Here's to working together in 05!!

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Details to come later, but the general  outline is to allow people to keep some of their own $ and invest it...if they so desire.

138302[/snapback]

Three little words that make any intelligent person wary: "Details to follow."

138479[/snapback]

Well, at least Bush has an outline and a direction in which to flesh out the finer points. Anyone who follows what goes on in D.C. should know that bills ALWAYS go through an evolutionary process before they reach their final draft. So, constantly muttering about the 'details' not being made public when it's the Dems who have absolutely NOTHING to show is being utterly disingenious at best.

138553[/snapback]

Got a link to the "outline?" Yes, bills go through a process. Yes, legislation changes. Where's the draft of the initial legislation? Where is the white paper that may precede the actual first draft? There is nothing but an idea-- let's privatize a portion of social security. Okay, tell me more if you want "support" for the "plan."

138555[/snapback]

Texas. if you really care about this so much, go look for it yourself . Try the W.H. home page. And while you're at it, try to track down that Dem plan too. I'm DYING to hear all about their great idea.

138569[/snapback]

You're just frustrated because you got caught making a strong assertion you can't back up. Don't worry. That qualifies for extra credit as a Republican.

Actually, Bush HAS a plan, and it's very feasible.

"HAS"-- all caps for extra emphasis, but no link. "Very feasible"-- but it can't be found or explained in detail.

Why don't you just admit that you jumped into to full defense mode without knowing the facts?

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Well, balancing the budget and paying off the national debt would sure put us in a better position to address any exigent short fall in SS.

We already have a form of privatization.  We have several forms of retirement accounts available.  We can put money above what we owe to SS in IRAs, either tax deferred or not.  Should we all take advantage of this opportunity and the stock market do well, then none of the youngsters of today would have any great need for their SS pennies. 

However, if you eliminate SS and replace it w/ privatization, what do you think this country will do when many invest in the wrong "horse" and wind up broke and on the street?  Simply, we will then put them on welfare and support them with taxpayer dollars.  We merely need to encourage our citizens to utilize the retirement plans now available and keep SS functioning.

138573[/snapback]

That sums it up as succinctly as I've heard anywhere. We need you front and center.

[Auburn85 432]

Investing SS in the stock market has a better chance of growing, rather thatn SS in the hands of the government.

Yes, the money may be invested where the stocks end up plummeting, but there's MORE of a chance of it getting squandered in government's hands

[TexasTiger 13,024]

Investing SS in the stock market has a better chance of growing, rather thatn SS in the hands of the government.

Yes, the money may be invested where the stocks end up plummeting, but there's MORE of a chance of it getting squandered in government's hands

138592[/snapback]

Have you had money in the stock market over the last 4 years?

[Auburn85 432]

Last time I checked the stock market is over 10,000

So I guess Ted Kennedy's answer to SS is to lie about Bush cutting it by 33%

[Auburn85 432]

I can just see it now, Bush will force our SS money into ivesting his timber company

[Tigermike 3,053]

Investing SS in the stock market has a better chance of growing, rather thatn SS in the hands of the government.

Yes, the money may be invested where the stocks end up plummeting, but there's MORE of a chance of it getting squandered in government's hands

138592[/snapback]

Have you had money in the stock market over the last 4 years?

138598[/snapback]

Yes I have and I have made money overall. I have lost on several stocks but over the past 4 years I am on the plus side. Thanks GW!

[Auburn85 432]

Ah come on, your gain was just a fluke,

you're in the minority

The stock market is going to crash

[Tigermike 3,053]

Ah come on, your gain was just a fluke,

you're in the minority

The stock market is going to crash  

138632[/snapback]

I've been thinking the same thing, so I have been buying John Kerry stock.

[jaydubb121 22]

Let's all just work till we frickin' die.

That'll help out the SS mess.

Who's with me?

Ahhhh screw it, it's Friday, I'm going home.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TexasTiger,

That frustration you sense must be coming from yourself. It seems that no matter how many times you get asked for the Dems plan, you dodge the question and try to turn the tables around on someone else. Bush's plan is being discussed, and you know it. What really burns your bottom is that the Dems are ( once again ) left holding the bag on this issue w/ out having a clue about what to do next. All you on the Left can do is pick at nits and play the contrarian game in hopes that you'll fool enough folks to come on over to your side. Thing is, that tactic has been failing since 1994, and you guys STILL don't get it.

Hey, not skin off my nose if you continue to live in denial. In fact, I say stay right there and don't change your address!

[TexasTiger 13,024]

TexasTiger,

  That frustration you sense must be coming from yourself. It seems that no matter how many times you get asked for the Dems plan, you dodge the question and try to turn the tables around on someone else. Bush's plan is being discussed, and you know it. What really burns your bottom is that the Dems are ( once again ) left holding the bag on this issue w/ out having  a clue about what to do next. All you on the Left can do is pick at nits and play the contrarian game in hopes that you'll fool enough folks to come on over to your side. Thing is, that tactic has been failing  since 1994, and you guys STILL don't get it.

Hey, not skin off my nose if you continue to live in denial.  In fact, I say stay  right there and don't change your address!

138779[/snapback]

Now you're really getting desperate. You overstated. Just admit it. We all do it sometime. This was your time. The original post was slamming Dems for not getting on board with Bush's "plan." That's the point I've responded to. The next paragraph in the original article linked to says the following:

Democrats complain that it could cost $2 trillion to reform Social Security to include the president's voluntary private accounts. Furthermore, they argue, it will lead either to a reduction in benefits or an increase in premiums or both.

Just because you come up with an idea that seems unworkable and you won't explain how to make it work, doesn't then move the ball into my court. Show your plan is feasible. Show it is needed. Don't play fast and lose with numbers if you want to be seen as credible. The Bush administration lied to Republicans in Congress about the medicare plan and got snookered. Don't expect the Republicans to march with Dubya in lockstep this time out. Being the President won't be enough anymore. They're concerned with their own hides now.

[LSUfan91 0]

We all know all numbers can be overblown

They say the budget shortfall would be 475 billion.

Turned out it was more like 420 billion

Plus, Kennedy says Bush will cut SS by 33% and he wants to stop Bush.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TexasTiger,

  That frustration you sense must be coming from yourself. It seems that no matter how many times you get asked for the Dems plan, you dodge the question and try to turn the tables around on someone else. Bush's plan is being discussed, and you know it. What really burns your bottom is that the Dems are ( once again ) left holding the bag on this issue w/ out having  a clue about what to do next. All you on the Left can do is pick at nits and play the contrarian game in hopes that you'll fool enough folks to come on over to your side. Thing is, that tactic has been failing  since 1994, and you guys STILL don't get it.

Hey, not skin off my nose if you continue to live in denial.  In fact, I say stay  right there and don't change your address!

138779[/snapback]

Now you're really getting desperate. You overstated. Just admit it. We all do it sometime. This was your time. The original post was slamming Dems for not getting on board with Bush's "plan." That's the point I've responded to. The next paragraph in the original article linked to says the following:

138851[/snapback]

Bush's plan is to allow people to put some of their SS $ toward a private investment fund, if they want to choose that path. The Dems have no plan what so ever, except to ignore the issue which will eventually lead to raising taxes ( likely their REAL plan ) and / or slash benefits down the road. The Dems figure they'll still have the Liberal media on their side, so they'll be able to cook up any number of tall tales to spin things in their favor and some how blame the crisis on the GOP. That assuming they can lull the public back to sleep and concentrate on getting back in power.

Face the music, TexasTiger, you painted yourself into the corner on this one. The Dems have nothing and you're just too proud to admit defeat.

[TexasTiger 13,024]

TexasTiger,

   That frustration you sense must be coming from yourself. It seems that no matter how many times you get asked for the Dems plan, you dodge the question and try to turn the tables around on someone else. Bush's plan is being discussed, and you know it. What really burns your bottom is that the Dems are ( once again ) left holding the bag on this issue w/ out having  a clue about what to do next. All you on the Left can do is pick at nits and play the contrarian game in hopes that you'll fool enough folks to come on over to your side. Thing is, that tactic has been failing  since 1994, and you guys STILL don't get it.

Hey, not skin off my nose if you continue to live in denial.  In fact, I say stay  right there and don't change your address!

138779[/snapback]

Now you're really getting desperate. You overstated. Just admit it. We all do it sometime. This was your time. The original post was slamming Dems for not getting on board with Bush's "plan." That's the point I've responded to. The next paragraph in the original article linked to says the following:

138851[/snapback]

Bush's plan is to allow people to put some of their SS $ toward a private investment fund, if they want to choose that path. The Dems have no plan what so ever, except to ignore the issue which will eventually lead to raising taxes ( likely their REAL plan ) and / or slash benefits down the road. The Dems figure they'll still have the Liberal media on their side, so they'll be able to cook up any number of tall tales to spin things in their favor and some how blame the crisis on the GOP. That assuming they can lull the public back to sleep and concentrate on getting back in power.

Face the music, TexasTiger, you painted yourself into the corner on this one. The Dems have nothing and you're just too proud to admit defeat.

138877[/snapback]

Actually, Bush HAS a plan, and it's very feasible.

Bush has an idea, not a plan. Try doing a feasibility study with what Bush has "put out there." It is undeniable that the initial cost is about 2 trillion dollars. That's what we know. There is absolutely no evidence that this idea will solve any problem. None. It is based more on ideology than facts or data.

You want spin and "crisis"? Ask an Alabama Republican congressman about that one:

Aderholt agrees with reform critics who say Social Security is not in crisis. Aderholt said he believes reform is needed, but there is no reason to rush the reform effort.

"It's sort of deceiving when we talk about the situation being that we are on the brink of disaster. We're not. It will be several decades before the system goes bankrupt," Aderholt said.

Aderholt worries that political rhetoric designed to push legislation through Congress will scare his retired constituents.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/n...09/reform.shtml

"Sort of deceiving"-- How does a Republican Congress say his President is "sort of lying?" This ain't Teddy Kennedy, folks. Of course, you'll believe anything Bush tells you, because that's what the Kool Aid tends to do to person.

[Piglet 0]

How is that lame ? The richest ARE paying S.S. taxes, but only up to a point.  Why should anyone making more be forced to pay for those who make less ? That is socialism, plain and simple. ...

.... Life is about choices, and there are plenty who have made the right choices which allow the to have families w/ out 'struggling' , as you put it. Others might not have families, for what ever reason....yet if they're making enough $$ on their own, should THEY be forced to pay for eveyone else ?

Sorry, AURaptor, I ain't buying. If you follow that kind of Darwinism logic very far, you get to the point where you're saying the big bad ol' government shouldn't be making people pay those rotten ol' taxes so we can have Social Security at all, and while we're at it government shouldn't tax people at all, they know what to do with their own money...in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I found you'd already argued such things.

The thing is, the people who now say Social Security needs "fixing" and who want to tinker around with it are the same people who have been wanting to dismantle it entirely all along. If you think I believe they actually want to make Social Security better and give Americans a better future with it, you must think I fell off a turnip truck. They got no intention of fixing anything!

[AURaptor 1,126]

How is that lame ? The richest ARE paying S.S. taxes, but only up to a point.  Why should anyone making more be forced to pay for those who make less ? That is socialism, plain and simple. ...

.... Life is about choices, and there are plenty who have made the right choices which allow the to have families w/ out 'struggling' , as you put it. Others might not have families, for what ever reason....yet if they're making enough $$ on their own, should THEY be forced to pay for eveyone else ?

Sorry, AURaptor, I ain't buying. If you follow that kind of Darwinism logic very far, you get to the point where you're saying the big bad ol' government shouldn't be making people pay those rotten ol' taxes so we can have Social Security at all, and while we're at it government shouldn't tax people at all, they know what to do with their own money...in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I found you'd already argued such things.

The thing is, the people who now say Social Security needs "fixing" and who want to tinker around with it are the same people who have been wanting to dismantle it entirely all along. If you think I believe they actually want to make Social Security better and give Americans a better future with it, you must think I fell off a turnip truck. They got no intention of fixing anything!

138901[/snapback]

Social Security DOES need to be abolished. It is inherently unfair and unjust. Not so much the intent, which is wrong on it's face, but more so in how it's been corrupted and grotesquely abused over the decades. Social Security will fail, there is no way around that. Ironically, the only thing saving it now is the vast numbers of the baby boomers who have paid into it, who now they're going to be drawing from it and drive it and this country into the ground.

Maybe you should have stayed on that turnip truck. Ignorance is bliss. As for the rest of us, we prefer to save what's still left to save.

I've never said that we shouldn't be taxed at all, but I do recognize that the proper funciton of Gov't is not to rob us blind our entire lives and then try to tell us " it's for our own good" . There's plenty of room between the socialist state you seemingly crave and total anarchy which you wrongly accuse me of being in favor.

[AURaptor 1,126]

TexasTiger,

  That frustration you sense must be coming from yourself. It seems that no matter how many times you get asked for the Dems plan, you dodge the question and try to turn the tables around on someone else. Bush's plan is being discussed, and you know it. What really burns your bottom is that the Dems are ( once again ) left holding the bag on this issue w/ out having  a clue about what to do next. All you on the Left can do is pick at nits and play the contrarian game in hopes that you'll fool enough folks to come on over to your side. Thing is, that tactic has been failing  since 1994, and you guys STILL don't get it.

Hey, not skin off my nose if you continue to live in denial.  In fact, I say stay  right there and don't change your address!

138779[/snapback]

Now you're really getting desperate. You overstated. Just admit it. We all do it sometime. This was your time. The original post was slamming Dems for not getting on board with Bush's "plan." That's the point I've responded to. The next paragraph in the original article linked to says the following:

138851[/snapback]

Bush's plan is to allow people to put some of their SS $ toward a private investment fund, if they want to choose that path. The Dems have no plan what so ever, except to ignore the issue which will eventually lead to raising taxes ( likely their REAL plan ) and / or slash benefits down the road. The Dems figure they'll still have the Liberal media on their side, so they'll be able to cook up any number of tall tales to spin things in their favor and some how blame the crisis on the GOP. That assuming they can lull the public back to sleep and concentrate on getting back in power.

Face the music, TexasTiger, you painted yourself into the corner on this one. The Dems have nothing and you're just too proud to admit defeat.

138877[/snapback]

Actually, Bush HAS a plan, and it's very feasible.

Bush has an idea, not a plan. Try doing a feasibility study with what Bush has "put out there." It is undeniable that the initial cost is about 2 trillion dollars. That's what we know. There is absolutely no evidence that this idea will solve any problem. None. It is based more on ideology than facts or data.

You want spin and "crisis"? Ask an Alabama Republican congressman about that one:

Aderholt agrees with reform critics who say Social Security is not in crisis. Aderholt said he believes reform is needed, but there is no reason to rush the reform effort.

"It's sort of deceiving when we talk about the situation being that we are on the brink of disaster. We're not. It will be several decades before the system goes bankrupt," Aderholt said.

Aderholt worries that political rhetoric designed to push legislation through Congress will scare his retired constituents.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/n...09/reform.shtml

"Sort of deceiving"-- How does a Republican Congress say his President is "sort of lying?" This ain't Teddy Kennedy, folks. Of course, you'll believe anything Bush tells you, because that's what the Kool Aid tends to do to person.

138882[/snapback]

No one is lying. Republican or Democrat, Aderholt is still wrong. Public officials should not litely make claims of a 'crisis' , but when the GOP does it, it's usually correct. Dems call EVERYTHING a crisis when they're in power. I give Bush all the credit in the world for showing the political will and courage to bring this issue to the table.

[Piglet 0]

See, I was right. You admit you want to see Social Security abolished. And thank you for being honest about that; you got every right to oppose it if that's what you want. But I hope you ain't too disappointed that I'm gonna be a tad suspicious when you say Bush's plan is going to "save" it. You and Bush both want to dismantle it, and that's just what your piratization plan is designed to do.

Given a choice, I'd sooner leave it alone and find out later whether the doomsayers were right or wrong than let people who hate Social Security mess with it and bring it down for sure.

And I ain't a socialist any more than you're an anarchist, although it seems to me that socialism isn't all bad. Seems to me this is a great enough country that we can ffind a way to both provide broad prosperity and a better future to all of our citizens while still giving great rewards and incentives to those willing to work to their highest potential for the American Dream. Somewhere between complete equality and complete liberty is a better world.

[Auburn85 432]

If SS is left alone, 27% cuts will need to be made by 2042(38 years from now) So Baby Boomers shouldn't be concerned

[AURaptor 1,126]

Given a choice, I'd sooner leave it alone and find out later whether the doomsayers were right or wrong than let people who hate Social Security mess with it and bring it down for sure.

It seems you are quite comfortable w/ your head in the sand.

And I ain't a socialist any more than you're an anarchist, although it seems to me that socialism isn't all bad.

Socialism isn't all bad? It's only against everything that our founding fathers and any freedom loving individual stands for. You might thinking stealing from Peter to pay Paul is fine, but not I.

[Piglet 0]

Wow, you want some paint to go with that broad brush? I could just as well have said that your darwinism was against everything any equality-loving person stood for. It seems to me that there's a long road between equality and freedom, and that the absolutes on either end (communism, anarchy) are no good. America is founded on principles of both freedom and equality, and the secret is finding the right mix.

You're right about the value of freedom. It's great to live in a land where we can all develop our talents and go where we will, with as little government interference as we can get away with. A real socialist country can't give you that. But America is more than just a bunch of individuals chasing their dream. We are a NATION, and we gotta support one another to some extent or the system just isn't going to work. It's called being a team.

Wealth is like manure. You gotta spread it around for it to do good. And you can complain and call taxes 'stealing' if you want, but that ain't going to do nothing but raise your blood pressure and make you look like a deadbeat. Taxes are the price you pay, just like the rest of us, as your dues for living in the greatest country on earth. Just like with your health and your wealth, you have to pay the price in order to enjoy the benefits.

If we got a country where the old folks don't have enough care, then we're failing and we arent' the best nation we can be. If large numbers of people can't afford health care, we're failing and we aren't the best nation we can be. If our schools are failing, we're failing and we aren't the best nation we can be. It ain't just, "I got mine and you go fend for yourself", it's the American Team.

E Pluribus Unum, how's that for the Founding Fathers for you?

And I ain't living with my head in the sand, either. I told you what I'd do to make Social Security better. But if they won't do that, I tell you it's better to have the status quo then to let the Bush league mess it up. Social Security will fail a lot faster under Bush then it will if we do nothing, and you've all but admitted that that's why his plan appeals to you.

[Auburn85 432]

Related to the flu problem: http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=45000...ontentid=252976

DLC | New Dem Daily | October 22, 2004

Idea of the Week: Assuring the Supply of Flu Vaccine

The dire shortage of flu vaccine this year has become one of those sleeper issues in the presidential election, and defenders of the president think that's unfair. What, they ask, could George W. Bush or his administration have done about this problem?

A lot, actually. Then-presidential candidate John Edwards proposed urgent steps to build up the supply of vaccines last December. DLC chairman Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) introduced legislation in January along the same lines, and counterpart legislation was introduced in February by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). Both bills have gone nowhere in the Republican-controlled Congress, though the current emergency may wake up lawmakers during the upcoming post-election session. Here's what we said about flu vaccines in our January 9, 2004 Idea of the Week. Nothing's changed since then except the ever-rising cost of inaction.

Idea of the Week: Better Flu Prevention

The news from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) yesterday was decidedly mixed. While it appears that this season's grave influenza epidemic may be slowing, nationwide reports indicate that 93 children under 18 have already died from the disease, double the previous highest total. This season has been particularly bad, but the flu is a perennial enemy: in a typical year 36,000 Americans are killed by influenza, 114,000 are hospitalized, and countless millions more spend several days bedridden, costing the economy billions of dollars.

It seems strange that such a predictable and preventable killer is allowed to run rampant across the country year after year, but it happens because our system for preventing the flu is woefully inadequate. Only a small percentage of the population is vaccinated each year, and the number who choose to get vaccinated is impossible to predict. Because of this, vaccine makers conservatively estimate the demand to avoid losing money on unused doses, as happened last season -- 12 million fewer doses were produced this year, leading to widespread shortages. Even for those who get vaccinated, protection is not guaranteed. Antiquated production techniques involving chicken eggs require long lead times; that means scientists must guess which strains will hit hardest in the upcoming season. This season, three-fourths of the reported cases of influenza were of a strain that was not covered by the vaccine.

The high toll of influenza this year is spurring much-needed action on Capitol Hill. Sen. John Edwards announced a proposal to upgrade our capacity to fight influenza last month, and DLC Chairman Sen. Evan Bayh is currently preparing the Flu Protection Act of 2004 to be introduced when Congress returns to Washington. The Bayh legislation would take a number of important and immediate steps, including:

requiring the CDC to work with vaccine manufacturers to provide an accurate estimate of the number of doses needed, backed by a guarantee from the federal government to purchase any unused doses at the end of the flu season;

funding a public awareness campaign to emphasize the importance of receiving annual flu vaccinations, particularly for the most vulnerable populations -- young children and elderly adults;

providing tax credits for manufacturers that modernize their vaccine production methods and expand their facilities;

improving the tracking and dissemination of vaccine doses to prevent shortages in areas hardest hit by influenza

establishing protocols to deal with future epidemics or pandemics.

Sen. Bayh's legislation can make an immediate impact on preventing the flu, but time is of the essence. Scientists, manufacturers, and public health officials will begin consulting in early February on the production of next season's vaccine. If Congress passes the Bayh legislation shortly after returning, the public awareness campaign and unused dose buyback program can be in place by next fall, when vaccination programs begin again. With quick action, we can have much better news -- "influenza deaths are down" -- next year and every year after.

[Auburn85 432]

DLC chairman Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) introduced legislation in January along the same lines, and counterpart legislation was introduced in February by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). Both bills have gone nowhere in the Republican-controlled Congress, though the current emergency may wake up lawmakers during the upcoming post-election session.

Last time I checked there were 50 ® 49 (D) and 1 (I) that usually votes for the (D)

[AURaptor 1,126]

Wow, you want some paint to go with that broad brush? I could just as well have said that your darwinism was against everything any equality-loving person stood for.  It seems to me that there's a long road between equality and freedom, and that the absolutes on either end (communism, anarchy) are no good.  America is founded on principles of both freedom and equality, and the secret is finding the right mix.

You're right about the value of freedom.  It's great to live in a land where we can all develop our talents and go where we will, with as little government interference as we can get away with.  A real socialist country can't give you that.  But America is more than just a bunch of individuals chasing their dream.  We are a NATION, and we gotta support one another to some extent or the system just isn't going to work.  It's called being a team.

Wealth is like manure. You gotta spread it around for it to do good.  And you can complain and call taxes 'stealing' if you want, but that ain't going to do nothing but raise your blood pressure and make you look like a deadbeat.  Taxes are the price you pay, just like the rest of us, as your dues for living in the greatest country on earth. Just like with your health and your wealth, you have to pay the price in order to enjoy the benefits. 

If we got a country where the old folks don't have enough care, then we're failing and we arent' the best nation we can be.  If large numbers of people can't afford health care, we're failing and we aren't the best nation we can be.  If our schools are failing, we're failing and we aren't the best nation we can be.  It ain't just, "I got mine and you go fend for yourself", it's the American Team.

E Pluribus Unum, how's that for the Founding Fathers for you?

And I ain't living with my head in the sand, either. I told you what I'd do to make Social Security better. But if they won't do that, I tell you it's better to have the status quo then to let the Bush league mess it up. Social Security will fail a lot faster under Bush then it will if we do nothing, and you've all but admitted that that's why his plan appeals to you.

139029[/snapback]

The founding fathers didn't create S.S. for a reason. They saw the inherent injustice of taking from one person and give it to someone else just to make yourself feel better . And Darwin certainly didn't intend for his theory to be bastardized into some social engineering world view either. Comparing Natural Selection to the taking of $$ by the Gov't at a point of a gun to give it to someone else wasn't at all what Darwin had in mind.

We live in a country of great oportunity and freedom. Those 2 things are what bring people from around the world here in order to find a better life. Yes, we pay taxes to help promote the proper functiion of Gov't, and the purpose of Gov't is to help PROTECT our rights, not dole them out in parcels as some bureaucrats see fit. That we agree to pay taxes does not mean our wallets become an open trough for the swine in politics to feed on to their hearts content. Equality isn't suppose to mean we all have equal amounts of stuff. It means that, in the eyes of the law, we all stand as equals. However, equality really means that we are free to pursue our life's ambitions to what ever ends.

It's sad to see that so many have become comfortabe to the concept of " what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too " .