sorry Perf, my mistake. i left out the no, instead skipped right to the nor to start. there should have been in a no in front of the "nor,..." but you should have waved the magic wand and figured out i wouldn't have said "yes,nor" 8>). again, my apology (why is it always my apologies using the plural, isn't one good enough?) all you republicans are reading my mind and seeing i'm a liberal democrat even for things i don't put down. why not here? (lol) nice of all of those who have labeled me to skip over all the items i listed i'm for which fall on the republican, even conservative, side of the ledger. but as i noted, they simply ignore what they wish not to see.
is that typical of stuck in the mud conservatives, or far out liberals as well, not seeing what is truly there but they wish not to see? i truly think that's the problem, that's what fits into your partisan politics interference thought Perf. if it's something put out by republicans it's automatically good to those who have stuck themselves to one party. and it's automatically bad to those who have stuck them to the other side. take the same proposal and switch the side which proposes it and you'll see the followers switch as well. it would be so hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.
it is really interesting to see, how many german words do find usage in english speaking territories. Purists over here always warn about something, we call "Denglish", which is meaning, that english words are captured, wrong understood and used in common language. I'm lucky, that there are better words than Rucksack or Kindergarten known in the US. :)
Perf, i asked DD one time what his goal was for social security. that was based on the presumption that, just like mandated auto insurance, at least mandated in ny and i know in other states, we have to have it.
so, i'll ask you the same question. what is it you want from social security? do you want social security to be an anti-poverty insurance program? do you want social security to be a wealth building program? do you want social security to be two different programs combined into one, where it looks to me the gvt is now getting involved in my own wealth building program and the funds i myself control for that purpose? do you want something social security to be other than the things i noted? again, going by the notion we are mandated to have social security.
your note on partisan politics interfering, i totally agree. only i see too many people getting labeled as one partisan or the other simply off their stances on a very limited # of issues. their stances on other issues are completely ignored so one's partisan label point can be made.
taking the two things together, the partisan interference with clear thought of all aspects of issues and the labeling when someone doesn't agree on all issues, that's why i have certain people on ignore. they are completely useless to me.
p.s., i started delving into the australian system as well, in fact i got the direct link to their administration, http://www.facs.gov.au/
in an attempt to check out just what they mean by means testing and how that fit in with the overall plan. but i gave up. i swear i've got a d d, i'm sure of it. i just don't have the patience. is that a sign of aging? or childhood? 8>) if you want to check it out just plug the words means testing into the link's search.