Why not get behind restrictions that reduce tragadies, and promote adoption as an alternative. Abortions under any circumstance other than health of mother issues, are unneccessary. Having watched my cousin, become pregnant as a teenager, two close friends have baby’s with their girlfriends before leaving High School, I know first hand how hard it is for young couples to raise kids they didn’t expect, but each time I’ve seen them care soo much for that child that now even their timid thoughts of giving them up for adoption seem unrealistic, they can’t live without them. Sadly, my cousin lost her child, through miscarriage, she cried for days. Her boyfriend, who also never expected to have a baby at his age, cried right along with her. A child however developed is precious, and we have a moral obligation to protect them.

DI:It’s the same thing that led to the legalization of abortion…just like people would get to the age where they could no longer work without a dime in their pocket…people would go out and get backalley abortions and die from them. It’s about prevention, and both came about for reasons the right-wing conveniently forgets now.

Michael: Oh so now your are comparing the legitamate inactment of law by the legislative branch, to the single most devisive case of judicial activism we have ever experienced. If abortion is so supported, then why not allow it to be voted on? I mean, isn’t this a democracy? We shouldn’t have to blame the mistakes of the past on 9 justices, we should blame it on the reprsentatives of an entire generation, that makes Social Security at least legitamate, abortion…i’ll let you live in the delusion that its some grand right. The real right, should be the right to contraceptives, condoms, and abstinence. Because the number of back ally abortion deaths pales in comparison to the number of STD’s being passed around now, because women were free from the ‘bondage’ of pregnancy. And men were free from the fear of inpregnating women, so welcome to our world AIDS.

I agree 100% with your statement that the real right should be to contraceptives – but you also add the word abstinance. Every American who is not raped already has a right to abstinance. It’s the pro-life lobby who wants to deny access to contraceptives.

As a man, I consider myself out of the argument in terms of whether a woman should or shouldn’t have an abortion. Until I wanted to have children, I used birth control when having sex. If condoms were not available to me, or I had been indoctrinated to believe that using them was evil – my life might be extremely different today, and not in a good way.

The comparison of Social Security and abortion is apt because there was a crisis of inequality that needed to be rectified. The rich could safely have an abortion, the poor could die from one. The rich could retire with a roof over their heads, the poor would die homeless. In both cases the government took steps to ensure rich and poor alike had the right to grow old and have an abortion.

The Supreme Court is blamed for this, but they were presented with an enormous amount of evidence. When I was a born-again Christian, I was presented with scriptures and propaganda. When I read about ‘why’ the decision was made, I was pro-life. I’m still pro-life in the sense that an abortion that has to happen due to irresponsibility is a tragedy. But not all abortions take place under those circumstances.

Oh so now your are comparing the legitamate inactment of law by the legislative branch, to the single most devisive case of judicial activism we have ever experienced. If abortion is so supported, then why not allow it to be voted on? I mean, isn’t this a democracy? We shouldn’t have to blame the mistakes of the past on 9 justices, we should blame it on the reprsentatives of an entire generation, that makes Social Security at least legitamate, abortion…i’ll let you live in the delusion that its some grand right. The real right, should be the right to contraceptives, condoms, and abstinence. Because the number of back ally abortion deaths pales in comparison to the number of STD’s being passed around now, because women were free from the ‘bondage’ of pregnancy. And men were free from the fear of inpregnating women, so welcome to our world AIDS.

It’s the same thing that led to the legalization of abortion…just like people would get to the age where they could no longer work without a dime in their pocket…people would go out and get backalley abortions and die from them. It’s about prevention, and both came about for reasons the right-wing conveniently forgets now.

My very first finance class in college was about the history of the stock market and social spending programs. When they were first introducing Social Security the 62 was life expectancy of Americans and that is what the payout age is based on.

Insurance actuary tables were used to determine this age because that was where life statistics were, and are, kept. The retirement age was raised a few times and now the maximum age is 95.

This is history, I’ll look for some references for you but this is how it happened. Do you think a Democrat would really GIVE money to people during the Great Depression? It’s all about the take, my friend, tax and spend.

DI: ‘SOCIAL’ Security…meaning, it is owned by everyone.

Michael: Why don’t we stop beating around the bush, its welfare. It doesn’t provide security to anyone, only people who have investments outside of social security, will live decently throughout their ‘golden’ years.

How can you say it doesn’t provide security to anyone? I’m quite sure there are millions of retirees today who would disagree with you. With the private sector defaulting on their pensions, we need social security now more than ever!

DI: Prescott Bush and his group HATED the very idea of Social Security, and this is the sentiment that creates the idea of personal accounts.

Michael: Good for him, i think its heading down the crapper myself…unless something changes, and i would prefer it being something other than ‘taxing’ the rich, because economist agree that you can’t tax the rich and not have it hurt the poor, via lower wages/fewer jobs. We need to expand the investor class, start teaching financial management in schools, and make our nation more financially savy starting with the least experienced. What do you say? Maybe then people won’t be scared of handling their own money.

Prescott Bush had that opinion…as a robber barron, during the depression. Good for him? Some perspective is needed here.

DI: If you cut taxes and increase spending…it doesn’t work.

Michael: Historically speaking, economic growth is strongest when national debt is highest. Doesn’t excuse it, but makes it seem less of a big deal. BTW, Bush’s tax cuts are showing the effect they have on revenue…and the “Tax, Tax, Tax” shout of the Dems is falling by the wayside.

National debt is not a ‘good’ thing Michael. If a GOP think-tank has convinced you otherwise…well, how about giving a detailed explaination of how this idea is valid?

DI: It’s the idea of your money ending up in someone else’s pocket.

RT: This is the whole premise of Social Security.

That’s the beauty of the program. We all help each other out. One nation, under God, indivisible…

DI: A program created during a stretch of Democratic leadership that accomplished more than any Republican would like to admit.

RT: Does anyone know significance of the age in which you are able to begin receiving Social Security benefits?

Democrats, the taxation guru’s that they are, determined what the life expectancy of an American was through the actuary tables of insurance companies and then set the retirement age at that level.

Very few people were supposed to live long enough to receive Social Security!!!!! It was designed as a tax windfall to finance the Federalization of America and reduce States’ rights, remember liberal’s big government concept? The problem with Social Security is people are getting it and Democrats didn’t expect that to ever happen.

You are right about my money going into other people’s pockets, the government’s pockets. Private accounts delivers the death knell to this abusive, destructive and fraudulent system.

It was created because of the depression, not for any of the conspiracy theories you refer to regarding Democrats. ‘Abuse, destructive and fradulent system’…completely wrong.

Should we just kill education and the highway funding as well? I mean, your money goes to other people’s benefit. How about police and firefighters? Should we just pay a bill whenever we need their help instead of funding them with our taxes?

Why don’t we stop beating around the bush, its welfare. It doesn’t provide security to anyone, only people who have investments outside of social security, will live decently throughout their ‘golden’ years.

DI: Prescott Bush and his group HATED the very idea of Social Security, and this is the sentiment that creates the idea of personal accounts.

Good for him, i think its heading down the crapper myself…unless something changes, and i would prefer it being something other than ‘taxing’ the rich, because economist agree that you can’t tax the rich and not have it hurt the poor, via lower wages/fewer jobs. We need to expand the investor class, start teaching financial management in schools, and make our nation more financially savy starting with the least experienced. What do you say? Maybe then people won’t be scared of handling their own money.

DI: If you cut taxes and increase spending…it doesn’t work.

Historically speaking, economic growth is strongest when national debt is highest. Doesn’t excuse it, but makes it seem less of a big deal. BTW, Bush’s tax cuts are showing the effect they have on revenue…and the “Tax, Tax, Tax” shout of the Dems is falling by the wayside.

This is the whole premise of Social Security.

A program created during a stretch of Democratic leadership that accomplished more than any Republican would like to admit.

Does anyone know significance of the age in which you are able to begin receiving Social Security benefits?

Democrats, the taxation guru’s that they are, determined what the life expectancy of an American was through the actuary tables of insurance companies and then set the retirement age at that level.

Very few people were supposed to live long enough to receive Social Security!!!!! It was designed as a tax windfall to finance the Federalization of America and reduce States’ rights, remember liberal’s big government concept? The problem with Social Security is people are getting it and Democrats didn’t expect that to ever happen.

You are right about my money going into other people’s pockets, the government’s pockets. Private accounts delivers the death knell to this abusive, destructive and fraudulent system.

Here’s an idea, if you are scared of handling your money, don’t volunteer for personal accounts.

BINGO!!!!!!!

‘SOCIAL’ Security…meaning, it is owned by everyone. A program created during a stretch of Democratic leadership that accomplished more than any Republican would like to admit. Against much tougher odds than anything Bush Sr, Jr or Reagan had to face – we came out on top. Prescott Bush and his group HATED the very idea of Social Security, and this is the sentiment that creates the idea of personal accounts.

It’s the idea of your money ending up in someone else’s pocket.

With taxation in mind…it would seem more genuine to me, this whole idea, if any of these Republican presidents coupled tax breaks with a reduction in spending. Bush has failed miserably on this front.

If you cut taxes and increase spending…it doesn’t work.