The Baby Boomer Bang

[SpamSandwich]

It's coming, and the first shot across the bow has been fired.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_go_ot/boomer_social_security

[Jubelum]

Entitlement City, here we come. Fsck you young people! Where are my prescription drugs, tax freezes, and Socialist Security?!?

[ronaldo]

Entitlement City, here we come. Fsck you young people! Where are my prescription drugs, tax freezes, and Socialist Security?!?

I have a question. If there is still Social Security when you decide to retire. Will you collect your benefit?

[Jubelum]

I have a question. If there is still Social Security when you decide to retire. Will you collect your benefit?

Yes. And give it to the Church where it can help far more people than the government can with the same amount of money, should we somehow manage to reform this Ponzi Scheme to bless another few generations with it. I am planning for my future independent of whatever the hell happens with the Social Security system. Hopefully by the time I am of age, we'll have completely changed how the system works.

This is the nature of the Ponzi scheme... people pay in, but not everyone can get out what they've paid in PLUS the COLA when the government has been spending that money for decades. The only way to save it is to raise taxes on the workers, to pay the increased balances of the non-working. It's time to allow people to either (a) invest their own money in the way they choose, with a hugely expanded IRA program, or (b) make the government officials that are spending the Social Security money stop doing it. The morons that created this idiotic program did not do us the favor of creating a real "lockbox" that could not be borrowed from, and as such, here we are.

Politicians for decades have stolen money from future generations to "live in the moment." Now the bill is quickly coming due. It could not go on forever.

I am sick of AARP and the short-sighted idiots they represent. THIS is what the 60s have wrought... entitlement mentality bordering on the absurd.

[Kishan]

I have a question. If there is still Social Security when you decide to retire. Will you collect your benefit?

Hate to duck my head into a potential flame war, but I must venture the opinion that any young person (less than 40) who approaches their financial planning while counting on Social Security, is a fool. From the moment you pull your first real paycheck after high school or college, start talking to someone who will advise you to get into retirement planning for the long term. 5-10% a year is just fine over 30-40 years if you get in early enough...

[franksargent]

1) They should at least privatize the retirement system similar to the current Federal FERS system (what civil servants and Congress) currently have. But even there all employees still pay into the SSI system (at a minimum) and can invest in several stock/mutual type funds.

2) The FERS system should slowly phase out the SSI contribution over the next 30-40 years (this would cover older people that just paid into the SSI system).

3) They ought to raise the retirement age to 70 (68 will be the highest (if not now, than in a few years time), simply because people are living longer (on average) then when the SSI program first started.

4) It is highly likely that SSI taxes would need to be raised somewhat (hopefully just a few percent) to maintain SSI solvency until the last SSI retirees are through the system (or their payments come from the general revenues).

5) The best thing anyone can do with their disposable income (after all basic needs are meant) is to use a reasonable fraction of it in long term investments (if you are certain that you can never touch it). As others have said already.


But I'm also of the opinion that we need a period of limiting all non-discretionary funding. In fact, flatline the entire federal budget, until we have generated several years of net surpluses, flatlined at current levels for 4-8 years would be a good start.

This would allow us to keep the current tax rates.

Something along these lines is long overdue. :\

[SpamSandwich]

Reducing or eliminating America's military presence in every foreign country would be a great start. Eliminating the IRS would be a good follow-up.

[mydo]

Getting rid of ear marks will solve it. Now that the dem's are in charge bush suddenly hates them.

[tonton]

Yes. And give it to the Church...

Unfortunately, a lot of money that goes to the church goes to fighting science, openly targeting homosexuals, harassing women, rewarding arrogance and spreading fear.

Please donate to the UU or some other church that doesn't harm people as well as helping them. Thanks.

[SpamSandwich]

Unfortunately, a lot of money that goes to the church goes to fighting science, openly targeting homosexuals, harassing women, rewarding arrogance and spreading fear.

Please donate to the UU or some other church that doesn't harm people as well as helping them. Thanks.

Umm... he said "the church". Did he say The Catholic Church?

[tonton]

Umm... he said "the church". Did he say The Catholic Church?

Did I?

Is the Catholic Church trying to ban teaching evolution as science in Kansas?
Are the Catholics the ones who are shouting "murderer" at women going into family planning clinics?
Are the Catholics the ones who run the "degayification" camps that lead to teen suicides and almost never succeed at changing a person's sexual practices, much less their desires? (Lots of money donated to Evangelical churches go to things like this.)
Are the Catholics the main contributors to pro-war and anti-Islam campaigns?

I could go on, but you wouldn't listen anyway.

[Jubelum]

OK, tonton, you choose- the Church or the NRA Endowment. ;)

[BRussell]

Oh jeez, here we go again. The same people who believe in tax cut voodoo say social security is bankrupt. Social security is the only part of our budget that actually is in surplus, and will be so into the foreseeable future. It may, some day, go into deficit. And yet their philosophy on our current massive budget deficit is to cut taxes even further and believe in magic.

Don't pretend you care about the fiscal status of social security. You are opposed to the idea of it.

[tonton]

OK, tonton, you choose- the Church or the NRA Endowment. ;)

Good to see you've got your values in the right place. :rolleyes:

This is actually a very good example of why we need government management of social programs, rather than privatization and voluntary funding. People give money voluntarily only for those causes that they know and that are most important to them. Who needs money more, the NRA, the Church, or some obscure fund you've never heard of that saves little kids' lives? There's an obvious reason why I'd prefer a bureaucrat make thiose decisions rather than some 2nd Amendment Evangelical nutjob.

[tonton]

From the link:

"A report issued last month by the Treasury Department said that some combination of benefit cuts and tax increases will need to be considered to permanently fix the Social Security shortfall. But White House officials stressed that Bush remains opposed to raising taxes."

Looks like fixing this may be as simple as a bitter pill. A pill that Bush is too much of a 'tard to even consider. Leave the problem for the next watch to deal with, I guess... :no:

It's simple. Bush is an instrument of the voodoo taxcut economists.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.artplusradio.org/imglib/june07/winston_MoneyTree400.jpg

[Jubelum]

Good to see you've got your values in the right place. :rolleyes:

This is actually a very good example of why we need government management of social programs, rather than privatization and voluntary funding. People give money voluntarily only for those causes that they know and that are most important to them. Who needs money more, the NRA, the Church, or some obscure fund you've never heard of that saves little kids' lives? There's an obvious reason why I'd prefer a bureaucrat make thiose decisions rather than some 2nd Amendment Evangelical nutjob.

Yea, GOD forbid that people be allowed to give THEIR MONEY to causes THEY believe in. The must be forced to give to the cause YOU believe in- the almighty state. That's amazing, tonton. So much for "people first."

2nd Amendment Evangelical Nutjob? Who, Wayne LaPierre? 8-)

[Jubelum]

This is actually a very good example of why we need government management of social programs, rather than privatization and voluntary funding.

1. You do not need to be a government to do "good."
2. Churches and other organizations are usually much more efficient at getting help to people than bloated bureaucracies.

You oppose "voluntary funding?" :wow: What an admission.

[trumptman]

I have a question. If there is still Social Security when you decide to retire. Will you collect your benefit?

Can a person really be judged as immoral on this when participation is mandatory? It isn't like Jub or anyone else could withhold their contributions and invest them in what they desire.

Reducing or eliminating America's military presence in every foreign country would be a great start. Eliminating the IRS would be a good follow-up.

Exactly! I find it amazing that the Democrats claim they want to get out of Iraq, but they never really say they want to bring all the troops home. They support Pax Americana to the end.

Getting rid of ear marks will solve it. Now that the dem's are in charge bush suddenly hates them.

I've not read anything about Bush hating earmarks. You are right that he is now a sudden convert to limiting spending when before he was not. He is a complete hypocrite in that regard though I would prefer he become a lot more hypocritical and just balance the budget. The Democrats have done nothing to end or improve the earmark process. The deck chairs on the Titanic have been shuffled, and nothing more.

Oh jeez, here we go again. The same people who believe in tax cut voodoo say social security is bankrupt. Social security is the only part of our budget that actually is in surplus, and will be so into the foreseeable future. It may, some day, go into deficit. And yet their philosophy on our current massive budget deficit is to cut taxes even further and believe in magic.

Don't pretend you care about the fiscal status of social security. You are opposed to the idea of it.

Don't pretend that it is solvent when you and everyone else who takes this view never addressed the fact that current spending must must be reversed by 300 billion to half a trillion dollars in order to keep the current bonds repaid.

Good to see you've got your values in the right place. :rolleyes:

This is actually a very good example of why we need government management of social programs, rather than privatization and voluntary funding. People give money voluntarily only for those causes that they know and that are most important to them. Who needs money more, the NRA, the Church, or some obscure fund you've never heard of that saves little kids' lives? There's an obvious reason why I'd prefer a bureaucrat make thiose decisions rather than some 2nd Amendment Evangelical nutjob.

Man Tonton, could you get any more authoritarian? This is also a good example of why the government should have gun and why we shouldn't so they can simply take whatever they need to complete their agenda and of course kill off any dissent.

From the link:

"A report issued last month by the Treasury Department said that some combination of benefit cuts and tax increases will need to be considered to permanently fix the Social Security shortfall. But White House officials stressed that Bush remains opposed to raising taxes."

Looks like fixing this may be as simple as a bitter pill. A pill that Bush is too much of a 'tard to even consider. Leave the problem for the next watch to deal with, I guess... :no:

It's simple. Bush is an instrument of the voodoo taxcut economists.

Bush did attempt to deal with it. Plenty of people have attempted to deal with it. Your rants not withstanding, Social Security is the largest and most regressive tax in the United States. We've been told that Republicans are Borrow and Spend while Democrats are Tax and Spend.

Have the Democrats reversed the Bush tax cuts? Have the slowed spending? They have done neither.

Nick

[franksargent]

1. You do not need to be a government to do "good."
2. Churches and other organizations are usually much more efficient at getting help to people than bloated bureaucracies.

You oppose "voluntary funding?" :wow: What an admission.

... this?

Megachurches (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1158131&postcount=195)

A megachurch is a large church, generally defined as having 2,000 or more worshippers for a typical weekly service. Many are associated with the Church Growth style of Evangelical Christianity.

Megachurch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megachurch)

Thou shalt giveth unto thyself be forth thou shalt giveth unto others of lesser means.

[from The Book of the Selfish 6:6:6]

[BRussell]

Don't pretend that it is solvent when you and everyone else who takes this view never addressed the fact that current spending must must be reversed by 300 billion to half a trillion dollars in order to keep the current bonds repaid. "Pretend that it is solvent?" It's not pretending at all - it is currently taking in more money than it pays out. Yet people scream about it, all the while supporting policies like magic tax cuts that have put our current overall budget into deficit. It makes no sense.Bush did attempt to deal with it. Right. Every analysis showed that his privatization plan would have made social security's solvency even worse, because it would allow people to stop paying into it all the while keeping up the payouts. It's those magic tax cuts again I guess.

[Jubelum]

What percentage of US Christians belong to these mega-churches you find problematic?
Enough to justify your blanket indictment? Nope.

[Jubelum]

"Pretend that it is solvent?" It's not pretending at all - it is currently taking in more money than it pays out. Yet people scream about it, all the while supporting policies like magic tax cuts that have put our current overall budget into deficit. It makes no sense. Right. Every analysis showed that his privatization plan would have made social security's solvency even worse, because it would allow people to stop paying into it all the while keeping up the payouts. It's those magic tax cuts again I guess.

Tax cuts don't cause deficits. Spending more money than you have causes deficits. :D

[trumptman]

"Pretend that it is solvent?" It's not pretending at all - it is currently taking in more money than it pays out. Yet people scream about it, all the while supporting policies like magic tax cuts that have put our current overall budget into deficit. It makes no sense. Right. Every analysis showed that his privatization plan would have made social security's solvency even worse, because it would allow people to stop paying into it all the while keeping up the payouts. It's those magic tax cuts again I guess.

It is pretending because the taking in more than it pays out is nothing more than accounting tricks. If the government were a business, it would not be allowed to act like Enron and shift profits and losses to subsidiaries as they desire.

The tax revenue is currently higher than we spend on Social Security but the excess revenue is spent plain and simple. We write an IOU for it, but it is spent. To claim it is solvent because you have an IOU is nonsensical. Even during the Clinton/Republican Congress years, we were still adding to the national debt throughout his second term. When you consider all revenues and all outlays, the real picture is revealed. Anything less than that, regardless of party is just accounting tricks.

I've stated that you are correct that the Laffer curve is silly to argue about when you are already on the side of the curve where people are no longer altering or hiding their income to avoid onerous taxation. So a Republican talking about tax rate drop of 32% to say 30% probably isn't being truthful. However to claim that the Laffer curve is nonsense and that people would happily go about their business of working, investing and saving with tax rates of 80-90-100% is just as bad a lie.

I've supported tax raises because if tax cuts grow the economy, then tax raises are needed when we have to slow the economy and stop it from overheating. Either way though something has to be done about spending because no one in either party had attempted to do anything more than buy votes.

Look at H. Clinton this round so far. She wants to give anyone who has a kid $5000 just because.... well because it buys your vote. She has put forward several other measures that have no logic other than, vote for me because I pass out cash.

Nick

[SpamSandwich]

I've supported tax raises because if tax cuts grow the economy, then tax raises are needed when we have to slow the economy and stop it from overheating. Either way though something has to be done about spending because no one in either party had attempted to do anything more than buy votes.

Look at H. Clinton this round so far. She wants to give anyone who has a kid $5000 just because.... well because it buys your vote. She has put forward several other measures that have no logic other than, vote for me because I pass out cash.

Nick

I can't wait for Hilary to 'discuss' her talking points with Ron Paul.

Oh, and here's something worth reading. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/01/DI2007100101451.html)

[BRussell]

It is pretending because the taking in more than it pays out is nothing more than accounting tricks. If the government were a business, it would not be allowed to act like Enron and shift profits and losses to subsidiaries as they desire.

The tax revenue is currently higher than we spend on Social Security but the excess revenue is spent plain and simple. We write an IOU for it, but it is spent. To claim it is solvent because you have an IOU is nonsensical. Even during the Clinton/Republican Congress years, we were still adding to the national debt throughout his second term. When you consider all revenues and all outlays, the real picture is revealed. Anything less than that, regardless of party is just accounting tricks.

I've stated that you are correct that the Laffer curve is silly to argue about when you are already on the side of the curve where people are no longer altering or hiding their income to avoid onerous taxation. So a Republican talking about tax rate drop of 32% to say 30% probably isn't being truthful. However to claim that the Laffer curve is nonsense and that people would happily go about their business of working, investing and saving with tax rates of 80-90-100% is just as bad a lie.

I've supported tax raises because if tax cuts grow the economy, then tax raises are needed when we have to slow the economy and stop it from overheating. Either way though something has to be done about spending because no one in either party had attempted to do anything more than buy votes.

Look at H. Clinton this round so far. She wants to give anyone who has a kid $5000 just because.... well because it buys your vote. She has put forward several other measures that have no logic other than, vote for me because I pass out cash.

NickIt is currently taking in more money than it pays out. That is a simple fact, it is not an accounting gimmick. You're talking about what happens to the money after it's taken in, and about that I couldn't agree more. But when people argue that social security is in a terrible ponzi scheme crisis baby boomers blah blah blah, when they voted for magic tax cut policies that inevitably cause deficits, they deserve nothing but ridicule for their economic beliefs. And let's face it, that's pretty much the entire crew of Republican politicians. And I don't see how the people who voted for them can be considered innocent. It's not like these people didn't say exactly what they were going to do, and it's not like this next group isn't saying it all over again.

I don't know anything about Hillary wanting to give $5000 to everyone with a kid, and I sincerely doubt it's true, but I've been out of the loop on campaign news. However, I'll bet anything that she won't increase spending as much as the people that you've voted for over the last several elections, Nick.

[trumptman]

It is currently taking in more money than it pays out. That is a simple fact, it is not an accounting gimmick.

Except for the fact that government revenues and expenditures don't work in isolation, you would be right. In the end, the bottom line is the only one that matters.

If the government is taking in billions in excess Social Security contributions and spending them, it means that many other areas are operating at a loss and claiming your losses will somehow support your winning revenue stream later when it too becomes a loss is just financial suicide.

We have to believe that the one positive revenue stream that is going to go negative is somehow going to be supported by all the revenue streams that currently operate in deficit, but will somehow turn around and operate in excess including enough excess to fund the loss of Social Security excess and future deficits.

You're talking about what happens to the money after it's taken in, and about that I couldn't agree more.

You could agree more. You could look at the principle that allows Social Security to operate in excess as opposed to every other tax scheme which operates at a loss.

But when people argue that social security is in a terrible ponzi scheme crisis baby boomers blah blah blah, when they voted for magic tax cut policies that inevitably cause deficits, they deserve nothing but ridicule for their economic beliefs. And let's face it, that's pretty much the entire crew of Republican politicians.

So let me see if I have this correct. Every other tax mechanism we have is pretty much progressive. It either operates on taxing more if you have more income, or taxing you when you have enough income or wealth to operate in additional sectors of the economy. They exclude large numbers of tax payers in the name of fairness and operate in continual deficits.

We have another tax mechanism that forces everyone to pay taxes. It operates the same for everyone with regard to income and is in effect the closest thing we have to a flat tax. It generates massive amounts of excessive revenue and if spending can be controlled and adjustments be made, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Ask yourself who is advocating for flatter and simplified taxes and who is arguing to exempt taxpayers, make the rates ever more progressive and punishing and noting each time they do this the revenue forecasts fall short.

Sadly it isn't just a straight Republican and Democratic answer. It is more like a sliver of Republicans are arguing the former and many Rockefeller Republicans and Democrats are arguing the latter.

The reason the Republican tax cuts have failed is because they started removing people from the rolls. In doing such they created a large section of people who have begun to expect something for nothing and in that game, the Democrats win. If taxes are good, then they are good for everyone. We should all be in this together and that includes the poor as well. The tax base, be it Republican or Democratically controlled should be broad and not narrow. Republicans have done themselves a wrong in that you don't care to argue against onerous taxes when you aren't paying any.

And I don't see how the people who voted for them can be considered innocent. It's not like these people didn't say exactly what they were going to do, and it's not like this next group isn't saying it all over again.

Republicans strayed from their principles and have been voted out. The party now gets to wander in the wilderness until it realizes it screwed up. Sadly though the Democrats have gained some support but still have among the highest historical negatives because pointing out that someone has abandoned their principles isn't the same as governing from their own. We've seen this with spending, with the war, with lobbying and earmark reform, etc. Democrats have been do-nothings.

I don't know anything about Hillary wanting to give $5000 to everyone with a kid, and I sincerely doubt it's true, but I've been out of the loop on campaign news. However, I'll bet anything that she won't increase spending as much as the people that you've voted for over the last several elections, Nick.

Clinton. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RUJEL00&show_article=1)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

She has actually proposed more than this but I don't want to fully derail the thread. Any chart on federal spending will show that it is entitlements that are going up at unsustainable rates and not anything else.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.sizzboomfireworks.com/WebSite/Picture/Baby%20Boomers.gif

[Jubelum]

Save those fireworks, Artman. "WOLVERINES!"

[BRussell]

Except for the fact that government revenues and expenditures don't work in isolation, you would be right. In the end, the bottom line is the only one that matters.

If the government is taking in billions in excess Social Security contributions and spending them, it means that many other areas are operating at a loss and claiming your losses will somehow support your winning revenue stream later when it too becomes a loss is just financial suicide.

We have to believe that the one positive revenue stream that is going to go negative is somehow going to be supported by all the revenue streams that currently operate in deficit, but will somehow turn around and operate in excess including enough excess to fund the loss of Social Security excess and future deficits.



You could agree more. You could look at the principle that allows Social Security to operate in excess as opposed to every other tax scheme which operates at a loss.



So let me see if I have this correct. Every other tax mechanism we have is pretty much progressive. It either operates on taxing more if you have more income, or taxing you when you have enough income or wealth to operate in additional sectors of the economy. They exclude large numbers of tax payers in the name of fairness and operate in continual deficits.

We have another tax mechanism that forces everyone to pay taxes. It operates the same for everyone with regard to income and is in effect the closest thing we have to a flat tax. It generates massive amounts of excessive revenue and if spending can be controlled and adjustments be made, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Ask yourself who is advocating for flatter and simplified taxes and who is arguing to exempt taxpayers, make the rates ever more progressive and punishing and noting each time they do this the revenue forecasts fall short.

Sadly it isn't just a straight Republican and Democratic answer. It is more like a sliver of Republicans are arguing the former and many Rockefeller Republicans and Democrats are arguing the latter.

The reason the Republican tax cuts have failed is because they started removing people from the rolls. In doing such they created a large section of people who have begun to expect something for nothing and in that game, the Democrats win. If taxes are good, then they are good for everyone. We should all be in this together and that includes the poor as well. The tax base, be it Republican or Democratically controlled should be broad and not narrow. Republicans have done themselves a wrong in that you don't care to argue against onerous taxes when you aren't paying any. None of what you have said tries to address my only point: We are taking in more social security taxes than we pay out. We may, at some point in the future, go into deficit. Republicans call this a terrible fiscal crisis, all the while voting for policies that cause current deficits in the overall budget. Part of which is social security. It's utterly illogical, but typically Republican.

Republicans strayed from their principles and have been voted out. The party now gets to wander in the wilderness until it realizes it screwed up. Sadly though the Democrats have gained some support but still have among the highest historical negatives because pointing out that someone has abandoned their principles isn't the same as governing from their own. We've seen this with spending, with the war, with lobbying and earmark reform, etc. Democrats have been do-nothings. Nonsense. Republicans have done what they've always done: Cut taxes and increase spending. It's what Reagan did. It's what Bush said he was going to do and has done. And who is now talking about magic tax cuts and no spending cuts? All of the current Republican contenders. There's no straying from principles. There's just denial about what those principles are.

Clinton. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RUJEL00&show_article=1)

She has actually proposed more than this but I don't want to fully derail the thread. Any chart on federal spending will show that it is entitlements that are going up at unsustainable rates and not anything else.

Nick I looked into it, and it's bogus as I had guessed. She was responding to a question and made an off-hand comment. When asked about it later she specifically said that she is not proposing it (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/05/clinton-has-a-new-bus-but-no-baby-bonds/), and it was just a discussion. There's no doubt that she would be more responsible with the budget than anyone wedded to the Republican party. At least according to the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8137).

[SpamSandwich]

And who is now talking about magic tax cuts and no spending cuts? All of the current Republican contenders.

:lol: Two words. Ron Paul.

[Jubelum]

And who is now talking about magic tax cuts and no spending cuts? All of the current Republican contenders.

Um, not to wreck your fancy argument here, but did you catch the exchange between Rudy and Mitt (http://www.nysun.com/article/64031) over spending? How about Fred (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21207382/)?

Are you listening to the Republican contenders on a regular basis?

[SpamSandwich]

Um, not to wreck your fancy argument here, but did you catch the exchange between Rudy and Mitt (http://www.nysun.com/article/64031) over spending? How about Fred (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21207382/)?

Are you listening to the Republican contenders on a regular basis?

It's enough to make one's stomach churn. :\

[@_@ Artman]

I think we should have a national lottery. Philly just approved gambling in the city, we have it elsewhere. People love to throw their money away buying lottery tickets and in gambling machines. Let's have a national lottery. They have it in the UK, does it do any good?

All I got. :\

[franksargent]

I think we should have a national lottery. Philly just approved gambling in the city, we have it elsewhere. People love to throw their money away buying lottery tickets and in gambling machines. Let's have a national lottery. They have it in the UK, does it do any good?

All I got. :\

Don't gamble when there are middlemen. One (or a very few) big winner(s), many, Many, MANY small-to-big losers.

It's alright as long as you can control your behavior AND you have truly disposable income to lose in the first place.

Most people (myself included) have a tendency to dip into their needs income, and become psychologically addicted, you start chasing it, "it" being the big payoff, you up the ante in hope of the big payoff.

Same thing goes for just about any other addiction, whether it be psychological or physiological.

Take it from someone who has an addiction to addictions! :\

[franksargent]

:lol: Two words. Ron Paul.

No way! :no:

[SpamSandwich]

No way! :no:

One word and an emoticon: Yes! :smokey: