Bobert,

Thanks for reading. Your reply is so full of factual errors that I will try to address only the most egregious. First of all, though, it happens that I do know something about SSI. In fact, I am permanently disabled and on SSDI now. Do I think it is a good program? No. It just happens that I have no alternative. Given a choice between the average gain on investment historically versus an entirely voluntary program wherein each person is given the OPTION to invest a relatively small portion of the total, I'll take the latter every time. The stock market will always outperform SSI on it's own. Over time, a fairly conservative mutual fund is a sure bet. President Bush has stated that only such conservative investments would be allowed. As one of the other conservatives stated, if it isn't we'll all be in the soup lines.

You say that the wealthy never get their hands dirty. Another factual error. Most people who become wealthy do so by hard work. Most have done manual labor. Most are normal middle class people that have an idea on how to build a better mousetrap. When a government confiscates wealth, it destroys initiative. People will always work hardest for themselves. The Soviet and communist governments have shown the folly of wealth confiscation. Entrepeneurs and investors are the people that helped make America the greatest nation on earth. Sure, you can find people who made their money by inheritance (Ted Kennedy - family fortune from bootlegging). Their are others who make their money by being gigolos (Kerry). I don't say that we should respect them, but they are a product of the capitalist system, which, though imperfect, is still the best economic system in the world.

You repeat lies about Bush, yet he did work hard for at least some of his money, even if his dad was well off and he could have sat on his butt and lived off of Daddy. You hate Cheney because you have been programmed by the media to believe that he is some kind of conspiratorial racketeer. Did you know that Bill Clinton gave Halliburton a no-bid contract for our ill-conceived intrusion into Bosnia? The reason is simple. They are the only ones that can get the job done on the scale that we require. No conspiracy in either war.

You say Bush lied about WMD's. First of all, it has yet to be proven that there were no WMD's in Iraq. ALL of the world's intelligence agencies believed that they were there. Many experts still believe they were or are. If not, what was Hussein trying to hide? He repeatedly blocked inspectors from sensitive sites, believed to have WMD's. We KNOW he HAD them, we know he USED them, and we KNOW he had plans for nuclear bombs. Isn't it quite preposterous to assume that Bush knew more than any intelligence agency? You guys call him a moron on the one hand, and then when it suits your needs, he becomes an evil genius. This whole "Bush lied" argument is patently absurd. If you would just think about it and check the available facts, you would see this, but you are programmed by the media and the DNC to believe a bunch of lies.   

Why is it that you save all your venom for the Republicans? There are plenty of villains to go around. Many of the ultra-rich fat cats that you love to hate are liberal democrats, like Ted Turner. I don't hear you criticizing Teresa and John Kerry, neither of whom worked a second for the fabulous wealth that they enjoy. George Soros financed the democrats in their latest failure. He made much of his money by breaking the Bank of England. He was just fined for insider trading in the liberals favorite country (France). You say that Bush "stole money from Harkin Energy Company (think Enron here) as it's CEO just before it went under."
Nice propaganda, but if you'd get your information from the public record instead of liars like Michael Moore, you would find out that:
1)Bush was NEVER CEO of Harkin Energy! Bushes company was bought out by Harkin Energy.
2)Harkin Energy never went under! They are still operating today!
It is precisely these kind of lies and ranting that has created the political climate that we now have. Of course it starts at the top with raving lunatics like Howard Dean, and then it follows Reaganomics-it trickles down.

The "Republican Mantra" that I "threw up" is not that the wealthy USED TO pay all those taxes. The fact is that they still do. The bottom 50% contributes very little in comparison. I don't expect you to feel sorry for them, nor do I care. What is important is how the taxation apportionment affects the economy as a whole. Whether you choose to believe it or not, when wealthy and upper middle class people are heavily taxed, they take their money offshore, look for tax shelters or even just let it sit and collect interest. What they do Not do is start new businesses that employ common folks. If you had money, and wanted to leave some for your grandchildren, you would do the same. Confiscatory taxation stifles economic growth. That is a fact. When I took economics, we used to graph out equilibrium points that calculated at what point a person would invest. You gave Clinton credit for eliminating the deficit, but he never intended to. If you'll check the facts, it was Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that was pushed for eliminating the deficit. Clinton actually opposed the idea until it was forced upon him. The Reagan/Bush peace dividend, and Clinton's decimating the armed forces allowed for the deficit to be reduced.

You state that Social Security is not going bankrupt. The fact is that it really already has. Their is no big account where our money is collecting interest. The politicians raided that a long time ago. Now we count on new taxes coming in to pay the older SSI recipients. That worked as long as workers greatly outnumbered the recipients. Now with a lower birth rate (think Roe v. Wade) this is coming to an end. SSI IS in trouble.

You stated that democrats don't "have the microphone". That is laughable. Maybe you aren't acquainted with ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, and NPR, but those organizations are all heavily biased toward liberalism. They are very sly, however. When a Texas Republican gives $100K to the GOP, they call him a "rich Republican operative", yet when foreigner George Soros gives over $20 Million to the DNC they don't mention it. When a GOP Senator tapes a message to a Christian group having a special meeting about fixing SSI, they cry that he is mixing "church and state", yet, during the campaigns, Dems ROUTINELY spoke from the pulpit during actual services. That is different. The rules only apply to Republicans. I could go on, but I have to leave. I won't see any reply for some time.

JSI