Very well said, Hubby. I took the time to read this topic from the beginning. While I certainly am not a great fan of some of W's policies (e.g. the borders, prescription plan), and have voted for both Democrats and Republicans, I see no legitimate ideas coming from the Democrats. Most of the Dems prefer to denigrate, and obfuscate. Where are the great Democrat statesmen of yesteryear? Those who are actually trying to meet the Republicans halfway, like Lieberman, are roundly criticized as "DINO's" - that's Democrat In Name Only, Bobert. I have to believe that Bush is actually trying to do the right thing. The vast majority of economists, including several Nobel Prize winning economists have agreed with his economic stances. The Democrats' talking heads said of the tax cuts that Bush was "stealing from the poor" and other worse things, but the truth is far from it.

For those who know how to do research, you will find that, as of 1993, the TOP ONE PERCENT of earners paid almost 35 percent of ALL federal income taxes. The TOP FIVE PERCENT PAID MORE THAN HALF of All federal income taxes. The ratios haven't changed greatly. The Bush tax cut was less than the JFK tax cut. JFK rightly believed that decreasing taxes would stimulate the economy and bring MORE money into the treasury. Ronald Reagan did likewise and brought us out of the malaise of the late '70's. I voted for Carter, but I hadn't studied economic theory at that point of my life. I can already hear the rants about the deficit incurred in the Reagan years, and some of that is true, however, much of that was the bloating, pork-barrel spending of Congress.

Getting back to SSI, I would not be averse to raising the cap, as long as you give us personal accounts and the ability to opt out of the system. I am not totally against means testing on pragmatic grounds.
I do think that SSI is the only federal confiscation system that has been shouldered by the middle class. I, too, believe the $250 death benefit is a disgrace, and I would also agree with an earlier poster that Congress should have to participate (or opt out of - having no special system) in the same system that we are.

I can sympathize with the plight of the downtrodden, and we have the moral onus to look out for them, but people are playing with numbers when quoting poverty percentages. The monetary definition of poverty is flexible,and like all statistics can be made to look differently as a function of bias. Many factors are commonly overlooked. There is a large underground economy that many participate in, and other subsidies are not included. Many people that are below the poverty line are truly needy. We should help them. Many others have 2 cars, 3 TV sets, and don't care to work. We should not help them, yet we are carrying millions of them. I personally know several people that under-report their income by a large amount. Of course, the same thing happens with the ultra-rich and with politicians of both parties. It is human nature to try to optimize one's position, and in a culture devoid of objective standards, cheating is no longer frowned upon.

Why is it that the "Bushites" have been consistently polite, and offering their reasoning, whereas, most of the liberals do nothing more than call them names and tell them they are full of shit? Do any of you liberals study economics? If you look at Europe, they have a much higher unemployment rate. California has a larger GDP than any single European country (last time I checked). This is remarkable when one considers the fact that the American taxpayer has been paying for the protection of the free world. Even with that huge burdern we still outproduce them. Why? Capitalism. The European countries have bought into "democratic socialism". The problem is socialism is a failed concept. Free markets, low taxes, personal accountability (there- I said it!), and the recognition of traditional objective moral standards are the keys to economic growth. The teaching of situational ethics has done more harm than good.

I don't remember which of you said it, but someone made the statement to the effect that if we got rid of all the stupid people, the Republicans would lose (I'm paraphrasing). I had to laugh. I know lots of people, and most of the lower functioning, including virtually ALL of the druggies, alcoholics, and criminals are democrats. I do know a number of well-educated people who are liberals, but there is an interesting observation; most of them are educated in liberal arts programs and are social workers or teachers. Many are musicians. The people that I know that are more logically oriented, such as mathematicians, political science majors, engineers, and physicians are mostly conservative, at least economically. Left-brainers are conservative (right wing) and right-brainers are liberals (left wing). I believe this is because the more carefully you study history and economics, the more you will see how totally bankrupt the modern democratic party has become. The ONLY reason that they are against Bush's doing ANYTHING with SSI is that they don't want to give him a victory. They would rather harm America and keep some power than do the right thing. It is to their advantage to keep as many Americans dependent on the government as possible.

Okay, fire away.
JSI