KRC

I don't think it was that much of a stretch. I think, to be accurate, it should have been that you need to have served at some point in the military in order to discuss the invasion of Iraq. I don't agree with the philosophy (which I think was his main point), but I do not think that it was too much of a stretch.

A moderate Libertarian would stand a pretty good chance, but they would need to run as an independent. People look at the party and automatically assume that the candidate is a lemming to the party. That is the problem with a lot of the third parties. They are too radical, which alienates too much of the population. If they put out a moderate and promote him/her as a moderate, then they will pick up a substantial amount of votes. The Libertarians have the best shot at making an impact, but they need to wise up. That will be part of my efforts with my work with the party. I will probably have a chance to talk with Michael Badnarik the end of next month. I will run some of my ideas past him to see what he thinks.

Yup and yup. I am paying more in taxes to keep the Titanic (Fed) afloat than I get to deduct in mortgage interest.

Are you calling him a pseudo-Libertarian? I am changing my registration to Libertarian due to the work I am doing for the party, but I am not a true Libertarian. They have several policies that scare me. Technically, I am somewhere between an old school conservative and a Libertarian. Maybe JSP is similar in philosophy?

You only pay for the services you use, unlike now where you pay for everything.

Regardless of when we change things with SS, it is going to cost money. The longer we wait, the more it is going to cost. There is no question that there will be a large bill to change things over. This is the price we are paying for the mistakes of the past. The money needed will be taken from bureaucratic waste and programs that will be cut. The rest will temporarily be added to the deficit. As mentioned in my previous post, you know how I plan on taking care of the deficit. The mistake you are making with my plan, is that you think that whenever a program is cut, it will fall to the state/local governments to pick up the tab. That is not the case. I want the programs to move to the private sector and get governmnet out of it. It does not matter whether it is federal, state or local governments. Shuffling the money does not accomplish anything. We need true reform and you need to get things away from governmental control and move it to the private sector. It will increase the tax base and decrease the tax burden on each citizen.

Well, SS will fail. We will continue to see less and less benefits as we continue to send more and more money to Washington. Eventually, you will have NOBODY collecting SS but still paying into the system, while all of the problems you mention will still be the responsibility of the taxpayers (just create more government programs). Everything you mention will still be created under SS, unless a new system is put in place. The fundamental design of SS will prevent it from ever working. I would rather take my money and invest it. At least that way, I know where it is and have full control over how I manage it. The alternative has proven to fail. I do not see how SS can prevent the exact scenario you are mentioning. At least with privatization, we and our kids and grandkids have a fighting chance.

Who is making he choices of where you can invest? The government? The government will tell you what you can and cannot invest in with your money? That's not very Libertarian of you.

That is the beauty of my plan. It does not fall to the taxpayers, since the federal government is no longer responsible for welfare or for healthcare.

That is the problem. The entitlement mentality needs to be broken. It is not the federal government's responsibility to protect you from yourself. I will make it even easier for people. The funds deducted from your paycheck go directly into a money market account set up by your employer (again, keeping the government out of it). If you do not know what to do or if you are uncomfortable with investing, just leave the money alone. It will only earn a small amount in interest, but it will keep it safe. You have to make an effort to roll it over into stocks/bonds/mutual funds. Why should hardworking taxpayers support people who are irresponsible? Someone gets greedy and places their retirement money in high risk stocks because they want a large payday should not be rewarded for their irresponsible behavior. Personal accountability.

Nobody is stopping you from donating more of your income to those less fortunate than yourself.

Damn, it's like being on the campaign trail again. The first thing you need to address is the waste. Too much bureauracy. Start cleaning house. I would freeze tax rates where they are for now. When waste is reduced, it will give extra money to reduce the deficit. Once the deficit has been reduced, I can then give across the board tax cuts. Same percentage, regardless of how much you earn. Next, privatize SS. I am talking about a full privitization of it. Obviously, this will need to be done in stages in order to ease people into the system. Older folks will see no change, but if you are just entering the workforce, you will see full privitization. If you want the safety of SS, then invest in government bonds. If you want additional risk pick mutual funds. The government will get out of managing your money for you. They have proven that they cannot do it, so why continue down the road of proven failure. SS cannot work becuase it has not been designed to account for changes in the future (increased life expectency, changes in the workforce, etc). To quote AD, "It is like putting a Band-aid on a brain tumor." As President (I like the sound of that), I would never submit a budget that is not at least balanced but preferably contains a surplus. Obviously, since the President has no control over the purse-strings, I will tell Congress that I will veto any budget that is not at least balanced. Next, I will address education. The federal government has no business being in education. I want to move it down to where it belongs: the local level. That way, parents have more direct input on how money is spent and how to teach their children. In order to placate the people who feel that the federal government needs to control all aspects of our lives, I will designate block grants for education. It will be up to the local governments to allocate these resources. No input from the federal government. I could go on and on regarding various programs. Mainly, we should privatize the bulk of them. The reduction in workforce in the federal government will be offset by the increase in these services being provided by the private sector. You increase your tax base, decrease the revenue needed to run the government, which in turn decreases the taxes for all of us. There is no question that the private sector can provide these services cheaper then anything the government will provide. How is that for a start?

How is that the responsibility of the government? Charitable contributions are just that: donations to the charities of your choice. No government intervention. Since you have less money being stolen by the government, you have more available to help people via your favorite charities.

This what you were looking for? Link Thingy

Thanks.

Flat Tax. There are no deductions. The tax rates would be smaller, which negates the deductions you would have received. Smaller government requires less tax revenue to sustain itself.

Watch out when I get on a plane.

Hey, you are not dealing with amateurs here. We are professionals.

Which is why I propose a flat tax coupled with smaller government.

Just steal it from the salaries of those eeeevil, greedy CEO's. Why should they be making more money than anyone else.

...but the person making $20K/year is also not buying the expensive homes, cars and other luxury items that say the $1M/year person is buying. Flat Tax, anyone?

Ummm...no. I said that he contradicted himself so I don't know what to believe. Hence the statement, "Which do we believe?" I thought it was pretty clear, but I guess "Which do we believe?" automatically means guilty.

Agreed. This case would have been over 15 years ago if that was done. I had a living will done before I got married. When Kristy and I got married, I made her get one, I revised mine to include her, and I made her parents each get one. My parents and brother have had them for years. My whole family is covered with living wills.

I agree except for the fact that no investigation into alleged abuse has been done. Everyone has been clinging to the husband stating that this was Terri's wish but yet he contradicts himself on national television. He has also done other things which look suspicious. There is no question that whether the tube stays in or is removed is strictly a family decision and has no business in the public domain. The only thing I am interested in is an investigation into the alleged abuses. Instead of having the body cremated immediately, at least do an autopsy. I do not think that it is too much to ask to investigate allegations of a crime. That is withing jurisdiction of the public via law enforcement (and the courts if there is evidence of a crime).