Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Social Security, Medicare and Aging
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 7 2005, 11:21 AM)
The point is, and you know it, and the President knows it or ought to know it, that there was never and could never, by law, be a pile of cash there. EVER. Cash cannot even maintain its market value unless it is lent to another to use for a consideration or used to buy rights to residual streams of income.
[right][snapback]73520[/snapback][/right]


I don't see anywhere that Bushie said cash.

Having individual "account numbers" and calling it "insurance" and having a "fund" does make one wonder though.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 7 2005, 11:09 AM)

I don't see anywhere that Bushie said cash.
[right][snapback]73540[/snapback][/right]


So, why did you say the following, then?

QUOTE
I thought he was saying that the money (paper) used to be in that drawer, but somebody done went a spent it on other stuff.


QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 7 2005, 11:09 AM)

Having individual "account numbers" and calling it "insurance" and having a "fund" does make one wonder though.
[right][snapback]73540[/snapback][/right]


How so? I never wonder whether there's a big pile of cash whenever I think of my account numbers, insurance or funds.
underhi2p
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 7 2005, 03:09 PM)
I don't see anywhere that Bushie said cash.

Having individual "account numbers" and calling it "insurance" and having a "fund" does make one wonder though.
[right][snapback]73540[/snapback][/right]



Social Security is a guaranteed, government-sponsored retirement program.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 7 2005, 02:44 PM)
So, why did you say the following, then?
How so? I never wonder whether there's a big pile of cash whenever I think of my account numbers, insurance or funds.
[right][snapback]73555[/snapback][/right]


Paper you know paper?

Accounts not related to cash, related to separate accounts. Stop with the trying to fork around, as you aren't slick enough to pull it off.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(underhi2p @ Apr 7 2005, 02:45 PM)
Social Security is a guaranteed, government-sponsored retirement program.
[right][snapback]73556[/snapback][/right]


fork it. I'm fed up with it. As long as they keep depositing to my bank account and I can get cash from there, I no longer give a rats ass..
Nomarchy
QUOTE(underhi2p @ Apr 7 2005, 12:45 PM)
Social Security is a guaranteed, government-sponsored retirement program.
[right][snapback]73556[/snapback][/right]


Really? With survivor and disability insurance programs attached, right? And a defined-benefit pension or retirement plan, you meant, right?
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 7 2005, 12:47 PM)
Paper  you know paper?

Accounts not related to cash, related to separate accounts.  Stop with the trying to fork around, as you aren't slick enough to pull it off.
[right][snapback]73557[/snapback][/right]


You're the one trying to fork around. And I don't know what in the farqing hell you're talking about with the "slick enough to pull it off" bullshit.

There was never any "paper, you know, paper, [...] [a]ccounts not related to cash, related to separate accounts" in that drawer.

Payroll taxes are, by law, used to pay out current liabilities and the excess is lent to the General Fund, in the forms of T-bonds (or Special Obligation T-bonds). The latter become assets of the SS Trust Fund.
Bart Katz
Bushie didn't say cash.

I didn't say cash.

You said cash.

Got it?
davisął
States Told Not to Steer Beneficiaries to Drug Plans
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: April 8, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 6 - The Bush administration has told states that they cannot steer Medicare beneficiaries to any specific prescription drug plan, even if state officials find that one or two insurance plans would provide the best deals for elderly people with low-incomes.



States like Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania have for years had their own programs to help elderly people with drug costs. In some cases, the state coverage is superior to what Medicare will offer. Many states want to continue those programs to supplement the Medicare drug benefit that becomes available in January.

A federal advisory commission said recently that states should be allowed to enroll their low-income Medicare beneficiaries in "one or more preferred prescription drug plans." This would help ensure "continuity of care," it said.

But in a memorandum to state officials, the Bush administration rejected that recommendation.

State programs that steer people to a specific drug plan are "contrary to Medicare policy goals" and "may violate federal fraud and abuse laws," said the memorandum, signed by Leslie V. Norwalk, deputy administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

By enrolling low-income people in a preferred plan, Ms. Norwalk said, state officials are violating beneficiaries' freedom of choice and undermining competition among insurers.

Moreover, she said, if states receive money - rebates or other "financial benefits" - in return for sending people to a particular drug plan, such payments may constitute illegal kickbacks.


Thomas M. Snedden, director of the Pharmaceutical Assistance for the Elderly program in Pennsylvania, said the federal government was "threatening states that do not participate in the free-market model of prescription drug coverage" envisioned by the Bush administration.

"In Pennsylvania," Mr. Snedden said, "we may have 12 or 14 private plans offering drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. It would be extremely difficult for the state to coordinate benefits with all of them. We want to be able to pick a single plan and enroll our people."

Senator Jon Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey, said the administration's stance made it more likely that "seniors will see a reduction or disruption of the drug coverage they receive" under his state's 30-year-old pharmacy assistance program, which has strong bipartisan support.

The commission said that more than 1.3 million low-income people were receiving assistance from state-financed programs in 21 states.

Ms. Norwalk said states could help Medicare beneficiaries evaluate the available drug plans. But, she said, states must not "eliminate choice for the low-income subsidy population by steering them into one preferred prescription drug plan."

Federal officials were alarmed to learn that some states were drafting legislation that would allow them to act as "authorized representatives" for people in state drug assistance programs. Using this power, state officials could enroll certain state residents in a preferred Medicare drug plan. The drug plans are expected to negotiate with drug companies to obtain discounts, rebates and other price concessions.

Ms. Norwalk said "we are particularly concerned" that such rebates would go into state coffers, rather than being used to reduce drug prices for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. High drug prices mean "higher costs for all Medicare beneficiaries and for the Medicare program," she said.

Under the law passed by Congress in 2003, Medicare will subsidize the basic drug benefit and will provide extra subsidies to defray costs for low-income people. By favoring one Medicare drug plan, Ms. Norwalk said, states would illegally discriminate against the others, impairing their ability to recruit members and secure discounts.

The federal advisory commission, appointed last June by the secretary of health and human services, analyzed the Medicare law and reached a different conclusion. People in a state pharmacy assistance program can be automatically enrolled in a Medicare drug plan, it said, as long as they have a right to "opt out" and choose a different plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/politics/08medicare.html

Arturo_Vandelay
Tough call. If certain people or states end up steering people it could easily be for the worst.

Maybe somebody could set up an honest website that allowed people to plug in their preferences and find the best deal, including the "opt out".
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 8 2005, 10:48 AM)
Tough call. If certain people or states end up steering people it could easily be for the worst.

Maybe somebody could set up an honest website that allowed people to plug in their preferences and find the best deal, including the "opt out".
[right][snapback]73661[/snapback][/right]

That would sure help.
Arturo_Vandelay
If you can do it with car insurance and plane tickets I don't see why it wouldn't work with health benefits. I wouldn't be surprised if things changed down the road. As you know laws aren't set in stone.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 7 2005, 01:02 PM)
Bushie didn't say cash.

I didn't say cash.

You said cash.

Got it?
[right][snapback]73561[/snapback][/right]


Whatever, dude. Money (paper) is what?

I'll look for audio, audio-video or transcript of the Bushie event, and then we'll see what he actually said.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 12:08 PM)
Whatever, dude. Money (paper) is what?

I'll look for audio, audio-video or transcript of the Bushie event, and then we'll see what he actually said.
[right][snapback]73680[/snapback][/right]

That might be interesting.
Nomarchy
QUOTE
“A lot of people in America think there is a trust — that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you,” Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg.

“But that’s not the way it works,” Bush said. “There is no trust ‘fund’ — just IOUs that I saw firsthand,” Bush said.

Earlier, Susan Chapman of the Office of Public Debt Accounting had shown Bush an ivory four-drawer filing cabinet with numeric locks. “This is it,” she said.

“This is what exists,” Bush said, illustrating his point that the promise of future Social Security benefits are simply stashed in a file.

Chapman opened the second drawer and pulled out a white notebook filled with pseudo Treasury securities — pieces of paper that offer physical evidence of $1.7 trillion in treasury bonds that make up the trust fund.

Bush is facing an uphill battle in his effort to persuade the public that Social Security reform is needed and that private retirement accounts should be part of the solution.

Democrats argue that the administration is proposing to drastically alter the system when more modest changes would ensure the system’s future solvency.

The pieces of paper he saw are not real Treasury securities. In today’s computer age, investors no longer get honest-to-goodness Treasury bonds they can hold in their hands. But, by law, the bureau creates paper bonds to put in the file cabinet just in case anybody, like Bush, wants to see the trust fund.

“Imagine,” Bush said in his speech. “The retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet. It’s time to strengthen and modernize Social Security for future generations with growing assets that you can control that you call your own — assets that the government can’t take away.



Bush: Social Security trust fund ‘just IOUs’ President says, ‘There is no trust fund’ The Associated Press Updated: 2:47 p.m. ET April 5, 2005

It is mind-boggling.
hunin
A Mississippi headline:

[center] "Ever heard of 'clawbacks'? You soon will." [/center]

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/...al/11330209.htm

QUOTE
If you thought the Legislature had solved forever the state's fiscal burden for the huge Medicaid program by cutting its budget 24 percent and seriously reducing many services to the medically needy, think again.

The Barbour administration has given the impression that we will be free of the fiscal burden for some 60,000 now on state Medicaid rolls by simply handing them over to the feds when the new Medicare program kicks in on January 1, 2006.

Free? Not so.

First, ever hear the word "clawback"? You will before long.

No mention of clawback was heard as Barbour people and their Senate lackeys were crowing a week ago that they had rammed $167 million in Medicaid cuts down the throat of House members while forcing the House to drop its 50 cent cigarette tax hike to help fund Medicaid.

Clawback is the money the state is going to have to pay monthly to the federal government beginning in 2006 under the new federal Medicare law when the feds pick up all or part of the prescription drug tab for 130,000 needy who are dually eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare.

Recently at the National Governors Conference, the New York Times reported, many governors, some of them Republicans, believed they were misled by the Bush administration that the new Medicare law would relieve them of prescription drug costs for the low-income elderly.

After they did the math under the clawback (required state contribution) provision of the Medicare act, they found they would be paying more money to the federal government than they will be saving under the new Medicare law.

And the amount their states will have pay to the government, the governors told the Times, will increase each year thereafter.

Mississippi's Haley Barbour was not quoted as a critic of the new Medicare law, a measure hailed by his good friend, George W. Bush, as a major achievement of his first term in office.

Right now because of the fuzziness surrounding the feds' planning for the January implementation of the new Medicare law, state Medicaid authorities say they don't have a firm handle on how much the state will have to pony up to the federal government next year, or which drug plans will be offered to recipients.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services "keeps restructuring the (clawback) formula, and we probably won't really know what it is until August," according to Francis Rullan, public relations director for the state's Division of Medicaid.

State Rep. Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, the House Health and Welfare chairman, said the clawback figure he has been given so far is estimated at $15 million next year.

However, there's strong indication the amount will run considerably higher.

Medicaid's deputy administrator for health services, Sharon Barnett-Myers, said based on present information she estimates the state will have to pay $28 million in clawbacks to the federal government next fiscal year when the prescription benefits of 130,000 of the state's poor elderly are covered by Medicare.

Incidentally, that's money the Legislature will have to come up with above the cost of the overall state Medicaid program, which provides health care for some 780,000 poor Mississippians, a quarter of the state's total population....
hunin
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 01:20 PM)


user posted image
underhi2p
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 7 2005, 04:50 PM)
Really? With survivor and disability insurance programs attached, right? And a defined-benefit pension or retirement plan, you meant, right?
[right][snapback]73559[/snapback][/right]


No.

I mean a government-sponsored, taxpayer funded, guaranteed, inflation- protected retirement plan.

SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 12:20 PM)
The pieces of paper he saw are not real Treasury securities. In today’s computer age, investors no longer get honest-to-goodness Treasury bonds they can hold in their hands.
[right][snapback]73686[/snapback][/right]

That is correct, and therein lies the answer to your request re the nature of money the other day.

“Real”, marketable US treasury securities are book entry on Treasury’s books only, with no paper bonds, no filing drawers, and nothing to show but an entry on a database. Imagine that.

Treasury bonds are an accounting entry only.

They are backed by nothing but the full faith and credit of the United Sates Of America, and the ability of the US economy to survive and prosper.

Strangely enough, the free markets value these obligations more than any other debt securities in world.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 8 2005, 10:38 AM)
That is correct, and therein lies the answer to your request re the nature of money the other day.

“Real”, marketable US treasury securities are book entry on Treasury’s books only, with no paper bonds, no filing drawers, and nothing to show but an entry on a database. Imagine that.

Treasury bonds are an accounting entry only.

They are backed by nothing but the full faith and credit of the United Sates Of America, and the ability of the US economy to survive and prosper.

Strangely enough, the free markets value these obligations more than any other debt securities in world.
[right][snapback]73699[/snapback][/right]


Yes. That was a good lawyer's question, by the way, wasn't it?

wink.gif
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 12:44 PM)
Yes. That was a good lawyer's question, by the way, wasn't it?

wink.gif
[right][snapback]73703[/snapback][/right]

Indeed. All money today that is not currency is bookkeeping. And of course, currency is just beads on an abacus, anyhow.


For the President of the United States, MBA that he is, to claim to be shocked to see that US Treasury Bonds are nothing but paper, and to disparage their value, is just plain fraudulent.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 8 2005, 10:53 AM)
Indeed. All money today that is not currency is bookkeeping. And of course, currency is just beads on an abacus, anyhow.
For the President of the United States, MBA that he is, to claim to be shocked to see that US Treasury Bonds are nothing but paper, and to disparage their value, is just plain fraudulent.
[right][snapback]73708[/snapback][/right]


Or to claim that a government guarantee that the government can never take away part of what the government has taxed away in the form of payroll taxes is more of a valuable or 'real' guarantee than the current government guarantee of social security benefits . . .

Fraudulent, all around.
underhi2p
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 02:56 PM)
Or to claim that a government guarantee that the government can never take away part of what the government has taxed away in the form of payroll taxes is more of a valuable or 'real' guarantee than the current government guarantee of social security benefits . . .

Fraudulent, all around.
[right][snapback]73713[/snapback][/right]



You're starting to sound like Bushie.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 12:56 PM)
Or to claim that a government guarantee that the government can never take away part of what the government has taxed away in the form of payroll taxes is more of a valuable or 'real' guarantee than the current government guarantee of social security benefits . . .

Fraudulent, all around.
[right][snapback]73713[/snapback][/right]

That too. Their claim that the governement won't be able to eff with the new system just as it always has rests on what?
Nomarchy
Why don't they come out and say that we, Republicans, want to use the Federal Government's power to tax to force you to invest in the markets?
underhi2p
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 03:07 PM)
Why don't they come out and say that we, Republicans, want to use the Federal Government's power to tax to force you to invest in the markets?
[right][snapback]73725[/snapback][/right]



Because everyone knows the return on investment from a person's investment in Social Security is greater than any return anyone could possibly obtain from an investment in any other market.

Besides, the future costs to the taxpayer will be declining in future years so it makes no sense to change any feature of the Social Security, government-sponsored, inflation-protected, guaranteed benefit retirement accounts.
hunin
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 8 2005, 01:53 PM)
Indeed. All money today that is not currency is bookkeeping. And of course, currency is just beads on an abacus, anyhow.
For the President of the United States, MBA that he is, to claim to be shocked to see that US Treasury Bonds are nothing but paper, and to disparage their value, is just plain fraudulent.
[right][snapback]73708[/snapback][/right]


Well, now that's a strong charge. Criminal nearly. Maybe he really was surprised. Really truly was.

[center] ah slept thru that class...[/center]

user posted image
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 8 2005, 11:38 AM)



Strangely enough, the free markets value these obligations more than any other debt securities in world.
[right][snapback]73699[/snapback][/right]


For how much longer? Cash in IOUs all at once and see what happens.

Anybody familiar with the concept of a bank run?
hunin

Cash in stocks all at once and see what happens. Familiar w/a er, market adjustment?

Would take less of a % of stock to have an effect, than % of bonds methinks.

Stocks are just slips of paper as well. Arguably more volatile.
Arturo_Vandelay
Same thing applies, yet the government doesn't make it's money creating or selling a product, just taking money in the form of taxes. Since it has police and an army to back up the threat of taxation government securities are fairly safe.

The government may have to bankrupt the nation (the paying portion) to pay off(in inflated cash), but it won't actually default on anything.
hunin
Well, there is the ability to print extra money. That's a lousy solution but 1 solution.

So long as we have a strong economy, no prob. That's the entire solution.

Appparently the SS commish thinks we have an economy on the wane. If the worker/consumer slides down, so will our economy. An ever richer investor class won't help that much - in a global investment economy. Which is what we've got.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 8 2005, 12:48 PM)
Same thing applies, yet the government doesn't make it's money creating or selling a product, just taking money in the form of taxes. Since it has police and an army to back up the threat of taxation government securities are fairly safe.

The government may have to bankrupt the nation (the paying portion) to pay off(in inflated cash), but it won't actually default on anything.
[right][snapback]73741[/snapback][/right]


The government does not make its money, period. It confers money-ness to things or 'things'.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 12:08 PM)
Whatever, dude. Money (paper) is what?

I'll look for audio, audio-video or transcript of the Bushie event, and then we'll see what he actually said.
[right][snapback]73680[/snapback][/right]


I didn't say money. I said paper. Holding paper is not holding money, it's holding promises.
Bart Katz
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 12:20 PM)


Paper = promises to pay, IOU's.

Where's the farqing money?
Bart Katz
Take your farqing file drawer full of ledgers, abbici, calculators, and computer tapes down to the 7-11 and try to buy a farqing case of beer with them. They'll want money instead.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 04:07 PM)
The government does not make its money, period.
[right][snapback]73752[/snapback][/right]


Tell that to the boys at the mint.
hunin
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 8 2005, 06:11 PM)
I didn't say money.  I said paper.  Holding paper is not holding money, it's holding promises.
[right][snapback]73753[/snapback][/right]



Money is paper - is promises. Where have you been?

Long time off the silver certificate.

Of course even silver is only worth what some futures market sez.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 8 2005, 03:11 PM)
I didn't say money.  I said paper.  Holding paper is not holding money, it's holding promises.
[right][snapback]73753[/snapback][/right]


What the heck is money if it's not a generally accepted promise?
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Apr 8 2005, 03:15 PM)
Take your farqing file drawer full of ledgers, abbici, calculators, and computer tapes down to the 7-11 and try to buy a farqing case of beer with them.  They'll want money instead.
[right][snapback]73755[/snapback][/right]


Have you heard of plastic? Is this for real, or are you pulling my leg?

What IS money?
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 8 2005, 03:47 PM)
Tell that to the boys at the mint.
[right][snapback]73760[/snapback][/right]


Come on, a.v.. I used "make" the same way you used "make" when you said that the government doesn't make its money by producing and selling a good or service.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 07:02 PM)
Come on, a.v.. I used "make" the same way you used "make" when you said that the government doesn't make its money by producing and selling a good or service.
[right][snapback]73792[/snapback][/right]


The government could sell or rent some of it's assets in a pinch. I suppose that would "make some money".

Government does create money through monetary policy, but in general what it has is taken from business and consumer.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 8 2005, 06:08 PM)
The government could sell or rent some of its assets in a pinch. I suppose that would "make some money".

Government does create money through monetary policy, but in general what it has is taken from business and consumer.
[right][snapback]73798[/snapback][/right]


Do banks and other lenders also create money, yes or no?

What is money? In what does the "money-ness" of anything consist? How is "money-ness" conferred on anything?

And why did you say "business and consumer" as opposed to "business and worker"?
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 07:16 PM)
Do banks and other lenders also create money, yes or no?

What is money? In what does the "money-ness" of anything consist? How is "money-ness" conferred on anything?

And why did you say "business and consumer" as opposed to "business and worker"?
[right][snapback]73801[/snapback][/right]



The Fed creates money through the banking system.

"Moneyness" is debateable, but in general it's pretty obvious what is easily negotiable.

Workers are part of business, so I chose to include their separate part in the system as consumer.(and end taxpayer)
Human Ills
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 06:00 PM)
Have you heard of plastic? Is this for real, or are you pulling my leg?

What IS money?
[right][snapback]73791[/snapback][/right]

A medium of exchange.
Human Ills
That way I can barter with someone that has no need of my services.
lil bart
QUOTE(davisął @ Apr 7 2005, 06:47 AM)
To the generals?
[right][snapback]73453[/snapback][/right]


We're generals. We're generals!


QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 11:20 AM)


That it is.


QUOTE(hunin @ Apr 8 2005, 11:23 AM)
A Mississippi headline:

[center] "Ever heard of 'clawbacks'? You soon will." [/center]

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/...al/11330209.htm
[right][snapback]73688[/snapback][/right]


YIKES! None of us have heard but the beginning of this.


QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 8 2005, 11:53 AM)
Indeed. All money today that is not currency is bookkeeping. And of course, currency is just beads on an abacus, anyhow.
For the President of the United States, MBA that he is, to claim to be shocked to see that US Treasury Bonds are nothing but paper, and to disparage their value, is just plain fraudulent.
[right][snapback]73708[/snapback][/right]


Where's Carol? blink.gif

QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 8 2005, 12:07 PM)
Why don't they come out and say that we, Republicans, want to use the Federal Government's power to tax to force you to invest in the markets?
[right][snapback]73725[/snapback][/right]


That is the only thing that has seemed clear to me from the very first day, and still does.
Human Ills
As opposed to using the Federal Government's power to tax to force you to invest in the welfare of children that aren't your own?
lil bart
QUOTE(Human Ills @ Apr 8 2005, 08:13 PM)
As opposed to using the Federal Government's power to tax to force you to invest in the welfare of children that aren't your own?
[right][snapback]73849[/snapback][/right]


If you must, then yes. As opposed to that.
Human Ills
laugh.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2010 Invision Power Services, Inc.