On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:07:09 -0500, DSK wrote:

That is rather different from "skimming". I explained how the chosen
Wall St firms will profit, but I suppose you weren't paying attention.


Dave Hall wrote:
How did you explain? How CAN you explain something that hasn't even
been codified yet? You are only echoing the speculation and scare
tactics that the DNC have used to try and discredit this plan.


Baloney. What I have said is based 100% on what has been announced by
the Bush Administration as their plan, and applying some very straight
forward common sense.

Specific details have not been finalized yet. All that we have is a
basic concept. Your "common sense" is based mostly on speculation and
conjecture.

Since we're on the subject, what practical alternatives have the
democrats offered up to help to "fix" SS? Other than the typical raise
taxes and lower payments that is?


Oh, other than actually fixing it, you mean?

The ONLY way to "fix" the upcoming (in about 20+ years) imbalance in
Social Security is to either reduce payouts, or increase taxes, or both.

Really? Talk about binary thinking.

But to a tax and spend democrat, increasing taxes is a simple
solution. After all, we should just open our wallets and pay out more
now so that we can earn the same amount later. That seems REAL fair.

I'd rather take my chances with the stock market.



I assume you can tell me how he plans to "steer large amounts of
wealth into the pockets of his supporters"? Where is that "wealth"
coming from, if not from the investors?


(sigh) As I said before-


Do any SS taxes currently go into Wall St accounts? No (shake your head
side to side)

Will they if Bush's proposal is passed? Yes (nod your head up & down)

Do Wall St firms profit from accounts they handle? Yes (nod your head up
& down)

QED The chosen Wall St firms will take a profit out of SS taxes under
Bushes plan.


But how is a reasonable administration fee interpreted as something
sinister and underhanded?


I never said anything was sinister or underhanded... only that it was
flirting with being illegal and that the most likely reason is to reap
increased campaign fund contributions from the chosen firms.


How? Private investment firms set up accounts to suit all sorts of
situations. They also do not do it for free. There are fees for
managing those accounts. Are they not entitled to recover a small
amount of money to defray their operating costs?

And you think it's just dandy to steer tax money, previously earmarked
to be paid out to those who paid in, into those pockets to "defray their
operating costs" (and of course make a small contribution to selected
campaign funds).

There you go again, substituting conjecture for fact. You do it so
often, you don't even realize it.

By your judgement, I guess I should just throw away my 401K because,
gosh darn, those plan administrators are taking a piece out of my
investment as a fee to manage my account. It doesn't matter that their
expertise is earning me double digit returns which more than offsets
their "fee", and allows my investment to compound.

Is that not a sensible compromise?

As long as the investor's return amounts to far more than what they
would realize through the usual SS plan, then is that not a good
thing?


.. If you have a 401K
fund now, you're already paying those "greedy wall streeters", so how
would the federal plan be any different? Should it be?

Umm, no. Actually the simplest and most practical way would be to
increase the IRA / 401K allowance... but once again, that would not
steer that money into the "right" pockets.

Those same people already manage 401K (and other) accounts! Do you
want a brick, or will a 2X4 upside your head be good enough?

Increasing the 401K/IRA "allowance" is not good enough. Diverting a
part of SS tax is what's needed.





.... I tend to look at occurences in the real world as "fact." You seem
to think that if Bush & Cheney announce that water runs up hill, then by
golly enybody who says otherwise is a liberal fag-loving traitor. I'm
sure this is great for self-esteem but it's not a good approach to
practical decision making.


Not at all.

Yes. That's all. So far you have not once proven your contentions, while
all my statements are based on fact.

That is a lie. Your "facts" consist of little more than speculation
and conjecture. Provide the proof that Bush wants to "reward" Wall
streeters in exchange for future campaign contributions.


Your posts rely heavily... almost
entirely... on pro Bush/Cheney propaganda and you constantly insist that
anything outside this is somehow tainted liberal dogma.

I apply common sense, and to my sense, you are doing exactly what you
accuse me of doing. You parrot the scare tactics given by the DNC and
their support minions, and then try to pass it of as "fact". You can't
factually conclude that Bush is planning on making Wall Street rich,
as the specific details have not been finalized yet. It's pure
conjecture at this point. The sad part is that you can't see it as
such.

There IS "tainted liberal dogma". It's a shame you buy into it so
easily and are equally duped into believing it as fact.


... Your "real world" occurrences are based on what you
perceive as truth. But unless you are there directly, that "truth" is
brought to you in the form of a second (or third) hand report. Someone
collected and arranged that report. The report is then subject to
whatever spin or manipulation the reporter sees fit to apply.


Repeat- when it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like
a duck, it might as well be a duck.

Or it could be Elmer Fudd in a duck costume.


The info that I rely on is from many
widely different sources, and is consistant with facts that I have
observed directly myself.

That's a load of crap. Your "sources" are mostly agenda driven. Ask
yourself, why are you against people having their SS contributions
invested in a private interest bearing retirement account instead of
the current system?

The "info" that you post is straight from the
Bush/Cheney tub-thumpers playbook.

Not at all. It's info driven from a common sense approach to reducing
the government's role in people's financial business. I'd rather
control my own destiny than have the government do it. I'm supporting
the IDEA, not getting hung up on the, as of yet, undefined details.

Dave