HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Who are the Social Securi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:28 PM

 

Who are the Social Security Trustees?

Last edited Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

All the numbers about the finances of Social Security are generated by the SS Trustees in their yearly report, including all projections about SS's future performance.

Who are these trustees?

1. Timothy Geithner
Prep school kid. Majored in Asian Studies at Dartmouth, fluent Chinese. Started his post-college career working for Kissinger. Protegee of Larry Summers. Uncle long-time State Dept muckety. Father long-time Ford Foundation muckety. Grandfather Ford advertising exec. G-grandfather = industrialist. Resume includes stints with the IMF and the Federal Reserve.)

2. Hilda L. Solis
Working class/immigrant kid made good; father Teamster shop steward, mother factory worker. Carter's WH Chief of Hispanic Affairs. LA Insurance Commissioner, Cal State Assembly & Senate, US Representative. US Sec of Labor.

3. Kathleen Sebelius
Catholic elite private school kid. Father = Ohio legislator and governor, USAID administrator. Husband also from a political (Republican) family. Kathleen = Kansas insurance commissioner, kansas house, kansas governor.

4. Michael J. Astrue
Prep school kid. WH associate counsel under Reagan and Bush. Ties to biotech industry, biotech law specialist. Service in HHS & SS depts.

5. Charles P. Blahous
Prep school kid, politically-connected family. Aide to Alan Simpson, Judd Greff. Director of anti-SS think tank Alliance for Worker Retirement Security. Bush Special Assistant for Economic Policy, Executive Director of Bush Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Deputy Director of Bush National Economic Council. Hudson Institute. Hoover Institution.

6. Robert D. Reischauer
Prep-school kid (son of Harvard prof & Japan specialist Edwin O. Reischauer). Helped establish Congressional Budget Office, former director CBO. Urban Institute (President), Brookings Institute. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Senior Fellow/Board of Overseers, Harvard Corporation. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Board of Directors. National Academy of Social Insurance Founding Member

7. Carolyn W. Colvin
Graduate Morgan State U (one of the historically black universities). Director of the Department of Human Services DC. CEO of AMERIGROUP Community Care. Special Assistant to Maryland Department of Transportation. Secretary of the Maryland Department of Human Resources. Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Programs and Policy, Social Security Admin. National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, NAACP.


5/7 = prep school/elite catholic school kids
Note on edit: Sebelius went to the catholic equivalent of prep school and private elite catholic college, not to a run of the mill "catholic school": Summit Country Day School & Trinity Washington University.

1/7 = working class background
1/7 = background unknown

44 replies, 2834 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Who are the Social Security Trustees? (Original post)
HiPointDem Apr 2012 OP
TheWraith Apr 2012 #1
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #2
freshwest Apr 2012 #6
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #9
freshwest Apr 2012 #11
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #15
freshwest Apr 2012 #22
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #23
freshwest Apr 2012 #27
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #39
MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #3
freshwest Apr 2012 #4
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #5
freshwest Apr 2012 #7
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #8
freshwest Apr 2012 #12
ProSense Apr 2012 #10
MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #13
ProSense Apr 2012 #14
MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #17
ProSense Apr 2012 #20
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #18
ProSense Apr 2012 #19
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #24
ProSense Apr 2012 #28
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #29
ProSense Apr 2012 #30
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #31
ProSense Apr 2012 #33
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #34
ProSense Apr 2012 #35
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #36
ProSense Apr 2012 #37
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #38
ProSense Apr 2012 #40
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #41
ProSense Apr 2012 #42
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #43
joeybee12 Apr 2012 #16
marlakay Apr 2012 #21
Stinky The Clown Apr 2012 #25
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #26
unkachuck Apr 2012 #32
HiPointDem Apr 2012 #44

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:35 PM

1. It's that damned elitist "education!"

We should never listen to anyone who didn't take all their schoolin' in a one room hovel in Utah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:37 PM

2. solis is very well educated. but she wasn't born into an upper class/ruling class family.

 

nice try though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheWraith (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:58 PM

6. Damn that elitist-educated FDR who created Social Security!

I mean, isn't that where we're going with this?

They are appointed as 'trustees' or administrators, they don't control the GAO or the media who pushing the perception the system is broke.

And I think they have to follow whatever laws and budgetary restraints the Congress sets. Am I wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:08 PM

9. Yep, FDR, Frances Perkins, & many other founders were ruling class. And they were countering

 

the Great Depression & the pressure of the Soviet Union.

In different times, the ruling class wants different things.

Do you have some objection to people knowing who the Trustees are? Particularly that one is Tim Geithner and one is a long-time public opponent of SS, closely associated with Alan Simpson & other long-time opponents?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:24 PM

11. No, why would you assume that? Do you believe they can overrule Congress?

Frankly, I don't like a lot of these characters, like Simpson. The issue has been pushed in lieu of taxes on the wealthy, which is wrong, and which FDR set at 90%. They've been screwing the system up so badly since Reagan, that it's all out of proportion.

The 1% or whoever one calls the boogeyman, went international or global many years ago, if they weren't always that way. When you see the familial patterns, just as we used to check into who was sitting on the interlocking directorates of the Vietnam era, it's clear that there are sections of this country and the world that have always been offlimits to the proles. Like the church, like the big estates.

It's obvious why Carlin referred to them as being in 'a club, and you ain't in it.' This is not new. A few generations of people taking for granted that the 1% was benign toward the 99% did this, and expecting their parents' sacrifice to be respected.

There really may not be a 99% as far as the levels. Many people are not in a life and death struggle and depend on government service. They are either not politically involved, are part of the system underneath the 1%, and consider it within their best interests to protect the ones who hire them.

The situation is complex, and we need to stick more to principles than to persons/personalities. IMHO. At no time did I mean to imply that we shouldn't look at all of this, just saying that's not all it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:33 PM

15. the lolzcats posts didn't give a good impression, lets say.

 

I didn't say that's all it is either. The Trustees don't make the laws, they just provide the "facts" that legislators use. They also determine what assumptions will be used to generate those "facts" (projections).

I think it's important that people know who they are and what their backgrounds & political allegiances are. Anything wrong with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #15)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:58 PM

22. I didn't say that. I think you want something to fight about. Let's avoid that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #22)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 09:52 PM

23. I didn't see any fighting, I saw me asking a question.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #23)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:23 PM

27. Nothing more to discuss, the thread has exhausted itself. Have a good evening. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:55 PM

39. which you didn't answer.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:45 PM

3. We are the 1%

All your Social Security are belong to us.

Here... enjoy these cooked projections we've prepared that create a fully-fake "crisis" which will allow us to grab trillions from the SS Trust Fund.

Suckers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:54 PM

4. CORRECSHUN: WE R TEH 1%. ALL UR SOSHUL SECURITY R BELONG 2 US.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:57 PM

5. i'm a dumb 99%er & i don't get your point. please explain clearly so us dummies will get it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:00 PM

7. It's the correct LOLZ SPEAK translation. You don't like kittehs?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:02 PM

8. no idea what you're talking about.

 

guess you're just making fun. common tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:27 PM

12. Did you read the post I was replying to? Not a tactic, a benign correction.

I agree with Manny, that's exactly what is happening.

LOLZ cats has many themes on the greedy taking from everyone, and they've been posted here before.

As Skinner says, we're supposed to be having fun here, so let's not make it suck.

The revelation of the names of these people is important to realize the range of screwn we're being subjected to.

But it's not all there is. Peace Out.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:11 PM

10. Trustees’ Report Shows Social Security ‘Vibrant, Strong’

Trustees’ Report Shows Social Security ‘Vibrant, Strong’
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/Trustees-Report-Shows-Social-Security-Vibrant-Strong

Social Security is Strong
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=ad0e5349-2da1-4907-8a83-e0ec0b5ee51f

What exactly is the point of calling the Trustees' credibility into question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:29 PM

13. "the long-run financial challenges"

"Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather
than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action
will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent
on program benefits."

- The "Trustees" of Social Security: A Message to the Public

Now what actions do you think they're talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:31 PM

14. They




"Now what actions do you think they're talking about?"

...don't make proposals. Here's Bernie Sanders'

<...>

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has introduced legislation to strengthen Social Security and guarantee benefits for 75 years by extending the payroll tax that most Americans already pay to those who earn above $250,000 a year.

"The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the next 75 years is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on income above $250,000. Right now, someone who earns $110,100 pays the same amount of money into Social Security as a billionaire. That makes no sense," said Sanders, the chairman of the Defending Social Security Caucus. He also chairs the Senate aging subcommittee.

Under the proposed legislation, the wealthiest Americans would pay the same payroll tax rate already assessed on those with incomes up to $110,100 a year. Social Security officials have calculated that the simple change would keep the retirement program strong for another 75 years. The legislation also follows through on a proposal that President Barack Obama made in 2008 when he was running for president.

The Keeping Our Social Security Promises Act is cosponsored by Sens. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Barbara Mikulski, (D-Md.), Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D- R.I.).

Since it was signed into law 76 years ago, Social Security has kept millions of senior citizens, widows, widowers, orphans, and the disabled out of poverty. Before Social Security, about half of senior citizens lived in poverty. Today, less than 10 percent do.

At the AFL-CIO link, Harkin's proposal is mentioned, and it's to increase benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:36 PM

17. The President appoints the Trustees. And *he* makes proposals:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:53 PM

20. Really?

"Rep. Conyers : Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts, Not GOP"

Again: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002534099#post5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:40 PM

18. Of what relevance are quotes from the AFL-CIO & Sanders? The Trustees aren't saying

 

those things. They're saying something different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:47 PM

19. Well,

Of what relevance are quotes from the AFL-CIO & Sanders? The Trustees aren't saying

those things. They're saying something different.


...feel free to go read the report: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

I mean, are you saying Social Security isn't "vibrant" and "strong"?

Still, what is the point of calling into question the Trustees' credibility?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 09:58 PM

24. Your link demonstrates that the Trustees aren't saying anything like "vibrant" and "strong".

 

In fact, the picture they paint is 180 degrees from that one.

The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012....Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations...

Social Security and Medicare are the two largest federal programs, accounting for 36 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2011. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth in the coming decades...

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html


Not sure why you think that telling who the Trustees are and what their backgrounds are undermines their credibility.

If their credibility is undermined by an honest description of their backgrounds and job histories, too damn bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:24 PM

28. First of all

Your link demonstrates that the Trustees aren't saying anything like "vibrant" and "strong".

In fact, the picture they paint is 180 degrees from that one.

...any report that shows the Trust Fund is solvent for two decades, with only a tweak to retain its solvency for 75 years, means it's "vibrant" and "strong." In other words, the RW meme about Social Security being bankrupt or insolvent is bullshit.


Not sure why you think that telling who the Trustees are and what their backgrounds are undermines their credibility.

If their credibility is undermined by an honest description of their backgrounds and job histories, too damn bad.

No doubt your goal was to extol the merits of their educational backgrounds by providing this information.

Frankly, the OP smells like a bullshit attack now being dressed up as "an honest description."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:26 PM

29. oh, baloney. The entire thrust of the Trustees report is that the program is in imminent

 

danger & something needs to be done immediately.

which is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:30 PM

30. That's

"The entire thrust of the Trustees report is that the program is in imminent danger & something needs to be done immediately."

...your interpretation. Still, what do you think needs to be done to prevent this "imminent danger"?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:38 PM

31. not "my" interpretation at all, it's the obvious message of the text to anyone who's not trying

 

to spin it for political reasons -- in this case, to convince people that the Trustees, despite their ruling class backgrounds, are impartial administrators of a program they are telling people is vibrant and strong.

But they're not. They're telling people the program needs changes *immediately* because it won't be able to pay full benefits in twenty years.

They're also telling people that SS & Medicare = more than 1/3 of federal expenditures, a statement designed to mislead by lumping SS & MC with other federal expenditures financed from income tax, even though SS & most of MC are financed independently of the federal budget or federal income taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:41 PM

33. It is

not "my" interpretation at all, it's the obvious message of the text to anyone who's not trying

to spin it for political reasons -- in this case, to convince people that the Trustees, despite their ruling class backgrounds, are impartial administrators of a program they are telling people is vibrant and strong.

...your interpretaion. Here are two others you rejected: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=619073

Still, you still didn't say what do you think needs to be done to prevent the "imminent danger"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:42 PM

34. There is no imminent danger. So quite obviously, I don't think anything needs to be done

 

imminently.

Unlike the Trustees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:44 PM

35. So

"There is no imminent danger. So quite obviously, I don't think anything needs to be done imminently."

...you agree with the AFL-CIO and Bernie Sanders that Social Security is strong?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=619073

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:47 PM

36. Perhaps the conversation would improve if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

 

I don't agree with sanders or afl-cio either. They're just selling a different "solution" to a misdiagnosed "problem".

But sanders and afl-cio have nothing to do with my op.

so stop spinning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:51 PM

37. OK

I don't agree with sanders or afl-cio either. They're just selling a different "solution" to a misdiagnosed "problem".

But sanders and afl-cio have nothing to do with my op.


You said, "There is no imminent danger. So quite obviously, I don't think anything needs to be done."

The AFL-CIO and Senator Sanders each said Social Security is strong. They proposed increasing the cap.

Senator Harkin said Social Security benefits should be raised.

Do you agree with that since you believe the program is solvent and nothing needs to be done?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:54 PM

38. i don't agree with any of that. mainly because all those actors are, in one way or another,

 

misleading the public about how SS works and what state it's in and what the root problems are.

i don't like spinners on either side of the fence.

not that that has anything to do with my op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:59 PM

40. OK

i don't agree with any of that. mainly because all those actors are, in one way or another,

misleading the public about how SS works and what state it's in and what the root problems are.

i don't like spinners on either side of the fence.

not that that has anything to do with my op.


So you're saying that the Trustees, the AFL-CIO and Senators Sanders and Harkin are "misleading the public."

You believe Social Security doesn't need to be strengthened because it's strong and solvent, and you do not support increasing benefits.

So the point of your OP is to present the backgrounds of the Trustees, who you believe are "misleading the public."

Where are you getting your information on Social Security to make the determination that it's strong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #40)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:24 PM

41. yes, i believe all those people are misleading the public in one way or another. #1, they're

 

all telling us that something must be done soon to fix a problem projected 20 years in the future. That's a *big* misdirection.

no, i don't believe SS is "strong". (it's obviously not "strong" because it's under concerted political attack, irregardless of its fiscal state.) neither do i believe it's in imminent fiscal danger.

there's a financing issue projected up the road. may happen, may not. not necessary to do anything now except make sure the feds repay what they borrowed from the program.

I get my information from the only place one *can* get information on the SS program: From the trustees' reports.

I look at the collections and expenditures which i assume to be reliable.

i look at the assumptions they use to make their projections and the changes in the assumptions and projections over time, under different administrations and trustees.

i look at the accuracy of the trustee's projections over time and the variation.

I don't take their projections as gospel, or their recommendations. just the numbers, ma'am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:35 PM

42. What?

no, i don't believe SS is "strong". (it's obviously not "strong" because it's under concerted political attack, irregardless of its fiscal state.) neither do i believe it's in imminent fiscal danger.

So it's not strong , but you said: "There is no imminent danger. So quite obviously, I don't think anything needs to be done."

But, you propose something:

there's a financing issue projected up the road. may happen, may not. not necessary to do anything now except make sure the feds repay what they borrowed from the program.


And you get your information from the Trustees, who are "misleading the public."

I get my information from the only place one *can* get information on the SS program: From the trustees' reports.

I look at the collections and expenditures which i assume to be reliable.

If they're "misleading the public," why would you assume the information is "reliable"?

Also, if you say that it's not strong, but strong enough to continue until the "financing issue projected up the road," why exactly are you saying that Senator Sanders is "misleading the public" by proposing a solution?

Also, how would you address the "financing issue projected up the road"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 11:39 PM

43. The numbers on collections and outlays are verifiable. Concrete facts. The projections

 

and assumptions used to make them are subjective/political. As is any editorializing the trustees do around those projections and the recommendations they make, and the tone in which they make them.

I don't think you've read the trustees reports in any depth or you wouldn't ask such silly questions.

Any financing deficit up the road i'd address the same way such deficits have been addressed historically.

What I wouldn't do is cut benefits ahead of time, overtly or covertly.

Nor would I start collecting more fica to add to the unprecedented $2.7 trillion dollar slush fund for the rich we've already got going.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:33 PM

16. Geithner, Sebelius, Astrue and Blahous are awful trustees...Solis only good one

Can't speak of the other two.

Sebelius showed her true colors when she folded quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 05:56 PM

21. On the surface looks negative

but since these are the kind of people who know about money and investments let's think positive that they are making the money grow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 09:58 PM

25. I get your point, but "elite catholic school kids" sinks your argument like the iceberg sank Titanic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:07 PM

26. I should have made it clear that Sebelius went to the Catholic equivalent of prep school, not a

 

run of the mill catholic school.

The Summit Country Day School:

...educates students from preschool through high school in its Montessori, Primary, Middle School and Upper School divisions. It is a private, Catholic, independent high school located in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Tuition $3,650 (preschool) – $18,200 (grade 11)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_Country_Day_School

Trinity Washington University:

Trinity College was founded by the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur in 1897 as a Catholic college for women. For over 70 years, Trinity educated middle-class Catholic women, who were underrepresented in America's colleges. In the 1960s, the school vied with Wellesley and Bryn Mawr for the daughters of the wealthy and powerful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Washington_University

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 10:39 PM

32. I believe in timmy the trustee....

 

....timmy will help us....if timmy can provide a pain-free bailout for the banks, a pain-free bailout for the insurances companies and a pain-free bailout for wall-street, he surely will be able to provide us a pain-free bailout of Social Security and maybe even Medicare....

....if not, I'll meet you in the streets and we won't stop until this system changes....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Sat Apr 28, 2012, 01:54 PM

44. kick

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread