"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
om...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:42:42 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than
interest earned, where's the problem?


The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the
profit.

But I gues that's "choice" in your book.

As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return
for investment, I have no problem.

Dave


It seems that everyone is overlooking an obvious solution that seems to
me to have many advantages. The whole (supposed) motivation for partially
privatizing SS is the higher returns that the market will provide.

No, that is a partial reason. The other is returning the money to those
that earned it, not keeping it and doling it out as a welfare entitlement.

SS retirement benefits are not an entitlement, it is something you earn by
paying into the system while you are working. Strike 1.

The why not have the SSA start redeeming the billions in treasury notes it
holds and use the cash, as well as part of current income, to invest
broadly across then entire stock market? This would in effect be a huge
index fund and would be vwey cheap and efficient to manage. The higher
returns would go into the general SS pot and be available to pay benefits
in the future.

Until the pols inside the beltway decide that company 'x' is not being PC
enough, and sell all the guvmint holding in said company.


That's easily prevented - it's a really silly argument. Strike 2.

Advantages:

- Innumerable studies have shown that index investing gets a better
return than the majority of individually managed accounts, even those
funds that are managed by so-called pros. Thus most SS participants would
be better off than if they had individual accounts that they managed
themselves.

Horse****. Most people would be better off if the were allowed to
maintain pocession of the money they earn, rather than allowing the
guvmint to redistribute it through a SS system.


Most evidence suggests otherwise. Do you have any evidence to back up your
claim? I didn;t think so. Strike 3.


- Untold billions of dollars that would otherwise be paid to financial
firms for managing the individual accounts will stay within the SS
system, further enhancing returns.

Are you that clueless.


If you do not understand a perfectly valid argument, it is *you* who are
clueless, not me. Strike 4.


- No individual will be faced with an impoverished retirement because of
bad investment decisions or just plain bad luck.

Big daddy guvmint is the solution to all your problems?


No, I never claimed that, so why do you bring it up? Straw man, of course.
Strike 5.


- By redeeming some of the SS treasury bonds and not buying new ones it
will pressure the government (the non-SS part of it) to be more
responsible financially, to pay more attention to the budget deficit, and
restrain unfair tax cuts and unneeded spending.

Free hint for the clueless......the only way to 'redeem' those bonds is by
raising other taxes, running a larger deficit, or priting more money.

That is exactly my point, which you did not seem to understand. Strike 6.



But of course the Bush administration does not really want to "save" SS
(hence my "supposed") above. They want to do away with it altogether.

Which is a good thing.

Why? It has been one of the most popular and successful federal programs
ever. Strike 7.



This (partial privatization) is the first step, just like the medicare
prescription benefit was the first step in getting rid of that government
program (by incewasing the program cost wile shifting more of the tax
burden to the middle class they hope to eventually built a lot of ppular
opposition). Bush himself is probably not smart enough to see what's
happening, nor are 99.9% of his supporters, but his neocon handlers know
exactly what they are doing.

You are obviously not smart enough to do anything except swallow the
liebrals talking points, hook line and sinker.


Lacking facts and logic you pull out the "liberal" epithet. How clever. You
managed to object to 8 separate points I made without a single fact or
logical argument to back up your opinion. Wow, 8 strikes out of 8.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:44:31 -0500, DSK wrote:

The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the
profit.



Dave Hall wrote:
As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return
for investment, I have no problem.


So you think that it might be a teensy bit undesirable to have the gov't
steering the profit from your retirement funds to firms they choose?

Accountability and statements of fund performance would make this a
tough thing to play around with

What if they define "best return for the investment" differently that
you would?

This would have to be something that people in the financial
departments would have to be a part of.


For example, 'best return donated from corporation into
certain campaign funds' which is exactly what Vice President Cheney was
talking about when this whole "Social Security reform plan" got started.

Says you. You're talking utter paranoid rubbish.


Dave

For example, 'best return donated from corporation into
certain campaign funds' which is exactly what Vice President Cheney was
talking about when this whole "Social Security reform plan" got started.


Dave Hall wrote:
Says you. You're talking utter paranoid rubbish.


Not at all.
In one of his early statements on the subject, Vice President Cheney
said publicly that they were "shopping the idea around" various Wall St
firms to see who would "be the most responsive." His exact words. He
also said that he was not specifically talking about a quid pro quo but
that the arranement would be mutually beneficial to the chosen Wall St
firms and to the Republican Party. Since then, they've backed way off on
this line.

Funny thing, you always accuse me of either quoting "Democratic Party
propaganda" which is something I've never seen or heard, or inventing
fiction, but somehow I have the documentation & references to back up
what I say as fact. You never do. I wonder why that is?

DSK

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:06:54 -0500, DSK wrote:

For example, 'best return donated from corporation into
certain campaign funds' which is exactly what Vice President Cheney was
talking about when this whole "Social Security reform plan" got started.


Dave Hall wrote:
Says you. You're talking utter paranoid rubbish.


Not at all.
In one of his early statements on the subject, Vice President Cheney
said publicly that they were "shopping the idea around" various Wall St
firms to see who would "be the most responsive." His exact words.

But of course you've spun those words to imply something nefarious. It
could be that he meant that he was eliciting the opinions of those who
are in the business of investing as to how to best go about creating a
private account system.


He
also said that he was not specifically talking about a quid pro quo but
that the arranement would be mutually beneficial to the chosen Wall St
firms and to the Republican Party. Since then, they've backed way off on
this line.

I would be quite interested to see a link to where he made such a
claim.


Funny thing, you always accuse me of either quoting "Democratic Party
propaganda" which is something I've never seen or heard

Yet you can recite almost word for word. Birds of a feather?


, or inventing
fiction, but somehow I have the documentation & references to back up
what I say as fact.

Then how come you never provide proof when asked?


You never do. I wonder why that is?

You claim to base your subjective opinion on some elusive "fact". I
don't make the same claim. I argue based on principle and common
sense. When there is something factual (Like Galveston Texas opting
out of SS and gaining a considerable advantage by it) to support my
argument, I will post it. But in the case of SS reform, there really
aren't many facts yet as the program is hardly past the proposal
stage.

So far you have failed to prove that the Bush administration is doing
anything other than what they are openly claiming. Claims of "lining
the pockets of Wall Street" is just paranoia run amuck and
regurgitated by liberals, democrats, and Bush bashers alike.
Especially considering that the plan has never been finalized to the
point that such observations could definitively be made.


Dave

In one of his early statements on the subject, Vice President Cheney
said publicly that they were "shopping the idea around" various Wall St
firms to see who would "be the most responsive." His exact words.


Dave Hall wrote:
But of course you've spun those words to imply something nefarious. It
could be that he meant that he was eliciting the opinions of those who
are in the business of investing as to how to best go about creating a
private account system.


Uh huh.

Just like he sees nothing wrong with using his office as Vice President
to steer U.S. foreign policy in ways that result in tremendous profits
for Halliburton, which he *still* has not given up his $100 million+
stake in.

And I guess you see nothing wrong with it, either.



So far you have failed to prove that the Bush administration is doing
anything other than what they are openly claiming.

Really? You think the Bush Administration (it's proper to capitalize
here BTW) is "openly claiming" that they are using private interest
groups to promote Bush's plan, spending $30 million+ to promote the plan
which Bush says "ought to stand on it's own"?

Get the facts, Dave.

DSK

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 13:44:20 -0400, DSK wrote:

In one of his early statements on the subject, Vice President Cheney
said publicly that they were "shopping the idea around" various Wall St
firms to see who would "be the most responsive." His exact words.


Dave Hall wrote:
But of course you've spun those words to imply something nefarious. It
could be that he meant that he was eliciting the opinions of those who
are in the business of investing as to how to best go about creating a
private account system.


Uh huh.

Just like he sees nothing wrong with using his office as Vice President
to steer U.S. foreign policy in ways that result in tremendous profits
for Halliburton, which he *still* has not given up his $100 million+
stake in.

Can you credibly prove that?


And I guess you see nothing wrong with it, either.

It's hard to see anything wrong when it's pure propaganda.


So far you have failed to prove that the Bush administration is doing
anything other than what they are openly claiming.

Really? You think the Bush Administration (it's proper to capitalize
here BTW) is "openly claiming" that they are using private interest
groups to promote Bush's plan, spending $30 million+ to promote the plan
which Bush says "ought to stand on it's own"?

Considering the sheer amount of negative propaganda the opposition has
unleashed to try to scare people into opposing the plan, I'd say that
countering that groundless propaganda is a natural move.


Get the facts, Dave.

I have them. Where are yours?

Dave

Just like he sees nothing wrong with using his office as Vice President
to steer U.S. foreign policy in ways that result in tremendous profits
for Halliburton, which he *still* has not given up his $100 million+
stake in.


Dave Hall wrote:
Can you credibly prove that?


Open your eyes, Dave. Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy
fit and cussed out Senator Leahy? He's been censured for his conflict of
interest, and with this Congress that's really doing something. He's
said that he "will" give his profits from his Halliburton interest (but
not the stock itself) to charity, but so far that hasn't happened.




And I guess you see nothing wrong with it, either.


It's hard to see anything wrong when it's pure propaganda.


Yep, just like the sun rising in the east and water flowing down hill.
It happens in the real world, therefor it must be DNC propaganda.

DSK

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 10:06:51 -0400, DSK wrote:

Just like he sees nothing wrong with using his office as Vice President
to steer U.S. foreign policy in ways that result in tremendous profits
for Halliburton, which he *still* has not given up his $100 million+
stake in.


Dave Hall wrote:
Can you credibly prove that?


Open your eyes, Dave. Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy
fit and cussed out Senator Leahy?

I don't know. But unlike you, I'm not about to speculate as to the
reasons why and then try to pass them off as fact.


He's been censured for his conflict of
interest

When was that?


, and with this Congress that's really doing something. He's
said that he "will" give his profits from his Halliburton interest (but
not the stock itself) to charity, but so far that hasn't happened.

When did he say that?


And I guess you see nothing wrong with it, either.


It's hard to see anything wrong when it's pure propaganda.


Yep, just like the sun rising in the east and water flowing down hill.
It happens in the real world, therefor it must be DNC propaganda.

Non sequitur. The fact that water flows downhill is not a testament to
any of the political propaganda that you spout.


Dave

... Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy
fit and cussed out Senator Leahy?


Dave Hall wrote:
I don't know. But unlike you, I'm not about to speculate as to the
reasons why and then try to pass them off as fact.


I'm not speculating. It's pretty well documented, even on Fox News (the
Super Bush-n-Cheney Booster Channel).

However, it's interesting to see that you have zero knowledge of the
facts and yet you're still convinced that somehow I *must* be wrong.
What rational, balanced, approach.



He's been censured for his conflict of
interest


When was that?

Wake up, Dave.





, and with this Congress that's really doing something. He's
said that he "will" give his profits from his Halliburton interest (but
not the stock itself) to charity, but so far that hasn't happened.


When did he say that?


You're really very good at playing dumb, Dave. But you make your whole
"team" look bad trying to deny such obvious facts. A very quick glance
at Google will reveal the truth to anybody who isn't a mindless pro-Bush
cheeleader.

Shove you head deeper, Dave, the sunlight is getting in! The truth is
sneaking up on you no matter how hard you deny it!!

DSK

"Red Cloud®" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:50:47 -0400, DSK wrote:

... Why do you think Vice President Cheney had a hissy
fit and cussed out Senator Leahy?


Dave Hall wrote:
I don't know. But unlike you, I'm not about to speculate as to the
reasons why and then try to pass them off as fact.


I'm not speculating. It's pretty well documented, even on Fox News (the
Super Bush-n-Cheney Booster Channel).

However, it's interesting to see that you have zero knowledge of the
facts and yet you're still convinced that somehow I *must* be wrong.
What rational, balanced, approach.



He's been censured for his conflict of
interest


When was that?

Wake up, Dave.



Doug,

Dave is in a self-imposed persistive vegetative condition. You will never
improve his condition no matter how hard you try. He cannot learn. His
mind,
what there is of it, is closed tight to ward off anything that might wake
him.
He's a frightened little toad. Find someone who is worth engaging. Dave
ain't
it. Pull the plug and let him go.

rusty redcloud

So what sort of boating do you plan to do this year rusty?

We are presently without a boat (sold our 32 footer last year because of
some medical problems with my wife) but have many friends with boats and
plan to do a great deal of fishing and cruising. We also plan to vacation
on the water again this year to enjoy some fishing and swimming.

What kind of boat do you own and where do you boat?