This will be a good decade for bicycling!

Ron Wallenfang wrote:
[...]
Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;

Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?

meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.

Despite his protests, Ed likes me.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
[...]
Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;

Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?

meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.

Despite his protests, Ed likes me.

Mr. Sherman has ever proven himself wrongheaded on matters of politics. He
also is an idiot on how this country should conduct its foreign affairs. I
think his worse misstep ever was equating Palestinian terrorists with the
Israeli military. But maybe Muslim terrorists will soon be showing up in
this country and he can gain a clearer understanding of the price of liberal
idiocy.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Jan 3, 6:57*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
[...]
Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;

Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?

meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.

Despite his protests, Ed likes me.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Jan 3, 6:57*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
[...]
Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;

Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?

meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.

Despite his protests, Ed likes me.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

I think Packer and Packers are used interchangeably, but the official
name is Packers, so I'll concede you that point.

Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.

As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
example.

Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Jan 3, 6:57 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
[...]
Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;
Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?

meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.
Despite his protests, Ed likes me.


I think Packer and Packers are used interchangeably, but the official
name is Packers, so I'll concede you that point.

Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.

Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.

As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
example.

It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
"worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
their lives.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

"The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in
America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
- Ian Welsh

"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote in message
...
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
[...]
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.

Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of course,
removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the funding
problem.

I think the retirement age is already at the maximum. Old folks just want to
sleep all day. And why shouldn't the working class pay for their social
security. Not everything in life can be progressive like the income tax.

As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
example.

It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that are
the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites will
likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the "worthless
eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with their lives.

The third world can't wait to become exactly like us. In fact, it may well
be that China and India will do the world in, not the US or Europe.

"The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in
America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
- Ian Welsh

And what do the rich do with their extra wealth? They spend millions on
second and third homes. How stupid can you get!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
And what do the rich do with their extra wealth? They spend millions on
second and third homes. How stupid can you get!

Give me a million dollars, and I will use the interest income to allow
part time work, and in the end leave the principal to no-kill cat shelters.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

On Jan 5, 1:08*am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:


Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. *The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. *Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.

Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.

You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. (We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) Politically it's working like a charm; no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? Increase it to 70?? 75?? The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.

Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!


As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
nations that have had the financial wherewithal to *move toward clean
air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. *Population
density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
example.

It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
"worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
their lives.

I disagree but I've used up my quota of bile for the day. The worst
ecological problems are away from the first world - polluted rivers
and air, lack of sanitary facilities, rampant communicable diseases,
undrinkable water - the list of real problems can go on forever. Oh,
and unsafe bicycling conditions.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007

"The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
to levels even greater than the gilded age. *The rich, in
America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
- Ian Welsh- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.
Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.

You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. (We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) Politically it's working like a charm; no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? Increase it to 70?? 75?? The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.

I will not get full Social Security benefits unless I wait to 70 to
retire, and none at all before 65.

Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. This is about government control -
nothing more or less. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!

Nonsense. No one makes money in a vacuum, and no one becomes rich
without exploiting the labors of others. Taxes are just recouping some
of the unearned wealth for the benefit of society.

As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
example.
It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
"worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
their lives.

I disagree but I've used up my quota of bile for the day.

Lightweight! I once had an argument with Ed Dolan that went over 500
posts.

The worst
ecological problems are away from the first world - polluted rivers
and air, lack of sanitary facilities, rampant communicable diseases,
undrinkable water - the list of real problems can go on forever. Oh,
and unsafe bicycling conditions.

Overconsumption of fossil fuels, minerals, potable water, etc are
primarily first world sins, with only a small elite minority doing the
same in developing countries. These are the one that will lead to
ecosystem collapse.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"Every American government since Reagan has essentially been
consumed with the task of denuding the middle and working
classes of their paltry share of the national pie, in order to
deliver those dollars into the hands of wealthy political
benefactors." - David Michael Green

On Jan 5, 7:31*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:08 am, Tom Sherman _
wrote:
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. *The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. *Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.
Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.

You're right to the extent that we're already raising the retirement
age. *A 1980s era bipartisan political deal allowed higher social
security payments to current beneficiaries than they had earned via
the taxes they paid, *by raising normal retirement age from 65 to 67
over a period of years after 2000. *(We're at 66 right now with
further increases coming.) *Politically it's working like a charm; *no
one who was about to be shafted 30 years later noticed enough to put
up a fuss, and now it's a fiat accompli. *But it was ethically
bankrupt: pure robbery of the present generation to the benefit of the
last generation. *Now that card has been played and where to you go
from here? *Increase it to 70?? *75?? *The "savings" from increaseing
the eligibility age have already been spent and the system will still
bankrupt - though a sustained replacement level birthrate will help.

I will not get full Social Security benefits unless I wait to 70 to
retire, and none at all before 65.

Social security may (or may not) be justified as a species of
compulsory savings program. *But in the Liberals hands (with in
fairness, more than a few conservative fellow travelers - even Reagan
signed off on the 1980s deal noted above), it's not that. *Liberals
now want to decide how much to take and from whom, *and to whom to
give it, as if the entire national income is theirs to distribute, and
real earners keep only as much as the gov't deigns to let them keep.
Nothing illustrates this better than the comment above about taxing
all income for social security purposes, not just an amount sufficient
to justify benefits received. *This is about government control -
nothing more or less. *And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!

Nonsense. No one makes money in a vacuum, and no one becomes rich
without exploiting the labors of others. Taxes are just recouping some
of the unearned wealth for the benefit of society.

Exploiting the labor of others? Isn't that called creating jobs?
Here is a prescription for you: (1) quit your job, (2) go in to
business for yourself, (3) employ six or more employees (4) report
back in ten years with your views on taxes and "unearned wealth." --
Jay Beattie.