Re: Obsessive compulsive disorder: Cloning

[Guest guest]

" My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty

quickly when I start... "

Don't know why - I think the concept of cloning quite

interesting.....Mmmmmmmm a mini me - would I be able to cope? ;-)

Still we (me and me) could obsess together and hyperfocus - could be

fun :-) Oooooooo and I could get obsessive over two things at once -

I would finally be able to multi task :-)

PS - have you perfected the cloning technique yet? and have you heard

of dolly the cloned sheep?

> My OCD interests at the moment are in movies The Aviator, I have

seen it 34 times which ironically is about OCD and aspergers. My OCD

topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly

when I start and my OCD subject is World events China etc

> Evan

>

[Guest guest]

,

I think full body cloning should not be done. Instead, they should work on cloning individual organs, nerve and muscle tissue and skin. That way if you developed a problem, they could take a DNA sample and clone you a new organ that would not require a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs. It would not be like that new movie of an island of clones (which is a remake of a movie make in the 70's). Raising an army of clones and maintaining them for years would be monstrously expensive, not to mention that they could well only be good for one transplant. Rather growing organs on demand makes far more sense.

The problem is that there could be a genetic flaw in the organ. Well, that could be edited out in the beginning stages of making the new organ. This could be done by editing out the bad patches from the original DNA or the new DNA could be manufactured from scratch using the original as a blueprint, the way they can build simple bacteria DNA from scratch now.

Simply put, this is where the money and research should be going. We don't need to clone animals because they are quite capable of cheaply reproducing themselves.

[Guest guest]

Evan,

The nature vs. nuture debate already has a system. What is done is to find identical twins who were adopted out to different families. Another way is to look at sets of identical twins and see how they turned out and then try to figure out how they got that way. Most of the time they are fairly close, but there have been some very wildly different outcomes as well.

It is not the perfect way to do the research, but it is what we have. Cloning full humans just for that kind of research seems unethical. I mean, why not take babies given up for adoption and use them? There are plenty of them in the US alone that never get adopted. So why not get a detailed personal history from the mother and father (if he can be determined) and observe them for the rest of their lives. Their lives and DNA could serve as the basis for the observations of the babies throughout their lives.

[Guest guest]

Personally what I would like is something out of Dungeons and Dragons. There is a high level wizard spell called clone. This spell creates a clone of the caster that can be preserved. The clone is physically equal to the caster at the time it is made. If the caster dies of other than old age, the caster's soul enters the clone which will then awaken and the caster can function as if nothing had happened.

When I play wizards that reach high enough level to cast the spell, I usually have them make a clone and preserve several samples of the original for later use. In this way the caster's life could be extended for quite some time.

There are other ways to do this as well, like putting the soul in a golem, though that can be dangerous and has weaknesses.

So, I think that if a way could be found to keep the brain healthy and regenerating for a long time, a cloned body might not be a bad idea. A clone of the age of about 20 old could be produced and the brain from the original transplanted into it. Contrary to my general views on such things, I would say that one such clone could be provided for each person by the state. There would be rules for this, however: a clean criminal record (no felonies especially) amongest others. This would allow the best of the masses to live again one time.

Another clone would have to be paid for both monetarily and I would have to say other restritions. Those might be higher taxes, revocation of some voting rights and access to other political activities, no more children, removal from boards of directors in business, limits on stock holdings, etc. This would serve to limit the formation of an immortal ruling elite. If they wanted to continue to pursue sciences, medicine or the arts, fine. But they could not be allowed to rule because ruling forever would make them horribly corrupt.

Another question is wether it would be better to have children in the original body or wait for the second. Having them in the original would ensure population stability among other things. Having them second would allow one to dedicate the first go round to finding the perfect mate and building wealth to help raise that family. I imagine that with proper education, a parent who lived one life and had amassed sufficient resources to raise a child full time, perhaps with both parents home, that things might turn out well. Then again maybe not.

Either way, this would be an interesting kettle of fish.

P.S. My wizards would usually establish ownership of a "barony" size area and have a competent major domo handle the day to day affairs. Their ambitions rarely extended beyond that area, unless it was threatened by some outside force. So their lives became more dedicated to economic matters and magical research.

[Guest guest]

Shaun,

I'm not so sure about a peace corps type of service for life extension. Not being a fan of that service to begin with, I think that making it a requirement for added life would corrupt it wholly and make it a shame. What would happen is people would join it only to be allowed to live longer and not because they cared about the causes they were working on. That would be more likely to make them resentful of those very projects, the environment and the people and so on than make them care more about that.

[Guest guest]

Full body cloning on a limited basis would answer once and for all the questions on nature verses nurture and eliminate the humanities lobbies that use their social programs for social engineering purposes and their underlying political platforms.

On another basis the technology could be used to create food from muscle replication technology. This could then be used to eliminate broad acre farming for livestock and put the manufacture of meat in a industrial production process. Muscle tissue could be replicated on flat sheets and fed with a synthesised liquid food compound. This would eliminate the need for animal husbandry and its associated wastage and would provide efficient protein, protect the environment and negate animal misery.

EvanVISIGOTH@... wrote:

,

I think full body cloning should not be done. Instead, they should work on cloning individual organs, nerve and muscle tissue and skin. That way if you developed a problem, they could take a DNA sample and clone you a new organ that would not require a lifetime of anti-rejection drugs. It would not be like that new movie of an island of clones (which is a remake of a movie make in the 70's). Raising an army of clones and maintaining them for years would be monstrously expensive, not to mention that they could well only be good for one transplant. Rather growing organs on demand makes far more sense.

The problem is that there could be a genetic flaw in the organ. Well, that could be edited out in the beginning stages of making the new organ. This could be done by editing out the bad patches from the original DNA or the new DNA could be manufactured from scratch using the original as a blueprint, the way they can build simple bacteria DNA from scratch now.

Simply put, this is where the money and research should be going. We don't need to clone animals because they are quite capable of cheaply reproducing themselves.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I would love to make several clones of myself. Maybe hundreds. just think I could bride a fertility clinic to implant my embryo's and use an army of infertile women as my incubators. I could have one or two born without brains to use for spare parts or even to transplant my brain into when my body wears out. I could then have a very long lifespan. A large community of clones would then go out into the world and advance my(our)goals.

Since our soul is only a creation of memories and experiences, We could share those memories and create a unified soul to a large extent.

In very short order technolgy will have advanced to make this possible. Its not acceptable yet but that is only because people are scared of the unknown. Once its been done just you wait and it will happen again and again untill its completely acceptable just like invitro fertilisation. I would live to develop a artificial womb that would be superior top the organic version. Trouble is Im an engineer but I would love to teach myself bio engineering and make it a reality.

Evan.

One day it could be signed

Evan 01 Evan 02 Evan 03 and oon and on.

greebohere <julie.stevenson16@...> wrote:

"My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly when I start..."Don't know why - I think the concept of cloning quite interesting.....Mmmmmmmm a mini me - would I be able to cope? ;-) Still we (me and me) could obsess together and hyperfocus - could be fun :-) Oooooooo and I could get obsessive over two things at once - I would finally be able to multi task :-)PS - have you perfected the cloning technique yet? and have you heard of dolly the cloned sheep?> My OCD interests at the moment are in movies The Aviator, I have seen it 34 times which ironically is about OCD and aspergers. My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly when I start and my OCD subject is World

events China etc> Evan>

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

This reply is to Evan 02,

Longivity is bound to happen and maybe, to balance population, instead of retirement, one could pledge a certain amount of service to rehabilitating the planet in exchange for life extention. Kinda like the peace corp, but years added for service to humanity.

Evan, what do you know about the fossil record in the Aussie interior?

I'm a layman at this concept but I do believe there were inland seas, Lake Eyre as you mentioned. If that was reflooded, do you think the climate would be altered desirably?

From what I understand, besides mega fauna that was wiped out by the aboriginies, there also is flaura fossil records as well as extensive fish fossil records.

I've been away for about 7 years, but I did hear something about the northern monsoon floodplains in the Northern Territory being redirected into the river systems in the interior.

Do you know much about this?

Tell me more as it is most interesting to me.

Shaun.Evan Sinclair <cennis007@...> wrote:

I would love to make several clones of myself. Maybe hundreds. just think I could bride a fertility clinic to implant my embryo's and use an army of infertile women as my incubators. I could have one or two born without brains to use for spare parts or even to transplant my brain into when my body wears out. I could then have a very long lifespan. A large community of clones would then go out into the world and advance my(our)goals.

Since our soul is only a creation of memories and experiences, We could share those memories and create a unified soul to a large extent.

In very short order technolgy will have advanced to make this possible. Its not acceptable yet but that is only because people are scared of the unknown. Once its been done just you wait and it will happen again and again untill its completely acceptable just like invitro fertilisation. I would live to develop a artificial womb that would be superior top the organic version. Trouble is Im an engineer but I would love to teach myself bio engineering and make it a reality.

Evan.

One day it could be signed

Evan 01 Evan 02 Evan 03 and oon and on.

greebohere <julie.stevenson16@...> wrote:

"My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly when I start..."Don't know why - I think the concept of cloning quite interesting.....Mmmmmmmm a mini me - would I be able to cope? ;-) Still we (me and me) could obsess together and hyperfocus - could be fun :-) Oooooooo and I could get obsessive over two things at once - I would finally be able to multi task :-)PS - have you perfected the cloning technique yet? and have you heard of dolly the cloned sheep?> My OCD interests at the moment are in movies The Aviator, I have seen it 34 times which ironically is about OCD and aspergers. My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly when I start and my OCD subject is World

events China etc> Evan>

Start your day with - make it your home page

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

>Evan writes: "Since our soul is only a creation of memories and experiences....."Evan,    Do you really believe that you were born without a soul?    Do you believe that you were created without a soul?  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Evan:

The problem with your theory is that transplanting brain will not "move" your soul to another body. There were many experiments on brain transplantation with monkeys during the past century, and all of them failed. They achieved the monkey to survive the transplantation a few hours, but by COMPLETELY UNKNOWN reasons, the target monkey remained on a comatose state, even the brain shown activity on the monitoring devices. Another curious feature is that the brain shown very anomalous wavelenght patterns that couldn't be recognized neither as some kind of "conciouss", "subconciouss" or even "dream" trance.

Now, some scientists have developed the theory that soul DOES exist as a completely FISICAL body, just made of a subtle substance. Some say it could be hidden in what is now commonly called the "Q-Zone" or "Quantic Space" (a completely upside down "Mirror-Like" reality where concepts are fisical and concrete things are abstract). Some think soul is like a "puppeteer" with many "strings" attached to different cells, organs, parts, even atoms of the body, like it were some sort of "Secondary Nervous System", living the fisical brain in the position of some sort of "Radio Controller" instead of a "Main Processor". So, if this were to be true, you would have to transplant EVERY SINGLE QUANTIC STRING TO THE RIGHT PLACE IN YOUR NEW BODY, thing that I find extremely difficult and, more than other thing, VERY TEDIOUS... *hahahahaha* Of course, this all is just pure and mere speculation and nothing more. Who knows? Maybe your plan is the ultimate key for evolution.

JanoEvan Sinclair <cennis007@...> escribió:

I would love to make several clones of myself. Maybe hundreds. just think I could bride a fertility clinic to implant my embryo's and use an army of infertile women as my incubators. I could have one or two born without brains to use for spare parts or even to transplant my brain into when my body wears out. I could then have a very long lifespan. A large community of clones would then go out into the world and advance my(our)goals.

Since our soul is only a creation of memories and experiences, We could share those memories and create a unified soul to a large extent.

In very short order technolgy will have advanced to make this possible. Its not acceptable yet but that is only because people are scared of the unknown. Once its been done just you wait and it will happen again and again untill its completely acceptable just like invitro fertilisation. I would live to develop a artificial womb that would be superior top the organic version. Trouble is Im an engineer but I would love to teach myself bio engineering and make it a reality.

Evan.

One day it could be signed

Evan 01 Evan 02 Evan 03 and oon and on.

greebohere <julie.stevenson16@...> wrote:

"My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly when I start..."Don't know why - I think the concept of cloning quite interesting.....Mmmmmmmm a mini me - would I be able to cope? ;-) Still we (me and me) could obsess together and hyperfocus - could be fun :-) Oooooooo and I could get obsessive over two things at once - I would finally be able to multi task :-)PS - have you perfected the cloning technique yet? and have you heard of dolly the cloned sheep?> My OCD interests at the moment are in movies The Aviator, I have seen it 34 times which ironically is about OCD and aspergers. My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly when I start and my OCD subject is World

events China etc> Evan>

Start your day with - make it your home page

Correo Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquíhttp://correo..es

[Guest guest]

Evan, ,

Not true. With Nature and nurture, you dont need to find identical twins separated at birth. Why? I know a few identical twins who have not been separated, yet in both cases they have completely different personalities. Point being that the nurture is the same (parents) and nature (DNA). This exhibits that although the DNA and upbringing are somewhat the same, two identities. I think the soul thing is alot of hoo harr.

Shaun.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

Evan,

The nature vs. nuture debate already has a system. What is done is to find identical twins who were adopted out to different families. Another way is to look at sets of identical twins and see how they turned out and then try to figure out how they got that way. Most of the time they are fairly close, but there have been some very wildly different outcomes as well.

It is not the perfect way to do the research, but it is what we have. Cloning full humans just for that kind of research seems unethical. I mean, why not take babies given up for adoption and use them? There are plenty of them in the US alone that never get adopted. So why not get a detailed personal history from the mother and father (if he can be determined) and observe them for the rest of their lives. Their lives and DNA could serve as the basis for the observations of the babies throughout their lives.

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

, Dont agree.

The peace corp was just an example and the present peace corp has nothing to do with my point.

The point is that to qualify for life extention one would have to contribute something back to society or to the health of the planet. Give something back instead of retiring at 65 and watching TV for the rest of your life. In other words, not to be a burden on society or at least not be entitled to sit on you azz for the life extention.

I think that if people were required to do public service for life extention, they would do it.

Most people in their life are too busy trying to suceed and have no desire for agnostic pursuits where if they did have time and were required to do service, this would give them enormous pride and allow their "better" side to come out.

I dont believen people would be resentful, especially if it is their choice. I know I would be grateful just to be alive and if your extention was based off service I would gladly spend 7 months a year doing service. Heck, most of us only get three weeks off a year now.

Shaun.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

Shaun,

I'm not so sure about a peace corps type of service for life extension. Not being a fan of that service to begin with, I think that making it a requirement for added life would corrupt it wholly and make it a shame. What would happen is people would join it only to be allowed to live longer and not because they cared about the causes they were working on. That would be more likely to make them resentful of those very projects, the environment and the people and so on than make them care more about that.

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

Jano, Not quite sure about that.

The reason why the transplanted brain didnt seem to work was because without the spinal column being connected, no physical expression (movement, "meat" motivation) could be seen cause they cant yet connect the brain to spine. The fact that the brain was showing waves proves the opposite. That it is possible to transplant and keep the brain alive. Or they would need to do is solve the tech of a successful connection.

Shaun.Jano Lora <kyorus06@...> wrote:

Evan:

The problem with your theory is that transplanting brain will not "move" your soul to another body. There were many experiments on brain transplantation with monkeys during the past century, and all of them failed. They achieved the monkey to survive the transplantation a few hours, but by COMPLETELY UNKNOWN reasons, the target monkey remained on a comatose state, even the brain shown activity on the monitoring devices. Another curious feature is that the brain shown very anomalous wavelenght patterns that couldn't be recognized neither as some kind of "conciouss", "subconciouss" or even "dream" trance.

Now, some scientists have developed the theory that soul DOES exist as a completely FISICAL body, just made of a subtle substance. Some say it could be hidden in what is now commonly called the "Q-Zone" or "Quantic Space" (a completely upside down "Mirror-Like" reality where concepts are fisical and concrete things are abstract). Some think soul is like a "puppeteer" with many "strings" attached to different cells, organs, parts, even atoms of the body, like it were some sort of "Secondary Nervous System", living the fisical brain in the position of some sort of "Radio Controller" instead of a "Main Processor". So, if this were to be true, you would have to transplant EVERY SINGLE QUANTIC STRING TO THE RIGHT PLACE IN YOUR NEW BODY, thing that I find extremely difficult and, more than other thing, VERY TEDIOUS... *hahahahaha* Of course, this all is just pure and mere speculation and nothing more. Who knows? Maybe your plan is the ultimate key for evolution.

JanoEvan Sinclair <cennis007@...> escribió:

I would love to make several clones of myself. Maybe hundreds. just think I could bride a fertility clinic to implant my embryo's and use an army of infertile women as my incubators. I could have one or two born without brains to use for spare parts or even to transplant my brain into when my body wears out. I could then have a very long lifespan. A large community of clones would then go out into the world and advance my(our)goals.

Since our soul is only a creation of memories and experiences, We could share those memories and create a unified soul to a large extent.

In very short order technolgy will have advanced to make this possible. Its not acceptable yet but that is only because people are scared of the unknown. Once its been done just you wait and it will happen again and again untill its completely acceptable just like invitro fertilisation. I would live to develop a artificial womb that would be superior top the organic version. Trouble is Im an engineer but I would love to teach myself bio engineering and make it a reality.

Evan.

One day it could be signed

Evan 01 Evan 02 Evan 03 and oon and on.

greebohere <julie.stevenson16@...> wrote:

"My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly when I start..."Don't know why - I think the concept of cloning quite interesting.....Mmmmmmmm a mini me - would I be able to cope? ;-) Still we (me and me) could obsess together and hyperfocus - could be fun :-) Oooooooo and I could get obsessive over two things at once - I would finally be able to multi task :-)PS - have you perfected the cloning technique yet? and have you heard of dolly the cloned sheep?> My OCD interests at the moment are in movies The Aviator, I have seen it 34 times which ironically is about OCD and aspergers. My OCD topic is cloning, which guarantees the room empties pretty quickly when I start and my OCD subject is World

events China etc> Evan>

Start your day with - make it your home page

Correo Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquíhttp://correo..es __________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Soul transplants anyone?

Artificially created souls?

Re-conditioned souls?

Am I getting carried away yet?

I like the concept of a mirror like reality - I can relate to that

now :-) maybe explains why I'm not always in touch with this one :-)

> Evan:

>

> The problem with your theory is that transplanting brain will

not " move " your soul to another body. There were many experiments on

brain transplantation with monkeys during the past century, and all

of them failed. They achieved the monkey to survive the

transplantation a few hours, but by COMPLETELY UNKNOWN reasons, the

target monkey remained on a comatose state, even the brain shown

activity on the monitoring devices. Another curious feature is that

the brain shown very anomalous wavelenght patterns that couldn't be

recognized neither as some kind of " conciouss " , " subconciouss " or

even " dream " trance.

>

> Now, some scientists have developed the theory that soul DOES exist

as a completely FISICAL body, just made of a subtle substance. Some

say it could be hidden in what is now commonly called the " Q-Zone "

or " Quantic Space " (a completely upside down " Mirror-Like " reality

where concepts are fisical and concrete things are abstract). Some

think soul is like a " puppeteer " with many " strings " attached to

different cells, organs, parts, even atoms of the body, like it were

some sort of " Secondary Nervous System " , living the fisical brain in

the position of some sort of " Radio Controller " instead of a " Main

Processor " . So, if this were to be true, you would have to transplant

EVERY SINGLE QUANTIC STRING TO THE RIGHT PLACE IN YOUR NEW BODY,

thing that I find extremely difficult and, more than other thing,

VERY TEDIOUS... *hahahahaha* Of course, this all is just pure and

mere speculation and nothing more. Who knows? Maybe your plan is the

ultimate key for evolution.

>

> Jano

[Guest guest]

Shaun,

OK, I see your point and it makes sense. We just had different means of approaching the problem. Rather than requiring some kind of federal service, I would rather make it a requirment that the person have either sufficient resources to support themselves for the period of their extended life or that they have continued employment of some kind. They should not be allowed to become wards of the state.

I have just read something about Social Security. In 2003, the average 65 year old man will recieve $71,000 more than he paid into the system through all his working years. on the other hand, the average 23 year old will end up paying $330,000 extra in taxes to support his elders. Since the average American will earn about $1 million in their whole lifetime, that amounts to one third of his wealth stolen by the government and given to others, and that is not counting all the other taxes he will also have to pay. In other words, that is $330,000 less that he will have to build his own retirement and spend on his own family. It is unconscionable. And people wonder why I have arranges my finances so I don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes: it won't be there for me tomorrow, it just wants to steal from me today.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

There is a flaw in your analysis. While it is true that some people will get sizable inheritances, most will not. One also has to take into consideration that much of what will be inherited will be real estate, home furnishings, cars, etc. There is only a limited market for these things and resale value won't be that high. The real estate market is also volitile and could well be down in the next few years. If lots of housing comes online due to the dying older people, it will become a buyer's market which will drive prices even lower.

The death tax is more than a slice. It takes a big chunk. I think it runs as high as 40% or more depending on how much the inheritance is worth. This has resulting in many families having to sell the long time family farm, business or residence because the tax bill was too high to pay. Sure the family got some money from the sale, but they lost the primary asset and a large part of their family legacy.

The sponge will only squeeze out so much. It would be much better to have a flat tax and incentives for savings and investments to allow people to build up on their own rather than wait for the old folks to die. It would also leave them better off, the "squeeze" providing a nice bonus rather than the nest egg itself.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

That's major problem with economics. It is easy to assume that things will stand still, but they don't. Economics is less like history and more like mechanical engineering: you tinker with something here and something will happen over there which will cause something to happen in this place, etc. What needs to be done is to look two or three or more degrees out from the action, using past performance as a guide along with economic theory, to figure out what will happen. Its not easy, but it is not that hard either. Mostly it just takes a little specific learning and then practice.

[Guest guest]

I haven't been following this discsussion, so my viewpoint might

have been stated already.

I feel that while it may seem unfair that we will pay more into the

system, we ought to remember that many of us will receive sizable

inheritances once all these older folks start dying off. There is a

disproportionate amount of elderly folks in the population right now

and when they die there money and possessions will need to go

somewhere.

A slice of it might go to the government (death taxes), and another

slice might go to charitable causes and foundations, but the rest

will go to friends and relatives, and that's money and possessions

that those friends and relatives didn't earn.

Even if the government collects money through death taxes, given the

consistentcy of our government's sopending money it doesn't have,

you can bet that money collected through inheritance taxes will find

its way into the economy in short order.

As I see it, what we pay into social security right now is a loan,

and the payoff will be money and possessions we find ourselves

getting after the deaths of those we are supporting with social

security right now.

Not everyone will find themselves beneficiaries, but the overall

economy ought to improve when the " sponge " holding the " water "

starts to get " squeezed " through the press of death.

Tom

I have just read something about Social Security. In 2003, the

average 65 year old man will recieve $71,000 more than he paid into

the system through all his working years. on the other hand, the

average 23 year old will end up paying $330,000 extra in taxes to

support his elders. Since the average American will earn about $1

million in their whole lifetime, that amounts to one third of his

wealth stolen by the government and given to others, and that is not

counting all the other taxes he will also have to pay. In other

words, that is $330,000 less that he will have to build his own

retirement and spend on his own family. It is unconscionable. And

people wonder why I have arranges my finances so I don't have to pay

Social Security and Medicare taxes: it won't be there for me

tomorrow, it just wants to steal from me today.

[Guest guest]

I agree with you . My response was based on the premise that

the status quo would remain in effect as far as taxes and social

security are concerned.

Tom

The sponge will only squeeze out so much. It would be much better to

have a flat tax and incentives for savings and investments to allow

people to build up on their own rather than wait for the old folks to

die. It would also leave them better off, the " squeeze " providing a

nice bonus rather than the nest egg itself.

[Guest guest]

Evan,

The main problem has been that the boomers grew up believing the government would provide for them. Such was the power of the Social Security Myth. Because of this, few of them bothered to plan for their retirement beyond SS. Now that retirement is looming they are seeing the SS won't allow them to maintain their standard of living. Rather than biting the bullet and making last minute efforts to improve their lot, they want the government to up the benefits, including perscription drug benefits.

Well, as it stands now, Social Security and Medicare are underfunded by about $27 trillion. That is 27,000,000,000,000 dollars!!! That is about 9 times the total us federal debt and over twice the size of the total anual economy.

I hate to say it but you are probably right. I really don't think the young people are going to stand for this. I really doubt the recent waves of immigrants will either and really they would probably be even more resentful of it than those native born. Its going to be messy since the seniors and boomers have so much political clout and the politicians are afraid to address the matter.

[Guest guest]

Shaun,

It is disgusting to see the powers that be get paid huge sums of money even if they only succeed in running a firm into the ground. Many executives over the last decade have killed good old companies and walked away with tens of millions.

What I would propose is a system of matching rewards. CEO wants a golden parachute of $50 million? That's fine, but they will put up $25 million of their own resources first. If the company does well, they get their bonus (well part of it, the rest would be held in escrow for 10 years in case their actions turned out to be all short term flash and long term crash). If the company failed under them, they lose not only the bonus, but their own assests as well. Now that would be an incentive to do a good job.

Grasso did nothing to warrant $80,000 per day. It is unlikely anyone on earth does. A case could be made for Bill Gates and others like him because it was his ideas and hard work that brought the company into being and to what it is today. If his honest efforts made him that kind of money, good for him, that's the ultimate American dream. However, anyone who takes over after him doesn't deserve that kind of reward becaue they will just be a manager and not a creator.

[Guest guest]

Yep too right ,

I have the answer to social security right now, or should I say when the tech is ready.

Longivity. No retirement at 65. As you say, you can have life extention as long as you are not a burden to society.

Yep, taxation sucks big time. I've got to say, I'm sick of paying to a dysfunctional system where money is pilfered and wasted. It seems it is a never ending cycle of bleeding the citizen. Australia is just as bad.

Shaun.VISIGOTH@... wrote:

Shaun,

OK, I see your point and it makes sense. We just had different means of approaching the problem. Rather than requiring some kind of federal service, I would rather make it a requirment that the person have either sufficient resources to support themselves for the period of their extended life or that they have continued employment of some kind. They should not be allowed to become wards of the state.

I have just read something about Social Security. In 2003, the average 65 year old man will recieve $71,000 more than he paid into the system through all his working years. on the other hand, the average 23 year old will end up paying $330,000 extra in taxes to support his elders. Since the average American will earn about $1 million in their whole lifetime, that amounts to one third of his wealth stolen by the government and given to others, and that is not counting all the other taxes he will also have to pay. In other words, that is $330,000 less that he will have to build his own retirement and spend on his own family. It is unconscionable. And people wonder why I have arranges my finances so I don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes: it won't be there for me tomorrow, it just wants to steal from me today.

Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

[Guest guest]

And that is the crux of why there could be the first intergenerational war in history. The boomers absconded from their security duties in Vietnam but are happy to push the new generation to die in Iraq. They have manipulated the property market at younger peoples expense and yes the new generations will ne the first in 100s of years to be worse of than the one before them. The WWII gen put more in and the boomers have sold of through privatisation to line their pockets. This is a generalisation of a trend and not all boomers fall into this category but is indicative of the trend.

EvanVISIGOTH@... wrote:

I have just read something about Social Security. In 2003, the average 65 year old man will recieve $71,000 more than he paid into the system through all his working years. on the other hand, the average 23 year old will end up paying $330,000 extra in taxes to support his elders. Since the average American will earn about $1 million in their whole lifetime, that amounts to one third of his wealth stolen by the government and given to others, and that is not counting all the other taxes he will also have to pay. In other words, that is $330,000 less that he will have to build his own retirement and spend on his own family. It is unconscionable. And people wonder why I have arranges my finances so I don't have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes: it won't be there for me tomorrow, it just wants to steal from me today.

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

Tom

I hate to throw a wet blanket on this but in Australia and no doubt the US boomer politicians have sought to create dual mortgages for splitting property between buyers and corporations in order to keep the hpousing boom moving to benefit themselves. The bit about inheritance has also been taken care of by the fact that a lot will sell their assets pre death to maintain lifestyleThere are already schemes that allow themselves to live in propertry they have sold until they die.

Compare the austerity that the WWII gen lived in even if they had the money and the sumptious existances boomers expect to be maintained in. I beleive there will be a major chism happen that will lead to calls for their euthenasia as they get older. This is not a personal belief but one looking at trends and 2,4,6,8,___ . Sad but unfortunately heading that way.

Evanenvironmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote:

I feel that while it may seem unfair that we will pay more into the system, we ought to remember that many of us will receive sizable inheritances once all these older folks start dying off. There is a disproportionate amount of elderly folks in the population right now and when they die there money and possessions will need to go somewhere. A slice of it might go to the government (death taxes), and another slice might go to charitable causes and foundations, but the rest will go to friends and relatives, and that's money and possessions that those friends and relatives didn't earn.

Start your day with - make it your home page

[Guest guest]

Evan, I believe the baby boomers have sold out their childrens future by either greed or inaction to greed. Remember Gordon Gecko?, "greed is good". It seems not just in real estate, everything.

I am sick of seeing public companies giving their upper management mega mega bonuses. (sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars.)

Remember Grasso of the NYSE? He worked for just over 2 years and recieved a $140 million severance package. It worked out to be he was being paid $80,000 a day. Now I truly believe no man is worth $80,000 a day unless he has a magical wand he can wave to benefit the system. Which he did not. I'm sick of seeing fat cats reaping in mega pay when their company is laying off or nullifying pensions, it is just not right. All these baby boomers have orchestrated their own wealth, if you are one of them, hooray, if not you are on the outside and lose everything. Martha is a good example. When she committed her crime, she was personally worth $150 million, yet she was so greedy, she had to sell 250 thousand dollars worth of shares rather than lose on it. I bet some retired pensioner bought those shares and would have taken the hit for her. Greed greed greed, it makes me sick.

Shaun.Evan Sinclair <cennis007@...> wrote:

Tom

I hate to throw a wet blanket on this but in Australia and no doubt the US boomer politicians have sought to create dual mortgages for splitting property between buyers and corporations in order to keep the hpousing boom moving to benefit themselves. The bit about inheritance has also been taken care of by the fact that a lot will sell their assets pre death to maintain lifestyleThere are already schemes that allow themselves to live in propertry they have sold until they die.

Compare the austerity that the WWII gen lived in even if they had the money and the sumptious existances boomers expect to be maintained in. I beleive there will be a major chism happen that will lead to calls for their euthenasia as they get older. This is not a personal belief but one looking at trends and 2,4,6,8,___ . Sad but unfortunately heading that way.

Evanenvironmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote:

I feel that while it may seem unfair that we will pay more into the system, we ought to remember that many of us will receive sizable inheritances once all these older folks start dying off. There is a disproportionate amount of elderly folks in the population right now and when they die there money and possessions will need to go somewhere. A slice of it might go to the government (death taxes), and another slice might go to charitable causes and foundations, but the rest will go to friends and relatives, and that's money and possessions that those friends and relatives didn't earn.

Start your day with - make it your home page __________________________________________________