On 2/20/2011 11:56 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:41:42 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote:

That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea
that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too.
Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic
and you don't have a chart to dispute that.
No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to
change your mind. So, what's the point?
You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed
into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a
chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be
in the red forever and try to say that is fine.
I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to
say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people
hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse
than nonsense.
Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater
wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the
mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and
there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to
be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very
republican of him huh?
BTW your chart does not take that into account.

SS and Medicare needs a stimulus package,or at least pay back what was
stolen, with interest.
Obama can do it. He set the precedent.

On 2/20/2011 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:40:46 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:54:39 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:49:27 -0500, wrote:

Oops... Ford abolished the AEC. Nice try. FYI, Carter was a nuclear
engineer.
DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either
but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became.
I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what
happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started
up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was
they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws.
Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total
nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly
involved profit.
No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of
an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well.
According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is
needed?? That's what you're claiming...

Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus
bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that
runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups?
What groups?
There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several
others were combined. For some reason you think that represents
terrible bloat.

Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to
live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the
collection of methane from cow farts?
So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your
argument?

They have nothing to do with each other. IMHO putting AEC in ERDA was
a dumb idea. (a feeling shared by the AEC people I knew at the time)
Rolling that up in another larger agency was a dumb idea squared.
You can't even say they were "developing" atomic energy (the D in
ERDA). We haven't built a nuke plant since they created these
boondoggles.
Ever hear of the power grid in the US? It's got to be under some
agency. Perhaps you'd prefer it to be under the DoJ or the military?
"Under some agency"? You are obviously shooting from the hip.
You are making one of those false equivalencies you are so famous for
Jessica De Plume.

On 2/20/2011 8:42 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 20/02/2011 3:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:59:59 -0700,
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 11:38 AM, wrote:

You moved back to Canada because you were thrown out of the US.

And I took my job with me!

You mean your unemployment. Job /= sitting on couch.

No. When I said I needed to return to Canada for personal reasons,
they said I should report to the Canadian office. Never even changed
bosses. Part of the reasons were the Canadian investments needed some
attention I couldn't do in the US, and I could see the US was headed
for the wall.

loonies traded at 1.013 -- I like.

I wouldn't trade a moron for a loonie.

Your not even a moron, so you have nothing to trade.

Morally, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt. Plus, judging by her
sour attitude, Jessica probably isn't getting any.
What a loser.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:03:29 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:03:15 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:20:00 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:41:37 -0500, L G wrote:


gfretwell doesnt understand that countires can, and do, collapse,
primarly because the wealthy get too greedy. he ignores egypt and
mexico which are both imploding for this exact reason

to the right, this cant happen here. why?
well...ummm...ahem..well...god won't permit it.

we're EXACTLY in the position of egypt. small, wealthy ruliing
class...lower social mobility than SWEDEN

and they just hide their heads in teh sand and ignore history

hey...tune your TV to the news channels. tell me how wonderful the
rich are doing in egypt, OK?


What happens when the Egyptians discover they can't vote themselves a
job

they'll work and get paid

something the american right is opposed to. only the rich get paid.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:58:55 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:00:42 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

hey DEREGULATED WALL STREET WHEN THEY REPEALED GLASS STEAGALL you
CLOWN!!


Hmm which president signed that bill? How many Democrats voted for it?


gee. clinton signed it at the 11th hour after gramm sneaked it into
the bill at the last minute....courtesy of his wife

who happened to be an ENRON VP

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:36:28 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 20/02/2011 7:03 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:53:47 -0700,
wrote:

HHAHAHAHA you're the right wing fool! YOU voted for welfare for the
rich. not me, sport

I didn't vote for Obama nor Bush.

architect of the bailout?

henry paulson, bush's treasury secretary

largest deficit in history? bush's last budget, 2009...


Hey, liberalism in ponzi debt has been good for me. You can't make this
kind of money in a stable well balanced economy and good honest money
management by government. No sir, the liberalism churns it up for big
swings.

and how's govt by wall street working out?

we growing at 9% PER YEAR?

oh. the chinese are. we arent. courtesy of wall street

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:56:27 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:41:42 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote:



That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea
that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too.
Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic
and you don't have a chart to dispute that.

No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to
change your mind. So, what's the point?

You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed
into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a
chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be
in the red forever and try to say that is fine.

I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to
say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people
hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse
than nonsense.

Well it might have BEEN a long term problem in 1964 when Goldwater
wanted to fix it but this is 2011 and the plane has crashed into the
mountain. Outgo is less than income. Both programs are under water and
there is still no real plan to fix it. The current Obama plan seems to
be to reduce revenue, they just reduced the payroll tax 2%. Very
republican of him huh?
BTW your chart does not take that into account.

It's still a long term problem with long term fixes available. It
doesn't need to be fixed this year or next on the backs of the lower
and middle classes. Both programs are NOT underwater, although they
will be if nothing is done. It's a right wing fantasy.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:29:35 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:46:06 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:17:11 -0500, wrote:


DoE was a Carter invention. Nobody said ERDA was a good idea either
but it was not the same huge bureaucracy DoE became.
I was in DC at the time, working in those buildings. I saw what
happened. Each time they changed the name, another office was started
up and the existing office just got a new sign. The joke at GSA was
they were going to hang the signs with thumb screws.

Sure... DoE... created by a Dem, therefore it's horrible. What total
nonsense. You just want to eliminate anything that doesn't directly
involved profit.

No it was bad because it was an extra layer of bureaucracy on top of
an already redundant layer on an agency that was working well.

According to you. So, no coordination among the disparate groups is
needed?? That's what you're claiming...


Make up your mind, you started out saying we needed this omnibus
bureaucracy to regulate a small sector of the energy business that
runs nuclear reactors and now you are talking about disparate groups?
What groups?

There were two agencies that were disbanded. They, along with several
others were combined. For some reason you think that represents
terrible bloat.

That may be what you learned in your civics class but I was there. The
AEC was still there (in a big building in Germantown Md). ERDA was a
new office with a bunch of new bureaucrats in Rockville Md that sat
over AEC. When DoE was started it was yet ANOTHER office in DC that
sat over both previous bureaucracies. The difference was the old AEC
people now had two more levels of management above them who knew very
little about what they did and chipped away at their allocation of the
pot of money.

Come on. I made a statement of fact. Published fact. You can claim you
know more, but it doesn't mean much when compared to the published
facts.

A cynical person might say that confusion actually disrupted the AEC
oversight and allowed TMI ... but I don't think there was that much
oversight in the first place.

So, there should be less?

Why should the agency that regulates the safety of our nukes have to
live under the same bloated bureaucracy that is promoting the
collection of methane from cow farts?

So, therefore, remove it. No way to fix something right? That's your
argument?

I don't think you fix anything by increasing complexity. Keep it
simple.

?? Making it more simple doesn't not equate to removing something.


They have nothing to do with each other. IMHO putting AEC in ERDA was
a dumb idea. (a feeling shared by the AEC people I knew at the time)
Rolling that up in another larger agency was a dumb idea squared.
You can't even say they were "developing" atomic energy (the D in
ERDA). We haven't built a nuke plant since they created these
boondoggles.

Ever hear of the power grid in the US? It's got to be under some
agency. Perhaps you'd prefer it to be under the DoJ or the military?

The power grid has been controlled by the power producers quite
successfully over the years. The government has a regulatory function
but that function does not require a cabinet level department. In fact
a smaller organization would be able to react faster in an industry
that is changing like this one.

And, it's been regulated by the over-all agency. You want no
regulation, basically putting it in the hands of corporations. I think
I'll pass on that. They have such an excellent record, e.g., Big Oil.

On 20/02/2011 9:41 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:08:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:36:16 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:52:46 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:37:13 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:28:20 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:01:11 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:17:10 -0500, wrote:



Cutting half of the DoD budget is a good start but if you ignore
SS/Medicare you will never get a handle on the deficit.

The rest may be good symbolism but they are insignificant.

Completely untrue and misleading as usual.

What is untrue? You don't think SS and Medicare are a budget buster in
the out years?

SS/MC are not in trouble right now. They will be if nothing is
changed, but NOT RIGHT NOW.


WTF? Both are paying out more than they take in. In any other business
that is called running at a loss. There is no likely scenario that
will make that get any better. One of the current proposals is to
remove the FICA tax altogether so they do not have to perpetuate this
lie of "insurance" or "an investment". SS/Medicare will just become
welfare. That will make it easier to ration, means test and alter
benefits.

So what. That's a long-term problem not a short term one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...rming_soc.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...shortfall.html


That chart in link 2 assumes an unrealistic rise in GDP and the idea
that the salaries of the people paying in will rise that fast too.
Talk to Bob about how that has been going. The problem is demographic
and you don't have a chart to dispute that.

No matter what chart or what fact I show you, you're not going to
change your mind. So, what's the point?

You are the one who keeps changing the subject when you get backed
into a corner. I say SS and Medicare is upside down. You present a
chart that says SS and Medicare are not only upside down but will be
in the red forever and try to say that is fine.

I haven't changed the subject at all. I've said and will continue to
say that this is a long-term problem not a short one. Holding people
hostage of this (what's happening in the House as an example) is worse
than nonsense.

So are you afraid your welfare check will bounce?

--
Socialism is a great ideal as long as someone else pays for it. And when
no one is left to pay for it, they all can share nothing.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 23:42:03 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:41:50 -0800, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:57:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:41:26 -0800, wrote:

It might help a little but the rich don't really have that much money.
I already showed you the total net worth of the Forbes 400 would only
handle our current deficit for about 18 months. Bear in mind that is
their unrealized profit on securities that the can't really write a
check for.
Get a calculator, go to Forbes and add it up yourself if you are
bored.

Go get a calculator and figure out how much of an increase of 4% for
those making over $250K will have on deficit reduction.

What do you think the median income of that group is?
$500,000? $1M?
Lets take the best case scenario and say $1M
They would pay an extra $40,000 times 1.9 million households ... $80
billion, not a small number but still chump change compared to the
$1.1 trillion deficit.

Go "figure" your math some more. You're not even close.

Facts please?
You can't just say no it isn't without some facts. Which part is
wrong?


I've done that several times. Most recently that the top 400 have more
than the bottom 50%. Yet, the Republicans want to tax the bottom half
and GOD FORBID touch any money from the top.

I have said many times we should tax these people more but I also
understand it won't fix the problem.

They need to pay more. It'll go a long way toward making things more
equitable, and while it won't fix the entire problem, it'll go a long
way toward doing that.


Make up your mind, are you talking about "income" or "net worth"?
You show me the data on what the income is for those people if you
don't like my number. You have not "done that" once. You have linked
some opinions but you have not showed me any numbers. In fact I am
having trouble finding the number myself. I do know there are 1.6
million households (before the crash) that are making over 250,000 and
the NYT says 145,000 made more than 1.6 million (in 2004) so that
means we are still not talking about that many rich people. Certainly
not enough to make a dent in a 1.1 trillion dollar deficit with a 4%
tax hike. When you look at the 250k-1.6m people, most are on the 250k
end if the rest of income distribution models hold. I generously said
the median was 500k.

Anyone individual making more than $250K should be taxed a bit more on
the amount over the line... by a few percent as per what was proposed.
The Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent that. The Democrats
even proposed pushing that up to $1M, but no go from the Republicans.
Why?