Moonbats II Feb 4 2005
Two more letters to take down.
Ask for more from those who can afford it
Suddenly, Social Security is on everyone's mind. Our administration tells us we must act now to save it, even though it's solvent until at least 2042. These same people tell us that we must change it now and charge ourselves $1 trillion-$2 trillion. Have they forgotten about the huge deficit we also have now? This is not the time to make that adjustment.
A husband and wife are at the table and the weather is sunny. The wife says "Are you going to fix the hole in the roof?" he responds "No, it is not leaking." A week later it is raining and the roof is leaking water into the house. It is best to fix the problem before iti s a disaster.
President Bush would like to make tax cuts permanent now, and it seems like that will happen. My suggestion is that those who earn more than $200,000 per year should make up that difference.
Right now, all of those who earn more than $90,000 have met the cap on Social Security withholding. I propose that the cap be lifted and reinstituted at $200,000, thereby not affecting the upper middle class, but getting that extra money from people who will not need the money at retirement time anyway. They will have invested those tax savings along the way.
Instead of creating jobs they should plug a hole in a leaking dam? So now we have the social security tax and then more taxes for social security?
According to AARP, the money saved by these people with permanent tax cuts is five times the money needed to keep Social Security solvent for 75 years.
To whom much is given, much is expected.
Sharon Meier,
Appleton
Apparantly to a leftist there is no problem more taxes can not solve.
Put actions where words on Iraq are
After reading the Jan. 26 letter to the editor by Kelly Van Hoof, I came to the conclusion that those people who are service-eligible age (17 to 35) can be classified into two separate categories:
Category One: These people, like my son, feel very strongly about his war. In fact, they feel so strongly about this war, they're willing to participate in it by enlisting in the Army or Marines and going to places like Afghanistan and Baghdad. If the writer of the Jan. 26 letter to the editor intends to enlist in the Army or Marines as soon as she graduates her opinion has credibility and it should be strongly considered.
Category Two: Like the people in Category One, the people in Category Two feel strongly about his war, so strongly in fact, they're willing to write letters to the editor promoting their beliefs. In these letters, they invariably use the pronouns "we" and "our" when referring to the troops in Iraq, making it seem like they were actually there. They also persistently preface the word "war" with the adjectives, just, justified or necessary. Apparently, these adjectives are used to make the war seem more righteous.
Obviously, the difference between Category One and Category Two is that the people in Category Two are presently not in Iraq and have no intention of ever being there. This war is not quite righteous and justified enough to include their participation.
If the writer of the Jan. 26 letter doesn't intend to enlist in the Army or Marines after graduating, the letter to the editor is nothing more than a patronizing exercise in high school political science.
John Westover,
New London
Mr. Westover do you oppose murder and fires? Yes you do, then I suggest you stop talking about your opposition to murder & fires or join the fire department or the police force.
We as a society all have our roles and we must play out those roles. My grandfather went to enlist to fight in WWII and was turned away. The recruiter told him that his job in running the plywood mill was just as vital to the war effort. That plywood was being used to build bombers and other war materials.
Hmmm, not certain if commenting on the letters like this works well or not. Will see.
Ask for more from those who can afford it
Suddenly, Social Security is on everyone's mind. Our administration tells us we must act now to save it, even though it's solvent until at least 2042. These same people tell us that we must change it now and charge ourselves $1 trillion-$2 trillion. Have they forgotten about the huge deficit we also have now? This is not the time to make that adjustment.
A husband and wife are at the table and the weather is sunny. The wife says "Are you going to fix the hole in the roof?" he responds "No, it is not leaking." A week later it is raining and the roof is leaking water into the house. It is best to fix the problem before iti s a disaster.
President Bush would like to make tax cuts permanent now, and it seems like that will happen. My suggestion is that those who earn more than $200,000 per year should make up that difference.
Right now, all of those who earn more than $90,000 have met the cap on Social Security withholding. I propose that the cap be lifted and reinstituted at $200,000, thereby not affecting the upper middle class, but getting that extra money from people who will not need the money at retirement time anyway. They will have invested those tax savings along the way.
Instead of creating jobs they should plug a hole in a leaking dam? So now we have the social security tax and then more taxes for social security?
According to AARP, the money saved by these people with permanent tax cuts is five times the money needed to keep Social Security solvent for 75 years.
To whom much is given, much is expected.
Sharon Meier,
Appleton
Apparantly to a leftist there is no problem more taxes can not solve.
Put actions where words on Iraq are
After reading the Jan. 26 letter to the editor by Kelly Van Hoof, I came to the conclusion that those people who are service-eligible age (17 to 35) can be classified into two separate categories:
Category One: These people, like my son, feel very strongly about his war. In fact, they feel so strongly about this war, they're willing to participate in it by enlisting in the Army or Marines and going to places like Afghanistan and Baghdad. If the writer of the Jan. 26 letter to the editor intends to enlist in the Army or Marines as soon as she graduates her opinion has credibility and it should be strongly considered.
Category Two: Like the people in Category One, the people in Category Two feel strongly about his war, so strongly in fact, they're willing to write letters to the editor promoting their beliefs. In these letters, they invariably use the pronouns "we" and "our" when referring to the troops in Iraq, making it seem like they were actually there. They also persistently preface the word "war" with the adjectives, just, justified or necessary. Apparently, these adjectives are used to make the war seem more righteous.
Obviously, the difference between Category One and Category Two is that the people in Category Two are presently not in Iraq and have no intention of ever being there. This war is not quite righteous and justified enough to include their participation.
If the writer of the Jan. 26 letter doesn't intend to enlist in the Army or Marines after graduating, the letter to the editor is nothing more than a patronizing exercise in high school political science.
John Westover,
New London
Mr. Westover do you oppose murder and fires? Yes you do, then I suggest you stop talking about your opposition to murder & fires or join the fire department or the police force.
We as a society all have our roles and we must play out those roles. My grandfather went to enlist to fight in WWII and was turned away. The recruiter told him that his job in running the plywood mill was just as vital to the war effort. That plywood was being used to build bombers and other war materials.
Hmmm, not certain if commenting on the letters like this works well or not. Will see.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 8:51 AM
<< Home