Get off this group right now. 2100 hours
 

Get out of here and turn on the TV.

Our greatest president is giving the state of the union address.

Give him your full attention as he has important things to say.

CN

What Bush said really pales in comparison to what a true stateman and
Conservative once said:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to
repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones
that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose,
or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not
attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later
be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I
was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am
doing the very best I can."

- Former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), "The Conscience of a Conservative"

Admirable thoughts but did he parley them into the Presidency?

Negative!

He was not as smart a conservative as President Bush nor did he
have such a lunatic Democrat left-wing controlled party to deal
with.

Give Mr. Bush credit where credit is due. Our greatest President
is managing to destroy the Democratic party almost single-handed.

The Republican president who follows Mr. Bush will be able to
assert true conservatism because Mr. Bush is paving the road
to riches as we speak.

This is something Mr. Goldwater never, in his dreams could
accomplish.

CN



"Gilligan" wrote in message ink.net...
What Bush said really pales in comparison to what a true stateman and
Conservative once said:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to
repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones
that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose,
or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not
attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later
be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I
was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am
doing the very best I can."

- Former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), "The Conscience of a Conservative"

Typical, leftist name-calling that hurts your socialist cause.

It's a true honor and a privilege to be living in these times where
liberals are self-destructing compliments of George W. Bush whom
they continue to call stupid.

He who laugh last, laughs loudest.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!

CN


"John Cairns" scribbled

Bwahahhahahhahahahha. WMD, redux. Your president is a:
A.Lying cowardly sack of ****. B. As delusional as you are. C. The
stupidest person alive.
D. All of the above. I vote for D

John Cairns

Sadly, you're right.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"John Cairns" wrote in message
.. .
Bwahahhahahhahahahha. WMD, redux. Your president is a:
A.Lying cowardly sack of ****. B. As delusional as you are. C. The
stupidest person alive.
D. All of the above. I vote for D

John Cairns

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 03:31:11 +0000, John Cairns wrote:


Bwahahhahahhahahahha. WMD, redux. Your president is a: A.Lying cowardly
sack of ****. B. As delusional as you are. C. The stupidest person
alive.
D. All of the above. I vote for D

John Cairns

LOL, You can fool some of the people all of the time. I guess that would
include Neal. Others, perhaps, might like to recall the promises of this
President's past State of the Union speeches.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site...J8OVF&b=310515

Poor Neal.

"New jobs" does not equal "More jobs."

The oldest trick in the book.


RB

Mr Goldwater's one weakness was that he was honest and said what he truly
thought. He didn't mince words to spare the thin skinned or ignorant. He
stood in front of the banner of true Conservatism, rather than hide behind
it.

Winning the Presidency is not a measure of the man. It is a measure of a
political campaign. Remember, Clinton won two terms. Who today holds LBJ in
any regard, he was the man who defeated Goldwater. LBJ chose not to run for
a second term, so disastrous was his presidency. Today, people still vote
for Goldwater even though he is dead. Of the two men who ran for President
back in 1964, Goldwater is still talked about, admired and heralded as the
man of true Conservative principles. The good was not interred with his
bones, yet the evil of LBJ lives on (Great Society, VietNam, Expansion of
Federal Government).

"America is a country where anyone can become President - except me!"

Barry Goldwater


Gilligan

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Admirable thoughts but did he parley them into the Presidency?

Negative!

He was not as smart a conservative as President Bush nor did he
have such a lunatic Democrat left-wing controlled party to deal
with.

Give Mr. Bush credit where credit is due. Our greatest President
is managing to destroy the Democratic party almost single-handed.

The Republican president who follows Mr. Bush will be able to
assert true conservatism because Mr. Bush is paving the road
to riches as we speak.

This is something Mr. Goldwater never, in his dreams could
accomplish.

CN



"Gilligan" wrote in message
ink.net...
What Bush said really pales in comparison to what a true stateman and
Conservative once said:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws,
but to
repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old
ones
that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their
purpose,
or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not
attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first
determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should
later
be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply
that I
was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am
doing the very best I can."

- Former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), "The Conscience of a
Conservative"

If a President can create jobs, then why don't they just do it to get
relected?

Government can only destroy or take away jobs. It creates nothing. If it
could create anything of value, it could then fund itself and never need to
tax.

Gilligan

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Poor Neal.

"New jobs" does not equal "More jobs."

The oldest trick in the book.


RB

"Capt. Neal®" wrote

Some excerpts:


Well, I found one statement that wasn't an lie. SS will start paying out
more than it takes in in 2018. But he forgot to mention that that is
exactly as planned! SS is a pay-as-you-go program. Normally, there is no
surplus - everything that comes in goes out as benefits. The rates were
increased and benefits cut in 1982 (IIRC) to create a surplus in
anticipation of the "baby boom" generation retiring. "Boomers" will retire
in a few years and use up that surplus exactly as planned. The surplus will
last until about 2048 then the system will go back to pay-as-you-go mode
like it worked since Roosevelt. But by then the boomers will be largely dead
and payouts will shrink. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY!

Are individual accounts a good idea? Sure. I have several - in addition to
SS. If the NeoCons are hell bent on a subsidy for their stock-broker
supporters then pass a law requiring everybody to have one - seperate from
SS.

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Admirable thoughts but did he parley them into the Presidency?

Negative!

He was not as smart a conservative as President Bush nor did he
have such a lunatic Democrat left-wing controlled party to deal
with.

One thing wrong with your arguement: Bush is NOT a Conservative, he is a
NeoCon.

He does not believe in smaller government he promotes ever bigger
government.

The only difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry would "Sock the
rich" to grow the government while Bush instead borrows to do the same.

Vito wrote:
Well, I found one statement that wasn't an lie. SS will start paying out
more than it takes in in 2018.

I'm sure that was an oversight ;)

.... But he forgot to mention that that is
exactly as planned! SS is a pay-as-you-go program. Normally, there is no
surplus - everything that comes in goes out as benefits. The rates were
increased and benefits cut in 1982 (IIRC) to create a surplus in
anticipation of the "baby boom" generation retiring.

Nah, there has been a SS surplus for a long time... invested in
Treasuries. It's been used to mask the size of the deficit for decades.

... "Boomers" will retire
in a few years and use up that surplus exactly as planned. The surplus will
last until about 2048 then the system will go back to pay-as-you-go mode
like it worked since Roosevelt. But by then the boomers will be largely dead
and payouts will shrink. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY!


Ah, but there *is* an emergency! There is a huge source of wealth for
Republican campaign contributors, and it's going untapped! They *must*
loot the Social Security Trust Fund while there's still enough there to
make it worth while. Think about it, if all the Wall St types who profit
from getting their paws on workers SS payments turn around and kick a
percent back to the Republican Party, then the Republican majority will
be locked in for a few more election cycles!


Are individual accounts a good idea? Sure. I have several - in addition to
SS.

As does any sensible person with an ounce of fiscal smarts.

... If the NeoCons are hell bent on a subsidy for their stock-broker
supporters then pass a law requiring everybody to have one - seperate from
SS.


And leave the SS funds unlooted? Hey, that's not the American way!

The real question I have is, with a huge deficit, huge imbalance of
trade, an economy that depends on ballooning consumer credit and thus no
savings rate & no ready capital, we are already dependent on the
Japanese (those quaint little Emperor worshippers- maybe we can get them
to worship Bush?) and the Chinese to buy up excess Treasuries. They're
already at their limit, hence the nudge upward in interest rates. Now
what happens when Social Security bows out of the Treasuries market...
who is going to buy up all that already-existing debt along with the
rapidly increasing new debt? Hmmm?

The worst-case scenario for this picture is really terrible. I hope it
doesn't happen.

DSK

Doug,

There is too much ready capital. Venture capitalists are returning investors
money because there are not enough good investments. There is so much
capital to invest that real rates of returns are negative (a way to reduce
excess capital). The problem is there is not much good to invest in, there's
not many creating wealth. How many donut and bagel franchises do we need?
How many more electronic gadgets do we need?
Let the dumb foreigners buy up the debt. They are the ones holding the risk.
If you owe the bank thousands of dollars the bank owns you. Owe the bank
tens of millions of dollars and you own the bank.They are buying debt in
currency that becomes worth less (worthless) as time goes by.

If the gloom and doom happens what can one do? It's best to be self
sufficient, have no debt. Living on a farm or aboard a sturdy blue water
cruiser are your best options. Make sure you have plenty of ammunition.

Gilligan

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Vito wrote:
Well, I found one statement that wasn't an lie. SS will start paying
out
more than it takes in in 2018.

I'm sure that was an oversight ;)

.... But he forgot to mention that that is
exactly as planned! SS is a pay-as-you-go program. Normally, there is
no
surplus - everything that comes in goes out as benefits. The rates were
increased and benefits cut in 1982 (IIRC) to create a surplus in
anticipation of the "baby boom" generation retiring.

Nah, there has been a SS surplus for a long time... invested in
Treasuries. It's been used to mask the size of the deficit for decades.

... "Boomers" will retire
in a few years and use up that surplus exactly as planned. The surplus
will
last until about 2048 then the system will go back to pay-as-you-go mode
like it worked since Roosevelt. But by then the boomers will be largely
dead
and payouts will shrink. THERE IS NO EMERGENCY!


Ah, but there *is* an emergency! There is a huge source of wealth for
Republican campaign contributors, and it's going untapped! They *must*
loot the Social Security Trust Fund while there's still enough there to
make it worth while. Think about it, if all the Wall St types who profit
from getting their paws on workers SS payments turn around and kick a
percent back to the Republican Party, then the Republican majority will
be locked in for a few more election cycles!


Are individual accounts a good idea? Sure. I have several - in addition
to
SS.

As does any sensible person with an ounce of fiscal smarts.

... If the NeoCons are hell bent on a subsidy for their stock-broker
supporters then pass a law requiring everybody to have one - seperate
from
SS.


And leave the SS funds unlooted? Hey, that's not the American way!

The real question I have is, with a huge deficit, huge imbalance of
trade, an economy that depends on ballooning consumer credit and thus no
savings rate & no ready capital, we are already dependent on the
Japanese (those quaint little Emperor worshippers- maybe we can get them
to worship Bush?) and the Chinese to buy up excess Treasuries. They're
already at their limit, hence the nudge upward in interest rates. Now
what happens when Social Security bows out of the Treasuries market...
who is going to buy up all that already-existing debt along with the
rapidly increasing new debt? Hmmm?

The worst-case scenario for this picture is really terrible. I hope it
doesn't happen.

DSK

Gilligan wrote:
Doug,

There is too much ready capital. Venture capitalists are returning investors
money because there are not enough good investments.

???

I haven't heard this one.

... There is so much
capital to invest that real rates of returns are negative (a way to reduce
excess capital).

That's not a problem of excess capital, that's a problem of excess debt
and low profitability.

... The problem is there is not much good to invest in, there's
not many creating wealth. How many donut and bagel franchises do we need?
How many more electronic gadgets do we need?

Agreed.

Let the dumb foreigners buy up the debt. They are the ones holding the risk.
If you owe the bank thousands of dollars the bank owns you. Owe the bank
tens of millions of dollars and you own the bank.They are buying debt in
currency that becomes worth less (worthless) as time goes by.


Agreed again, with the caveat that if you're addicted to the cash flow
gained by increasing debt, then "owning the bank" doesn't do you much
good when your credit rating crashes.

When the point comes that you have to jack up the interest paid to
attract new lenders (which Uncle Sam is already at) then it costs more
and more to get less and less. The only answer is to cut the deficit.

But I hope you're right that it's not too big a problem.

If the gloom and doom happens what can one do? It's best to be self
sufficient, have no debt. Living on a farm or aboard a sturdy blue water
cruiser are your best options. Make sure you have plenty of ammunition.


Learn to cultivate bean sprouts and develop a taste for long pig, maybe?

;)

DSK