Call them personal accounts, call them private accounts, call them piratization, ... one thing won't change and that's how the investment world is looking at this issue.

Here is a glimpse into a window of perspective that perhaps some of you haven't considered.

In a related story:

Financial services firms are backing out of the Alliance for Workers' Retirement Security rather than have the AFL-CIO publicize their financial support for phasing out Social Security.

Millions are being spent to lobby for 'private' accounts, those who stand to benefit the most from the creation of forced 'private' accounts had been spending freely.

The AFL-CIO began publicizing who was paying how much.

Seems that some firms decided the pr blowback wasn't worth the risk and are now wanting to shield their participation in the lobbying effort.

Some people don't have altruistic motives for supporting 'private' accounts.....

They realize the potential in an asset grab and want to cash in. And many of them will pay big bucks banking on their chances....

---

1) References to the National debt are a joke coming from you. It's not like your paying taxes out of your SSI check.

2) You whole point is that you don't want your check tampered with. You don't care one bit about the future of the program or those who will be left out in the cold after it's collapse.

3) In just about every post I've read, another glaring point you bring out is your distrust of the goverment, not just this Administration.

4) I agree with the other poster in that your arguing style is equal to that of a 4 year old. Liberal is a label, piratition is some crap you made up, and quoting blogs and tabloids is a joke.

5) To imply that you don't see a problem with more collectors than payers is absurd.

People like you are the reason the system is in the state that it's in now. You only did enough to scrape by in life and are now government dependant but feel you should be taken care of because you paid into SS for 30+ years even though my rent today is probably equal to your salary of 30+ years ago.

The problem you refuse to acknowledge is that the population is decreasing, that means fewer young people paying in than old people trying to collect, and the gap is widening.

What type of successful system has the minority supporting the majority?

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> You provided a source which proved my argument that benefits can be altered by
> Congress.
> Since 'private' accounts will not be the same as SSI benefits, your case law
> citing does not address 'private' accounts yet to be defined by Congress.

So, you are saying it all depends on what the definition of "is" is?

> I understand perfectly what private accounts is supposed to mean.

Apparently, you don't (know what private accounts mean). You asked for a source and I gave you a Supreme Court decision that said Social Security was a tax and private citizens have no property right to Social Security benefits. Where is your source for your claim that Congress is going to take over private retirement accounts? Your gut feeling? Some anti-goverment opinion you hold? You tell me to back up what I say but you fail to do the same.

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution says ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." And just to head off some idiotic claim that the Fifth Ad. wasn't talking about personal assets, there is plenty of authority for the fact that it means any privately owned asset.

> I also know that what is said is rarely what is truly meant by this
> administration.

Ah, here you fall back on insult and derision--because you have no evidence to support your position.

> Calling these accounts 'private' does not by law require them to fit past
> legal precedent.

Actually, it's the Constitution that says 'private' accounts can not be taken.

> Congress can assign any set of rules they want to these accounts and call them
> anything they want.

You can say anything you want, but without backing it up with sound authority no one should believe you.

> These accounts will be defined by legislative act, not your dictionary.

You don't even have a dictionary to support your position.

> You can do no more than 'assume' you know what legal form 'private' accounts
> will take.

Do you hear what you are saying? This applies directly to you! While I have given you the basis for my opinion, you have simply made assumptions.

> You cannot, citing any case law you care to cite, gaurantee the end result
> will match your assumptions.
>
> (Unarmed and gullible to boot....) Perhaps you should 'think' for meaning,
> tom...

There's your problem. You seem to "think" that any drivel that leaks out of your sadly defective brain is authority for your position. The more you accuse me of failing to support my argument, the more you show yourself to be lacking in substance. It's "put up or shut up" time. Show me a law, supreme court case or anything else (other than some socialist opinion piece you read) supporting your assumption that private accounts will be taken by the government (as they can clearly do with Social Security benefits), otherwise you are just making noise.

> Apparently, you don't (know what private accounts mean). You asked for a
> source and I gave you a Supreme Court decision that said Social Security was a
> tax and private citizens have no property right to Social Security benefits.

I have little time for all your obsfucation this morning, tom,

Since your case law proves there are no property rights attached to the tax you cannot say the carved out 'tax money' used in these purported 'private' accounts will be treated any different.

Since the so-called private accounts will be controlled carve outs of the same tax, it's likely that a court challenge would call them the same way.

Your weak attempts at insults won't even prove your assumptions.

If the government chooses to define these private accounts as being a part of tax supported SSI, your case law proves the government could then do with them as they please.

_________________________________________________

A couple months back there was another Supreme court decision where Justice Sandra Day OConner made a statement about some IRA accounts being open to seizure by creditors to pay debts.

I never argued that the government could take an IRA, but it is interesting to note that these 'private' funds are thought to be vulnerable to seizure by 'creditors'.

All it takes is a little change on the bench and the whole game can change there too.

You do watch to see who Bush wants to appoint to the bench, right?

I'll get to the rest of your obsfucation later.....

In the meantime, maybe you could go prosecute someone. You'll find more satisfaction if you can do that than you will being an apologist for Bush.

---

LAF
Yesterday it was critize the governmnet for an idea that might increase the national debt, today it's don't make me pay off MY own debts by making my old people welfare subject to collection attempts by creditors.

God forbid you take care of your own problems instead of waiting for a collection agency to take action against you.

Why not just change your nick to professional bum?

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> Since the so-called private accounts will be controlled carve outs of the same
> tax, it's likely that a court challenge would call them the same way.

But they are not a tax. They are private accounts.

> Your weak attempts at insults won't even prove your assumptions.

I'm sorry you don't like my assessment of your lack of mental acuity, but I haven't once used your sub-standard abilities to argue my point; just in response to your [Edit: off-topic] attacks. To support my position I have cited my sources--where are yours?

> If the government chooses to define these private accounts as being a part of
> tax supported SSI, your case law proves the government could then do with them
> as they please.

But they are not a tax. They are private accounts.

> A couple months back there was another Supreme court decision where Justice
> Sandra Day OConner made a statement about some IRA accounts being open to
> seizure by creditors to pay debts.

As almost any asset can be seized by creditors (there are some exceptions). So why does this open up private retirement accounts to the Constitutionally prohibited taking of property by the government . . . oh, I forgot, you only agree with the Constitution selectively.

> I never argued that the government could take an IRA, but it is interesting to
> note that these 'private' funds are thought to be vulnerable to seizure by
> 'creditors'.

Private assets usually are available to pay legitimate creditors. So why does this open up private retirement accounts to the Constitutionally prohibited taking of property by the government . . . oh, I forgot, you only agree with the Constitution selectively.

> All it takes is a little change on the bench and the whole game can change
> there too.

No, the Constitution would have to be changed. Did you read the Fifth Amendment I cited? Oh, I forgot, you only agree with the Constitution selectively.

> You do watch to see who Bush wants to appoint to the bench, right?
>
> I'll get to the rest of your obsfucation later.....

You equate private accounts with a tax . . . you cite no authority for it but your own speculation . . . and you claim that I am clouding the issue? What a hypocrite you are!

> In the meantime, maybe you could go prosecute someone. You'll find more
> satisfaction if you can do that than you will being an apologist for Bush.

I never once apologized for Bush, I merely expressed my sadness at your inability to put forth a cogent argument. And once again, I find myself responding to your [Edit: off-topic] attacks throughout your post.

> But they are not a tax. They are private accounts.


That's nothing but your wishing and hoping at this point.

First of all Bush hasn't put any concrete plan on the table.... lots of talk, he's called for private accounts, personal accounts, partial privatization, ownership accounts, etc, etc, etc....

But not one defined plan. Besides, the chance that any plan will just sail through Congress is practically zero, Congress will make their own changes.

The president's own commission calls for a version of partial private accounts.

How much different are partial private accounts from what's assumed about them?

Well, the commission's version are anything but private according to the definition you prefer.

___________________
"" the White House wants to require new retirees to use their private accounts to buy annuities large enough to keep them above the poverty line for the rest of their lives. The most they could leave to heirs, then, would be what is left over after the annuities are purchased.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/opinion/6sun1.html?oref=login
________________________________________________________

hmmmm, just what does private mean?

What does the label private accounts mean?

Another part of Bush's commission's plan calls for a central administrative body that will restrict investment choice, and control the purchase of annuities from account balances.

Sound like you own it? ..... not quite private, beings though it's controlled by the government.

We won't know any of the details for sure until all the smoke clears, but here is a concrete example that what you assume is not what is being proposed.

Like I said, there is no legal source to guarantee what definition will or will not be finally adopted.

You can hope the reality matches your assumptions, you can hope the reality matches your hopes and dreams....

But you can't cite anything which will guarantee reality will match your wishful thinking.

There is absolutely no proof that they cannot be crafted to be legally considered to be in the same asset class as traditional benefits, and hence, subject to the machinations of future legislation.

And my saying there's a possibility that your 'private' account will not match your dreams has as much validity of becoming reality as your dreams do. Maybe more so, ...since the proposed plans are, so far, already quite different from your assertions.

__________________________

On another note, will private accounts help those with disabilities? Nope, it will hurt them. All the plans for private accounts that call for carve outs cut benefits accross the board. Benefits will be cut for those who opt for private accounts and those that don't.

Disability beneficiaries will take a double hit in that they can't participate in the private accounts as they are being proposed.... all they can do is take a benefit cut.

""While the Commission acknowledged the inability of workers with disabilities to contribute to their private accounts, the Commission’s proposals make no accommodations for this concern.''"

---

The first hearings in this new Congress on SSI have begun.

If you didn't watch the hearings on C-Span, you missed a good show.

People under a legally binding oath to tell the truth sure talk different than they do during the 'staged' pep rallies that only allow the loyalty oath crowd to attend.

C-Span will probably replay the hearings a couple of times, so set your machines if you want to hear some entertaining contrast to the rhetoric being pushed by those who want to dismantle SSI.

When the transcripts are linked, I'll post some of the highlights, and you can check the links

Just a quick note for now....
______________________________________________


The Goverment Accountability Office has determined that there is no immediate crisis in Social Security and that private accounts as envisioned by the Bush administration could actually accelerate the system's financial problems. In other words, the Bush plan would push insolvency nearer than is envisioned today.

Comptroller General David Walker testified today in the House Ways and Means Committee hearing.

On "private" accounts he says:


They wouldn't shore up the system if they were financed, or "carved out," from current Social Security taxes, as Bush proposes, and accompanied by no other changes. By themselves, he said, such private accounts would "exacerbate" the system's problems and accelerate the date for when it would start spending more on pension benefits than it receives in annual revenue.

He goes on to say the Trust fund is threatened by the deficit more than it's threatened by the current SSI regime. Here I will quote him, "The real problem is we have large and growing structural deficits."

He also said that a less than 2% rise in payroll taxes would fully fund, support and maintain the system as is for another 75 years without any cuts to benefits.


Hmmmmm.... a 2% increase every 75 years, ..... doesn't sound so drastic or unworkable to me..... and it sure wouldn't add to the deficit the extra trillions that Bush's plan is going to cost just to gut the program in the first few years of his plan.

So what the hell are we debating here? It's obvious that some among us are not debating how to fix SSI.

(watch the newspeak from the administration in the coming weeks... they found out that add on accounts are publicly more acceptable than carve outs. Just as they tried to change from calling private accounts, magically changing to personal accounts, now they are calling carve out accounts to be add ons to regular benefits. Nothing has been changed but the 'labels, ...... the glossary changes to suit what sounds best, but the plans haven't changed at all.)

---

I wonder how many understand how SS works. The money contributed by individuals is invested in long term government bonds. The amount an individual collects is based on the amount paid in, the interest paid on his account and life expectancy. If you start collecting at the earliest age available, the amount paid you per month is reduced. IT IS YOUR MONEY!!! Realizing that SS would never pay me enough, I started an IRA plus investments, now I am comfortable at 72yrs.

---

> I wonder how many understand how SS works. The money contributed by
> individuals is invested in long term government bonds. The amount an
> individual collects is based on the amount paid in, the interest paid on his
> account and life expectancy. If you start collecting at the earliest age
> available, the amount paid you per month is reduced. IT IS YOUR MONEY!!!
> Realizing that SS would never pay me enough, I started an IRA plus
> investments, now I am comfortable at 72yrs.
>

Hi Stephen. I'm happy that you're comfortable at 72. I'm only 30, so I have a long time to go before I get any kind of retirement. Some people though Stephen really do need the extra money that they would get from Social Security. Even someone that makes a certain amount of money every month in another form of retirement, may still not have enough to cover certain additional expenses such as rent or doctors bills, as well as other family support costs.

Alex

> I wonder how many understand how SS works. The money contributed by
> individuals is invested in long term government bonds. The amount an
> individual collects is based on the amount paid in, the interest paid on his
> account and life expectancy. If you start collecting at the earliest age
> available, the amount paid you per month is reduced. IT IS YOUR MONEY!!!
> Realizing that SS would never pay me enough, I started an IRA plus
> investments, now I am comfortable at 72yrs.

Stephen, you are generally correct, but it is not "your money" until you receive the check. That was the point of the ruling in Flemming v. Nestor. No matter how much you paid into the system, no matter how much the government bonds earned over the period you worked and contributed to SS, Congress could cut or even stop your benefits if they wanted to do so.

Now, no one is suggesting such a drastic measure, and every plan under discussion includes provisions not to touch benefits for current retirees and people near retirement, but that's not to say the benefits could not be cut. And that's the whole problem: by 2042 the system will not be able to fund the projected number of people eligible for benefits; and prudent policy requires doing something now to prepare for that.

> Now, no one is suggesting such a drastic measure, and every plan under
> discussion includes provisions not to touch benefits for current retirees and
> people near retirement, but that's not to say the benefits could not be cut.
> And that's the whole problem: by 2042 the system will not be able to fund the
> projected number of people eligible for benefits; and prudent policy requires
> doing something now to prepare for that.
>

Like I said in one of my previous posts, the fine print of many plans only become more clear far after they are introduced. Like disappearing/re-appearing ink.

Once the SS benefit program is changed, even more changes may be introduced later on cuz of the fine print within that plans probably many thousands of pages.

In other words, it's a trust issue Tom.

Alex

First, let me say that these are the first posts I remember by you in a political thread that discuss the issues without name-calling and insults. You make a much better argument this way (though I still don't agree with you).

> > But they are not a tax. They are private accounts.
> That's nothing but your wishing and hoping at this point.
> First of all Bush hasn't put any concrete plan on the table.... lots of talk,
> he's called for private accounts, personal accounts, partial privatization,
> ownership accounts, etc, etc, etc....
> But not one defined plan. Besides, the chance that any plan will just sail
> through Congress is practically zero, Congress will make their own changes.
> The president's own commission calls for a version of partial private
> accounts.
> How much different are partial private accounts from what's assumed about
> them?

If these "private accounts" end up being treated the same as Social Security benefits (like a tax), then no matter what they are called the are not really private accounts. You are assuming that they will be treated the same as Social Security benefits, but the whole point of proposing private accounts is that they will not be treated the same. As for calling them private or personal or ownership accounts, these names suggest that they will not be out of the control of the contributing private individual. I agree that nothing is absolutely certain when it comes to Congress, but a “reform” that creates private accounts yet treats them like public funds is no reform at all.

> Well, the commission's version are anything but private according to the
> definition you prefer.
> ___________________
> "" the White House wants to require new retirees to use their private accounts
> to buy annuities large enough to keep them above the poverty line for the rest
> of their lives. The most they could leave to heirs, then, would be what is
> left over after the annuities are purchased.""
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/opinion/6sun1.html?oref=login
> ________________________________________________________
[Edit]: I can't get to this URL.
>
> hmmmm, just what does private mean?
>
> What does the label private accounts mean?
>
> Another part of Bush's commission's plan calls for a central administrative
> body that will restrict investment choice, and control the purchase of
> annuities from account balances.
> Sound like you own it? ..... not quite private, beings though it's controlled
> by the government.


This aspect of the plan is designed to keep people from investing in such risky ventures that they will lose their investment and have insufficient retirement funds. Then the government would be responsible for bailing these people out because of their bad investment decisions. But it says nothing about who would own the individual/personal/private (you pick) retirement account.

> We won't know any of the details for sure until all the smoke clears, but here
> is a concrete example that what you assume is not what is being proposed.

I don’t know how you can say on the one hand that “We don’t know any of the details for sure”, and on the other hand that this is a “concrete example”! If we don’t know the details then you are just speculating, but what I am suggesting about private accounts is based on a commonsense understanding of the term. If Congress ends up making changes that do not allow for private ownership of these accounts, then no matter what they call them they will not be private accounts at all.

> Like I said, there is no legal source to guarantee what definition will or
> will not be finally adopted.
> You can hope the reality matches your assumptions, you can hope the reality
> matches your hopes and dreams....
> But you can't cite anything which will guarantee reality will match your
> wishful thinking.

But my view is based on a commonsense understanding of what a private account is, while you are speculating that Congress will do something completely different.

> There is absolutely no proof that they cannot be crafted to be legally
> considered to be in the same asset class as traditional benefits, and hence,
> subject to the machinations of future legislation.

First, Social Security benefits are not an asset belonging to the individual at all. That said, if these accounts are treated the same as Social Security taxes then they would not be private accounts, but you’ve not given any evidence that this is in the works (the most you've done is note that various names are being suggested, but none of those names suggest that these accounts would be the same as the Social Security tax).

> And my saying there's a possibility that your 'private' account will not match
> your dreams has as much validity of becoming reality as your dreams do. Maybe
> more so, ...since the proposed plans are, so far, already quite different from
> your assertions.

You have not given me any information that Congress or the administration is planning to treat private accounts as public funds. Nothing that you have cited defines how such accounts (no matter what they might be called) will be actually treated. I am not dreaming, I am describing what a private account is. Here are examples of private accounts: bank accounts, T-bills, mutual funds, annuities . . . The government can tax the proceeds (earnings) from these accounts, but can not take them from you like it can with Social Security taxes.

> On another note, will private accounts help those with disabilities? Nope, it
> will hurt them. All the plans for private accounts that call for carve outs
> cut benefits accross the board. Benefits will be cut for those who opt for
> private accounts and those that don't.
> Disability beneficiaries will take a double hit in that they can't participate
> in the private accounts as they are being proposed.... all they can do is take
> a benefit cut.

Please show me your source for your claim that these proposals will cut benefits to those with disabilities. I have not seen any reform plans that suggest this, and as far as I can tell it is nothing but speculation on your part.

> ""While the Commission acknowledged the inability of workers with disabilities
> to contribute to their private accounts, the Commission's proposals make no
> accommodations for this concern.''"

That statement simply means that those with disabilities would fall under the present system (not that anything would be cut), as do all who are already collecting Social Security benefits. Indeed, if you are on Social Security based on a disability, you wouldn’t be working to be able to contribute to a private account anyway, unless you are defrauding the government.

> Like I said in one of my previous posts, the fine print of many plans only
> become more clear far after they are introduced. Like
> disappearing/re-appearing ink.
>
> Once the SS benefit program is changed, even more changes may be introduced
> later on cuz of the fine print within that plans probably many thousands of
> pages.
>
> In other words, it's a trust issue Tom.
>
> Alex

That's the main benefit of a two-party system: each party keeps an eye on the other for the kind of fine-print double-cross you are suggesting. I don't completely trust the system either, but I know that Representatives and Senators have staffers, and each party has access to legal experts to look for such unfair provisions. All you can do about it is vote for representatives you can trust.

> In other words, it's a trust issue Tom.
>...

Who do you trust more? Public servants, or greedy corporate executives and board members whose mantra is "profit, profit, profit"?

I work for a corporation with over 100,000 employees that is now in deep shit because of accounting irregularities. The "Board" just took away the health benefits for retirees, which were a part of the benefits package since the early 60's. Some of these people have 30 + years in under the impression that they would have health benefits when they retired. The benefits were one of the main reasons why they chose to stay with this employer.

Who did the accounting irregularites benefit? Why - the CEO and the board, that's who. The CEO made over 28 million dollars last year alone while driving the company into the ground - not to mention his golden parachute. There are now several lawsuits pending, but thanks to the tort reforms, and new rules for class actions that the nazi's have implemented, damage awards may be limited...

Keep your fricken hands of off MY Social Security that I have paid into my whole life!

Have a nice day!

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1790&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=524&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://www.flagofearth.com/Decal2.jpg" HEIGHT="70">

<BR><B><I>Regards, UA

> > In other words, it's a trust issue Tom.
> >...
> Who do you trust more? Public servants, or greedy corporate executives and
> board members whose mantra is "profit, profit, profit"?
> I work for a corporation with over 100,000 employees that is now in deep shit
> because of accounting irregularities. The "Board" just took away the health
> benefits for retirees, which were a part of the benefits package since the
> early 60's. Some of these people have 30 + years in under the impression that
> they would have health benefits when they retired. The benefits were one of
> the main reasons why they chose to stay with this employer.
> Who did the accounting irregularites benefit? Why - the CEO and the board,
> that's who. The CEO made over 28 million dollars last year alone while
> driving the company into the ground - not to mention his golden parachute.
> There are now several lawsuits pending, but thanks to the tort reforms, and
> new rules for class actions that the nazi's have implemented, damage awards
> may be limited...
> Keep your fricken hands of off MY Social Security that I have paid into my
> whole life!
> Have a nice day!

Well, UA, you can trust who you want. But it seems you don't trust anyone since your company screwed you, and you think Congress screwed you too by passing tort reforms (though those reforms are still pending).

As for YOUR Social Security benefits, you do not own them. Please read Flemming v. Nestor.

> As for YOUR Social Security benefits, you do not own them. Please read <a> href="http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html"> Flemming v. Nestor[/url].
>

thanks for the info...

I am currently reading.

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1790&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=524&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://www.flagofearth.com/Decal2.jpg" HEIGHT="70">

<BR><B><I>Regards, UA

tom,

that's a reach. the guy was basically deported for being a communist. i would have to say that this type of judgement would not happen today(unless your are and "evil terrorist" - straw man, if you havent noticed), and that you are taking this ruling waaaaay out of context, precendent or not.

Regards

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1790&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=524&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://www.flagofearth.com/Decal2.jpg" HEIGHT="70">

<BR><B><I>Regards, UA

> tom,
>
> that's a reach. the guy was basically deported for being a communist. i
> would have to say that this type of judgement would not happen today(unless
> your are and "evil terrorist" - straw man, if you havent noticed), and that
> you are taking this ruling waaaaay out of context, precendent or not.
>
> Regards

I'm not saying Congress will take away "your" SS benefits, just that they can. And in 2040 it is predicted the fund will be in trouble, so if nothing is done now, the options of cutting benefits or removing some people from the system completely may be the only options available, and Flemming v. Nestor says that Congress can do those things. You already indicated that you don't trust Congress . . .

[Edit]: Show the Flemming v. Nestor decision to a lawyer you trust, if you know one. I am not wrong about, nor am I stretching what this case holds.

> I'm not saying Congress will take away "your" SS benefits, just that
> they can.

Thank you for being rational. They have already made several changes in the past. I seem to recall previous arguments for reform that indicated financial difficulties with the fund 40 years from 1970.

I really think the success of the fund is based on the correct assesment of general economic performance. If you over estimate performane you can be in real trouble. If you under estimate, you are an alarmist, and nothing bad happens.

Are you an optimistic Republican, or a pesimist?

;)

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1790&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://seti.mundayweb.com/stats.php?userID=524&amp;trans=off">_<img src="http://www.flagofearth.com/Decal2.jpg" HEIGHT="70">

<BR><B><I>Regards, UA