"John H" wrote in message
...

The 'progressives' don't seem to want to be so with regard to social
security.
They seem more concerned with preserving the status quo.

John H


What's the problem with social security? Here the Gov't just doubled the
premiums from both the employee and employer to make sure the system doesn't
implode as the baby boom generation gets ready to draw. (Canada Pension
Plan)

Yup


Its a good thing at my age that I don't have to worry about money at my
time,,

You know that I own a mansion and a yacht,,, I will of course still receive
my benefits that my grandchildren will pay for,, but who cares,, not me,,
not harry,

But I have all the boats and homes and acreage and deer and buffalo I need
for now.

I travel extensively, I mean daily and earn an income most nations would
dream of ( I know I post from the same IP) but I own satellites to take care
of all that, not really sure how it works in all but my IT/IS division takes
care of all that for me.

Yup,,, never have to worry about social security will I,,,,














"hkrause" wrote in message
news:1107650773.3dbeb19816cb3fbd8b676eb1a754ac06@t eranews...
Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...

The 'progressives' don't seem to want to be so with regard to social

security.

They seem more concerned with preserving the status quo.

John H



What's the problem with social security? Here the Gov't just doubled the
premiums from both the employee and employer to make sure the system
doesn't
implode as the baby boom generation gets ready to draw. (Canada Pension
Plan)




The problem with social security is that Bush wants to establish a payoff
for his buddies on Wall Street, and the partial privatization he proposes
will do just that.

There are many ways to fix the far in the future social security problems
without doing away with the current program.

wrote in message
oups.com...
JohnH wrote:

Chuck, you guys come up with some of the most *interesting* theories!


*******************

That's the difference between a progressive and a conservative, JohnH.
"We guys" are always imagining how things could be, and working toward
the better alternatives.
Nah, that's an engineer. A progressive is always egotistical enough to
believe that he can solve problems by the application of enough of other
peoples money.
"You guys" are more concerned with preserving
whatever status happens to be quo.

Nope, those guys believe that people will do what is best for themselves
and shouldn't be coerced by busybodies claiming to know what is best.
No big deal, the world would come to grinding halt without one side or
the other.

JimH (H stands for something, it's less than half of whatever it
is....) wrote:

I knew you would somehow turn a boating thread into a political one
Chuck.
It seems to be your ultimate agenda with anything you write.

*******************

That comment is queer as a three dollar bill. Who said anything about
politics?

One of your conservative friends started in with a "you guys"
line......or did you miss that?

Anyway, it's a fact.

Liberals look at the world and begin longing for something that can
never be.

Conservatives look at the world and want to return it to something that
never was.

You snipped this part, in your dedicated effort to be as negative as
possible:

"No big deal, the world would come to grinding halt without one side or

the other."

....but we digress. Nice article about "My Gal" (the original topic of this
thread), Chuck.


"Harry Kruase" wrote in message
...
Yup


Its a good thing at my age that I don't have to worry about money at my
time,,

You know that I own a mansion and a yacht,,, I will of course still
receive
my benefits that my grandchildren will pay for,, but who cares,, not me,,
not harry,

But I have all the boats and homes and acreage and deer and buffalo I need
for now.

I travel extensively, I mean daily and earn an income most nations would
dream of ( I know I post from the same IP) but I own satellites to take
care
of all that, not really sure how it works in all but my IT/IS division
takes
care of all that for me.

Yup,,, never have to worry about social security will I,,,,














"hkrause" wrote in message
news:1107650773.3dbeb19816cb3fbd8b676eb1a754ac06@t eranews...
Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...

The 'progressives' don't seem to want to be so with regard to social

security.

They seem more concerned with preserving the status quo.

John H



What's the problem with social security? Here the Gov't just doubled
the
premiums from both the employee and employer to make sure the system
doesn't
implode as the baby boom generation gets ready to draw. (Canada Pension
Plan)




The problem with social security is that Bush wants to establish a
payoff
for his buddies on Wall Street, and the partial privatization he
proposes
will do just that.

There are many ways to fix the far in the future social security
problems
without doing away with the current program.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 19:46:08 -0500, hkrause wrote:

Don White wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...

The 'progressives' don't seem to want to be so with regard to social

security.

They seem more concerned with preserving the status quo.

John H



What's the problem with social security? Here the Gov't just doubled the
premiums from both the employee and employer to make sure the system doesn't
implode as the baby boom generation gets ready to draw. (Canada Pension
Plan)




The problem with social security is that Bush wants to establish a
payoff for his buddies on Wall Street, and the partial privatization he
proposes will do just that.

There are many ways to fix the far in the future social security
problems without doing away with the current program.

Did the Thrift Savings Plan provide a payoff for 'buddies on Wall Street'? Is
allowing a choice over the disposition of 4% of an individual's contributions
'doing away with the current program'?

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

On 5 Feb 2005 19:27:50 -0800, wrote:

JimH (H stands for something, it's less than half of whatever it
is....) wrote:

I knew you would somehow turn a boating thread into a political one
Chuck.
It seems to be your ultimate agenda with anything you write.

*******************

That comment is queer as a three dollar bill. Who said anything about
politics?

One of your conservative friends started in with a "you guys"
line......or did you miss that?

Anyway, it's a fact.

Liberals look at the world and begin longing for something that can
never be.

Conservatives look at the world and want to return it to something that
never was.

You snipped this part, in your dedicated effort to be as negative as
possible:

"No big deal, the world would come to grinding halt without one side or

the other."

Chuck, just to set your mind straight, please review:
-----------------------------------------
There may be credibility to a current theory that Tuuk is an Australian
sock puppet.
There's a bit of the Blunderbus from Down Under Us in that
parenthetical clause.

Who else hates Krause so bitterly that they would take the very first
opportunity to make an unprovoked attack? If his best friend in the NG
made an attempt to slop up and disguise her style, would it not read
almost exactly like the yellow pus oozing from "Tuuk"?

Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but it is not unsual for
people on an internet crusade to
invent a few allies for their questionable causes.

Chuck, you guys come up with some of the most *interesting* theories!

John H
------------------------------------------------------

For you to say this thread got side-tracked because of my 'you guys' comment is
legitimate, if the parts you snipped never existed!

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

Chucky, the shill for boating manufacturers, wrote

That's the difference between a progressive and a conservative, JohnH.
"We guys" are always imagining how things could be, and working toward
the better alternatives. "You guys" are more concerned with preserving
whatever status happens to be quo.

I knew you would somehow turn a boating thread into a political one
Chuck.
It seems to be your ultimate agenda with anything you write.

That comment is queer as a three dollar bill. Who said anything about
politics?


Liberals look at the world and begin longing for something that can
never be.

Conservatives look at the world and want to return it to something that
never was.



Nice spin. Nice try. No cigar Chucky.

Now go get that stash of hundred dollar bills slipped under your door last
night by XX Boat Company and finish your "unbiased" review of their boat.
Remember, nothing but positives and do remember to stretch the truth as much
as possible. Oh those advertising dollars from XX Boat Company will surely
start to sprout.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 08:01:28 -0500, John H wrote:


Is allowing a choice over the disposition of 4% of an individual's
contributions 'doing away with the current program'?

Hey John, did you know the first US income tax was only 3%? Have you ever
heard of a "slippery slope?"

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html