KRC

When I was in a car accident and injured my neck, it took about 2 months of treatment (one visit per week). I then only needed to return when things fell out of alignment (about once every six to eight months). It sounds like your chiro at least is doing the responsible thing: x-rays and a background history. It is also nice that you are not expecting to be immediately healed, since it ain't gonna happen. A few weeks sounds like a good timeframe to evaluate progress, depending on the extent of the injury. At that point, you will have a good idea on whether it is working and if you should seek alternative treatment. Have you looked into Reiki?

Bush should create a new agency to study this problem.

Like any other doctor, it depends on the quality of the Chiropractor. I have been to good ones and bad ones. The good ones will help you. The bad ones just make things worse. Do research ahead of time and try to get testimonials from patients.

Of the two, Sestak.

If the public decries a measure, Congressional representatives will back down and not support it. If Congress does not support it, it fails. It is up to the Administration to sell it to the public as something good long term. It is a tough sell, since people only think short-term and mainly think of themselves.

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

For the Articles of Confederation, amendments need ratification from ALL states. You are in a unique situation with the Constitution, since it had a section (Article VII) that stated that only nine states were needed to ratify it. Which takes priority? That is debatable. You can look at it that the Constitution, since it was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, was not ratified until all states votes "yes." I will let the Constitutional scholars fight over which is right. In the end, all states ratified the Constitution and it is binding either way you look at it.

Which brings them down to the level of Democrats. This game is fun.

It has not been ruled out. There are some things in the works. It depends on how they work out, as to whether I run again.

Banking scandal, adultery, there were some allegations about inappropriate book deals, allegations about inappropriate use of taxpayer funds for his PAC. He is a staunch conservative, which can get him the nomination. He is more conservative then the others you mentioned, which is the only saving grace for him.

I see him tossing his hat in. Whether he is a viable candidate is another issue. Against the three people you mentioned, he would stand a chance of getting the nomination. McCain will not get the nomination. Pataki will not, either. It would be Rudy against Newt and I think that Newt would get it. Newt vs. Hillary. Ughhhh. Let's hope that better candidates surface.

Hey...play with your bone on someone else's dollar, not mine.

He was not completely wrong, but was not completely right.

I think you may be incorrect regarding unanimous ratification of the Constitution. Article VII required that only nine states are needed for ratification. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification. The Constitution was originally an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, but since Article VII required that only nine states need to ratify the Constitution, the document technically took effect after the ninth state ratified it. At that point, the nine states seceded from the Union and formed a new Union. Eventually, all states did ratify it. If there were non-ratifying states, then they would essentially be a separate country.

As far as the total cost of the plan, I do not know. Keep in mind that it is not a fully private system. It is only private for the people who want to control their money. There is still the option for the government plan for the people who feel that the government can control their money better than they can. It will also be a gradual conversion, starting with the youngest workers. This will spread out the costs. BTW, Tom DeLay is an idiot for saying that. Anyone with half a brain knows that his statement was ridiculous.

Maybe, they liked the Constitution?

WHAT PART OF "BUSH DID NOT PROVIDE A SPECIFIC PLAN, SO THERE IS NOT WAY TO CALCULATE THE COSTS OF AN IMAGINARY PLAN" DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? SORRY FOR SHOUTING, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING ME, SO I THOUGHT I WOULD TALK LOUDER.

That is an option, but not an option that will fly with the public. You need a solution that does not increase taxes and does not cut benefits.

You continually try to use Bush's plan. What part of "I do not support Bush's plan" did you not grasp? Since Bush did not actually provide a detailed plan, it is impossible to attribute costs to it. This seems like such a basic concept, but yet (as evidence in this thread) it is such a difficult concept for some. Cut wasteful spending and you would be suprised at how much money you will have. As you cut spending, you will increase government revenue (due to the taxes remaining constant). The combination of the two will pay for the plan. Then you can start rudicing the tax burden on the citizens, giving them even more to save for retirement. Pay a lot now, or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future. The choice is obvious.

Think of it as "contributing to the greater good of the government." This new found money can be used to create more government dependency. Ain't it great? Private accounts give the ability to build wealth. Think of the advantages for the poor.

I will address both of your posts in this post. Of course it will cost money to convert. Pay now or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future. The choice is simple, at least to me. Take the current tax rate for SS. This will not change (I am against raising taxes since we have NEVER taxed our way into prosperity. Taxes are too high as it is and I am not going to burden the citizens of this country with higher taxes). Use the W2 form you fill out each year. There will be a box where the person chooses a government controlled retirement account or a private account. If they choose a government controlled account, then the money gets sent to Washington. If you choose a private account, it gets put into a money market account set up by your employer (just like your current 401k). You then have the option to do what you want with the money (just like a 401k). When you pass on, your money gets passed on to your assigned beneficiary. This creates wealth for the poor. They get to actually keep the money they earn. As far as the changeover, it will be graduated to spread out the costs. The money will come from reductions in government spending. I remember an article a few years back (when Bush was first proposing his tax cuts) where it was announced that billions of dollars went missing from government coffers. It just disappeared and nobody cared. This shows that there is plenty that can be cut from the government with negligible effect. If they do not even bat an eyelash at losing billions of dollars, then there is a real problem (as if it was not blatantly obvious before that incident). No solution is free. All solutions will cost money. Again, pay now or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future. THe one thing to keep in mind with my plan is that TAXES WILL NOT GO UP.

We pay into SS and will receive nothing in return (it will be bankrupt before you or I receive benefits). Yeah, real smart. Waiting to fix the mess will only increase the costs to fix it. Again, real smart. Something needs to be done now, not 50 years in the future. I never advocated the Bush plan, so it boggles my mind why you bring it up in response to my post. Yeah, we have private accounts. They work well, don't they? Why wouldn't you want to extend that to SS? Because <gasp> it might actually allow the poor to create wealth and they would not be dependent on Democrats for money?

An ownership society? Hmmm...imagine the benefits to the poor in helping them get out of poverty. They actually get to keep the money they earn and pass it on to their families. Private accounts would give you that benefit. I can see now why the Democrats would oppose it.

Here is a thought...Do both. For the people who need the government to take care of them, let them use the bureaucratic blackhole that is SS. For those who can actually take care of themselves, let them use private accounts. Everyone gets what they want. Just remember... Raising taxes bad! Removing government control of our lives good! Social Security cannot work the way it was designed. Pushing off the problem 50 years is ridiculous. It is an admission that the system is a failure and that the solution proposed is ridiculous. Fix it now, don't dump this mess on our kids and grandkids.

Congrats, Ed!! Best of luck to the both of you.