The hypocrisy is that Joe is a Socialist of the worst sort, a moocher sucking off other people's incomes.

How do I know this? because some day Joe will collect Social Security.

Now since Joe's had a blue-collar income (and so have I), then he is almost certainly average in how much FICA (Social Security) tax he's paid.

The average male can expect to live to about 78 years of age, and since Joe will be able to start collecting at about 63, then he'll be collecting that gummit check for about 15 years, and if he's lucky, even longer.

Now if Joe was a true self-reliant capitalist, he'd only take out what he put into Social Security plus interest-- more or less drawing it as a "forced savings plan." In that case, Joe would receive what he paid in plus interest in about 3-4 years. After that, he's sucking off other people's money--Socialism, Joe, big ugly, Un-American Socialism. Yup, Joe, you're the worst sort of Socialist leech from age 68 to 78 and beyond, taking money that's been redistributed out of other people's wallets into yours.

That's the dirty little secret of Social Security--it's pure socialism. Heck, only 63% actually goes to retirees--the rest is dolgurned 100% Socialism, redistributing our taxes to all sorts of people who aren't retirees. Here are the stats: The Long-Term Outlook for Social Security.

It gets worse, Joe-- you've paid a couple grand in Medicare taxes yet you'll be sucking hundreds of thousands out of other people's wallets the minute you start collecting Medicare benefits. Say Joe is 66 and he goes into the hospital for treatment of gallstones, and he has to stay a couple days for observation: that's $120,000, Joe, and you paid about 3% of that. the rest is Socialism or Welfare. Yup, the $116,000 you didn't pay got removed from other people's wallets. That's socialism, pure and simple. (The $120K tab is drawn from real life--that was my friend's father's bill for just this procedure/hospital stay.)

Here's the hypocrisy: we're all socialists because unless we die young then we're all going to be extracting far more in benefits than we paid in, even if you include compound interest. (If you die young, then your kids and spouse are eligible for benefits, so your family still draws your benefits.) We all get those statements from Social Security; you can do the math yourself, and adjust for inflation, too, with this handy calculator courtesy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPI Inflation Calculator.

All Federal entitlements are Ponzi schemes, of course; nothing is actually "set aside" for us; our taxes pay the benefits of current retirees and any surplus is spent on other programs, and the government issues Social Security an IOU (heh).

All ponzi schemes require an ever larger pool of suckers to buy in. The scheme falls apart when the number of retirees and those drawing benefits is almost as large as the pool of workers paying into the system.

All the current projections are rosy, rosy, rosy. They all count on the economy growing steadily for decades to come, on people compliantly dying off at 78 or so, and a bunch of other assumptions.

What happens if the workforce drops from 135 million to 105 million due to a depression? (When the Baby Boomers all retire, fully 85 million citizens will be sucking off Social Security. Can one worker cover the monthly payment to one retiree? No. The ratio has to remain at least 3 to 1 to even be marginally realistic.)

What happens if deflation eats away at wages and taxes for a decade or so while benefits stay untouched? All those projections of Social Security being adequately funded through 2045 or 2080 are completely blown apart.

Even the rosiest projections of Medicare call for insolvency within 15 years. Once the U.S. economy loses 30 million jobs and the Federal government is unable to borrow trillions at low interest rates, then Medicare will be insolvent much sooner than 2023.

So Joe, if you're really against socialism, then stop collecting Medicare and Social Security the minute your FICA and Medicare taxes and accrued interest on those funds are paid out in full.

Funny how everyone's against Socialism when they're paying but pretty darn happy with it when they're collecting. But luckily for Joe, American Socialism (Social Security and Medicare) will very likely be insolvent by the time he's ready to collect. Then he can denounce Socialism with some actual credibility, because he won't be drawing a dime of redistributed tax money--and neither will anyone else.

So Joe, maybe you should start saving for your old age now, since Socialism won't be around to redistribute other people's money to you.


NOTE: I will be away from desk until Wednesday, Nov. 5. Please read these many thoughtful readers' comments as entries for Monday and Tuesday. Also, please experiment with the site's updated Google search bar (one in each sidebar).

I am surprised and humbled to note that this site garnered 165,000 visits and served an astounding 571,000 pages and 2.9 million hits in October. Thank you, readers, for your readership and for your generous contributions of cash and critiques/comments.


Reader Comments:

David W.

About 2 years ago, my father in law (79 years old) was going in and out of the hospital for pain, and was high on all kinds of narcotics they were giving him and were not helping. His bills were pretty high, but not so bad because of multiple insurance coverages he carries. But I'm sure the doctors and hospitals and testing centers made 100s of 1000s of $ with no help whatsoever. They made him worse. Now he's at home and my mother in law takes care of him. He's not well, but he's not running of unnecessary bills for the medical industry either.

So, I recently developed pain in my abdomen (I'm 42 years old) around my gall bladder along with a lot of indigestion. The gastro. Dr. that I saw did an ultrasound to check for gallstones and other problems. It was negative. Then, he did an upper endoscopy and found I have some acid reflux. I have had to pay around $500 for this test after insurance, because of a deductible. The whole bill, before insurance was a couple of $1000. He prescribed Nexium and another test (to check the functioning of my gall bladder) that involved injecting radioactive liquid into my bloodstream, which I'm sure would cost the medical system multiple $1000s more and said that if he saw any abnormal functioning then he would have my gall bladder removed (probably for 10s of $1000s). I said no.

I went to a doctor of Chinese medicine who did some accupuncture and gave me harmless herbs to take. This was about 6 weeks ago. I was also very careful about my diet - I didn't overeat or eat foods that would irritate an already irritated digestive system. Anyway, he charged me $45/visit for 4 visits. Right now, I'm completely cured. I'm back to eating almost anything I want without feeling ill. Even better, my insurance company just covered my expenses. They are paying him $75/visit. So, I could have had a test, which my insurance co. would have covered for multiple $1000s, which could have lead to surgery, that would have cost multiple 10s of $1000s and gone on Nexium for 100s or even 1000s of $ more. Instead I chose a very subtle, very cheap treatment, which I actually enjoy for the sum total of $300.

I will be going back to the doctor of Chinese medicine for some other minor health issues I have. I was considering seeing specialists, who charge multiple $100s, just for a consultation, not including the 100s or even 1000s of $ of tests and medications they probably could have ordered. And how can I forget - every time I visit a doctor of "Western medicine", I have to pay a $35 co-pay. Not so for the doctor of Chinese medicine.

Phillip H.

Excerpted from Friday, Oct 31 Cassandra Does Tokyo:

On healthcare : "I look at the $3 million for half-an-hour and I see incredible possibilities to educate the nation about policy and their interests and thereby broaden the mandate for change - not with ubiquitious, whitewashed Maoist slogans - but with a slickly non-patronizingly put-together educational pieces that might go something like:

(fade in with voiceover by Colin Powell) ...."Here is America. We spend nearly 15% of GDP on Healthcare and a large minority are not, or insufficiently covered. Approx 28% of private expenditure is spent on administration. Here is France and Canada. They spend 10% of GDP on Healthcare and EVERYONE is covered. They spend approximately 3% of each healthcare dollar on administration. The different is astoundingly large! $350,000,000,000 dollars!!! What could America do with the $350 billion we might save? We could nearly balance our budget. Provide proper body armour to our troops. We could improve our primary and secondary educational system and public transport, invest in much-needed child-care. We could subsidise housing for the indigent and the truly needy, make long-term investments in sustainable energy and associated R&D, perhaps cure cancer......."

Ruthann

The subject of health generally turns my pale face red; and my bold opinions on the subject almost always cause conflict. One such opinion: the best medicine is healthy ,FRESH food [non-genetically modified ,chemical free, in season, local] in conjunction with a healthy heart, mind and spirit [not necessarily in that order].

Matthew 15:11 " not that which is coming into the mouth doth defile the man, but that which is coming forth from the mouth, this defileth the man."

Healthy thoughts eventually take root in the heart and produce health from the inside out. Best medicine is laughter!

Pro 17:22 "A merry heart doth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones."

[I was raised with a 'HEALTHY' distrust of conventional medicine].

C.S.

Your piece this morning on healthcare is correct. I work in healthcare and saw things really begin to tighten up with Medicaid at the state level in 2006 and 2007. This actually forced me into seeking jobs connected with the federal government so my source of income would be more stable.

Hopefully, you'll get someone connected with medical billing to respond since I'm a clinician/specialist in a very narrow slice of the field and like most healthcare workers I don't actually touch any money during the course of my work day. We all know costs continue to rise for existing covered services, but at the same time there are efforts to kick people off state-funded services, deny or limit coverage for those under private insurance, and increase the number of hoops for everyone in general.

At the same time many providers find reimbursement rates frozen for a number of services or the time it takes to get them reimbursed is longer. This in turn forces providers to limit the numbers and types of patients they see because they know they won't see all the money. However, on the books all these people are still "insured" (publicly or privately). As you can see the uninsured fall off into a statistical blackhole for the most part.

Again, it would be great if we could get someone truly on the inside connected with medical billing/budgeting to write an essay on this topic. I think it would really show how the game is played and how it's heavily managed from the top down. However, this is not to imply that individuals aren't responsible for their own care and treatment in the first place through a healthy lifestyle which includes a proper diet and physical excercise. A large part of the problem with "healthcare" is the mentality of a majority of Americans who really are fat and lazy who then get indignant when you point out they need to make a behavior change, they won't, and then want someone else to pay for their poor choices.

Yes, this is all part of the perma-teen culture of being irresponsible from cradle to grave. People want their side of bacon and their lipitor. Change? Why should they? Isn't someone else suppose to take care of this?

Thanks for another excellent article, "Mainstream Media, Masters of the Obvious," Oct 29! Your mention of the media's failure to talk truthfully about issues like the housing bubble and construction defects is spot-on. For years we've been just one voice who was warning that these problems were going to have serious consequences. Over and over the media chose to print industry spin instead.

Homeowners who had serious construction defect cases often talked to the media only to have their proof of serious defects reduced to a trial sounding complaint. The reporters required the homeowners to spend hours digging up documents and verifying all their claims, then often the proof wasn't used or even mentioned. The builder's word, however, that the complaint was non existent, was often taken without as the final word.

Greg Palast wrote some years ago about the "Silence of the Lambs" of American journalism. He, too, mentioned this phenonenon, of blindly accepting the word of people in high places.

I've seen good stories pulled and one was even deliberately removed from the web, even from cached sources like google and archives.org, with a notice that it had been removed. One has to ask, what kind of power do these industries wield on the media when they control what we know. Those of us on the internet have an advantage but I know of many people who have no access to any news but the main non-cable networks. Sadly, all those ignorant people will be voting.

The mainstream news we post on our site's news page is the tip of the ice berg, and find some of the best news coverage on alternative news sources and blogs. Most of the revelations about the housing bubble now being reported in mainstream media could've been reported years ago, when it might have done some good. Protecting these industries did a huge disservice to Americans. I see more and more that if a corporate interest does it, more than likely they get away with it because the govt looks the other way. Any normal person who undermined the economy or the country's journalism would be in jail.

Cindy Schnackel

National Secretary, Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings

Tony

"40% of U.S. households pay no Federal taxes"

I wish you'd stopping repeating this right-wing propaganda. FICA is a Federal tax, and all earned income is subject to it's 7.65% tax rate. If you mean "income tax" then say so, but recognize that there are other "Federal taxes" besides the income tax.

Love your site, btw.

Chuck R.

Interesting article (as always) Toward a Re-Definition of Middle Class.

Even more interesting is that the 3 areas with the highest rates of increase are in areas where the government has short-circuited free market price control mechanisms to the greatest degree.

a. Education. As the government provides tax credits and deductions and subsidized student loans year after year, the ultimate beneficiary are the educational institutions who can now charge higher fees. If the consumer was not being subsidized, the institutions would eventually have to price their product so as to remain affordable at lower levels.

b. Medical Care. With government subsidies a la medicare, tax code incentives for employer provided insurance, etc., and the essentially 50% level of government penetration into our healthcare system, is it any surprise that market mechanisms for limiting medical costs are totally short-circuited?

c. Housing. With government created housing bubbles (e.g., easy money via Federal Reserve provision of low interest rates), again, how much of the bubble would have existed if the government had nothing to do with the housing market?

Cars, apparel, televisions - these are areas where the market has been allowed to act (at least, a lot more than in the above areas), and there you have the lowest or negative rates of cost growth.

While I agree focus should be on reducing costs - focus how? Top down government incentives that stifle free market competition mechanisms is 180 degrees in the wrong direction - more free market policies, that's the way to go.

Michael Goodfellow

You wrote: Look at what's skyrocketed: the very elements considered the bedrock of middle-class membership: college tuition, medical care, housing, transportation (auto insurance, gasoline taxes, subway fares, toll roads, airfare, etc., not the cost of new autos).

A Libertarian would argue that the money the Federal government dumps into college and medical care are responsible for a big chunk of the price increases. And that housing has jumped both because of the bubble, and because of land use restrictions, esp. along the California coast (a huge part of the bubble, all by itself.)

I don't think airfare has really gone up, esp. compared to periods like the 50's and 60's. Deregulation also dropped the coast of shipping by truck. Gasoline swings up and down, but has been cheaper than the inflation-corrected price in the 1950's.

On the other hand, cars and trucks would be a bit cheaper without some of the more annoying bits of government regulation. I'd particularly like to be able to import European diesels into the U.S.. Ethanol requirements just drop your gas mileage and increase the price. If the government wants to regulate in this area, it could mandate only 6 grades of gasoline nationally, instead of the 40-something there are now, due to multiple different state standards.

I'm not sure why the savings rate has crashed. You could certainly have continued to live a 50's lifestyle on your increased income, and had plenty of savings. Even when it came to housing, a 50's house is a lot smaller than the typical house now. If people hadn't been buying McMansions, they would have had more money for other things.

My point here is that some of this is government, and some of it is self-inflicted waste. I also think a lot of it is just automation and foreign competition that has dropped the value of a standard "no real skills" college education.

Finally, I don't see how you can have increased opportunity (esp. when technology is changing everything) without increased inequality. In this kind of environment, the ones who go after new opportunities will tend to be rewarded, and the ones who don't, penalized. If you don't bet, you can't win.

Robert L.

You sure stuff a lot of financial data into the mix this morning.

( Toward a Re-Definition of Middle Class October 30, 2008). It's rather complicated to point to specific reasons for the various changes in costs/incomes, but I have a few ideas you may want to consider. I will strive for brevity, but sometimes I lose myself in my own thoughts.

In terms of tuition, both you and I attended colleges back when they were built by public funds for public use and American students with limited incomes competed by test score to attend. The enrollment demand has expanded on two fronts: 1) unqualified minorities who attend via "affirmative action" programs, also publicly funded and Foreign students. The cost of the minority enrollments can not often be counted in the tuition figures, as they often pay none. From my perspective foreign children of rich shieks far exceeds what should be allowed. This skews available funding much higher, since they will get the education, regardless of tuition, making American students compete with foreigners in their own universities. When I attended, I was told this was good, as it reduced the cost for me to attend. I think that is false. With limited seats, a virtual monopoly, prices could be skewed as high as the market will allow. "out-of state" enrollments have always been higher, but increasing numbers allows the University to push the level of required funding at each new year. The other factor is that EVERYONE needs to go to college as a right (new Democratic philosophy). Supply / demand allows prices to skew upward. For working people this is problematic. For "scholarship" and "entitlement" students, along with foreign students, cost of tuition and books don't matter. The people being pushed out are the bright sons/daughters of Middle America. It's a false market. Limiting enrollments by raising standards could help cut demand, though most would not like to see higher standards because it would not be "fair".

As for the medical area, I have a friend who is a hypochondriac. I never really knew what that was until I spent time around him. He is 50 to 60 lbs. overweight, though 6-2" in height. Naturally he has high blood pressure and takes medication. He called yesterday from the hospital. He is in for "evaluation" for heart problems. After all the tests and 2 days in a room, they found nothing. EKG, electrocardiogram stuff, stress tests, even were going to do some kind of blood flow through the heart tracer with radioactive goo..........i don't know all the details. He has no money, and has rarely worked most of the many years I have know him. He will not pay for his hospital stay. Someone else will.

Oh, I forgot to mention, this is the 4th hospital that he has visited in about the last 15 months. Each time the hospitals go through extensive testing and find nothing wrong. Each time they are stuck with the costs. However, due to the LEGAL Profession, always looking for an easy mark with deep pockets, the Hospitals MUST do every conceivable test before they release a patient with his supposed problems. If he walks out and collapses, and they didn't, they will PAY, with someone else's money. This is just ONE person.

Additionally, hospitals are Forced to take everyone who can't pay. They then must provide a wide array of services. This leads to unrationed care. Consequently, the administrator must find someone who can pay. That is the uninsured individual with assets. The insured have a "contract rate", a rate agreed to to get the pool of business that the insured clients provide. The uninsured have no contract, but they may have money. The contract patients keep the overhead paid. The NON-payers bleed the system. The uninsured get soaked to pay the non-payers. My friend is a non-payer. He soaks the system. The hospitals are stuck. Can they past the non-payer costs onto the taxpayer? who?

So, we make a "national healthcare" insurance program that covers everyone, including all the non-payers. Do you think this would help? My bet is my friend would be at the hospital once a month with new ailments to be diagnosed. Beneficiaries of services MUST be MADE to pay. The role of government in Medicare/Medicaid can also not be overlooked. When the hospitals need money, they have a vending machine in the government. Abuse is inevitable.

Last, I will give you my thoughts on the Lower group not going anywhere. I blame welfare and govt. support programs. You are looking at the group that gets free stuff from the taxpayers. They don't even have food stamps anymore, they have debit cards. I see them plenty of times where I shop for discount groceries. Their carts are always full, when I only get a few items. They whip out their goverment card and rack up an easy $150 bill. I spend $30-$40. They are called the "working poor". Why aren't they working more?

They will loose benefits. Period. They will stay at that flat level indefinitely, until they get NO benefits. Currently, if they make or report more income, they get less food money. What is the logical thing to do? Do a few sidejobs. Sell the food for money. Sell some drugs on the street to get a little extra cash? Black market stuff, unreported income, no taxes, no penalties, free room and board. I've lived in the city and seen this stuff first hand. Don't anyone tell me this is not typical. It is. Welfare helps create poverty and crime, not the inverse. It makes people avoid improving their lives for a reduction in the things government provides and makes people less responsible for their own lives.

I realize you are an Obama supporter and disagree with my views, but I have lived in areas taken over by drug-dealers and gangs. They got into my neighborhood with Section 8 and public housing. They had no need to go "earn a living", so they decided breaking into my house and stealing the things I worked for was a good occupation. It worked well until I moved out and everyone else who worked moved out and the neighborhood became a ghetto that needed public dollars for restoration. More wasted money. All the politicians and do-gooders cry for them. No one cried for me when I sold my house a substantial loss and had to work additional years to replace my stolen property. Free benefits, including "rights" to housing, medical care, food and whatever else you want to come up with don't make good citizens. It creates a parasite class that brings down the rest of society with it. I think this is why the bottom always stays at the bottom. It just doesn't pay to work anymore.

Susan Rossi

In one of your blogs on housing you ask "what am I missing here?". Here's what I think:

This is an age-related phenomenon. It was predictable, avoidable and is fixable.

As a 23 year veteran of the real estate industry, my career has survived more than one slump. However, for the duration of the current crisis, I have written to and requested more times than I can count to more experts than I can name with a simple request: Please analyze this crisis from a demographic perspective using NAR statistics, Census data and the historic birth rate as a baseline.

I did just that. I merged NAR stats with Census data and found that during the Baby Boom era, the average age of first-time buyers was 25 years old. NAR stats indicate that in 1971 there were more sales than ever recorded by NAR - this was the year the first Boomers born in 1946 hit the market as first-time-buyers.

From there, as the number of births rose or fell, the housing market rose or fell in the corresponding year 25 years later. This pattern lasted until double-digit interest rates hit the economy in the 1980's.

Fast forward to 2006. During the "bubble", no one was watching as the average age skyrocketed to 33 years old. In the meantime, the record-setting first-time buyers of 1971 were about to become record-setting sellers as the first Boomers turned 60 in 2006 - planning for retirement, selling their home to downsize or relocate.

With an oversupply of inventory in 2006, we needed to increase the number of first-time buyers coming in at the bottom, as every first-time buyer causes three or four homes to sell, with the construction of a new home at the top of the food chain as people are "bumped up".

However, the first-time buyers we needed desperately in 2006 were not there because 33 years prior in 1973, the birth rate plummeted. The birth rate in the 1970's mirrored pre-World War II rates, and this tiny group of first time buyers simply could not provide the demand at the bottom to absorb the enormous Baby Boom inventory.

Baby Boomers are all the sellers. The oldest would like to sell to retire. The middle would like to sell to build new construction. The youngest would like to sell to trade up. They are all SELLERS first, then some will become repeat buyers or build.

But they are all dependent on a first-time buyer to stimulate the trade-up cycle and beginning in 2006 and for four more years, there simply would not be enough first time buyers and those wishing to sell would be stuck in their current home with a sign in the yard waiting for a buyer to come along.

With all the excess inventory stockpiling in 2006 & 2007, somewhere in those homes were in fact persons in financial distress. There are always people in financial distress and headed for foreclosure. However, this time the unprecedented level of inventory locked those who really needed to sell right out of the market. They could not outlast the time frame allotted by the lenders and did not have the luxury of offering incentives or lowering their prices.

As a result, foreclosures skyrocketed. The news then turned to mortgage products, sub-prime loans and the mortgage meltdown - instead of getting to the root of the problem.

The root of the problem was a lack of first-time buyers who were not born in 1973. Everyone kept wanting to put them on the fence, and remedial action included lowering interest rates and sending everybody a $300 check. Lower interest rates will not create a child who simply was not born 33 years ago.

Three years later and we are now closing out our third solid consecutive year of this mess. The answer continues to be a lack of first-time buyers although with declining prices the average age has fallen to 31 according to the NAR 2007 Profile of Home Buyers & Sellers.

The good news is that there is an enormous segment of the population just an eyelash out of reach - those UNDER age 30. The births begin to rise again in 1978 and rise steadily in numbers which rival the Baby Boom.

Since we only need 1 first time buyer for every 3 Baby Boom sellers, the data would suggest that the segment under 30 will provide the sufficient demand necessary to sustain the market once they begin to come in. The key to getting them to come into the market a bit earlier than they would have on their own was realized with the first-time buyer tax credit passed as part of the Housing & Economic Recovery Act on August 1.

However, no sooner was the law passed and began getting some attention that those in the news responsible for educating the public instead scared the kids away from it "warning" that it was a loan. But the potential is still there.

Even without the tax credit, I believe if there were a sensible demographic analysis conducted and portrayed to the American public that they will respond.

If those who are able to do so understood the power of purchasing a small home and allowing that person to trade up and then that next person to build a new home - the public at large would make the connection that a renter who buys a small, used home may actually be saving his own construction job on a custom home.

I believe we could potentially be on the brink of a fabulous recovery. When looking at an Excel chart of birth rates taken from Census data, it is clear to see that the entry of this next generation will be like throwing gasoline on the burning embers of what was the Baby Boom housing bubble. The potential is there to have both generations in the market at the same time - making the previous boom look boring.

But the correct remedial action must be taken, such as remedial action that is age-specific and educating the public on the data and the power they have to correct it. I would have preferred the tax credit to be targeted to first-time buyers under age 30, but they gave it to all first-time buyers.

The potential power of the tax credit can be seen in the rise in home sales in September - a month dominated by news of banks collapsing. The tax credit was passed on August 1, the first-time buyers spent August shopping and closed on their homes in September. It was humorous to watch those on CNN scratch their heads in confusion when the numbers were released. But it was so predictable.

Through the trade-up cycle, the new construction market even saw a bump in sales in September, as people who achieved a sale then made it to the top of the food chain and could build a new home.

If nothing else, watch to see what happens after the first of the year. The tax credit was written to be retroactive to April 9, which means every first-time buyer who purchased between April 9 and December 31 will get the credit when filing taxes this next time. Since this age group can't wait to file their taxes, they all use tax services and electronic deposit - they will all find out during the first week of February that they are getting whopper tax refunds of $7,500 - $10,000 each. And they will be waving those whopper checks in front of their friends who will also want to get in on it, but it ends June 30.

I project an unexpected and inexplicable burst of retail sales and real estate activity from Valentine's Day to Memorial Day. But I would rather see the recovery begin immediately, and would love to see the experts explain this to people and speed things up. Too many people are suffering, when there is a solution right before us.

My final point is that I have been using this analysis, this approach and have developed supporting materials to use with my clients for the past three years. Every single person responds "that makes sense". I believe it will instill much confidence if people realize this was an age-related phenomenon. Most importantly, this will empower the people to solve the problem.

"This guy is THE leading visionary on reality. He routinely discusses things which no one else has talked about, yet, turn out to be quite relevant months later."
--An anonymous comment about CHS posted on another blog.

Thank you, Steady Concepts ($20) for your very generous donation to this site. I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Your readership is greatly appreciated with or without a donation.