Strengthening UIGEA (?)

[tangled]

I meant imaginings--typo.

And I did regret not qualifying my first post while at work.

As far as clarity: I didn't think there was a problem here. You are the first poster to admit to having a problem understanding the meaning of the proposal. What specifically are you having a problem understanding? You may not like the idea -fine, but I guess I expected 2+2ers to understand it before coming to that conclusion.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
I will fly one day

Bro, you need to lay off the dope. It's rotting your mind.

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote the opening post hurriedly before work last night. While at work, I regretted that I didn't use some word like "imagings" in the title to suggest a "this would never happen, but wouldn't it be cool if it did" type of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so classic. No, adding "imagings" wouldn't have made it any clearer :-) Were you shooting for "Imagine"? John Lennon already beat you to that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to comment on the "dope" reference. The first 150 thousand times I heard an analogy involving drugs, I thought how funny and clever. But once the sum hit 160 thousand + , I started to grow weary and wished that someone could be inventive and think of another way to express the relevant point.

Don't get me wrong, I like cliches. They serve a very useful purpose in our society. Without them many people would scarcely be able to communicate at all.

[Emperor]

Similar situation happened last congress concerning drafting men into the military for the war. Anti-war democrats floated a bill to reinstitute the draft, then spin it in the media so the proles think that Bush is coming for their sons. Republicans call their bluff and bring it to a vote. Dem's and Rep's all vote no on the bill, even the original sponsors of the bill, because no one wants to be on record as voting for it.

[Billman]

[ QUOTE ]

I forgot to comment on the "dope" reference. The first 150 thousand times I heard an analogy involving drugs, I thought how funny and clever. But once the sum hit 160 thousand + , I started to grow weary and wished that someone could be inventive and think of another way to express the relevant point.

Don't get me wrong, I like cliches. They serve a very useful purpose in our society. Without them many people would scarcely be able to communicate at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude but you're a little whacky. First off, even though I'm not taking your comment literally but come on. There were 8 posts in this thread when I commented so even if every single one of them made a dope reference it would still be in the funny category. As it turns out, only one other person asked what you were smoking.

And you later left a comment saying "imagings" was a typo and that it should have been "imaginings" which isn't even a word.

And lastly, it's not that I didn't understand it. It's that it's so unlikely that it falls into the realm of mental masturbation. Thus the scarcity of responses that actually take anything you've said seriously and adanthar 's comment comparing your post to saying you want to fly.

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I forgot to comment on the "dope" reference. The first 150 thousand times I heard an analogy involving drugs, I thought how funny and clever. But once the sum hit 160 thousand + , I started to grow weary and wished that someone could be inventive and think of another way to express the relevant point.

Don't get me wrong, I like cliches. They serve a very useful purpose in our society. Without them many people would scarcely be able to communicate at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude but you're a little whacky. First off, even though I'm not taking your comment literally but come on. There were 8 posts in this thread when I commented so even if every single one of them made a dope reference it would still be in the funny category. As it turns out, only one other person asked what you were smoking.

And you later left a comment saying "imagings" was a typo and that it should have been "imaginings" which isn't even a word.

And lastly, it's not that I didn't understand it. It's that it's so unlikely that it falls into the realm of mental masturbation. Thus the scarcity of responses that actually take anything you've said seriously and adanthar 's comment comparing your post to saying you want to fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

1st paragraph: Are you seriously telling me you have never heard anyone use a "what are you smoking/what kind of drugs are you on?" type reference in everyday life. If so, you lead a very sheltered life. Its a cliche plain and simple.

2nd paragraph: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/imaginings

3rd paragraph: The exact word you used was "clearer". How am I supposed to know that you meant something else? I don't read minds.

[sarsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Papa Bush, during his presidency, raided the social sercurity surplus in order to keep the deficits down. Democrats complained about this, but nobody seemed to care. Senator Moynihan (D) proposed legislation that would legislate the use of the SS surplus the way Bush was already quietly doing. Of course, to a democrat social security is a sacred cow, so this proposal got a lot of media attention. Moynihan wasn't serious about using the social sercurity surplus this way, he just wanted Bush's actions to be noted by the public. And on that he was successsful. Moynihan and his proposal got a lot of media attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Nit] FYI, this first paragraph isn't accurate.
Social Security Administration web page

[ QUOTE ]

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.
...

From the beginning of the Social Security program its transactions were reported by the administration as a separate function in the budget. This is sometimes described in present usage by saying that the Social Security program was "off-budget." This was the budget representation of the Social Security program from its creation in 1935 until 1968.

...

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/nit]

more

[ QUOTE ]

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Papa Bush, during his presidency, raided the social sercurity surplus in order to keep the deficits down. Democrats complained about this, but nobody seemed to care. Senator Moynihan (D) proposed legislation that would legislate the use of the SS surplus the way Bush was already quietly doing. Of course, to a democrat social security is a sacred cow, so this proposal got a lot of media attention. Moynihan wasn't serious about using the social sercurity surplus this way, he just wanted Bush's actions to be noted by the public. And on that he was successsful. Moynihan and his proposal got a lot of media attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Nit] FYI, this first paragraph isn't accurate.
Social Security Administration web page

[ QUOTE ]

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.
...

From the beginning of the Social Security program its transactions were reported by the administration as a separate function in the budget. This is sometimes described in present usage by saying that the Social Security program was "off-budget." This was the budget representation of the Social Security program from its creation in 1935 until 1968.

...

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/nit]

more

[ QUOTE ]

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I thought it was pretty clear from the partial article in my second post that I had misremebered some of the details about the political dynamic that provoked Moynihan's ploy. But the description of the ploy was accurate--that being: the adoption of a contrary legislative initiative in order to make obvious an opponent's political weakness and/or hypocracy.

Thank you for helping to make my misstatement more clear.

And thanks to Emporer for his imput. I learned something I didn't know before.