motherbuster
Is that SFW, VideoVader?
It's sure as hell nice. Mmmmmm.

Heh, I think so, as she's got her chest mostly covered and is wearing a bikini bottom.

/not Abe, though he is quite a piece of arse

True that.


The Incredible Mr. Wizzy
Read the Presidents statement and then come back and try to argue your position within the context of what he said.
He is obviously trying to propel his agenda, or in the President's mind, his propaganda.

One synonym for "catapult" is "bombard." In this sense, he's trying to heavily attack, or bombard, the propaganda. The ammo for the catapult are his repeated statements in the speech. The propaganda is the target.

Either he made a deliberate statement, or he made an honest mistake. On the other hand, perhaps it was a dishonest mistake. Does really matter in anyway?

Meh, not really. It's just you know the left-leaners among the media pundits are gonna take this and run as evidence of Bush=evil. Pretty much what we're seeing the trolls doing here.

BillCosby:

Investment returns are expected to return 7% and simultaneously SS is insolvent?

No propaganda here.

I'm averaging well over 10% on my own(in this oh-so-horrible economy)...I want my money, I can do better.

Oh, and just for the helluvit.

Noam Chimpsky:

They are getting it through absolute message control by the mainstream media.

The White House press corp had some guy who wasn't marching in lockstep and a tantrum was thrown. The liberals need complete message control or it all falls apart.

Liberals can't tolerate FOX because they are less liberal than the rest...even though they are only one media outlet and they still have PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN...ONE voice off message does serious damage to the cause...they need complete message control or it all falls apart.

The liberal will try to drown out the truth because the truth is very damaging for them. The truth-teller must be marginalized or attacked personally in the hope that by affecting the personal perception of the truth teller his message will not get through.

The liberal movement these days is hardly organized enough to accomplish any of this. You seem to forget that huge corporations own the news channels, and I doubt their owners and controlling interests lean left.

Oh and yes, I'm sure those awful liberals are the ones that want to censor programming and information, and not one single conservative has ever called for the "drowning out" of the so-called "truth."

VideoVader: 2005-05-26 03:48:35 AM VideoVader

What propaganda is he trying to counteract?

KleanKutKid:

2005-05-26 03:50:56 AM KleanKutKid

BillCosby:

Investment returns are expected to return 7% and simultaneously SS is insolvent?

No propaganda here.

I'm averaging well over 10% on my own(in this oh-so-horrible economy)...I want my money, I can do better.


I'm quoting Bush. Anyway, if investments in the future return above an average of 4% it means the economy is growing and SS is solvent. (see CBO and SSA reports)

If you're -- say, you're a police officer and a nurse, and enter the work force in 2011; you set aside money, you make the average salary those folks make over time, and you set aside a third of your payroll taxes -- both of you do

-- by the time both retire, they have about $669,000 in a personal savings account. Money grows over time. The higher the rate of return, the more -- the faster your money grows, and the more you end up with.

/GWB
/RETARD

St. Apatheism
He's a genius when it suits and a moron likewise, I guess that shouldn't be suprising either.

When did I call him a genius or a moron? He just ain't a great public speaker. Hell, if anything, it's the far left who can't decide whether he's an evil genius or a moron.

The Incredible Mr. Wizzy

Probably you're just used to the bullshiat that comes out of Bush's mouth and the Whitehouse. It's not totally unreasonable to think, like VideoVader said, that he meant "catapult the propaganda" as in "jump over the opponent's propaganda" not "throw my propaganda." Bad choice of words, but that's not surprising. Bush is a bad speaker, and this sounds a lot like corporate-speak where they make up stupid shiate like this all the time to describe their bureaucratic idiocy.

And it doesn't change the fact that Bush is a lying dirtbag.

If you want, you can go where I did and ask who the hell is saying currently retired people suffer under the plan, because I don't know, nor can I find, anyone opposed to privatization who does (Bush's phase-in plan is obviously well studied and known, and afaik under the plan current retirees keep the benefits plain and simple). Future retirees, of course, could easily be up shiat creek, but Bush conveniently avoids saying anything in regards to them and is just talking about current retirees.

/neo-cons. No. I said NO. I don't mean the upcoming retirees phase-in plan or whatever it is called. I mean retirees after all phasing in is complete. NO. I .. ah never mind.

VideoVader:

St. Apatheism
He's a genius when it suits and a moron likewise, I guess that shouldn't be suprising either.

When did I call him a genius or a moron? He just ain't a great public speaker. Hell, if anything, it's the far left who can't decide whether he's an evil genius or a moron.

I don't think he's either. I think he's merely a politician with pisspoor public speaking abilities.

VideoVader -

Nice to read up on US Military protocol, but it's meaningless. We've KILLED prisoners. Over 100 prisoners have died in captivity. It simply belies the government guide book on limitations of torture.

I respect your stance on withholding blame until we have actual evidence. I agree. At the same time though, what's going on behind the scenes isn't close to the picture the US Govt repeatedly tries to paint.

Judging by the Newsweek "episode", if I were Newsweek & President Bush were my source, I'd still have retracted the story. For Newsweek to be adamant that the story were true, amid rising Muslim anger (regardless of responsibility for the Afghans who died on the same date) could bring accusations of treason, not to mention even more negative press than they ultimately have received.

Furthermore, given the choice of fighting that battle with the Bush Administration's historically no-nonsense approach to the media, vs. the approach they ultimately took, is a no-brainer. Newsweek's apology/retraction shouldn't be interpreted as "without any evidence".

When the Pentagon issues specific guidelines for dealing with the Koran, as one US official said "You don't get these orders unless there's some problem, concern or controversy."

Along those lines, wasn't this short Newsweek blurb vetted by the Pentagon, or at least signed off on? Contrary to the reaction from the Bush Administration, this story did not come as a surprise to them.

eraser8:

Social Security is not a government-run IRA. If you want a retirement fund, it is up to you to make that happen. Social Security is in place as INSURANCE -- which is why the whole personal account scheme is such a stupid idea.

Insurance? This "Insurance" policy is not guaranteed. Read the line on the bottom of your statement. The one about "Benefits are not guaranteed, Congress can change the law"

KleanKutKid

When was the last time you filed a major insurance claim? If you think ANY insurance benefits are "guaranteed" without caveat or qualification, you need to go re-read your policies.

...for that matter, you need to go re-read 20th-century history to re-establish for yourself why this insurance was created and what a phenomenal success it has been.

TheGoblinKing

Who said you had to commit a crime to be in a military prisoner camp in the middle of a war? This isn't a civil jail holding accused criminals, this is a military prisoner camp holding enemy combatants. People they caught shooting at us. People who were caught building and setting bombs.


Or, people who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. People who were grabbed by Northern Alliance, Pakistani Troops or even Afghan warlords, all eager to claim the bounties that the US was offering for the capture of Al Qaeda operatives. Many at gitmo are guilty, but some are no more harmful than farmers. At least 59 were deemed as being of no intelligence value and recommended for release before they were even shipped to Guantanamo.

eraser8
Michael Isikoff (the guy who broke the Monica Lewinsky story -- and, tried to break the Paula Jones story) wrote that credible sources claim that investigators looking into abuses found that the Quran had been desecrated.

Neither Isikoff nor Newsweek was making the claim directly.

Yeah, they used the military source and made the claim through him, indirectly. If I tell you that a police officer just said there was a bomb in your car, and I know that the police said no such thing, am I not falsely scaring you into thinking there's a bomb in your car?

Newsweek bogusly cited an authority figure to give false weight to a charge of misbehavior on the part of the soldiers, despite their knowing full well that said official never corrorborated the accusation.

Neither Isikoff nor Newsweek blamed anyone for what was claimed.

But the bogus claim itself placed blame on the soldiers, and they knew it. Falsely assigning this claim to a military official was just a method of giving the claim false authenticity. All they had to say was that the source didn't comment on the Koran-flushing part, and they would've been telling the truth, but they decided to put words in his mouth which they knew were unsubstantiated.

By the way, nice try mentioning Lewinsky and Jones, but my argument isn't dependent upon Isikoff writing the story for the sake of partisan politics. It could have been done for the sake of a more sensational story or whatever, but it doesn't change the fact that story was wrong.

KleanKutKid

...and btw, if you removed the FICA tax, you would not have 7.65% more money, much less 15.3%, more money--your gross would just go down because it is a statutory requirement to pay those premiums. Remove the statute and not only will the premiums go away but so will the compelling force to pay you dime one of the money that pays them in the first place.

...and you'd best go read the proposals and/or listen to the floor debates for those "personal accounts." There are some pretty ugly details that never made it to sound-byte form that make it at best an even-deal and at worst a cash grab that will leave you poorer than under the current regime.

equusdc:

If you think ANY insurance benefits are "guaranteed" without caveat or qualification, you need to go re-read your policies.

So, what you are saying, is SS benefits are not guaranteed?

Thanks, I want my money, I can do better. (And it's guaranteed)

/get the point?

2005-05-26 04:24:25 AM gameshowhost

Have we "gone Godwin" in here yet?


What're you? Some kinda thread-nazi?

/badadaboom!

KleanKutKid

The one about "Benefits are not guaranteed, Congress can change the law"

That's to make sure the government isn't stuck paying SS with no option for change. I like SS the way it is. Bush doesn't. If that clause weren't there, Bush's plan would be against the law.

KleanKutKid

Nope, I'm saying that your stating that the fact that they are subject to legislative action does not make them any less "insurance" than any other kind of "insurance." It's a hell of a lot harder to change the benefit amounts of Social Security than it is to, say, take your homeowner's premiums and ditch you a year later having paid you NOTHING.

...and you missed the larger point--IT'S NOT "YOUR MONEY." It is a legal requirement of your employer to pay half and withhold half of the premium. Without the legal requirement--THEY JUST WOULDN'T PAY THAT DAMNED 7.65% TO YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE.

equusdc:

...and you missed the larger point--IT'S NOT "YOUR MONEY." It is a legal requirement of your employer to pay half and withhold half of the premium. Without the legal requirement--THEY JUST WOULDN'T PAY THAT DAMNED 7.65% TO YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IT IS MY MONEY, I EARNED IT.
AND MY EMPLOYER COMPENSATES THAT 7.65% BY PAYING ME 7.65% LESS SALARY THAN WHAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO IN THE CURRENT MARKET.

CAN WE STOP SHOUTING? I CAN READ LOWERCASE JUST AS WELL AS UPPERCASE. I AM A RIGHT-WINGER, SO JUST TYPE SLOWER, I'LL UNDERSTAND.

BillCosby
What propaganda is he trying to counteract?

Near as I can tell, that of his political opponents. (i.e. those who say the private accounts will do more harm than good, etc.)


TwelveToneRow
I don't think he's either. I think he's merely a politician with pisspoor public speaking abilities.

Sounds about right.


CE3
Nice to read up on US Military protocol, but it's meaningless. We've KILLED prisoners. Over 100 prisoners have died in captivity. It simply belies the government guide book on limitations of torture.

I respect your stance on withholding blame until we have actual evidence. I agree. At the same time though, what's going on behind the scenes isn't close to the picture the US Govt repeatedly tries to paint.

Even if we assume that's true, that doesn't mean that any accusation against the troops can be accepted just because you think it's probably true. If someone told me that the police reported a cop beating a guy in LA, I might be inclined to believe him because LA is no stranger to that kind of stuff. However, if I do some digging and discover that no such reports were made, nor was there anything else to indicate that the beating occurred beyond the testimony of a gangbanger who got arrested, the person who told me otherwise isn't going to get very far saying, "Hey, it happens all the time, doesn't it?"

If you're dealing with a specific charge, you'd better have specific evidence.

Heck, you can just as easily switch this around on the media. We know that the media, for a variety of reasons (politics, sensationalism, etc.) falsely cite sources, or use questionable sources, in order to mold a story the way they want. By using your argument, even without knowing about the misrepresentation of the source's words, you can just say, "Well, the media lies like this all the time, so it'd come as no surprise that they're lying now."

Of course, in this case, we DO have specific evidence of them lying.

Judging by the Newsweek "episode", if I were Newsweek & President Bush were my source, I'd still have retracted the story. For Newsweek to be adamant that the story were true, amid rising Muslim anger (regardless of responsibility for the Afghans who died on the same date) could bring accusations of treason, not to mention even more negative press than they ultimately have received.

I disagree. If the truth were on their side (as with the Abu Ghraib photos), they would much more easily defend themselves by saying, "Hey, we're just reporting the truth; blame the abusive soldiers for making the truth the way it is." So long as they didn't overplay the story, the blame would have gone onto the military.

Furthermore, given the choice of fighting that battle with the Bush Administration's historically no-nonsense approach to the media, vs. the approach they ultimately took, is a no-brainer. Newsweek's apology/retraction shouldn't be interpreted as "without any evidence".

Again, if their argument was as well-backed as they claimed it was, all they would have had to do was publish the source's comments in full, and they would have been covered.

I think the lesson they were really learning was the one from Memogate: if you're caught lying, come clean immediately so as to cut your losses. Put another way: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

When the Pentagon issues specific guidelines for dealing with the Koran, as one US official said "You don't get these orders unless there's some problem, concern or controversy."

Again, I'm sure there were problems with the troops and the Koran at one time or another, for all we know, it could have been because someone just dropped a book. In any case, saying that some problem arose that would result in the need for that report is a general accusation, not a specific one.

Along those lines, wasn't this short Newsweek blurb vetted by the Pentagon, or at least signed off on?

It was signed off on by the military source whom they misquoted in the first place, remember?

eraser8: (And it's guaranteed)

How do you figure?
By the liquidity of my assets, and the distribution thereof, compared to what percentage I can physically put my hands on. (Pre 33' gold coins for example :)

I don't see SS as my primary retirement fund, however, there are alot of individuals that do. If I have to pay into something that has a stated return, then I would like that return. Otherwise, I would like the option to handle the "investment" as I see fit, and most beneficial to me.

KleanKutKid

Great, if you're a right-winger then you should understand that statutory requirements are part of salary burdens, not base salary, and that as such you are not entitled to them the moment they are no longer required. You might as well claim that the unemployment premiums paid on your salary are due to YOU and not the state.

If you don't understand the difference, there's no sense arguing about it until you acquire a clue.

VideoVader:

2005-05-26 04:43:39 AM VideoVader

BillCosby
What propaganda is he trying to counteract?

Near as I can tell, that of his political opponents. (i.e. those who say the private accounts will do more harm than good, etc.)

You mean the ones using government money to tour America giving speeches? Or do you mean the ones they construct government sponsored advertisements to look like news? Or do you mean the journalists paid to support their view? Or do you mean the blitz of media lying about the President's plan? Do you mean how TV news programs continually have Democratic Senators on talking about SS with no Republicans to refute them? Do you mean how the liberals have infested Bush's own team to declare privatization does not address solvency?

/this is the part of the post where I alert everyone that I am being sarcastic.

VideoVader - The memo doesn't report the guards flushing the Koran; it reports the DETAINEE reporting guards flushing the Koran.

The primary tenet of Guantanamo is that accussation equals guilt. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. And why not believe the detainee? By the founding principles of the USA to everything written on the subject of jurisprudence, he is an innocent man without a blemish on his character - or have you abandoned that, too, now?

It's sad to see a once great nation proving beyond doubt that money alone won't stop you becoming a third world nation once the corporations take charge.

TheGoblinKing - Who said you had to commit a crime to be in a military prisoner camp in the middle of a war?

fine, but the war is over (not that it was ever declared) and if these people are indeed war criminals then they should be afforded the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. They are not even afforded POW status.

This isn't a civil jail holding accused criminals, this is a military prisoner camp holding enemy combatants.

Not according to their jailors. But in reality you are correct, there is no legal basis for this place at all. America is just stealing the lives of people that it found around its battlefields - not one of them with any evidence against them.

People they caught shooting at us. People who were caught building and setting bombs.

That's not true, although that is what happens when you attack other nations and people have a right to defend themselves, these people haven't even been caught doing that.

None of that is a crime under law, but it is an act of war performed by people who by their nature of operations aren't protected under the geneva conventions.

How do you figure that? The Red Cross and every nation on earth disagree with you. Even the UK has stated unambiguously that these people should be afforded the Geneva protections, and they are up to their necks in complicity. Only America says no, ostensibly because Rumsfeld's lawyer says they don't have to, in reality because they're saying 'farking make us.'

As I said, behaviour more befitting Chile or Argentina in the 70's than a supposedly great democracy in the 21st Century.

Ah man I just give up. Gave up a long time ago really. I knew some folk like Bush and Company would come along. Got your bags packed yet for that trip to the FEMA Emergency Relocation Camps for re-indoctrination? My bag has ammo, how about yours? Wouldn't it be nice to be a lamb? Bah bah dip-sheep.

--- "Bob" was off by only 3 years ---

equusdc:

You might as well claim that the unemployment premiums paid on your salary are due to YOU and not the state.

I don't collect unemployment,(never have, and hopefully, never will. I'm one of those "willing to work any job" crazies you hear about) so yeah, that should be mine too. :)

If salary burdens are lowered, then paying higher salaries become less of burden for employers to pay...correct?


eraser8: But, again, it is insurance principally for the society and not for the individual.

And therein lies my problem. I am a believer in minority rights, and I am a member of the ultimate minority. I'm an "Individual". We seem to get crushed under the boot-heel of societal demand. I guess I'll just STFU and make the donation.

I notice a trend this method of hammering words into the ears of the public to make them accepted. Take the music industry for example: Hit singles aren't made by unique and entertaining music but by playing the songs over and over again on the radio and television untill it becomes a sort of a cultural mojo.
Hell I dont know what im talking about. I didnt even read the article.

eraser8:

KleanKutKid writes: I'm an "Individual". We seem to get crushed under the boot-heel of societal demand.

So, I guess you're ready to disband the military, eh? After all, it's collective defense.

No, you're taking my comment out of context. Social Welfare and National Defense are apples and oranges. IE: National Defense is mentioned in the Constitution, Social Welfare is NOT.

Can we just get to the name calling part...COPS is on.

WHAT IS AN "UNLAWFUL COMBATANT," AND WHY IT MATTERS:

Are al Qaeda Fighters Prisoners of War?

First, what does it take to qualify as a prisoner of war? Article IV of the Geneva Convention states that members of irregular militias like al Qaeda qualify for prisoner-of-war status if their military organization satisfies four criteria:

(Convention 3, Article 4)
The criteria are: "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; [and] (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Al Qaeda does not satisfy these conditions. Perhaps Osama bin Laden could be considered "a person responsible for his subordinates," although the cell structure of al Qaeda belies the notion of a chain of command. But in any event, al Qaeda members openly flout the remaining three conditions.

Al Qaeda members deliberately attempt to blend into the civilian population - violating the requirement of having a "fixed distinctive sign" and "carrying arms openly." Moreover, they target civilians, which violates the "laws and customs of war."

Thus, al Qaeda members need not be treated as prisoners of war.

See also, Convention 4, Article 4: Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are

What is so sad is the hysterical liberals, who after reading this will still say, inexplicably, that somehow the Geneva Convention applies to Al Qaeda.

SO TELL ME, WHERE THE FARK DOES IT SAY IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION THESE ASSHATS QUALIFY?!??!?!

eraser8
And, what if the policeman actually said there was a bomb in your car? That is the proper analogue to the Newsweek case.

Except the policeman didn't actually confirm the existence of the bomb.

That's just another lie. The principal source, according to Isikoff and Newsweek did, in fact, say precisely what was written in the magazine. But, after publication, that source said that he was no longer sure that his information was accurate. That is why the story was retracted.

Here's the original line from the Periscope item:

Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash.

Here's the retelling of the source-checking by Newsweek in the follow-up:

Isikoff knew that military investigators at Southern Command (which runs the Guantnamo prison) were looking into the allegations. So he called a longtime reliable source, a senior U.S. government official who was knowledgeable about the matter. The source told Isikoff that the report would include new details that were not in the FBI e-mails, including mention of flushing the Qur'an down a toilet.

And later, in page two of the story:

On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report.

Big question: is this a mention of troops confirmed having flushed the Koran down the toilet, or merely mention of detainees accusing them of such and a subsequent (and possibly unfruitful) investigation, as with the latest-revealed FBI reports. If the latter, it's not an actual confirmation of the incident. Notice also in the latter part how the mentions of the flushing are referred to as "concerns," as though they hadn't yet been resolved or confirmed.

Newsweek's words here look deliberatley hazy, but even if we assume for the sake of argument that the source specifically said that the accusations were not only investigated, but also confirmed, this is still only one source, while Newsweek cites "sources," plural. Backtracking a bit to mention of the second source on page 1:

A SouthCom spokesman contacted by Isikoff declined to comment on an ongoing investigation, but news-week National Security Correspondent John Barry, realizing the sensitivity of the story, provided a draft of the NEWSWEEK periscope item to a senior Defense official, asking, "Is this accurate or not?" The official challenged one aspect of the story: the suggestion that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, sent to Gitmo by the Pentagon in 2001 to oversee prisoner interrogation, might be held accountable for the abuses. Not true, said the official (the periscope draft was corrected to reflect that). But he was silent about the rest of the item. The official had not meant to mislead, but lacked detailed knowledge of the SouthCom report.

So the second source they use to verify the story said nothing at all about the Koran-flushing in response to a yes-or-no question, but Newsweek went ahead and put him down as saying yes anyway. All they had to do was ask, "Okay, that bit is wrong, but is the rest accurate?" That alone means that Newsweek lied when they said that sources, plural, confirmed the incident, leaving at best a single-source story, at worst a no-source exaggeration.

It was not a false assignment. On what are you basing the claim that Newsweek misrepresented their souce?

See above. The misrepresentation of the first source is a bit hazy, but the second is obvious.

The story may not have been wrong.

No, the charges of desecration may have been right or wrong. The story itself was definitely wrong.

Video Vader has to much free time. Seriously.

uclajd:
You Sir, YOU ROCK.

Gavino
The primary tenet of Guantanamo is that accussation equals guilt. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. And why not believe the detainee? By the founding principles of the USA to everything written on the subject of jurisprudence, he is an innocent man without a blemish on his character - or have you abandoned that, too, now?

Please tell me you're joking. Never mind that most of these guys were found on the battlefield. What happens when a supposedly innocent, blemishless inmate accuses an innocent, blemishless soldier of abuse? If we assume innocence until guilt is proven, and the charge is being leveled against the soldier, then shouldn't we assume the soldier's guilt until ample evidence is provided?

Put another way: Why should be believe the detainee over the soldier? True, some soldiers have abused prisoners, but some detainees have also lied about abuse, both of which have been documented. This is a specific case; we need specific evidence. If such evidence comes up against the soldier, go ahead with the proper punishment, but not a minute before.

sandez
Video Vader has to much free time. Seriously.

Meh, can't sleep. :P

If you think this is bad, I've seen some farkers go for 6 hours consecutively. Once saw a thread where a dude had been going 4 or 5 posts an hour for 12 hours with only a 1 hour break.

If salary burdens are lowered, then paying higher salaries become less of burden for employers to pay...correct?


No, it becomes unnecessary. You're arguing from a colloquial point of view about things that have very specific meanings of which you obviously are not aware.

Just because you haven't used or perceived any future need to use UI or Social Security yet does not mean you never will--and since you don't pay one penny of UI, no, you don't get that regardless. Employers pay that based on their risk of tossing people out on the street for no reason.

As has been mentioned numerous times by numerous people, these are SOCIAL INSURANCE plans, not individual insurance plans. That is, insurance to protect society from YOU and your own ability to fark things up not the other way around--and society has no reason to believe that your own hubris isn't going to be your own destruction and we'd all like to make sure you don't become an even greater pain in our collective ass than you already are.

Just think, if your supreme cleverness is so great that you manage to earn more than $80k per year, not a dime above that will be subject to SS witholdings. If you make less than that, well, suck up, honey, because you ain't that clever.