I just got this from a Michigan Senator. Yes. she's a Democrat. I'm having trouble refuting what she is saying.

Care to take a factual shot at what she's saying?



KEEP THE SECURITY IN SOCIAL SECURITY

Tell President Bush to Keep the Security in Social Security – Sign the Petition Today!

Now more than ever, we need to fight to keep the security in Social Security.

Social Security is a great American success story. It represents the very best of our American values: after a life of hard work, you earn the right to a secure retirement, living in dignity. Before Social Security, 50% of older Americans were living in poverty. Today, it’s only 10%.

Social Security doesn’t just ensure a secure retirement; it’s also a disability policy and a life insurance policy. Did you know that Social Security protects you whether you’re a 22-year-old just starting your career or you’re a 75-year-old retiree? It covers you if anything goes terribly wrong – a financial crisis, death of

a spouse or parent, or if you become disabled.

Some people are trying to scare Americans by manufacturing a crisis. Let’s look at the facts: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports Social Security can pay 100% of its commitments until the year 2052. Even after that, Social Security will be able to pay nearly 80% of its commitments – hardly a crisis.

President Bush’s privatization plan will actually undermine our economy and make Social Security less secure, with deep cuts in benefits and huge increases in the national debt:

• Benefit cuts of one-third or more, even for those who choose not to risk their money in privatized accounts. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the average retiree can expect to lose more than $152,000 in benefits over the course of a 20-year retirement.

• Substantial increases in the national debt. Privatization adds $2 trillion in debt over 10 years, and much of that would be borrowed from countries like China and Japan. Already our nation has the highest budget deficit in history. Further debt could destabilize financial markets, drive up interest rates, and stifle economic growth – forcing our children and grandchildren to pay for these financial burdens.

We need to strengthen Social Security and make sensible changes for the long term, not dismantle this great program with privatization schemes. We need to exercise fiscal discipline. For example, Social Security would stay secure for the next 75 years if the wealthiest citizens in our country received 80% of the President’s tax cuts instead of the full amount the President is requesting.

We need to build on the success of Social Security by developing bold and innovative ways for Americans to build wealth and save for retirement.

I will continue my work to keep the security in Social Security. And I need your help. You can add your name to this fight by signing up here. I will keep you posted on developments related to Social Security and what you can do to stay involved on this issue.

Thanks for your interest and for joining the fight!

For what its worth, I agree with the letter in its entirety. I am sure there is a flip side that I am not considering. I think it is a mistake overall. SSI was suppose to be about funding the future, not the present.

I really dont see how it would benefit anyone. What if, and this is all but guaranteed to happen, a soon to be retiree finds his privatized investments cut by half or worse, because the market took a sudden hit because of something like 9-11? Or he had been invested in the dot.coms and they took a dump? Now the person cant afford to retire? Thats just an 'off the cuff' scenario, but you see what I mean.

IMO, we should find ways strengthen and enhance the current program. For example. One time I was talking to a friend of my father's, he was retiring as group vice president of a fortune 500 company. This guy was worth millions. He was joking that since he was now 72 (I think) he was being sent SS checks automatically as an entitlement, regardless of his income.

Another example is the SSI Cut off. I forget the specific amount, (somewhere around 80k I think) but once you acheive a certain amount in salary you no dont have to contribute anymore. That's BS. Expecially when I see CEO's being paid millions a year and that number rising. Somehow it doesnt make sense to give a multimillion a year CEO a break on his SSI tax, but then take it from someone making $8 an hour and trying to survive.

I can tell you that if we are going to rack up 2 trillion in debt, I would rather see that happen because we find a way to effectuate a national health care plan, something that is greatly needed. That doesnt necessarily mean I favor government provided health care for all, but there has to be a solution.

I love how the dems are call the Tax n Spend party, while the republicans always seem to want to just spend.


just my 5.30am .02


-

Joey,

We do disagree. The SS take from my paycheck stops at over $90+ thousand a year yet my benefit is no where near proportional to what I put in. In effect it has become a subsidy for the poor that failed to put anything away for themselves. I have little pity for people that retire with nothing when there have been so many programs available over the years to encourage savings.

I do agree that semi-privatizing SS is a mistake for the reason you stated. We went through a period recently where many 401-Ks and other retirement plans were almost wiped out. This could happen any time to anyone's portfolio.

Why not let the SSI administration invest the same portion in riskier investments to bolster the SSI fund. Wouldn't that be safer that letting a bunch of idiots invest in dot.coms and other faddish investments.

SSI was supposed to be about suplimentary income. It was never meant to retire on.

Let's do a little more math here. My wife informs me that I have contributed $209,000 to SSI. The balance of the $250,000 I quoted elsewhere was for Medicare. I'm 53 years old now and I contribute over $11,000 a year to the fund. If I retire at 70 I'll have contributed another $187,000. That's a total of almost $400,000. The SSI statement I get every year shows that I'll be getting $2,700 a month. I'll have to live until I'm 83 years old before I get anyone else's money unlike many that retire today and start getting my money in as little as three years. What's fair about that system?

So you think they should continue to raise the limit on high earners even though they may never get any kind of return. Smacks of Socialism to me. You think I should be penalized for being sucessful while low income earners get to feed off of the public trough. Something's wrong with your picture.

No, I dont think you should be penalized. I think everyone able to do so should contribute. Your looking at it from a purely self serving point of view, and I understand that and dont blame you. I would probably think the same if I was making $200k a year.

Its the same old argument. I have the Robin Hood complex I suppose, take from the rich and give to the poor. Im not talking about subsidizing people to lay around and watch TV, but I am talking about the people who work hard day after day just to make ends meet and retirement isnt a real option.

Something the more wealthy people sometimes dont realize, is that everyone can not be rich. It isnt always an option to be well educated, or well employed. Some people are destined to be poor or "working class" poor, no matter what they do. There are plenty of losers out there who could be better off, but choose to be lazy, but im not talking about them.

There are many many families where Mom n Dad are raising 2 children and both parents work 40+ hour a week each and between them clear $40k. They will probably work until they die. Taking vacation trips are never even contemplated, they drive used cars, and do their best to keep their kids fed, clothed and educated. Savings isnt a realistic goal for them. They tend to spend most of their money just surviving and educating their children. They live in a house some of the richer people wouldnt consider adequate to house their Mercedes.

Im sorry, I think that family should get whatever help we can give them. If that means someone making a few hundred thousand needs to continue to give 4% of his salary to do it, then I dont see the harm. I dont see the harm because the 4% isnt very much to that person, and probably what they'll blow in a slot machine in vegas. That person sure isnt going to go hungry or see a diminishment in his lifestyle. That same 4% can mean the difference between saving and not saving for that family of four.

Ahh yes, Debbie "stab-her-now" Stabenow. The ugliest woman on the planet.

Yes, Debbie is not all that attractive, but we do have one hot Governor.

No, I dont think you should be penalized. I think everyone able to do so should contribute. Your looking at it from a purely self serving point of view, and I understand that and dont blame you. I would probably think the same if I was making $200k a year.

Joey,

What is it about villifying successful people? I've been in business for 28 years changing light bulbs. I've attained a level of wealth due to the fact that my wife worked full-time for the first 20 years we were married and that allowed me to start my business and take risks in the stock market. We didn't have children, so we have lots of "things". I have one semester of college under my belt so my level of education isn't the cause of my wealth.

I saw a need and I filled it with a company that provides excellent service. I'm probably the most expensive lighting maintenance company in town because my customers are willing to pay for service. What is stopping people from doing the same thing in their own niche? Funny how all the newer additons to our culture (Korean, Vietnamese, Arabic and on and on.........) have managed to build businesses by getting help within their community. That seems to be something that "Americans" have lost.

In fact, I am being penalized. The withholding ceiling has increased every year of my taxpaying life, yet, the benefit has not risen proportionally. In fact, we who pay $12,000 a year for the SSI benefit will most likely not get any.

Your premise that high wage earners should pay more bothers me. Doesn't the drive to succeed diminish if the government takes from the rich and give to the poor?

At the rate that Bush is increasing the National Debt SS is the least of my worries. It's my 14 year old nephew and Bryan's 4 sons that will be paying for this administration's blunders.

Nobody is villifying anything barry - Nobody wants to penalize.


But what is your position? The little guy is just SOL? The family I talked about, well, thats their lot in life and if they cant afford to retire too bad?

Let me put this into perspective for you.


GW Bush and his buddies get the best perks - and you get crapped on because of it.

Your perks are better then that family I talked about, so they get crapped on even more.

So you should enjoy YOUR lot in life and quit complaining about GW, because he is doing to you what you are willing to do to those below you.

I believe the theory is called trickle down economics - which loosely translated means their pissing on you.

Some of the things you complain about, are the same things your unwilling to do yourself Barry.



Think about it bud.......... :D

I beg to differ with you. It's not me that I'm bitching about. I won't need Social Security. I put away the max I could every year and I won't need it but I won't turn it down, either. It should nicely "supplement" my lifestyle, as it was intended. I funded a lot of people's retirement. Why shouldn't I take it. You were saying that rich people should forego SS. Why?

Your analogy makes it seem like I am somehow damaging people in lower economic conditions. I am an employer. My employees make less than I do. I pay way over what I have to because a well paid work force is a happy workforce. I fund, in total, a 20% contribution to their retirement plan. I pay for 50% of medical, dental and optical premiums. Two to four weeks paid vacation and reasonable sick leave. Their safety is my foremost consideration. How am I pissing on people less fortunate? Are my well paid employees pissing on people of lower earnings?

I am already doing my duty to underprivileged families by bearing a larger share of the taxes necessary to run this country. I am proud to be contributing much more than I'll ever get back.

I never said you shouldnt take advantage of SS. I ws simply talking about the cap where after $80k you dont have to pay into SS anymore.

One time I was talking to a friend of my father's, he was retiring as group vice president of a fortune 500 company. This guy was worth millions. He was joking that since he was now 72 (I think) he was being sent SS checks automatically as an entitlement, regardless of his income.

How else was I to interpret this?

He was still working at the time. This isnt a savings account or an investment account. It was meant to help people with retirement who otherwise might not be financially be able to retire.

I beg to differ with you. It's not me that I'm bitching about. I won't need Social Security. I put away the max I could every year and I won't need it but I won't turn it down, either.

That's great that you were able to do so. It was also good to have your wife work while you did what you had to, to get to where you are now!

I didn't get so lucky - My choice was to spend money in court or not! My former wife kept me in court for over 10 years. Why? her answer was to bankrupt me! I tried to stay out. Now that I am almost 45 I am hoping that I can begin to do my own retirement and not just rely on my work retirement fund (which I got lucky and my ex-wife didn't get any of). But right now I am currently putting my current wife through school. I am hoping that after this year she will begin to earn enough that I may work on a comfortable retirement.

It should nicely "supplement" my lifestyle, as it was intended.

Health Insurance! SS to cover your Health Insurance... Health Insurance it's what scares me when I think about retiring.

I funded a lot of people's retirement. Why shouldn't I take it. You were saying that rich people should forego SS. Why?

You paid you deserve your cut! But I don't think anyone should not have to pay into SS. Everyone needs to do their part to keep SS funded.

Your analogy makes it seem like I am somehow damaging people in lower economic conditions. I am an employer. My employees make less than I do. I pay way over what I have to because a well paid work force is a happy workforce. I fund, in total, a 20% contribution to their retirement plan. I pay for 50% of medical, dental and optical premiums. Two to four weeks paid vacation and reasonable sick leave. Their safety is my foremost consideration. How am I pissing on people less fortunate? Are my well paid employees pissing on people of lower earnings?

Barry if more employers would treat their employees the way you do we would have an even more Prosperous nation

I am already doing my duty to underprivileged families by bearing a larger share of the taxes necessary to run this country. I am proud to be contributing much more than I'll ever get back.

Barry that is true you do do a lot to help out. But there are many who unlike you who don't and worse don't care. Enron, Haliburton, etc..... Places where those in control only care about how much more (more than they could ever need) they can get!

My biggest worry about SS is that my age group will have nothing when we retire. We have also paid into SS and paid a lot of money. But SS is needed by my class as a suppliment to make things go! In my mind a suppliment to cover the high cost of Health Insurance.

I never said you shouldnt take advantage of SS. I ws simply talking about the cap where after $80k you dont have to pay into SS anymore.

This $80K cap........ to remove it would NOT be "villifying the rich", to leave it in place is letting the rich have a FREE RIDE and puts the burden on the poor. That's simply NOT FAIR. That's a good place to start any SS "reform".

Wow Barry, for what it's worth you just moved up alot in my book. I'll have to think before I disagree with you from now on.

You're right, your position as an employer means you provide much more of a service to society in that respect than the SS taxes you pay could ever do. Many people feel that they can ride through life without any thought of the future and that it is society's job to take care of them (there was a story about a grasshopper and an ant that I recall). I know alot of people who were born into this world with nothing and fought to get everything they have. Some would say that certain people are predesposed to being poor. I think this is BS...a person is as capable as their belief in their capabilty. If you go through life thinking that you won't suceed then you will not.

There is a harsh reality that needs to be learned here...the world owes each and every one of us exactly two things...JACK and S__T... The sooner that this is realized the better off a person will be.

Did you notice that MonsterMark hasn't responded to the original post? Maybe he can't.

Is it possible that Bryan agrees with the Lady Democrat from Michigan?

barry, i don't know about bryan, but i agree with her.

Did you notice that MonsterMark hasn't responded to the original post? Maybe he can't.

Is it possible that Bryan agrees with the Lady Democrat from Michigan?

No. I wanted other people to chime in with their opinions first.

What I will post will explain the SS issue in detail. The opportunity to change the course of one's life is far to great.

I am in absolute favor to change the way we do SS. Especially for the young ones in this country.

I'll be back.

When? It's been almost a day since you said you'd be back. What's your plan? GWB said he lacks a plan so he went around the country asking "folks" what they thought. Is that what you've been doing?

I've been distracted all day. I'll get to it. Thanks for the patience. A post like the one I'll make takes time and I am darting in and out of here just trying to get a bunch of things done. Sorry.

No apology necessary. It just appeared as though you were avoiding the issue.

GWB said he lacks a plan so he went around the country asking "folks" what they thought. Is that what you've been doing?
hmm...not too unlike what our last president did for all 8 years? eh?

No apology necessary. It just appeared as though you were avoiding the issue.

Not at all. Just ADD rearing its ugly head.

But to give you an idea, I can't think of one reason why it is a bad idea. Help me out. It may help me to pull my ideas together.

I am trying to handle a couple complex issues right now and the 'ol mind doesn't want to redirect. Maybe in the morning.

hmm...not too unlike what our last president did for all 8 years? eh?

I wasn't criticizing GWB for asking questions. The problem is that it took him 4 years to start asking questions of the people that elected him.

"Worst President Ever"

But to give you an idea, I can't think of one reason why it is a bad idea.

Here's a bad idea. After talking to the public, 75% have decided that taking benefits away from the wealthy is the preferred method of saving SS. How stupid is that? Those are the people that contributed the most.

Penalize the wealthy and you'll see more money leaving the country than you can imagine. Are we going to have the Wealth Police? How are you going to determine who has assets and who doesn't? It would be so easy for a wealthy person to hide their assets, thus creating a criminal class where there isn't one today.

Are you going to penalize granny for saving a nestegg to leave their kids or grandkids? It's just a stupid proposal fostered by a bunch of stupid people.

I wasn't criticizing GWB for asking questions. The problem is that it took him 4 years to start asking questions of the people that elected him.

"Worst President Ever"

but, its not his job to ask what to do, he was elected to take action...not bumble arround and wait for people to give consent to what he wants to do.

Here's a bad idea. After talking to the public, 75% have decided that taking benefits away from the wealthy is the preferred method of saving SS. How stupid is that? Those are the people that contributed the most.

Penalize the wealthy and you'll see more money leaving the country than you can imagine. Are we going to have the Wealth Police? How are you going to determine who has assets and who doesn't? It would be so easy for a wealthy person to hide their assets, thus creating a criminal class where there isn't one today.

Are you going to penalize granny for saving a nestegg to leave their kids or grandkids? It's just a stupid proposal fostered by a bunch of stupid people.

hmm....wasnt that a whole big stink not too long ago? TAX THE WEALTHY! WE DONT WANT TO PAY TAXES!!!! , and the libs followed blindly...now you say...HELP THE WEALTHY! THEY NEED IT, THEY SAVE US ALL. EVEN WHEN WE SLAM THEM AND MAKE THEM PAY MORE!

Would someone please explain Mr. Wilson's responses to me?

Would someone please explain Mr. Wilson's responses to me?
dont cry. Try again, you know just what im talking about.

Anyone else got any explanation for Mr. Wilson's posts? Obviously he has trouble articulating his ideas.

MonsterMark,

I'm still waiting. You were pretty fast to criticize but you've not responded with your plan for SS. Waiting for the President to make up your mind for you?

Out of curiosity. Are you one of the 75% polled that wants to pay for shoring up SS by eliminating benefits for the wealthy?

I have a plan. Why don't we let people opt out of the system? It would cost me the $200,000 I've already put in but I'll save more than that by not supporting a system that won't be there when I am eligible.

Are you counting on SS? From what I know about you, I think not. You'll have put away enough to live a comfortable lifestyle. Unfortunately, your four sons will be paying for mistakes, you supported, made today.

Barry wrote: "Are you counting on SS? From what I know about you, I think not. You'll have put away enough to live a comfortable lifestyle. Unfortunately, your four sons will be paying for mistakes, you supported, made today."

Haha,You know better. And my kids won't be paying for anybodies mistakes.

Sorry about not getting to this. I have been busy with the election scandal in Milwaukee and that has alot higher priority.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

OK, here goes.

Let’s suppose that Congress doesn't allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. I still see a problem with Social Security. It’s headed into bankruptcy because future retirees are being promised a lot more money than current retirees are getting. SS sucks up about 4-5% of the economy right now. Right now, 48 million are getting checks averaging about $15,000 per year. 20 years from now, SS will pay more than $19,000/yr to 84 million. That will be almost 6% . By 2055, 50 years out, it will be paying out $25,000.

AND, these numbers are already adjusted for inflation, so people are being promised more than current retirees are getting.

Within 75 years, the SS deficit will be $27 trillion. In people terms, more than $100,000 for every working family.

A lot of people are going to be retiring soon. Something like 77 million. In the next couple of years. And they are expected to live a lot longer. In less than 100 years, US life expectancy has gone from 77 to 84.

If you need proof that our current system is headed for disaster, look no further than to France and Germany. An aging populace and huge government spending has led to stagnation and double-digit unemployment over there.

The more you increase the benefits, the more you encourage people to NOT save for their own retirement, but rather, live for the day. SS was intended to be a safety net, not a sole source of income.

Even the Democrats admit that Social Security faces huge long-term deficits. It’s just that THEY want to be the ones to fix it. In simple terms, politics at its worst.

Bush said to leave the 55 and over crowd alone. I agree. They paid in and they don’t have the time to build additional private savings or develop alternate sources of income for retirement.

Countries like Britain and Sweden have personal retirement accounts and changed their rate of growth for benefits to be paid out. This is something that Germany now admits it must do.

I want to tackle this problem now so MY kids don’t have to face it down later on. So Barry, you got that part wrong. I won’t pass on a problem to my kids.

Ask yourself this question. Why does the government have a personal retirement account for federal employees and we can't/don't?

The Feds' is called the Thrift Savings Plan. Federal employees can make contributions into five broadly based investment funds, tax-deferred, like a 401(k). Why can't we have the same thing using a portion of our own money?

So what would I do?

Unlike the Democrats, Republicans in general, and conservatives in particular (ME) usually offer a solution, not just hot air.

Keep the 55 and over crowd under today's Social Security program.

Steer the younger folks into private investment accounts, using a portion of THEIR money, (note the emphasis on ‘their’), into a plan similar to the Thrift plan. Make it tax deferred.

I might bump the tax rate ceiling to $100,000, but that’s it. And keep the benefit guarantee. If an individual outperforms the system, he gets to keep it all. But maybe add a safety net if the personal accounts fall short of the guaranteed benefits.

I am still having trouble with the proposed annuities that the money would be converted in to. Have to get back to that topic sometime later. I don't like how it is currently proposed to be handled. Too easy for the government to grab it when you die.

Here’s my biggest problem with all of this. Social Security simply is promising younger workers benefits that it will be unable to pay as currently set up! That's the truth. So something has to change, right? So we agree that change has to happen. At least it is a starting point.

Even the SS trustees in their own 2004 report project a forced benefit cut of 27% in 35 years when Social Security’s Trust Fund runs out of redeemable Treasury bonds.

My opinion is that personal accounts help change that equation. Money in a personal account would/could grow more quickly than money ‘saved’ in the traditional system. Therefore, benefits would be higher than is possible under the traditional system alone. It’s pretty simple to understand. Just look up compounded interest on the Net and type in a few formula numbers. You’ll be amazed at the results.

All this screaming about benefits cuts by Bush because of the personal accounts is all B.S.

Democrats subtract the money that would be going into the current system and at the same time, ignore the money saved and invested in the personal accounts. So if you see numbers coming from the Dems, don’t believe them. They are not being truthful.

I love how every other word out of a Democrat now is risky this and risky that. IMHO, doing nothing is far more risky.

We need a system that is more in line with the future obligations that are being promised. We need a system that allows young workers the opportunity to invest in these private accounts if THEY SO CHOOSE as a way to achieve better results with their money and as a hedge against the evil government squandering all the money in SS.

After all , it is Social Security that takes YOUR MONEY from you and gives you a horrible return on that money and then may or may not give it back to you. And chances are, if you are successful, they will have set up a means test so that if you were responsible with how you ran your life, they will simply say too bad, you don’t need your money. Just watch, that will be what the Dems come up with. Means testing. Just another term for class warfare.

I have a plan. Why don't we let people opt out of the system? It would cost me the $200,000 I've already put in but I'll save more than that by not supporting a system that won't be there when I am eligible.

And you know darn well how much that money would be worth when you retired even if invested tax-free in the most conservative of investment vehicles. It would be worth 10 times what the goverment will be giving you.

You've ignored my question. The President says that those under 40 can put away funds that they control. Those over 55 are unaffected. Those 41 to 54 get their benefits reduced. You don't see a problem?

BTW we agree on a lot of points but I think you are dreaming if you think your kids won't be burdened by the largest increase in size of government in the last 100 years. I thought Republicans were for fiscal responsibility and smaller government.

You've ignored my question. The President says that those under 40 can put away funds that they control. Those over 55 are unaffected. Those 41 to 54 get their benefits reduced. You don't see a problem?I have not been able to come up with your age numbers. Therefore I did not comment. I haven't seen anything written where it says that people between the ages of 41 to 54 can't participate.

On a side note, I always recommend to anybody I share advice with that they start their own company. Any kind of business. It is the best tax shelter available to the common man yet few people take advantage of it.

BTW we agree on a lot of points but I think you are dreaming if you think your kids won't be burdened by the largest increase in size of government in the last 100 years. I thought Republicans were for fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Well, you're kinda right. If we don't do anyhting about it now, the government will be taking 18% total out of their checks to support Social Security. If I remember correctly, when the program was started, the government only took 2%.

Give anybody their 12% they are donating now, teach them how to use and invest it and nobody will need the government handout when it is time to retire.

Bryan, good point on the Thrift Savings Plan. As a federal employee it is my choice to put money away into TSP or not. I do and feel that it would be idiotic not to. You have a choice in the plan of High, Medium and Low risk investing. I chose Low risk since I am still young and have plenty of time to save. I also put money into Savings Bonds which if you start young is an excellent way to save money for the future. All of these things added to my retirement pay from the USAF and SS should set me up to be fairly comfortable later in life. I still to this day do not understand people who say they are too poor or don't make enough money to save for the future. It's all a matter of poor planning. You have a guy who has no good job to speak of but has five kids... I myself know that I cannot affort to have children or a huge house or a 60" plasma HDTV so I don't buy/have these things. I live within my means and plan accordingly. I feel no sorrow for someone who lives for today with no thought of the possibility of tomorrow.

Somewhere along the line people started to think that SS would and should pay for your car, house, cable bill...where did this idea come from?

My point being that the first step in Social Security Reform is to educate people on what SS is meant to do. I think there are alot of misconceptions out there as to how the system works and that is where most of your resistance to change and the whole steal from the rich give to the poor mentality comes from.

Did any of that make sense??? Oh well, I'll post it anyway...

Did any of that make sense??? Oh well, I'll post it anyway...It will only make sense to the people that are sensible.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon12.gif

Look, you made great points but you have to understand that we have to overcome the disinformation crowd that is the media and the vast portion of what is now considered the Democratic Party. They are the country's great lie.:Bang

They do not want the common man to better his life because if that were to happen, there would be no purpose in life for people like Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, much less people like Dan Rathernot and Michael Moron.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon9.gif

And if you are a young gun, my advice would be for you to step up into the higher risk stuff. You have plenty of time to recover if things go bad. But don't get me wrong, slow and steady usually wins the race.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon14.gif

On a lighter note, it is good to see Hillary as the frontrunner with 40% for the Dem nomination.http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com//images/icons/icon13.gif The day she announces her candidacy may be the day I drop everything in my life and devote it to the defeat of her campaign.