Budget forum in Mankato

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

The amount of people attending this forum was surprising to me. I know the DFL invited some people, but an overflow crowd on a Thursday night in February to talk to legislators seems to suggest there's a current of something running below the surface. Thoughts?

Here's the story. Mike Laven, others feel free to join in. This is your territory

http://www.mankatofreepress.com/local/local_story_051003457.html

[Ben Willaert]

I agree with Marcus Piepho:
“MSU student Marcus Piepho had an opposite view, saying that tax increases will further depress economic growth — resulting in reduced tax revenue.
“Higher taxes is not going to get us out of the problem,” Piepho said. “It never will.”

Our economy is hurting because people and businesses don’t have the money to spend right now. Putting more burdens on them will only depress things further. We need to be creative in finding ways to stimulate spending. That, in turn, will bring in more taxes.

[Dan Conner]

I attended the budget meeting that night. An item missed by the paper is that a lot of people, like me, were turned away because the meeting room was full. I estimate about 100 people were turned away.

As far as cuts are concerned - we have been cutting state expenditures ever since Pawlenty has been governor. Further cuts will simply be a further reduction in services.

I believe the budget is going to have to come from tax increases, as well as some budget cuts. I certainly don't agree with Pawlenty's idea of mortgaging off the tobacco money. That's just a source of profit for someone with too much potential downside for the State. I think we can increase taxes without affecting people's ability to consume. Minnesota has lost the progressivity in its tax. That needs to be restored. The wealthy need to pay a larger percentage of their income than they do now. In many cases, they pay a smaller percentage than low/middle income people. Income to the low/middle income needs to be maintained because they are the prime consumers in local economies. The rich will save increasing percentages of tax cuts because they can afford to do so.

Since we are looking to spur economic growth, consumption is now needed, not saving. I agree with Ben about additional taxes on businesses. Don't raise taxes on businesses. Instead, raise them on wealthy individuals.

[Bob Jentges]

I too lean toward Piepho's point of view. As a general rule I do not favor tax increases. But if it can be established that they absolutly must be raised to get us through this "crisis" (which I doubt) I would prefer the increase be on "wealth" (if that can be accomplished under the tax code and I doubt it can) as opposed to on individual income and/or businesses.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

What interesting about taxing the wealthy is a Minnesota Department of Revenue study that several letter writers have cited that shows the wealthy don't pay as high a "percentage" of their taxes as middle income folks. An informal poll on The Free Press Web site a few months ago had a vast majority favoring the idea that wealthy people pay the same "percentage" as avearge people, even though as a total wealthy people pay way more.
Bob, as a person who was in the insurance business, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this idea: Treat taxes like insurance premiums, the more things you have to protect or "insure" through the government, the more you should pay, just like an insurance policy.
IN other words, If a millionaire has $600,000 home, then ostensibly, if the police protect that home, they are protecting a higher value, thus should that person pay a higher premium? i.e. higher taxes?

[Bob Jentges]

What interesting about taxing the wealthy is a Minnesota Department of Revenue study that several letter writers have cited that shows the wealthy don't pay as high a "percentage" of their taxes as middle income folks. An informal poll on The Free Press Web site a few months ago had a vast majority favoring the idea that wealthy people pay the same "percentage" as avearge people, even though as a total wealthy people pay way more.
Bob, as a person who was in the insurance business, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this idea: Treat taxes like insurance premiums, the more things you have to protect or "insure" through the government, the more you should pay, just like an insurance policy.
IN other words, If a millionaire has $600,000 home, then ostensibly, if the police protect that home, they are protecting a higher value, thus should that person pay a higher premium? i.e. higher taxes?

As a preface to my response I want to say that I was not in the underwriting area of the insurance business. I, and the people I managed only became involved when a risk the underwriters wrote had an accident or sufferred a loss. Sometimes, but not always, the accident/loss happened because the underwriter accepted a poor risk (sound comparable with banks giving home mortgages to people that would not be able to make the payments?).

Your suggestion is interesting, but I think it differs from how insurers rate premiums. One of the areas insurers use to base the premiums they charge
for coverage of a building structure i.e. house, business, etc., is the cost of repair or replacement with a similar structure. The premium is higher for the $600,000 home you exampled than for say a $150,000 home. Government is involved only in services i.e. police, fire, snow removal, etc. I think a pretty strong arguement can be made that generally speaking their is no greater expense to the government when police or fire are called to the $600,000 than there is when they are called to the $150,000 home, or when the snow is plowed from the street in front of either home.

What I was suggesting in my previous post about taxing "wealth" as opposed to individual income or businesses to get us out of the present "crisis" referred to what might be called a wealth tax i.e. accumulated wealth set aside in certain Trusts, etc. I understand those are either not taxed at all or are taxed at a much lower rate than income. I would be interested to hear what an accountant has to say about taxes on Trust's that are passed down from generation to generation for families to live from.

If my uneducated idea (I would only consider very large Trust's) has any merit and could be done under the present tax code, or if the tax code were ammended to allow for it on a one time only basis relating to this specific "crisis", it could be one piece to the puzzle for temporary help.

But I want to emphasize the one time only issue. Usually the states with the largest deficits, California and New York for example, also have the highest taxes. I doubt that is a coincidence. Many governments seem to have an insatiable desire to spend, spend, spend. They do not seem to give much consideration to the nice but necessary approach to spending, or whose money they are spending.

If everytime a government over spends the correction is to raise taxes, soon that government will run out of other peoples money to spend.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Thanks for your response Bob. You make a good point about the flaw in the comparison to insurance that I was suggesting.
One thing I rarely hear in the spending argument is to what extent people could agree on whether government spending should rise as a result of demographics only. For example, we know more people will be retiring in the next few years, so the social security and medicare costs will rise at a greater rate even though we do nothing to "increase" spending specifically. The bigger question to me is: Should we increase spending more than in the past simply because the current programs are allowing more eligible people, or would we be required to reduce "eligibility"
Essentially, demographers tell us, our costs as a country with various people programs will go up as more people are eligible, yet fewer are there able to pay the bill. Others say growth in our economy will support the growth in eligibility, but that doesn't work when you have negative growth, the period we are in now.
Whenever I would ask congressmen or other politicians what rate of growth in government spending they think is reasonable, it would be rare for me to get a real answer. Some would say the rate of inflation, but as we can see that would not work with SS.

[Bob Jentges]

Joe, I think both Social Security and Medicare need reform and soon. George W. Bush tried a couple times (as did some others before him) but was demagogued by congress. It seems to me some politicians are intent on convincing people they need government to take care of them. Additionally the AARP and other interest groups ran advertisements to scare the dickens out of the elderly. If financing continues under the present model I just do not see how working people will be able to pay the FICA necessary to keep the programs solvent.

Moreover, President Obama campaigned on removing programs that are not working or have outlived their usefullness. I do not think he has authority to do that on his own. But I hope he analyzes all spending and uses the so-called bully pulpit to get people and congress to agree to eliminate, not just cut or slow the rate of growth of, outdated entitlement social programs. Based on the so-called "stimulus program" he supported I am not optomistic, but we should listen to his budget speech tomorrow night.

[Dan Conner]

What interesting about taxing the wealthy is a Minnesota Department of Revenue study that several letter writers have cited that shows the wealthy don't pay as high a "percentage" of their taxes as middle income folks. An informal poll on The Free Press Web site a few months ago had a vast majority favoring the idea that wealthy people pay the same "percentage" as avearge people, even though as a total wealthy people pay way more.
Bob, as a person who was in the insurance business, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this idea: Treat taxes like insurance premiums, the more things you have to protect or "insure" through the government, the more you should pay, just like an insurance policy.
IN other words, If a millionaire has $600,000 home, then ostensibly, if the police protect that home, they are protecting a higher value, thus should that person pay a higher premium? i.e. higher taxes?

Obviously, you are trying to defend the status-quo for taxation of the rich. I'm not. We have lost much of the progressivity of our tax system. In many key areas it's regressive. Of course, the rich pay more in taxes. They should. However, they need to pay a larger percentage of their income/assets in taxes because they can. I choose to think that it is returning a small favor to the country/state that has given them the opportunity to so enrich themselves. That is supported even further by a conclusion that increased progressivity IMPROVES the economy:

http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B85F249A8-AF2F-465C-B05E-7E8C946BA9A7%7D&DE


In addition, the atached article points out that taxation in Minnesota is regressive. The rich currently, pay a smaller percentage of taxes than the poor:

http://www.mncn.org/bp/incid03.htm

That isn't tax fairness. Also, I thought I would point out that for State Government Tax Collections: 2007, from the US Census Bureau, shows that Minnesota collects 14.1% of its inocme taxes from corporate net income, compared to 16.7% for the national average of states. Minnesota collects less in corporate taxes. I think it is important to not get distracted from this by allowing coporate protectorates to confuse the arguement with tax rates. The amount of taxes collected is what really counts.

[Dan Conner]

Joe, I think both Social Security and Medicare need reform and soon. George W. Bush tried a couple times (as did some others before him) but was demagogued by congress. It seems to me some politicians are intent on convincing people they need government to take care of them. Additionally the AARP and other interest groups ran advertisements to scare the dickens out of the elderly. If financing continues under the present model I just do not see how working people will be able to pay the FICA necessary to keep the programs solvent.

Moreover, President Obama campaigned on removing programs that are not working or have outlived their usefullness. I do not think he has authority to do that on his own. But I hope he analyzes all spending and uses the so-called bully pulpit to get people and congress to agree to eliminate, not just cut or slow the rate of growth of, outdated entitlement social programs. Based on the so-called "stimulus program" he supported I am not optomistic, but we should listen to his budget speech tomorrow night.

I think you need to be so hypocritical when talking about "scare the dickens" out of the elderly. You are doing that. Attached is a chart below, from the Social Security Administration and based on 2004 figures. It is the most recent available for the public:

66% of people over age 65, in our country rely on Social Security for the majority of their retirement income.

More startling, is the fact that it comprises all the income of 21% of the people over age 65 have in our country. (that's more than 10 million people)

You seem to want to "scare the dickens" out of people when you discuss socialism, or even helping the poor. I guess you view scaring people, depending on the side of the fence you are on. To date, Social Security has been the single most influentual program to reduce poverty in the US. Before Social Security, the majority of our population languished in poverty in this capitalist society.

I suggest one thing. If you feel you don't need Social Security benefits, there is a procedure for returning your benefits. The Social Security Trust Fund would be more than happy to receive your benefits. Then, you could claim that you have done your share to help our economic plight. Who knows, you might set a trend....but I doubt it.

[Bob Jentges]

I think you need to be so hypocritical when talking about "scare the dickens" out of the elderly. You are doing that. Attached is a chart below, from the Social Security Administration and based on 2004 figures. It is the most recent available for the public:

66% of people over age 65, in our country rely on Social Security for the majority of their retirement income.

More startling, is the fact that it comprises all the income of 21% of the people over age 65 have in our country. (that's more than 10 million people)

You seem to want to "scare the dickens" out of people when you discuss socialism, or even helping the poor. I guess you view scaring people, depending on the side of the fence you are on. To date, Social Security has been the single most influentual program to reduce poverty in the US. Before Social Security, the majority of our population languished in poverty in this capitalist society.

I suggest one thing. If you feel you don't need Social Security benefits, there is a procedure for returning your benefits. The Social Security Trust Fund would be more than happy to receive your benefits. Then, you could claim that you have done your share to help our economic plight. Who knows, you might set a trend....but I doubt it.

I do not see where suggesting that in order for Social Security and Medicare to remain solvent they "need reform and soon" is anything but realistic economics. I do not dispute the statistics you cite and suggest they support the position that "reform and soon" is necessary. I do not see those statistics as something to take pride in.

We have been through the returning Social Security Retirement benifits before. I see no need to address it again.

[Ben Willaert]

I’m still trying to figure out the difference between the Madoff scandal and Social Security. Seems both of them are ponzi schemes to me. Something needs to be done there. I agree at the horror that so many people are dependant on SS. It should be the safety net, not the lifeline.

[Dan Conner]

I do not see where suggesting that in order for Social Security and Medicare to remain solvent they "need reform and soon" is anything but realistic economics. I do not dispute the statistics you cite and suggest they support the position that "reform and soon" is necessary. I do not see those statistics as something to take pride in.

We have been through the returning Social Security Retirement benifits before. I see no need to address it again.

Great! I'm glad you don't dispute my figures, but I think you need to look at another avenue of reform besides just cutting benefits. Presently, Social Security has a very regressive tax, stopping the FICA taxes when one reaches about $100,000/year in gross wages or net earnings from self-employment. I think Social Security should take FICA taxes out of earnings regardless of how high those earnings are. If you make $1,000,000/year, you'll pay FICA taxes on all of it. Then it is a fair flat tax. Your statement:

"It seems to me some politicians are intent on convincing people they need government to take care of them. Additionally the AARP and other interest groups ran advertisements to scare the dickens out of the elderly. If financing continues under the present model I just do not see how working people will be able to pay the FICA necessary to keep the programs solvent."

seems to concentrate only on benefits, when fairness in FICA taxes need to be addressed first. By the way, your demeaning statement about politicians convincing the people government will take care of them...someone should. Capitalism has failed in most cases. The majority of the people in our country would be living in poverty without Social Security. I think people should be scared listening to what you might propose.

Being a representative democracy, Congressmen are supposed to represent the voting public, not monied interests. If people demand more equity, that is their right...the right of the majority.

[Dan Conner]

I’m still trying to figure out the difference between the Madoff scandal and Social Security. Seems both of them are ponzi schemes to me. Something needs to be done there. I agree at the horror that so many people are dependant on SS. It should be the safety net, not the lifeline.

The difference is that Madoff was a capitalist, playing to the aspiration of all the other capitalists. He made his money spreading capitalism. Of course those capitalists who will have lost a fortune will apply for for that socialist government assistance to recoup their welfare, up $500,000.

I really don't understand what you mean by "safety net", but not "lifeline." I think you will find the term more alike than different. Banks are getting both a safety net and lifeline, same with the car manufacturers, investment houses, homeowners, etc. Government has long defined the "safety net" as the last alternative, kind of like a "lifeline." However, I would sure appreciate your definition of the two and their differences.

[Ben Willaert]

The difference is that Madoff was a capitalist, playing to the aspiration of all the other capitalists. He made his money spreading capitalism. Of course those capitalists who will have lost a fortune will apply for for that socialist government assistance to recoup their welfare, up $500,000.

I really don't understand what you mean by "safety net", but not "lifeline." I think you will find the term more alike than different. Banks are getting both a safety net and lifeline, same with the car manufacturers, investment houses, homeowners, etc. Government has long defined the "safety net" as the last alternative, kind of like a "lifeline." However, I would sure appreciate your definition of the two and their differences.

A safety net is temporary help for unexpected events. The lifeline is relying on or being dependant on something forever. Americans are better then that. We all have unexpected pitfalls that we may or may not need help getting out of; allowing for us to neglect planning for retirement while relying on this unstable program is a disservice. What happens when it goes belly up like the rest of the ponzi schemes? That will have drastic effects on the many people that were dependant on it for providing them a living.

[Dan Conner]

A safety net is temporary help for unexpected events. The lifeline is relying on or being dependant on something forever. Americans are better then that. We all have unexpected pitfalls that we may or may not need help getting out of; allowing for us to neglect planning for retirement while relying on this unstable program is a disservice. What happens when it goes belly up like the rest of the ponzi schemes? That will have drastic effects on the many people that were dependant on it for providing them a living.

Well, I guess you have now become the new dictionary for poitical terms. I can't remember that "safety net" has ever been classified as temporary. Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a often referred to "safety net", is a monthly payment given to poor people who are either aged or disabled. It has long been called a Government "safety net". The Government has even referred to it as such. Yet, it pays people benefits as long as people are disabled or disabled. In many cases, that is for decades and for as long as they live...hardly temporary. So, I disagree with your definition of "safety net." However, I suggest you define your terms when you state them, so we all can better understand what you are saying.

I think there are millions of people getting "safety nets" and and "lifelines" that desperately need them. These people are DISABLED and AGED. You might condemn them for not planning, but they apparently have not accommplished what YOU want. I think people have a right to exist with a basic dignity. Your "tough love" doesn do it and never has. People need to be helped not blamed. You blame them because you "provide for their living?" Believe me it is hardly a living.

I think you are afflicted with a bad case of self-righteousness. You know, being a responsible member of society means you have to contribute to it. It doesn't mean you point fingers of blame at others while our nation crumbles into a state of selfish decay. Sometimes I think you want to live on an island where no one else can get anything from you, unless you approve of them. Well, you aren't on an island and there are almost 300 million of us here, hopefully working together. Hopefully, we are willing to help each other. Not everyone was as lucky as you, either as a child or as an adult. If we were more willing to spend money to prevent problems, maybe we wouldn't have so many unfortunate people in our society. The key word here is society. And society means people working together in common interests, common institutions, and common culture. Just because you have what you want, doesn't mean that now you are able to abdicate your societal responsibilities. The French Revolution was an illustration of that.

I think you and me have our hands full being a better contributor to our society. I don't think we need to point a finger of blame at the deficiencies of others, until we fix our many problems. If you feel strongly about blaming, then do something about it and help them. Don't be a lazy complainer. Complaining is easy. People who complain so much about others, who have so little, is so petty.

[Ben Willaert]

Dan-
No, actually I am saying that I don’t have confidence in Social Security surviving in its current state. It is a ponzi scheme. It takes money from current “investors” and gives it to older and disabled “investors”. Not saying anything about who gets the money or why.

This is one area of my life that I have not been able to correct yet. I am among the people you are pointing the finger at that will probably have to rely on Social Security. At this time, I have been so focused on building my family I have neglected any money for retirement. I feel I have been falsely reassured the government will take care of me in retirement or disability. Part of the problem is the government program is flawed and needs to be fixed. More importantly I should have been smarter then that and already started doing something for myself and my family. Fact is I didn’t put retirement savings high on my list of priorities because of the Social Security program. At this time I can’t reprioritize and start saving either. Without Social Security I would have put retirement savings much higher on my list of priorities and planned accordingly.

Most of the opinions I give are not based on blaming others. My current world view is based on the mistakes of my past and the reasons why I made those mistakes (there have been a lot of them). It is interesting that you criticize me on not being society minded. Anyone that knows me knows that I am obsessed with putting society first. Everyday I strive to contribute to society and one of the best ways I know is to tell of the mistakes that I have made and identify the problems I see. I don’t point fingers of blame because I understand. I have been there. I try to help rectify and prevent the same mistakes from happening again. True, I don’t make many mistakes anymore but that is because I am willing to identify the real problems and do something about them.

That’s probably too much personal information but I don’t think you understand where I am coming from. I wasted a lot of my potential and I hate seeing others waste it as well. I will try to be more articulate in my posts, but I think you need to stop reading into everything I write. You see me as a rich snob that loves his money and blaming others but nothing could be further from the truth. I live paycheck to paycheck and would be considered borderline low class to low middle class. The people you accuse me of pointing fingers at and blaming are my peers. I am giving you the inside perspective.

Now back to the debate. How can Social Security survive if it is structured the same as these ponzi schemes that are falling left and right?

[Dan Conner]

Dan-
No, actually I am saying that I don’t have confidence in Social Security surviving in its current state. It is a ponzi scheme. It takes money from current “investors” and gives it to older and disabled “investors”. Not saying anything about who gets the money or why.

This is one area of my life that I have not been able to correct yet. I am among the people you are pointing the finger at that will probably have to rely on Social Security. At this time, I have been so focused on building my family I have neglected any money for retirement. I feel I have been falsely reassured the government will take care of me in retirement or disability. Part of the problem is the government program is flawed and needs to be fixed. More importantly I should have been smarter then that and already started doing something for myself and my family. Fact is I didn’t put retirement savings high on my list of priorities because of the Social Security program. At this time I can’t reprioritize and start saving either. Without Social Security I would have put retirement savings much higher on my list of priorities and planned accordingly.

Most of the opinions I give are not based on blaming others. My current world view is based on the mistakes of my past and the reasons why I made those mistakes (there have been a lot of them). It is interesting that you criticize me on not being society minded. Anyone that knows me knows that I am obsessed with putting society first. Everyday I strive to contribute to society and one of the best ways I know is to tell of the mistakes that I have made and identify the problems I see. I don’t point fingers of blame because I understand. I have been there. I try to help rectify and prevent the same mistakes from happening again. True, I don’t make many mistakes anymore but that is because I am willing to identify the real problems and do something about them.

That’s probably too much personal information but I don’t think you understand where I am coming from. I wasted a lot of my potential and I hate seeing others waste it as well. I will try to be more articulate in my posts, but I think you need to stop reading into everything I write. You see me as a rich snob that loves his money and blaming others but nothing could be further from the truth. I live paycheck to paycheck and would be considered borderline low class to low middle class. The people you accuse me of pointing fingers at and blaming are my peers. I am giving you the inside perspective.

Now back to the debate. How can Social Security survive if it is structured the same as these ponzi schemes that are falling left and right?

Well Ben, I very much respect the fact that you have been honest. I just wish you would have said from the beginning that it was your experience leading you to blame people. Then, I wouldn't have accused you of pointing fingers of blame at others.

I don't want to get into a semantical debate about whether Social Security is a "ponzi scheme". I think that is simply emotional rhetoric intended to get people's attention. It isn't a "ponzi scheme" because it isn't intended to defraud people. Your statement that Social Security doesn't say anything about who should get money and why, is WRONG!

In order for you to get retirement, you have to prove your age and relationship, if spouses benefits are applied for. Then, Social Security looks at your earnings record over the years to determine how much you get. The more you pay in, the higher your benefit will be. As far as disability is concerned, there are statutory requirement about what qualifies to meet the disability requirement. That must be met and applicants have appeal rights. However, disability still has the same limitations on benefits based on earnings, just like retirees.

You are mistaken about the Government falsely assuring you about taking care of you. It never did that, and it doesn't. I have given many many speeches about Social Security. In every speech I tell people that Social Security is only the foundation of your retirement plans. You must plan to build the house on that foundation. It only guarantees a minimum retirement, for those who have nothing else. That's why Social Security retirement and disability benefits are skewed in favor of the poor. It pays proportionately larger benefits for the poor because they have a limited ability to provide for other retirement opportunities. However, the Government never misled you, or insinuated it would take care of you. I think that is what you wanted it to do. I really don't follow your next sentence when you say that is why you want it to be fixed. Fixed because it didn't promise you what you said it did? Come on. That was your responsibility, not the government's. You seem to want to punish everyone else because of what you failed to do.

Obviously, the rich are able to better plan for retirement because they have more discretionary money left over. Your representative Government did that because they care about people, particularly people of lower income. The rich don't need the government to be concerned about them, because they are more able to do that for themselves. Poor people don't have that luxury.

I'm glad you shared with me that you have made mistakes. Everyone has, and will. The point is then, deal with yourself...you know, heal thyself? Instead of trying to rain on everyone else's parade for a program that has worked exceedingly well over the years, think what you need to do to improve your life. Then, I think you , me, and everyone else will feel better. Don't try to export your mistakes onto others, that's avoidance of responsibility.

Ben, our world will be far better off if we spend more time trying to improve ourselves. Then, we won't have to worry about others.

P.S. I would love to tell you of some very simple things that can be done to make Social Security solvent into the indefinite future, but there is not enough space here. I have mentioned a few in this and other postings, however. I would gladly meet with you to talk about Social Security, and I will bring all sorts of materials to help explain.

[Ben Willaert]

So then is all the talk about the need for social security reform exaggerated? As I understand it, there are going to be problems once the population of workers is less then the number of people drawing on social security. The message the media presents is not that retirement savings is needed to supplement but that social security is in real danger of defaulting in the near future.

I meant: I’m “Not saying anything about who gets the money or why.”

I don’t try to push my perspectives on others. I present them as a way to find a solution to problems. Too often in society we just blame a fall guy and then move on without fixing the problem. I always try to gain as many different perspectives as I can to any situation. That usually leads to the best solution. At work my crew knows to be honest about incidents so they can be examined and avoided in the future. Rarely is there punishment for mistakes. We are a team, so punishing one person (fall guy) does little to prevent reoccurrence. I think my perspecitives can help shape a better tomorrow for our society. So as I heal myself, I want to help others.

[Dan Conner]

So then is all the talk about the need for social security reform exaggerated? As I understand it, there are going to be problems once the population of workers is less then the number of people drawing on social security. The message the media presents is not that retirement savings is needed to supplement but that social security is in real danger of defaulting in the near future.

I meant: I’m “Not saying anything about who gets the money or why.”

I don’t try to push my perspectives on others. I present them as a way to find a solution to problems. Too often in society we just blame a fall guy and then move on without fixing the problem. I always try to gain as many different perspectives as I can to any situation. That usually leads to the best solution. At work my crew knows to be honest about incidents so they can be examined and avoided in the future. Rarely is there punishment for mistakes. We are a team, so punishing one person (fall guy) does little to prevent reoccurrence. I think my perspecitives can help shape a better tomorrow for our society. So as I heal myself, I want to help others.

First of all, Social Security is not going bust. Even if nothing is done, by about 2038, 70% of the benefits amounts will be payable indefinitely. Social Security will still be collecting FICA payroll tax. As far as continuing Social Secuity into the indefinite future, without those cuts, all that would have to be done is lift the ceiling on FICA taxes. Are you aware that FICA taxes stop once someone earns over $100,000/yr? If that $100,000 ceiling is removed, the financing problems is solved. In addition to solving the financing problem, it will bring more equity to the system by ensuring that rich people are paying the same share of their income into the program as you.

As far as blaming other people, please try to think of this country as nothing more than a big team. Punishing others does nothing to prevent reoccurence. So, let's all find a way to lend helping hands, instead of a fist to the face. Then, I think we will all improve.

[Dan Conner]

I do not see where suggesting that in order for Social Security and Medicare to remain solvent they "need reform and soon" is anything but realistic economics. I do not dispute the statistics you cite and suggest they support the position that "reform and soon" is necessary. I do not see those statistics as something to take pride in.

We have been through the returning Social Security Retirement benifits before. I see no need to address it again.

Bob, I can think of one big reform--get the welathy to pay the same share of FICA as everyone else.

[Dan Conner]

I do not see where suggesting that in order for Social Security and Medicare to remain solvent they "need reform and soon" is anything but realistic economics. I do not dispute the statistics you cite and suggest they support the position that "reform and soon" is necessary. I do not see those statistics as something to take pride in.

We have been through the returning Social Security Retirement benifits before. I see no need to address it again.

You're right, having millions of aged people still in poverty is not anything to be proud of. However, I haven't heard any ideas from you about how you are going to lessen that poverty. Everything I have understood from you before is that you want to reduce benefits to Social Security beneficiaries. Isn't that correct? If so, how will your plan reduce poverty among the aged? You say reform is necessary...what is your reform? I don't think we need more people with problem identification. There is an endless supply of that. We need constructive criticism about how to fix the problem.

As I've mentioned before, an easy way to maintain the Social Security Trust Fund solvent into the indefinite future is by removing the ceiling on the FICA tax, to tax all wages and self-employment. Currently, the tax is capped at about $100,000/yr (which increases yearly by COLA). However, that turns FICA into a very regressive tax. In order to make it a fairer "flat tax", the $100,000 cap should be removed and a person pay FICA on all earnings, even if that is many millions a year.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, I can think of one big reform--get the welathy to pay the same share of FICA as everyone else.

If you consider someone that has FICA witheld from their paychecks up to earnings of approximatly $100,000 wealthy, I think maybe they pay more into FICA than lower wage earners do already. If you are suggesting there should be no earnings limit on FICA witholdings, although to me that seems to be redistribution of wealth, it probably needs to be studied and considered.

[Dan Conner]

If you consider someone that has FICA witheld from their paychecks up to earnings of approximatly $100,000 wealthy, I think maybe they pay more into FICA than lower wage earners do already. If you are suggesting there should be no earnings limit on FICA witholdings, although to me that seems to be redistribution of wealth, it probably needs to be studied and considered.

It is being considered. It's not a redistribution of tax anymore than Social Security already is. It is a fairer tax. Why should someone earning $100,000,000/yr pay the same amount into Social Security as someone earning $100,000/yr? The person earning $100,000/yr pays twice as much as someone earning $50,000/yr. Why shouldn't that percentage apply to everyone? Another way to look at that is, everyone earning less than $100,000/yr in wages will pay 7.65% in FICA taxes, but someone earning $10,000,000/yr only pays .0765%. That's really a regressive tax. A rich Wall Street banker will pay only 1/100 of the FICA tax rate that a person earning $100,000/yr will pay. That's unfair and a reverse Robin Hood situation.

And you're right, I don't consider someone earning $100,000/yr wealthy, but I do consider someone earning $10,000,000/yr wealthy. For perspective purposes, I think there are a lot of very poor people in our country who would consider $100,000/yr wealthy. That might be a reason to consider yourself lucky.

[Bob Jentges]

It is being considered. It's not a redistribution of tax anymore than Social Security already is. It is a fairer tax. Why should someone earning $100,000,000/yr pay the same amount into Social Security as someone earning $100,000/yr? The person earning $100,000/yr pays twice as much as someone earning $50,000/yr. Why shouldn't that percentage apply to everyone? Another way to look at that is, everyone earning less than $100,000/yr in wages will pay 7.65% in FICA taxes, but someone earning $10,000,000/yr only pays .0765%. That's really a regressive tax. A rich Wall Street banker will pay only 1/100 of the FICA tax rate that a person earning $100,000/yr will pay. That's unfair and a reverse Robin Hood situation.

And you're right, I don't consider someone earning $100,000/yr wealthy, but I do consider someone earning $10,000,000/yr wealthy. For perspective purposes, I think there are a lot of very poor people in our country who would consider $100,000/yr wealthy. That might be a reason to consider yourself lucky.

I do consider myself lucky, but not because of how much money I might have made when still in the work force or the income I have now that I am retired. I think I worked hard and planned well which has very little, if anything, to do with luck.

[Dan Conner]

I do consider myself lucky, but not because of how much money I might have made when still in the work force or the income I have now that I am retired. I think I worked hard and planned well which has very little, if anything, to do with luck.

Well, I don't think you have any monopoly on "hard work". There are people that work far harder and for far longer than you, but don't have what you have. As far as planning well is concerned, I tried to explain on prior messages that the amount of income one receives greatly affects planning. The poor don't get much such an opportunity to plan because they don't have money left over. You were lucky because you did have money left over for financial planning.

Also, there are millions of people who have planned exceedingly well ,for their retirement, in the last few years, only to see the drop in the market dash those plans and impending retirement hopes. So, you were lucky. You could have been caught in the downside of this depressing market with investments, 401K, or whatever. The decline of the market was luck. Many people, who retired before this depression coasted in the longest positive run of the market and time of prosperity in history. Living here, at that time, and being able to retire in that time was greatly luck, all planning aside.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, I don't think you have any monopoly on "hard work". There are people that work far harder and for far longer than you, but don't have what you have. As far as planning well is concerned, I tried to explain on prior messages that the amount of income one receives greatly affects planning. The poor don't get much such an opportunity to plan because they don't have money left over. You were lucky because you did have money left over for financial planning.

Also, there are millions of people who have planned exceedingly well ,for their retirement, in the last few years, only to see the drop in the market dash those plans and impending retirement hopes. So, you were lucky. You could have been caught in the downside of this depressing market with investments, 401K, or whatever. The decline of the market was luck. Many people, who retired before this depression coasted in the longest positive run of the market and time of prosperity in history. Living here, at that time, and being able to retire in that time was greatly luck, all planning aside.

I never said I had "a monoply on 'hard work'"!

Call me lucky if it makes you feel good, but I prefer to think fate was kind to me. Quite possibly hard work and sound planning had something to do with it.

You seem to like to use the words fair/fairer/unfair. I try to limit my use of those words to a few specific things e.g. a batted ball in a baseball game, etc., because the way I see it what is perceived as fair in most situations depends on whose ox is being gored. Taking from one without their permission and giving to another should not be considered being fair, in my opinion. I think John McCain recently described something similar as "generational theft". If you are considering calling me greedy or selfish, please do not bother because you have no idea!

Nobody said life would be fair and I doubt there is anything you or anyone else can do to change that, unless those of us that have more voluntarilly give to charity to try to assist those that have less, which I do and expect you do too.

[Dan Conner]

I never said I had "a monoply on 'hard work'"!

Call me lucky if it makes you feel good, but I prefer to think fate was kind to me. Quite possibly hard work and sound planning had something to do with it.

You seem to like to use the words fair/fairer/unfair. I try to limit my use of those words to a few specific things e.g. a batted ball in a baseball game, etc., because the way I see it what is perceived as fair in most situations depends on whose ox is being gored. Taking from one without their permission and giving to another should not be considered being fair, in my opinion. I think John McCain recently described something similar as "generational theft". If you are considering calling me greedy or selfish, please do not bother because you have no idea!

Nobody said life would be fair and I doubt there is anything you or anyone else can do to change that, unless those of us that have more voluntarilly give to charity to try to assist those that have less, which I do and expect you do too.

When you say "fate," wouldn't you think that could be another descriptor of "luck or maybe "providence?" I think it is a different word meaning much the same. You very well might have had an influence on your "fate" by planning, but I believe you were still lucky things turned out to plan. Many, equally diligent people aren't so lucky (fateful).

Yes, I use fair, equity, and other words meaning near the same. Is this word only to be used at certain occasions? And who gets to determine those occasions? Guess what, I don't think you are going to immunize the world from fair/equity/justice from all but sports. Even in baseball, calling a fair ball can be a difference of perception. Besides, I think you need to get used to differences in perception. These forums are all about discussion of differences in perception.

About "whose ox is being gored"...that's what I think needs to be discussed. There are too many people receiving benefits from the rich and poor alike, but when it comes to share with them, the attitude has gravitated to, "What's mine is mine." Our country would be in a heck of a mess in a time of war, when soldiers are needed, and that is what our citizens said. Many of the people I believe you think have not adequately planned have served as soldiers to protect us planners. Many have been injured and many were unfortunate enough that they weren't raised in families that imparted values or education. However, I ask, why should they risk their lives for people who don't care about them? And isn't it a part of "luck" that people were raised in a family that taught "good" values? I feel very lucky for having the parents I did.

In case you forget, our country takes all the time without permission. Bush did a lot of that. Also, when taking, do you only include money in that? Aren't there other things, like lives? How many toxic manufacturing plants do you see near affluent neighborhoods? Unfortunately, many things like that are done to the poor because it is easy and many don't care. The poor were good enough to clean people's homes, bathrooms, work in slaughter houses, shine shoes, etc. , but not good enough to share in the profits they helped build? I think we have lost sight about what a/our country is. I believe it is a group of people with common culture and interests working together to achieve a goal. All of us are a part of that and all of us should share. WE ALL benefited from the contributions of the poor and rich alike. Why do we think they should not share in the benefits? Recently, in Florida, a bank CEO who retired/resigned or whatever, and received a $60 "golden parachute." Now, he could have kept that money because it was his, but instead, he gave it all away to the people that helped make those earnings possible. That was a great act of heroism. I'm not asking you or anyone else to be a hero, but just be willing to share a small part of your good fortunes with all the others who have contributed, literally or figuratively, to your success.

During the Presidential campaign, McCain derided Joe Biden because he said paying taxes is our patriotic duty. I agree with that. Just like enlisting in the military. It's our appreciation for being so blessed to be "lucky enough" to be born here. If our country does not continue to be blessed with people who want to pay it back or forward, I think we are in dire straits as a country. Our strength is when we all work together, not when we say, "Screw you, I 've got mine." I think John McCain lies when he talks about "generational theft", If he shouldered the responsibility and paid the necessary taxes now, he wouldn't have to worry about "generational theft." I think he revealed something about himself. I think he was saying there is no way he wants to pay more taxes to improve our country and that his only alternative would be to "stick" succeeding generations with the tab. Too bad for a man who married into a $100,000,000 fortune. I guess that was in his "plan." I guess that those that inherited 70% of our country's wealth also planned.

You're right. Life isn't fair, but our government can do many things to make it fairer...and I think you are going to see that it will. Isn't it about time we get off the scrooge mentality?

[Bob Jentges]

When you say "fate," wouldn't you think that could be another descriptor of "luck or maybe "providence?" I think it is a different word meaning much the same. You very well might have had an influence on your "fate" by planning, but I believe you were still lucky things turned out to plan. Many, equally diligent people aren't so lucky (fateful).

Yes, I use fair, equity, and other words meaning near the same. Is this word only to be used at certain occasions? And who gets to determine those occasions? Guess what, I don't think you are going to immunize the world from fair/equity/justice from all but sports. Even in baseball, calling a fair ball can be a difference of perception. Besides, I think you need to get used to differences in perception. These forums are all about discussion of differences in perception.

About "whose ox is being gored"...that's what I think needs to be discussed. There are too many people receiving benefits from the rich and poor alike, but when it comes to share with them, the attitude has gravitated to, "What's mine is mine." Our country would be in a heck of a mess in a time of war, when soldiers are needed, and that is what our citizens said. Many of the people I believe you think have not adequately planned have served as soldiers to protect us planners. Many have been injured and many were unfortunate enough that they weren't raised in families that imparted values or education. However, I ask, why should they risk their lives for people who don't care about them? And isn't it a part of "luck" that people were raised in a family that taught "good" values? I feel very lucky for having the parents I did.

In case you forget, our country takes all the time without permission. Bush did a lot of that. Also, when taking, do you only include money in that? Aren't there other things, like lives? How many toxic manufacturing plants do you see near affluent neighborhoods? Unfortunately, many things like that are done to the poor because it is easy and many don't care. The poor were good enough to clean people's homes, bathrooms, work in slaughter houses, shine shoes, etc. , but not good enough to share in the profits they helped build? I think we have lost sight about what a/our country is. I believe it is a group of people with common culture and interests working together to achieve a goal. All of us are a part of that and all of us should share. WE ALL benefited from the contributions of the poor and rich alike. Why do we think they should not share in the benefits? Recently, in Florida, a bank CEO who retired/resigned or whatever, and received a $60 "golden parachute." Now, he could have kept that money because it was his, but instead, he gave it all away to the people that helped make those earnings possible. That was a great act of heroism. I'm not asking you or anyone else to be a hero, but just be willing to share a small part of your good fortunes with all the others who have contributed, literally or figuratively, to your success.

During the Presidential campaign, McCain derided Joe Biden because he said paying taxes is our patriotic duty. I agree with that. Just like enlisting in the military. It's our appreciation for being so blessed to be "lucky enough" to be born here. If our country does not continue to be blessed with people who want to pay it back or forward, I think we are in dire straits as a country. Our strength is when we all work together, not when we say, "Screw you, I 've got mine." I think John McCain lies when he talks about "generational theft", If he shouldered the responsibility and paid the necessary taxes now, he wouldn't have to worry about "generational theft." I think he revealed something about himself. I think he was saying there is no way he wants to pay more taxes to improve our country and that his only alternative would be to "stick" succeeding generations with the tab. Too bad for a man who married into a $100,000,000 fortune. I guess that was in his "plan." I guess that those that inherited 70% of our country's wealth also planned.

You're right. Life isn't fair, but our government can do many things to make it fairer...and I think you are going to see that it will. Isn't it about time we get off the scrooge mentality?

Apparrantly you do not understand how frustrating it can become when someone continuously tries to put words in your mouth. Nothing I said could be reasonably construed as an attempt to "immunize the world from fair/equity/justice from all but sports".

In the context I used it I do not think fate could be another descripter of luck. Without consulting a dictionary I think fate is something that is pre-determined, and as I said: "Quite possibly hard work and sound planning had something to do with it [fate]". I view luck as something that happens by pure chance e.g. winning the lottery.

No matter how often I promote the merits of charity in my posts you continue to label many people as having a "scrooge mentality". You must associate with a different crowd than I do.

I have had enough of this posting marathon and will offer no opinions on the many other assumptions of others motives you reference.

[Dan Conner]

Apparrantly you do not understand how frustrating it can become when someone continuously tries to put words in your mouth. Nothing I said could be reasonably construed as an attempt to "immunize the world from fair/equity/justice from all but sports".

In the context I used it I do not think fate could be another descripter of luck. Without consulting a dictionary I think fate is something that is pre-determined, and as I said: "Quite possibly hard work and sound planning had something to do with it [fate]". I view luck as something that happens by pure chance e.g. winning the lottery.

No matter how often I promote the merits of charity in my posts you continue to label many people as having a "scrooge mentality". You must associate with a different crowd than I do.

I have had enough of this posting marathon and will offer no opinions on the many other assumptions of others motives you reference.

Well, in this world of perceptions, You were the one advocating restrictions on the use of "fair". My response was to that. While I could have stated things a little differently, I think you could have as well. I meant that you aren't the determiner of the use of "fair." I think I properly used the word contextually.

Boy, I guess you haven't heard the remark, "You make your own luck?" Some people believe luck is more determined that random. Much like "fate." Fate is defined as a supposed force, principle, or power, that predetermines events. Luck is the chance happening of fortunate or adverse events. What you are arguing is that a chance happening is different than a force or principle. I believe luck is a force or principle. Not everything is fateful.

Well, much like you define words, so do I. I feel that people who do not want to share are acting like scrooge, but if you feel that not wanting to pay taxes to help the many poor without insurance, without food, without education is not a "scrooge mentality", then I strongly disagree. Let's just say there is no way we would ever agree on that one. To hear people talking about abject poverty like it is "fate" and that they don't want to have what they have taken from them to help, then I think that is a "scrooge mentality." Did you read the Dickens book. That's what Scrooge felt. He didn't want to share anything because what he had was his. I thought there was a moral there. I don't believe charity only happens on that particular day or timeframe when you feel like giving, it happens in society when we all contribute equitibly through taxes. Sure, we need to be vigilant that our taxes are not wasted or abused, but guess what, we need to do that with business as well. Left to volunteerism, people would starve and die of all sort of preventable diseases. The mentally and physically ill would be left to fend for themselves. Don't tell me otherwise, because that is part of history. People died of starvation and disease in the streets of Paris while the rich partied on. In many countries today, that happens. If people were so charitibly inclined, there would not be a need for Government to assist. Unfortunately, it ain't there. Why do you think Social Security started--it was poverty and lots of it. How about Medcare? People were dying for lack of medical care. Volunteerism had its chance and it didn't do it. There is an inclination in all of us to want to selfishly hoard what we have. It is the egalitarian function of Government to make sure people are treated FAIRLY. The preamble to our constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is NO I in there. Also, I think other key words like, union, justice, and PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE get to the core of what I'm trying to say here. We owe it to each other as citizens of this nation. It is an obligation. I doesn't say we promote the general welfare if we feel like it. It says, that we must do it to form a more perfect union.

[Dan Conner]

Apparrantly you do not understand how frustrating it can become when someone continuously tries to put words in your mouth. Nothing I said could be reasonably construed as an attempt to "immunize the world from fair/equity/justice from all but sports".

In the context I used it I do not think fate could be another descripter of luck. Without consulting a dictionary I think fate is something that is pre-determined, and as I said: "Quite possibly hard work and sound planning had something to do with it [fate]". I view luck as something that happens by pure chance e.g. winning the lottery.

No matter how often I promote the merits of charity in my posts you continue to label many people as having a "scrooge mentality". You must associate with a different crowd than I do.

I have had enough of this posting marathon and will offer no opinions on the many other assumptions of others motives you reference.

Well, I will quote what you said, "I try to limit my use of those words to a few specific things e.g. a batted ball in a baseball game, etc., because the way I see it what is perceived as fair in most situations depends on whose ox is being gored. Taking from one without their permission and giving to another should not be considered being fair, in my opinion." While I guess I could extrapolate that that is what you feel, you state it like I shouldn't be saying it. I don't agree with you. Then, you violate your own practice by saying that taking from you without your permission is not fair. Isn't that double speak? I have not put words in your mouth. I have been trying to determine what your point is.

You've made your point loud and clear that you don't feel it is right to take from you to give to another. Then you must have a large and chronic problem with Government. I really can't think of ANY government that doesn't take money from some and give to another. Of course, spending taxes need to be monitored like anything else. Even private businesses and bank have shown they need monitoring.

I think the feeling of not wanting to help others through taxes is really putting your head in the sand. Let's see, you don't feel you should have any money taxed to benefit anyone else, unless you give the Government permission to do so? Well, you already indirectly gave permission when your elected representative proposed to do that. You say it's not a "scrooge mentality?" I feel it is. Do you really think volunteerism is what lifted people from poverty? If you do, I've got some swamp land for you. Social Security began because of the abject poverty of the aged at the turn of the century and on. Medicare began because of the needless death caused by people not getting medical treatment. Welfare began because of the horrible poverty not only affecting adults, but also of their children. Volunteerism sure didn't fix the problem. Volunteers had a couple of hundred years to chip in for that. Sure, lots of people participate in charity. Some donate money others time, and others both time and money. And people are helped through charity, but it doesn't come close to what is needed. These poor "fateful" people, as you might call them, have fought in wars risking their lives for us, they clean our houses, wash our bathrooms, polish our shoes, wash our cars, and on and on. We have all benefited from them and each other. If you owned a prosperous business, employees contributed to that. Also, you benefited from some of them as customers. They, as the poor, have a human right to live a dignified life. What do you propose to do with people who are physically and mentally ill? Put them on the street? Do you want to empty the nursing homes? The vast majority of people in nursing homes are on Medicaid. We are too far down the path of helping people to not do it right.

I think you are forgetting the preamble to the US Constitution, where it says: "We the people..." not I or me. Then, it says "in order to form a MORE PERFECT UNION..." That means we're in this together, working together. Finally, it says, "...to promote the GENERAL WELFARE..." What's ambiguous about that? I can't think of any other explanation of that other than to say we are here to work together for each other's benefit. Not just some people's benefit - I mean all of us. It's like the President said, "we aren't red states and blue states, we are the United States of America." It's like Ben told me, "There ain't no "I" in team."

In order for our country to effectively function as a team, we all need to work together - black, brown, white, rich, poor, sick or healthy. Without that, we might as well be in Iraq with Suuni and Shiite factions. Charity isn't something that ends when we don't feel like it any longer. We have a higher COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY in our country to lend helping hands to those who need it. Taxes is probalby the best way to do that, considering the shortfall of vounteerism.

I think you are going to see more money taxed for those who need it. Consider it as returning a favor for this country offering you all the opportunity to do as well as you have. That part was luck. You could have been born in almost any other country without the opportunities there were here. I agree with Joe Biden when he said paying taxes is a patriotic obligation for everyone here. Most every club has their dues, and taxes are that here.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, in this world of perceptions, You were the one advocating restrictions on the use of "fair". My response was to that. While I could have stated things a little differently, I think you could have as well. I meant that you aren't the determiner of the use of "fair." I think I properly used the word contextually.

Boy, I guess you haven't heard the remark, "You make your own luck?" Some people believe luck is more determined that random. Much like "fate." Fate is defined as a supposed force, principle, or power, that predetermines events. Luck is the chance happening of fortunate or adverse events. What you are arguing is that a chance happening is different than a force or principle. I believe luck is a force or principle. Not everything is fateful.

Well, much like you define words, so do I. I feel that people who do not want to share are acting like scrooge, but if you feel that not wanting to pay taxes to help the many poor without insurance, without food, without education is not a "scrooge mentality", then I strongly disagree. Let's just say there is no way we would ever agree on that one. To hear people talking about abject poverty like it is "fate" and that they don't want to have what they have taken from them to help, then I think that is a "scrooge mentality." Did you read the Dickens book. That's what Scrooge felt. He didn't want to share anything because what he had was his. I thought there was a moral there. I don't believe charity only happens on that particular day or timeframe when you feel like giving, it happens in society when we all contribute equitibly through taxes. Sure, we need to be vigilant that our taxes are not wasted or abused, but guess what, we need to do that with business as well. Left to volunteerism, people would starve and die of all sort of preventable diseases. The mentally and physically ill would be left to fend for themselves. Don't tell me otherwise, because that is part of history. People died of starvation and disease in the streets of Paris while the rich partied on. In many countries today, that happens. If people were so charitibly inclined, there would not be a need for Government to assist. Unfortunately, it ain't there. Why do you think Social Security started--it was poverty and lots of it. How about Medcare? People were dying for lack of medical care. Volunteerism had its chance and it didn't do it. There is an inclination in all of us to want to selfishly hoard what we have. It is the egalitarian function of Government to make sure people are treated FAIRLY. The preamble to our constitution says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is NO I in there. Also, I think other key words like, union, justice, and PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE get to the core of what I'm trying to say here. We owe it to each other as citizens of this nation. It is an obligation. I doesn't say we promote the general welfare if we feel like it. It says, that we must do it to form a more perfect union.

You might want to edit the spelling, etc., in your second to the last paragraph. There is "NO I in there" because I the people... does not make sense!

It has stopped snowing so I think I will finish off the afternoon by starting-up the snow thrower and clearing my driveway, as well as those of two of our elderly (older than me) neighbors.

[Dan Conner]

You might want to edit the spelling, etc., in your second to the last paragraph. There is "NO I in there" because I the people... does not make sense!

It has stopped snowing so I think I will finish off the afternoon by starting-up the snow thrower and clearing my driveway, as well as those of two of our elderly (older than me) neighbors.

Actually, this was a draft. the final copy is above. The website teminated for a while I was posting and posted the daft. You saw the draft. By the way, it wasn't an "I", it was a "1". That was brought over when I copied it.

Good luck snow blowing. Been there and done that. I now belong to an association and we have plowing and lawn work done. Also, good to see you are a good neighbor.

[Bob Jentges]

Actually, this was a draft. the final copy is above. The website teminated for a while I was posting and posted the daft. You saw the draft. By the way, it wasn't an "I", it was a "1". That was brought over when I copied it.

Good luck snow blowing. Been there and done that. I now belong to an association and we have plowing and lawn work done. Also, good to see you are a good neighbor.

Allow me to be just a bit facietious by suggesting maybe you burned up the website with your biting remarks. As I looked at the Members List today I get the impression you and me might be monopolizing the forum website. I do not think that is good for the site. This will be my final post today.

With respect to your "Been there and done that" somewhat condescending comment about me snowblowing, maybe a little sarcasim is in order. Gee you must be amoung the "wealthy". But I like doing outside work around our house. It gives me a chance to get away from the internet which I intend to do right now.

[Dan Conner]

Allow me to be just a bit facietious by suggesting maybe you burned up the website with your biting remarks. As I looked at the Members List today I get the impression you and me might be monopolizing the forum website. I do not think that is good for the site. This will be my final post today.

With respect to your "Been there and done that" somewhat condescending comment about me snowblowing, maybe a little sarcasim is in order. Gee you must be amoung the "wealthy". But I like doing outside work around our house. It gives me a chance to get away from the internet which I intend to do right now.

Bob, I detect paranoia in your post. I meant very literally what I said. I have been there for many years. I owned a home in Marquette, MI where they get three times the amount of snow that Mankato does. Also, my drive was about 150 yards long, in addition there was a large parking area near the garage. I also had a home in Mankato with a big driveway that I blew off. I don't know what you are referring to as condescending? Because I relate to your snow-blowing experience isn't sarcastic, demeaning, or condescending. I think you were being overly sensitive and paranoid about what was said. There were no motives. It wasn't sarcasm. I didn't even tell you that I blew neighbors driveways on many occasions. I think you should blow as much snow as you want, and I have done plenty of that too. You shared and then I shared. So what? However, now you give me reason to wonder why you felt it necessary to tell me you were snow-blowing and helping you neighbor? Were you trying for some hidden communication?

About being among the wealthy? What's your comment here supposed to mean? I don't think I am at all. It's just a fact that the association takes care of snow removal. I'm baffled about you reading hidden motives for what people say. Why? Is that what you do? I think you should look closer at your post.

I'm glad you like doing outside work. Have at it! I don't know why you should feel you have to rationalize that to me. I don't care. Maybe getting away from the internet is a good idea. I don't see what this conversation has to do with budgets anyway.