[renterclint]

[quote=jficquette]
I just hope naked pictures of her don’t show up on the internet.

John[/quote]

Mr Ficquette, you are too funny. Could it be possible that naked photos would gather more votes?

Can anyone really say how important executive or foreign policy experience is for a person to perform the duties of president?

I remember reading a passage in one of the Kennedy biographies about his first days in the whitehouse. It sounded like nothing short of chaos as this new young inexperienced group took over the executive branch, but didn’t Kennedy eventually get the hang of it? Now we hear a lot of comments about how inexperienced Lincoln was, and I think history shows he did a fair job.

Which experience is better?
1)several years on a small town council, small town mayor, then a few years governor of a state w/ a population smaller than most US cities.

or

2)several years in a state senate and a couple years as US Senator.

They seem about even to me. Oh yeah, each ticket also has an old dude w/decades of senate experience too.

I know, I know… the rookie has a different position on each party’s ticket, but the GOP has a 72 year old, cancer recovering guy on the top.

[renterclint]

I do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.

[renterclint]

I do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.

[renterclint]

I do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.

[renterclint]

I do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.

[renterclint]

I do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.

[renterclint]

“1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?”

Thanks PG, that is definitely more clear. I like the “needs-based” concept, but isn’t that just stealing from the wealthy again? You know our conservative comrads here despise income redistribution. Maybe they would make an exception in this case? I think it would be an easier sell than a cap-less payroll tax.

[renterclint]

“1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?”

Thanks PG, that is definitely more clear. I like the “needs-based” concept, but isn’t that just stealing from the wealthy again? You know our conservative comrads here despise income redistribution. Maybe they would make an exception in this case? I think it would be an easier sell than a cap-less payroll tax.

[renterclint]

“1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?”

Thanks PG, that is definitely more clear. I like the “needs-based” concept, but isn’t that just stealing from the wealthy again? You know our conservative comrads here despise income redistribution. Maybe they would make an exception in this case? I think it would be an easier sell than a cap-less payroll tax.

[renterclint]

“1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?”

Thanks PG, that is definitely more clear. I like the “needs-based” concept, but isn’t that just stealing from the wealthy again? You know our conservative comrads here despise income redistribution. Maybe they would make an exception in this case? I think it would be an easier sell than a cap-less payroll tax.

[renterclint]

“1. Raise the age however high is needed. 72, 74, whatever.

2. Regardless of age, it should be needs-based only. Stop giving people the expectation that they can live off the government comfortably in their old age as an entitlement.

Better?”

Thanks PG, that is definitely more clear. I like the “needs-based” concept, but isn’t that just stealing from the wealthy again? You know our conservative comrads here despise income redistribution. Maybe they would make an exception in this case? I think it would be an easier sell than a cap-less payroll tax.

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[renterclint]

[quote=PatentGuy]Renterclint says:

“Today’s WSJ said by 2010, the outlays will exceed the tax revenue generated. What is your answer to this issue? The privatization angle doesn’t help the elderly who may currently live mostly on SS.”

Fair question. At a minimum, the age for going on retirement welfare (soc sec and medicare) needs to be raised to at least 70.[/quote]

PatentGuy,
You started to give me your answer above, and then you went into a opinionated rant about how things should be in your eyes.

What is it about politics? Why can’t people debate political issues without sermons & name calling? I’m just as guilty as the next.

So is there more to your solution or is it simply raise the min age to 70? How will that help a 68 yr old who counts on their SS check to live each month? And out of all of the SS expenditures, I wonder what percentage goes to person 65 – 69 years old. There are a lot of old farts out there in their 70’s & 80’s. I wonder if raising the min to 70 would be enough for the program to sustain itself on a cashflow basis.

[Author]

Posts