Your right, the government is spending it on wars and war profiteering, on no-bid contracts for Haliburton and KBR, on tax breaks for Oil companies and mega-farms, and giving tax breaks to the ultra wealthy. Are suggesting that Warren Buffet should pay less of a tax rate than his secretary? or Exon Mobile not paying any tax?
I think the thing the president is going to propose is an alternate minimum tax for people making over 1mil a year. Seems only fair.
And getting companies to pay taxes like everyone else (because we know this Supreme court sees them as individuals, then they should pay taxes like every other utra wealthy individual dont you think?)
Lets look back to the last run of economic prosperity, during the Clinton years. The taxes proposed are from that time. Lets go back to something that works, not conjecture that if we give money to the rich that it will trickle down. That Regan era failed strategy has just been re-packaged as job creators rather than trickle down but it is trickle down. We give them money and they give it back as jobs. Did'nt happen in the 10 years they had those breaks and look at the banks and other companies sitting on money. They haven't released it to help the economy. Use history to see what has worked and what has not.
Your kidding of course. You would not go into a restraunt and expect to get waited on (by an underpaid worker) and get food prepared (by an underpaid cook) and get your dirty dishes cleaned up after (by an underpaid bus boy/girl), no of course, you would want to pay the bill for the service provided so the wealth restaurateur can afford his country club dues.
Why? because if you don't that wealth restauranteur will have the police go after you and put you in jail for theft.
Well you travel the roads, drink the water, breath the air that now does not have a heavy burden of sulfur dioxide and Nitrox oxide. Your food does not contain DDT and your resonably safe from illegal robbery and if you are can call on law enforcement and the judical system to help fix the problem. You don't have to worry much about forgeigners rolling tanks down your street and when you retire you probably won't starve.
But hey, you would rather be a one person country, not walk on the roads, get your own water from a well from land you own, and get off the grid. But then the industrial park next to your house is going to foul your ground water because another exectutive wants to make that last payment on his Bentley, then you will have to start using your hard earned money to pay the hospital bills, unless the other executive that needs to make payments on his yacht rejects you for insurance, and you will start to have to pay for bottled water.
Where do you people get this idea that all the money you earn is yours free and clear? You are being irresponsible and un-patriotic.
We will see companies and individuals flooding the patent office will all kinds of wacky half formed patents to try and get there first. Like the rush to capture Web domain names to be able to sell them to the company who's name you used finds out that there company name's domain name is owned by someone holding it hostage. I don't see that this is a useful way to go about things.
It may be that prior art can invalidate a patent still but it may be invalidated for the first to file rather than the inventor. Which would beg the question, if a first to file patent was invalidated by prior art from the inventor, could the inventor then file for the patent?
This is another example of the Owner mentality where they thing they own everything, everyone, that their workers don't need or deserve any privacy, because they Own it all even them. The problem is that now Copyright owners have paid for friends in Governments and have them getting everyone else to collect their copyright tax just like they get individuals and companies to collect government and sales tax. I think we are going in the wrong direction. Towards micro charges for breathing and viewing and eating....
When does it stop, when will we see that this nanny state even in business is not cost effective and certainly not advisible.
Good point. But having taught CS courses at the undergraduate level for 27 years (part time while working) I hope that I instilled some of that mind set. The idea of solving the problem domain not the problem. Write tools not programs, and the idea that you are extending the language towards a higher level language to express the solution to your application are all first principles that I feel should be taught alongside the other fundementals like data structures and algorithms and DB designs..., but not in place of.
I credit the growth of the MBA to be largely responsible for the idiocy you are talking about. Well it is like the application of OOD to business where roles and people are objectified which is the first step towards being able to jetison them without remorse. Both my wife and I were layed off from the same company. The average age of the group layed off was about 54 yr of age. Clearly motivated to get rid of older higher paid staff.
But this rush to short term profits is short term thinking by definition. The attitude, "when you get your paycheck were even" and maybe I'll kill you tomorrow (allusions to Princess Bride) does not engender loyalty nor that do better, do quicker, do more attitude that a company that see's itself as a family of workers all working towards the same goal and enjoying the profits and security that comes from loyalty.
I worked for a number of family owned companies that were taken over by the MBA culture and one had its headquarters moved then the pieces were sold off. But you might argue, the company was only their for the owners to make profits and do with it what they wanted, even though peole had spent 10, 20, 30 years working and supporting the company. But that's right, who are they to complain. They can always not get a job somewhere else. I paid them, were even.
I have seen young inexperienced coders do things that worked, but (and I am suffering through that hell, of someones first big web site now). Were not designed to be maintained, or changed. We have wasted weeks of time to make simple changes. If it had been designed right the first time, which would not have taken any more time than it took to design this system, most changes would be trivial and quick.
So if you run a business, seek out the programmer with the scars and long history, listen to what he has to say. It comes down to algorithms not language, it somes down to patterns, not frameworks. They are all similar and the deep problems and solutions transend those surface labels and environments. Look for a programmer with a big P.
The idea that throwing out a "mental process" is an absurd metric. All software is the codification of a mental process and some definitions of an Algorithm are that they are so clearly defined that you can implement them with a pencil and paper. So those are bad rulers to measure the fitness of a software patent.
The problem is to find how high the bar should be set for "mental processes" to be unique and new enough to have patent protection.
Because of the speed of innovation, and such quick obsolecence, and not wanting to bring the system down in a screeching halt, maybe the best idea is to move software (and firmware and hardware if they are just hardcoded logic like software) into a special category and have the patent last for say 5 years max. Then you can get your money out but not retire on the residuals, you'll have to re-invent something.
The length of patents (and copyrights) is too long to foster innovation and leveraging ideas in this computer age, The "community" approach to this broken situation has been the Open Source movement, where we have said, we will all work to provide something free for all of us. Breaking the owners and royalties forever model.
Or maybe a comprimse. Give the patent but let its value (percentage) depreciate over some period so you still have benefit but diminishing over time.
(let me think, maybe I should patent or copyright that idea)
Yes probably replied to the wrong message. I agree attaching the economics is the key. People can stop buying, spam filters can attenuate the effect so more spam has to be done for the same result, or fines or imprisonment can effect the supply side.
Ok lets say you ban user from the Internet that has an infected computer. Lets say you have a techy friend that likes pranks or is out to get you because they didn't like your opinion on something. They hack your system and install a bot (or something that looks to the censors like a bot) and bam your taken off the Internet and have to go through hoops to get connected again. Not unlike the article I just read about people that get identified as Dead to Social Security, Their checks stop and their credit gets distroyed, etc, as bad as Identity theft. Or lets say you get put on a no-fly list, or a sex offenders list. The bathtub ring of that kind of trouble can last a long time.
I'm not in favor of putting hostages in jail, its not their fault.
Your logic is close to the logic that says, their PC should get a virus if they don't protect it, or she deserved it because of the way she dressed. You can get into some dangerous logic if you don't think of the consequences to the innocent.
But you miss the point. There are ways to handle protests and illegal activity without giving up basic freedoms. I know its a hard one. Like giving your right wing dumb cousin a loan to help in an emergency out and expect to get any of it back. Once you give those who are power hungry, power, say good bye to freedoms. What I am saying is that, no you can't trample any rights in a crisis. I think the riots had a cause, didn't they, I think it was maybe an unjustified killing by the police. Actions have consequences. I know the police don't want to be held responible. I think they have been pooring gas on the fire. Won't people learn, sometimes you have to negotiate and take responsibility.
"There is nothing to fear in having your DNA on file unless you have something to fear already."
Well some of the problems here are the people in power. If the FBI had not at times held files on the people they thought were politically different that the administration, some being elected officials, (affects trust of those who have access to the data and their motives and agenda) , or if data in databases (like identity theft) had not been stolen, (affects trust in the security of the data and how its used), or companies mining data about you and selling it to the highest bidder (affects trust that personal, private inforamtion will be used against you say to deny a loan, or health insurance or a job).
Data is power, this is your data and no one elses business. If there is no reasonable reason to take it, it should not be taken.
We are at the edge of 1984. "Unless you have something to fear already" actually I do, the collection of data about me and who and how that will be used and not for my benefit.
Well given that the rule of law says innocent until proven guilty, your premise is assume guilt not only of this crime but of any crime that might have ever happened or is going to happen, Much like the sex offender databases. I especially like the case of the 18 year old boy convicted as a sex offender for having contact with his 17 year old girlfriend in college. Its the law, he's a sex offender and will be labeled as such for the rest of his life, in databases, with old biddies scanning to see who is living next door. What was that book, oh yes the Scarlet Letter. Looks like we are going back to the Witch hunt days. This DNA collection is just part of that mind set.
In situations like that they get the data, then they get the data when there is a peaceful protest and tell you that they are worried that some day these people will not be peaceful and they should all go to jail, and their families with them, then they will come for you when you protest that your family was taken because your brother was in that protest....
Thats one expensive way, but limits the networks and possibilities. Like having to use the cone of silence to have a conversation. Remember how well that worked.
Your right I don't see this a different than any wiretap except not wiretaps for the most part dont need a warrent and its the old tradeoff. If you want to keep your freedom you have to have some privacy rights. Otherwise those who seek deep power will look into everyting, root out desenter (see China , see the Middle East,... ). Sometimes you have to let some crime go by and use good old fashion police work rather than the 1984 world view. Really it is not a suble thing, but a hard choice. They will scare you into allowing them to listen in and tap in and monitor, for their purposes not yours. Freedom and liberty can be messy but we can loose both.
If you want a messaging infrastruture that people can use and not feel like someone is deciding who else in the world is going to listen in, then yes they are overstepping and changing the contract they have with their users. Good luck RIM UK.
Of course anyone grabing for power will have pause if they see the torches and pitchforks coming up the road, or the deluge of voters wrath in written form.
Your kidding of course. The problem here is there is money in artistry. Someone is walking away with the bucks, it should be the artist. Not that that is the motivation but certainly if the art makes money then the artist can devote full time and not have to worry about waiting tables while some gallery owner or record distribitor buys that next Bentley.
Abridged constitutional rights are a irreparable injury, Once your privacy has been abridged, you never get that back. Like free speech, if your denied your right to speak a certain time in a certain place in a certain audience, you never get that back. A fundemental constitutional right.
Here they were looking for an injunction to stop the practice and this clown has injoined all defendants to not tamper with the stores ability to abridge privacy.
"we observed that the assertion of First Amendment rights does not automatically require a finding of irreparable injury.).6"
But for a practice that clearly is a constitutional violation, an injuction should have been in order.
Sorry, States and local athorities and the Fedral Government all use taxes as a form of paying for that service (yes government is a service of and by and for the people). Each State, local and federal authority levies taxes differently. The issue here is can a State require that, not only an individual that purchases an item and pay sales tax (which is a twisted form that the States get local private businesses to collect for them or pay a penalty) for that item. Clearly if you buy an item from a corner store, yes, if you are in another State however, you pay the taxes of that authority as if you were in a different country. You would feel it unresonable if when you were in China and purchased something that a tax man from say California stood there and held out his hand. "After all you are a California citizen and you should pay our tax".
If you were to phone someone in China from say Los Angeles and order a piece of art, you would not expect to pay California sales tax on it. Here the Internet is just a surgate phone, and the item is delivered most likely through the US mail from another State.
In States vain attempt to collect revenues, they have said, Well if say Amazon had a facility in the State then they any purchase by a Californian would be taxed, they have gone further and said if any co-marketing agreement or some other arrangement like that was done with a California company then every Californian would have to pay California tax , and, and Amazon would have to collect it for California. Those stretches to find legal grounds for changing sales tax have driven companies like Amazon to break off business arrangements with companies in several states, which have then lost revenue for those employees and companies, and thereby loosing State income tax, corporate tax and sales tax revenues. A trade off certainly.
Why not just tax the rich and be done with it. It is clear that they are not the "Job Creators" the Republican's tout them as, because jobs went down year after year that they had the extra tax breaks, Just end tax breaks for the rich and corpoarations and you won't need all the squirming around to squeeze out the very last drop of Sales Tax.
"actually most people did" probably was not the case, I suspect the phrasing of the question dictated the result. like
"are you for paying less taxes and eliminating social security?"
Most people if given a choice would pay less taxes but would also not vote for eliminating Social Security, When the issue is "bundled" together to get a result the arguement made by the bundlers is that people are for eliminating Social Security, which is not the case.
"have you considered that it is you who is illogical and reality which is not?" - probably as much as you have. and I don't quite understand this reality which is not illogical. Besides being a double negative, the idea that reality is logical flies in the face of reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Your right, the government is spending it on wars and war profiteering, on no-bid contracts for Haliburton and KBR, on tax breaks for Oil companies and mega-farms, and giving tax breaks to the ultra wealthy. Are suggesting that Warren Buffet should pay less of a tax rate than his secretary? or Exon Mobile not paying any tax?
I think the thing the president is going to propose is an alternate minimum tax for people making over 1mil a year. Seems only fair.
And getting companies to pay taxes like everyone else (because we know this Supreme court sees them as individuals, then they should pay taxes like every other utra wealthy individual dont you think?)
Lets look back to the last run of economic prosperity, during the Clinton years. The taxes proposed are from that time. Lets go back to something that works, not conjecture that if we give money to the rich that it will trickle down. That Regan era failed strategy has just been re-packaged as job creators rather than trickle down but it is trickle down. We give them money and they give it back as jobs. Did'nt happen in the 10 years they had those breaks and look at the banks and other companies sitting on money. They haven't released it to help the economy. Use history to see what has worked and what has not.
Your kidding of course. You would not go into a restraunt and expect to get waited on (by an underpaid worker) and get food prepared (by an underpaid cook) and get your dirty dishes cleaned up after (by an underpaid bus boy/girl), no of course, you would want to pay the bill for the service provided so the wealth restaurateur can afford his country club dues.
Why? because if you don't that wealth restauranteur will have the police go after you and put you in jail for theft.
Well you travel the roads, drink the water, breath the air that now does not have a heavy burden of sulfur dioxide and Nitrox oxide. Your food does not contain DDT and your resonably safe from illegal robbery and if you are can call on law enforcement and the judical system to help fix the problem. You don't have to worry much about forgeigners rolling tanks down your street and when you retire you probably won't starve.
But hey, you would rather be a one person country, not walk on the roads, get your own water from a well from land you own, and get off the grid. But then the industrial park next to your house is going to foul your ground water because another exectutive wants to make that last payment on his Bentley, then you will have to start using your hard earned money to pay the hospital bills, unless the other executive that needs to make payments on his yacht rejects you for insurance, and you will start to have to pay for bottled water.
Where do you people get this idea that all the money you earn is yours free and clear? You are being irresponsible and un-patriotic.
We will see companies and individuals flooding the patent office will all kinds of wacky half formed patents to try and get there first. Like the rush to capture Web domain names to be able to sell them to the company who's name you used finds out that there company name's domain name is owned by someone holding it hostage. I don't see that this is a useful way to go about things.
It may be that prior art can invalidate a patent still but it may be invalidated for the first to file rather than the inventor. Which would beg the question, if a first to file patent was invalidated by prior art from the inventor, could the inventor then file for the patent?
This is another example of the Owner mentality where they thing they own everything, everyone, that their workers don't need or deserve any privacy, because they Own it all even them. The problem is that now Copyright owners have paid for friends in Governments and have them getting everyone else to collect their copyright tax just like they get individuals and companies to collect government and sales tax. I think we are going in the wrong direction. Towards micro charges for breathing and viewing and eating ....
When does it stop, when will we see that this nanny state even in business is not cost effective and certainly not advisible.
Good point. But having taught CS courses at the undergraduate level for 27 years (part time while working) I hope that I instilled some of that mind set. The idea of solving the problem domain not the problem. Write tools not programs, and the idea that you are extending the language towards a higher level language to express the solution to your application are all first principles that I feel should be taught alongside the other fundementals like data structures and algorithms and DB designs ..., but not in place of.
I credit the growth of the MBA to be largely responsible for the idiocy you are talking about. Well it is like the application of OOD to business where roles and people are objectified which is the first step towards being able to jetison them without remorse. Both my wife and I were layed off from the same company. The average age of the group layed off was about 54 yr of age. Clearly motivated to get rid of older higher paid staff.
But this rush to short term profits is short term thinking by definition. The attitude, "when you get your paycheck were even" and maybe I'll kill you tomorrow (allusions to Princess Bride) does not engender loyalty nor that do better, do quicker, do more attitude that a company that see's itself as a family of workers all working towards the same goal and enjoying the profits and security that comes from loyalty.
I worked for a number of family owned companies that were taken over by the MBA culture and one had its headquarters moved then the pieces were sold off. But you might argue, the company was only their for the owners to make profits and do with it what they wanted, even though peole had spent 10, 20, 30 years working and supporting the company. But that's right, who are they to complain. They can always not get a job somewhere else. I paid them, were even.
I have seen young inexperienced coders do things that worked, but (and I am suffering through that hell, of someones first big web site now). Were not designed to be maintained, or changed. We have wasted weeks of time to make simple changes. If it had been designed right the first time, which would not have taken any more time than it took to design this system, most changes would be trivial and quick.
So if you run a business, seek out the programmer with the scars and long history, listen to what he has to say. It comes down to algorithms not language, it somes down to patterns, not frameworks. They are all similar and the deep problems and solutions transend those surface labels and environments. Look for a programmer with a big P.
The idea that throwing out a "mental process" is an absurd metric. All software is the codification of a mental process and some definitions of an Algorithm are that they are so clearly defined that you can implement them with a pencil and paper. So those are bad rulers to measure the fitness of a software patent.
The problem is to find how high the bar should be set for "mental processes" to be unique and new enough to have patent protection.
Because of the speed of innovation, and such quick obsolecence, and not wanting to bring the system down in a screeching halt, maybe the best idea is to move software (and firmware and hardware if they are just hardcoded logic like software) into a special category and have the patent last for say 5 years max. Then you can get your money out but not retire on the residuals, you'll have to re-invent something.
The length of patents (and copyrights) is too long to foster innovation and leveraging ideas in this computer age, The "community" approach to this broken situation has been the Open Source movement, where we have said, we will all work to provide something free for all of us. Breaking the owners and royalties forever model.
Or maybe a comprimse. Give the patent but let its value (percentage) depreciate over some period so you still have benefit but diminishing over time.
(let me think, maybe I should patent or copyright that idea)
Yes probably replied to the wrong message. I agree attaching the economics is the key. People can stop buying, spam filters can attenuate the effect so more spam has to be done for the same result, or fines or imprisonment can effect the supply side.
Ok lets say you ban user from the Internet that has an infected computer. Lets say you have a techy friend that likes pranks or is out to get you because they didn't like your opinion on something. They hack your system and install a bot (or something that looks to the censors like a bot) and bam your taken off the Internet and have to go through hoops to get connected again. Not unlike the article I just read about people that get identified as Dead to Social Security, Their checks stop and their credit gets distroyed, etc, as bad as Identity theft. Or lets say you get put on a no-fly list, or a sex offenders list. The bathtub ring of that kind of trouble can last a long time.
I'm not in favor of putting hostages in jail, its not their fault.
Your logic is close to the logic that says, their PC should get a virus if they don't protect it, or she deserved it because of the way she dressed. You can get into some dangerous logic if you don't think of the consequences to the innocent.
I don't know if that is where I saw that, but yes the technique has appeared in movies (years ago) This is life imitating art.
But you miss the point. There are ways to handle protests and illegal activity without giving up basic freedoms. I know its a hard one. Like giving your right wing dumb cousin a loan to help in an emergency out and expect to get any of it back. Once you give those who are power hungry, power, say good bye to freedoms. What I am saying is that, no you can't trample any rights in a crisis. I think the riots had a cause, didn't they, I think it was maybe an unjustified killing by the police. Actions have consequences. I know the police don't want to be held responible. I think they have been pooring gas on the fire. Won't people learn, sometimes you have to negotiate and take responsibility.
"There is nothing to fear in having your DNA on file unless you have something to fear already."
Well some of the problems here are the people in power. If the FBI had not at times held files on the people they thought were politically different that the administration, some being elected officials, (affects trust of those who have access to the data and their motives and agenda) , or if data in databases (like identity theft) had not been stolen, (affects trust in the security of the data and how its used), or companies mining data about you and selling it to the highest bidder (affects trust that personal, private inforamtion will be used against you say to deny a loan, or health insurance or a job).
Data is power, this is your data and no one elses business. If there is no reasonable reason to take it, it should not be taken.
We are at the edge of 1984. "Unless you have something to fear already" actually I do, the collection of data about me and who and how that will be used and not for my benefit.
Well given that the rule of law says innocent until proven guilty, your premise is assume guilt not only of this crime but of any crime that might have ever happened or is going to happen, Much like the sex offender databases. I especially like the case of the 18 year old boy convicted as a sex offender for having contact with his 17 year old girlfriend in college. Its the law, he's a sex offender and will be labeled as such for the rest of his life, in databases, with old biddies scanning to see who is living next door. What was that book, oh yes the Scarlet Letter. Looks like we are going back to the Witch hunt days. This DNA collection is just part of that mind set.
In situations like that they get the data, then they get the data when there is a peaceful protest and tell you that they are worried that some day these people will not be peaceful and they should all go to jail, and their families with them, then they will come for you when you protest that your family was taken because your brother was in that protest....
Thats one expensive way, but limits the networks and possibilities. Like having to use the cone of silence to have a conversation. Remember how well that worked.
Your right I don't see this a different than any wiretap except not wiretaps for the most part dont need a warrent and its the old tradeoff. If you want to keep your freedom you have to have some privacy rights. Otherwise those who seek deep power will look into everyting, root out desenter (see China , see the Middle East,... ). Sometimes you have to let some crime go by and use good old fashion police work rather than the 1984 world view. Really it is not a suble thing, but a hard choice. They will scare you into allowing them to listen in and tap in and monitor, for their purposes not yours. Freedom and liberty can be messy but we can loose both.
If you want a messaging infrastruture that people can use and not feel like someone is deciding who else in the world is going to listen in, then yes they are overstepping and changing the contract they have with their users. Good luck RIM UK.
Of course anyone grabing for power will have pause if they see the torches and pitchforks coming up the road, or the deluge of voters wrath in written form.
Lets see .00029c per play thats $2.90 for a million plays. Nice bonaza.
Your kidding of course. The problem here is there is money in artistry. Someone is walking away with the bucks, it should be the artist. Not that that is the motivation but certainly if the art makes money then the artist can devote full time and not have to worry about waiting tables while some gallery owner or record distribitor buys that next Bentley.
Let then know this is not slipping under the wire. Email the President as well. Calls are good too.
Abridged constitutional rights are a irreparable injury, Once your privacy has been abridged, you never get that back. Like free speech, if your denied your right to speak a certain time in a certain place in a certain audience, you never get that back. A fundemental constitutional right.
Here they were looking for an injunction to stop the practice and this clown has injoined all defendants to not tamper with the stores ability to abridge privacy.
"we observed that the assertion of First Amendment rights does not automatically require a finding of irreparable injury.).6"
But for a practice that clearly is a constitutional violation, an injuction should have been in order.
Sorry, States and local athorities and the Fedral Government all use taxes as a form of paying for that service (yes government is a service of and by and for the people).
Each State, local and federal authority levies taxes differently. The issue here is can a State require that, not only an individual that purchases an item and pay sales tax (which is a twisted form that the States get local private businesses to collect for them or pay a penalty) for that item. Clearly if you buy an item from a corner store, yes, if you are in another State however, you pay the taxes of that authority as if you were in a different country. You would feel it unresonable if when you were in China and purchased something that a tax man from say California stood there and held out his hand. "After all you are a California citizen and you should pay our tax".
If you were to phone someone in China from say Los Angeles and order a piece of art, you would not expect to pay California sales tax on it. Here the Internet is just a surgate phone, and the item is delivered most likely through the US mail from another State.
In States vain attempt to collect revenues, they have said, Well if say Amazon had a facility in the State then they any purchase by a Californian would be taxed, they have gone further and said if any co-marketing agreement or some other arrangement like that was done with a California company then every Californian would have to pay California tax , and, and Amazon would have to collect it for California. Those stretches to find legal grounds for changing sales tax have driven companies like Amazon to break off business arrangements with companies in several states, which have then lost revenue for those employees and companies, and thereby loosing State income tax, corporate tax and sales tax revenues. A trade off certainly.
Why not just tax the rich and be done with it. It is clear that they are not the "Job Creators" the Republican's tout them as, because jobs went down year after year that they had the extra tax breaks, Just end tax breaks for the rich and corpoarations and you won't need all the squirming around to squeeze out the very last drop of Sales Tax.
Pass out little bic lighters and have everyone come out at night. Feel the love.
"actually most people did" probably was not the case, I suspect the phrasing of the question dictated the result. like
"are you for paying less taxes and eliminating social security?"
Most people if given a choice would pay less taxes but would also not vote for eliminating Social Security, When the issue is "bundled" together to get a result the arguement made by the bundlers is that people are for eliminating Social Security, which is not the case.
"have you considered that it is you who is illogical and reality which is not?" - probably as much as you have. and I don't quite understand this reality which is not illogical. Besides being a double negative, the idea that reality is logical flies in the face of reality.