the Klan in the American South to the neo-Nazi's of today. That kind of ostracism and oppression makes one quick to recognize it when it happens to others, and kindles a desire to do something to end it. But my point is that is deeply seated in heart and conscience; not a matter of legislation. Fact is, you cannot legislate compassion, any more than you can legislate private morals. Those things must come from the hearts of parents, and yes, teachers; to be handed down as tradition (THIS is how we do this, and THIS is how we feel, and THIS is how a compassionate person acts). Can't make it happen with a government program. Shift and drop two letters, and "programs" become "pogroms" all too easily.

The Jews, of all people, should understand this. That's why I'm so surprised that so many (but not all) Jews are liberals in their political thinking.

alaska_badger

i still have to respond to bullwyf. the speech he posted was one of those speeches about things we know, but can't quite put into words.

i think one of my ancstors worked as a slave for king tut.

all jews are really rabbis. nothing more then people who know a little about there religion. the people we call rabbis know a little more.

they explain the laws and we argue about the interpretations. according to the religion, there is no one between a jew and god that has any more connection to god. i use the phrase according to the religion because i have no interest in any divinity, i'm just telling you what the doctrine is.

we have, again according to the religion, no hierarchy of priests or cardnials, or ministers to intercede for us. no go betweens. we are on our own in dealing with god.

we don't deal with sin, we deal with obeying the laws of god, as we interpet them and we don't have any places to go after we die.

personally i prefer the story of prometheus to the story of the garden of eden. in the garden of eden man "sinned" when he aquired knowledge. prometheus thought the gods were wrong to deny humans knowledge so he stole it from the gods and gave it to humanity.

adam and eve get kicked out of the garden, she is to suffer the monthly cycle and pain during childbirth.

prometheus has the earth chained to his back to hold and support forever. he still felt he did the correct thing.

much like "the scarlet letter" was placed on hester instead of the priest who had really sinned. poor hester was the innocent.

Rickamaven, what did you do for a living? You seem to be very well read.

PS when I mis-spelled your name it really was a mistake

I still don't know about this whole SS Privatization thing but I've had my own idea on how it should have been setup from the beginning...

Money deducted for Social Security would be held in a savings account allocated to ONE individual. When eligible they would withdrawl a pre-determined amount each month based on the balance. This way everyone has there own account and there is no "oh look we need 2trillion to plug the big gap".

Thoughts please.

jlambert,

I'm like others here who are waiting on the "Rest Of the Story" before anything can be drawn out any further on this one??? I've only seen as much information into it from both sides as to how I can judge this plan so far...

Until GWB Administration lays out the rest, I cannot add anything more???

Hog

alredy forgiven and forgotten.

i have been in sales all my life except for two years in the late 50's when i worked as a jr engineer on the atlas missle.

for the last 30 years i owned an insurance brokerage.

since i have semi-retired about 2 years ago, my son has doubled the business and runs it better then i did.

my reading is eclectic, i don't use batteries.

jlambert

too simple and too unavailable for the congress to grab the money when they want it.

i really think it is a good idea.