Social Insecurity

This issue has been in the news lately quite often. I'm 40 years old and I'm personally not counting on there being any social security left when I retire, but I'm planning ahead. With some foresight, investment and budgeting I hope to not be dependent upon any type of government payout when I retire. It will be a nice bonus if it is still there and I can take part of my share but unless the system is changed I wouldn't bet on it. You see, I'm a firm believer that if you send money into the bureaucrats in D.C. they'll spend it. That's what they do. For some reason they believe that since they have all this money being sent into the Treasury they are entitled to spend your hard earned dollars on pig waste research in Iowa. How about a research lab to determine how the ozone layer affects the spotted tweeterbird of North Dakota? (I'm using some creative license here for effect). My case and point is this, creating retirement savings accounts may not be perfect but at least it's money that will not be going into the fund that Congress gets their hands on. The less the better. If we send in less money they will be forced to learn to spend within their means. Of course there would also have to be a way to restrict government borrowing and not any type that could be changed by those who spend the money. It seems to me that we the people need to impose some type of restriction on those we elect to maintain a tight budget. It would be a wonderful thing if the government was in the black and able to save the billions it spends on interest from the debt it owes.

Churchill

So a Professor in Colorado seems to think that the people who were killed on Sept 11, 01 were no better than the Nazi criminal Eichman. He rationalizes this by attempting to link them to the sanctions placed upon Iraq and the suffering that created for the population of Iraq. Of course he doesn't mention anything about the billions of dollars that were supposed to be used by Saddam to purchase food and medicines for the population but ended up in the pockets of Saddams friends, and business partners who embezzeled the funds for their own personal use. Could it be that the suffereing of those people in Iraq would have been far less if the money would have been used as it was intended? I don't see any mention of that by Churchill? How about the fact that the people who died that day on 2001 did not create policy for the middle east? That's like kicking your dog for something you neighbor did. I fail to see how he can justify his reasoning. He's accusing innocent people who were killed of being conspirators in the some plot to have a hostile foreign policy towards the middle east. How ridiculous is that? If that is the case then he is as guilty as they are. He gets a paycheck, spends his money, drives the economy, and is a part of the population of the United States. Nothing less than what everyone else in the two towers did as well. I think he should be fired, not for his speech but for his lack of logical intelligence. This indicates a flawed thought process and reasoning and for one who is in the position to educate others he has proven his reasoning is not logical. He makes wide assumptions and baseless allegations without any logical reasoning. I'm sure there's a college in Syria or Iran who would love to hire him. If I had a son or daughter attending that college I would pull them out and switch colleges if he is an example of what the instructors are like. I want them to get an education, not some opinionated skewed personal views of the faculty.