Well I thought that you were arguing that earnings tests were OK because the
system had survived that long with them. This also counters Michael's point. But
if you are not arguing that earnings tests are OK because the system has
survived politically with them my analogy is not at all appropriate
Max, this is a very informative post. Quite a few people complain about
paying school taxes because they do not have any children in school. Here
in Chico, we finally passed a school bond on the fourth try. But it was
close to failing again.
I worry that the same could happen to Social Securit
Max, this is a very informative post. Quite a few people complain about paying
school taxes because they do not have any children in school. Here in Chico, we
finally passed a school bond on the fourth try. But it was close to failing
again.
I worry that the same could happen to Social Securit
>On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
> I sympathize with much of the rest that you wrote, except for
> your defense of
> the Democrats. I will not go into that space because we have
> already rehashed
> much of that discussion.
Boy, the one time I condemn the Democratic "capitulation" to the Right a
>On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
>
> So how long did the US survive with slavery, with no voting
> rights for blacks or
> women.
> Is that an argument for slavery, etc.?
Ken, this is just a bizarre analogy. Michael argues that earnings tests
endanger SS's political survivability; I point out that it has
>Max, the tone of your note is overly contentious. Try not to call somebody
>uninformed even if you think your information is better than that of the other
>person. Misinformed is probably worse.
I would rather be called "misinformed" than
"uninformed"--"misinformed" at least implies that I ha
