Crap Throwing Monkey

But no chance of being accepted. The biggest complaint you hear about Bush's plan (particularly from sources like the AARP - none of whose membership would be affected by Bush's plan anyway ) is that it will adversely impact the payout and schedule of benefits. People want the benefits untouched while the solvency of the system is maintained...which can ultimately only mean "Tax everyone else so I get what I want!"

Of course, those statements stem from a fallacy that maintaining Social Security's solvency is possible or even, as it's structured now, desirable...or even that Bush's plan is designed to maintain solvency of SS. Considering that the plan involves the diversion of funds from traditional SS to private accounts, I could argue the opposite. But basically, I see statements like these as representative of the fundamental lack of any understanding of what to do about Social Security. No one even agree on what the goals of a suggested reform should be beyond "It needs to be fixed."

Did they use anesthetic, or was it part of the POW survival training?

You had your wisdoms removed by the service? All too appropriate...

It doesn't...but since there's mandatory sentencing guidelines for what he's accused of, and now that they have his records they can make their case, it's a good bet. Though watching someone wetting their pants with happiness over someone else's impending jail time is a tad distasteful.

I'm not participating. Instead, I'm letting my cats choose. And I'll bet they do better than half the people on this board. And if, by some miraculous chance, they win your bet...they'll take $100 in sushi-quality tuna...

The thing is, there's different kinds of opinions. There's smart ones, where the people holding them can and do back them up with demonstrable facts and rationality (e.g. Lori or Fake-Fat Sunny). Then there's stupid ones, where the people holding them just throw crap against the wall and hope it sticks (e.g. RudyC80, SoCal-Surf, ICE, etc.). People with smart opinions get respected here, even by those that disagree with them. People with stupid opinions get rightfully beat down, even by those that agree with them, and ultimately wander off to some other site and are forgotten (or at least not missed). Kind of like watching evolution in action, where the weaker members of the herd are culled...

I do have to give you that...

Amazingly, EII is right. Hey, look! A flying pig!

Yes, you're missing the fact that the market sets prices, not the oil companies. If I grow carrots, and suddenly everyone wants carrots, the price will go up as everyone competes for them and I'll make more money even if my cost to bring carrots to market doesn't change. Plus, if the oil companies WERE fixing prices, you'd expect more homogeneity in pricing arcoss the country (i.e. smaller regional differences, not considering regional tax levels). You don't see that, you see marked regional differences and even different price swings in different regions (last year, Florida's gas prices spiked for a couple weeks when a barge accident on the Mississippi significantly reduced river traffic, on which Florida is apparently dependent on for gasoline. But no one else's spiked nearly as much over that same time period.) Those are all features of a free market setting the price, not a managed market having prices fixed by suppliers.

My guess is roughly similar: the "SS as it stands, and no other way" crowd don't want to see the guaranteed nature of Social Security go away. The "private investment of SS for a better return crowd" wants to see...private investment for a better return. Bush's "plan" (I still think "idea" is a better term: just something the administration floated to gauge reaction) is a compromise between those two ideas - and like any good compromise, it pisses everyone off because it does absolutely nothing, since it neither truly guarantees anything nor truly privatizes anything. Were it up to me, I'd simply phase out the "required" Social Security payments over a period of time in favor of "voluntary" ones, with only those who contribute enrolled in the program. Thus, if people want to forsake the potential return of a privately managed account for the safety of government-gurarnteed retirement, they can do so; or they can invest their own money into their own retirement plan and tell the government to !@#$ off. Of course, as a practical matter, that would require a COMPLETE redesign of the entire Ponzi-scheme nature of Social Security as it stands now...but I fail to see where that's a bad thing. And clearly, my idea's a good compromise, since it can't fail to piss everyone off...

Ironic, isn't it? That's one of the first investments they'll certify, since "bonds are safe". Thus making the only differences between the current system and the proposed system: 1) Your kids can inherit your SS, and 2) you can go broke when the government defaults (and do you think the SEC will investigate THAT fraud?) Not just stupid...a !@#$ING stupid idea.

Are you people nuts? Torture and mistreat him, and he becomes a martyr to Islam - not just extremist or ultra-reactionary Islam either, but even to some of the moderates. Better to marginalize and, whenever possible, humiliate him (or let him humiliate himself - why do you think that pic of him after he was captured looking like something the cat coughed up was released, anyway?) As for torturing him...the internal psychological pain of a psychotic megalomaniacal dictator who now has no one listening to him and every move dictated by the people he most hates (i.e. Americans) has GOT to be more painful than anything physical you could inflict. The worst torture is always generated from within...

Fortunately, most of us crap-throwing monkeys are better than that. If only because we know and admit that we are, in fact, crap-throwing monkeys.

I'd prefer, personally, to stop contributing to SS and putting the money towards my own retirement...but then, I'm apparently special because I don't need to run to the government whining "Help me!" when I want something... As for Bush's SS "plan"...I actually find his idea for private accounts highly objectionable, on one simple point: it attempts to mitigate risk and preserve some of the guarantees of the current system by requiring that money in private SS accounts will only be allowed to be invested in government-approved investments. Which means that the government will then be in the business of estimating and validating investment quality...and aside from the obvious and cynical question of "Can they do it right?", there's a very practical matter of having a distinct class of "government approved" investment vehicles that every private investor knows is going to have hundreds of billions of "private Social Security" dollars put into them. Can you say "bubble"? And what happens then when the bubble collapses (as they all inevitably do)? Bush's Social Security plan is like damn near everything else this administration has came up with: fine with me in principle, but egregiously flawed in practice.

Or it would, if the voters had attention spans beyond the next commercial break...

When throwing crap at another monkey, is it best to use a soft, arcing underhand toss over the treetops to hit him with a plunging projectile, or is a blazing fast flat-trajectoried overhand throw better?

I think the majority of the American people do not want any agenda forced down their throats. Personally, I don't need Tom Delay telling me who to worship any more than I need Nancy Pelosi telling me I shouldn't trust Wall Street.

Actually, for a very long time now Social Security money has been invested into treasuries. There is NO real cash in the Social Security fund, it is entirely US debt vehicles. And there's nothing inherently dishonest about it, either, since a short term treasury bill is from an accounting standpoint equivalent to cash, and what the government is doing isn't "looting Social Security" but "investing in govoernment bonds". It does mean, though, that when the US debt market collapses (i.e. the deficit becomes so high that no one believes the US will pay its bills anymore), Social Security is going to be wiped out. Which makes private accounts unmanaged by the government (rather than invested in US debt by default) look like a good idea, actually...

That rule would effectively prohibit roughly 3% of the population of Iraq from sitting on the jury...

Unusual for that to happen without you egging it on in that direction, i'n't it?

You're not the only one. Lots of people think that, including the majority of criminal attorney's I've talked to about it (my sister, a very good defense attorney, basically told me that if they charged the mother with endangering the welfare of a child, she couldn't successfully defend her.)

TD's responsible for my ingrown toenail!... ...ah, screw it. We've lost momentum.

For all the crap you get (deservedly, I think...but I am a crap throwing monkey) about the Mickey Mouse BS you post, your posts like this make up for it. I'm bookmarking that site.

Doesn't matter. He's not on trial for being whacked in the head. That's why this stands a good chance of, if he's found guilty, being overturned on appeal. FAR too many prosecution witnesses testified to his being whacked in the head, and not the crime. The defense has a very solid case for appeal on the grounds that the prosecution unfairly prejudiced the jury.