On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:31:51 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
...
How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign
news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand
reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies.


Dave Hall wrote:
Who cares what they say?

People who want to be well informed with actual facts, that's who.



Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS
reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully
supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving for
their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the
middle class and increase 401(k) deductible.


If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've
described essentially what he wants to do.

Negative.

Bush's "plan" as revealed so far is to divert SS taxes into "private
accounts" which will be managed by favored Wall St'ers.

But hey... why go with the facts when propaganda makes you feel much
better?

DSK

LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money. The reasons the
Republicans are for this is 1) They believe it will benefit the public, and
2) It robs the democrats of money they need to buy their power base. It
shrinks the size of the federal budget.

If you believe otherwise you are politically naive.


You know that, I know that, and most politically savvy people know
that. But before we can enlighten the hopelessly indoctrinated
liberals (and those who claim to be conservatives), to see this, we
have to first defuse the idea that Bush's private account proposal is
not much different than the current 401K plan that most people already
have.

Liberals have to demonize this plan to put people in charge of their
own retirement planning by spinning it as a windfall for
wall-streeters, simply because investment firms usually manage such
plans. The fee for managing a 401K is usually much less than interest
earned, so you're still ahead of the game.

Dave

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack
factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere,
planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely
support life.



Jeff Rigby wrote:
That's why the Great smoky mountains were called smoky by the Indians
200+
years ago.


Note the difference between "smoke" and "fog."

It's not quite as difficult as the difference between "diplomacy" and
"coercion."

DSK

No, I'm told by a Forest ranger that it was smoke. Certain times of the
year you do get fog but there were fires that slowly burned (natural,
promoted by the pine trees for their germination) that caused SMOKE for
months. It's a combination of wind currents that keep the smoke in that
area (trapped).

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:31:51 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
...
How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign
news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand
reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies.


Dave Hall wrote:
Who cares what they say?

People who want to be well informed with actual facts, that's who.



Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS
reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully
supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving
for
their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the
middle class and increase 401(k) deductible.


If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've
described essentially what he wants to do.

Negative.

Bush's "plan" as revealed so far is to divert SS taxes into "private
accounts" which will be managed by favored Wall St'ers.

But hey... why go with the facts when propaganda makes you feel much
better?

DSK

LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money. The reasons
the
Republicans are for this is 1) They believe it will benefit the public,
and
2) It robs the democrats of money they need to buy their power base. It
shrinks the size of the federal budget.

If you believe otherwise you are politically naive.


You know that, I know that, and most politically savvy people know
that. But before we can enlighten the hopelessly indoctrinated
liberals (and those who claim to be conservatives), to see this, we
have to first defuse the idea that Bush's private account proposal is
not much different than the current 401K plan that most people already
have.

Liberals have to demonize this plan to put people in charge of their
own retirement planning by spinning it as a windfall for
wall-streeters, simply because investment firms usually manage such
plans. The fee for managing a 401K is usually much less than interest
earned, so you're still ahead of the game.

Dave
I've noticed that no-one on the left here answered my comment. Hmmmm,
maybe they do know something and they are just rabid democrats.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:08:37 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:31:51 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"DSK" wrote in message
...
How about what other countries have to say? If you follow any foreign
news sources at all... really easy nowadays... you can get first hand
reports about the impact of Bush/Cheney foreign policies.


Dave Hall wrote:
Who cares what they say?

People who want to be well informed with actual facts, that's who.



Social Security? Why? If they wanted a *conservative* approach to SS
reform, they'd reduce taxes and then reduce SS benefits to be fully
supportable by future taxes. If they want to encourage people saving
for
their own future (a laudable goal) they could reduce taxes for the
middle class and increase 401(k) deductible.


If you would bother to read Bush's plan, you would find that you've
described essentially what he wants to do.

Negative.

Bush's "plan" as revealed so far is to divert SS taxes into "private
accounts" which will be managed by favored Wall St'ers.

But hey... why go with the facts when propaganda makes you feel much
better?

DSK

LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money. The reasons
the
Republicans are for this is 1) They believe it will benefit the public,
and
2) It robs the democrats of money they need to buy their power base. It
shrinks the size of the federal budget.

If you believe otherwise you are politically naive.


You know that, I know that, and most politically savvy people know
that. But before we can enlighten the hopelessly indoctrinated
liberals (and those who claim to be conservatives), to see this, we
have to first defuse the idea that Bush's private account proposal is
not much different than the current 401K plan that most people already
have.

Liberals have to demonize this plan to put people in charge of their
own retirement planning by spinning it as a windfall for
wall-streeters, simply because investment firms usually manage such
plans. The fee for managing a 401K is usually much less than interest
earned, so you're still ahead of the game.

Dave
I've noticed that no-one on the left here answered my comment. Hmmmm,
maybe they do know something and they are just rabid democrats.

Sometimes they realize they're whipped and slink off to another thread.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:25 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:

Who the heck is REGAN? :-)

pseudonym?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking.
The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes
everything easier.

Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and
ones
personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's
why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these
decisions, i.e.: Bush. I shudder when I think of a leader who checks the
political wind before each decision.




The *decision* is the result of binary thinking. That does not mean that
the
individuals making the decision are necessarily binary thinkers. If one
uses a
decision tree to assist in selecting alternatives, he must still,
eventually,
make a decision to adopt or not adopt a selected alternative.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

If I thought that way I might be a Democrat. The real world is not that
simple. Good intentions can cause serious problems down the road. For
example; Social Security when implemented was an exceedingly good idea but
when you look at it multi-generation it creates social problems.
Grandparents used to live in one of their children's homes, they helped out
by babysitting their grandchildren. By doing this they passed down their
life's-lessons and culture to the grandchildren. Parents are generally too
busy supporting the family to do this properly. As a result of SS allowing
more grandparents to retire to Florida we have another factor that is
contributing to our cultural collapse.

It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks are
because of their grandparents.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:58:50 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:25 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...
On 9 Mar 2005 09:13:47 -0800, wrote:

Who the heck is REGAN? :-)

pseudonym?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I think that much of what is wrong here is the result of binary thinking.
The real world is not that simple. Many wish it so because that makes
everything easier.

Decision trees generally have values assigned to each binary choice and
ones
personal values affect the chosen path through the decision tree. That's
why I prefer a person with well thought out moral values making these
decisions, i.e.: Bush. I shudder when I think of a leader who checks the
political wind before each decision.




The *decision* is the result of binary thinking. That does not mean that
the
individuals making the decision are necessarily binary thinkers. If one
uses a
decision tree to assist in selecting alternatives, he must still,
eventually,
make a decision to adopt or not adopt a selected alternative.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

If I thought that way I might be a Democrat. The real world is not that
simple. Good intentions can cause serious problems down the road. For
example; Social Security when implemented was an exceedingly good idea but
when you look at it multi-generation it creates social problems.
Grandparents used to live in one of their children's homes, they helped out
by babysitting their grandchildren. By doing this they passed down their
life's-lessons and culture to the grandchildren. Parents are generally too
busy supporting the family to do this properly. As a result of SS allowing
more grandparents to retire to Florida we have another factor that is
contributing to our cultural collapse.

It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks are
because of their grandparents.


Are we discussing decision making and/or binary thinking?

Or are we discussing the merits of Social Security checks, which, by the way,
individuals can choose to take or not take.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Jeff Rigby wrote:
LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money.

This is "getting real"?

... The reasons the
Republicans are for this is 1) They believe it will benefit the public,

And you want to call other people "politically naive?"


2) It robs the democrats of money they need to buy their power base.

You forgot 3- increases campaign contribution to favored Republican pockets.


... It
shrinks the size of the federal budget.


Ya think so? Gee, I guess you know more about it than Greenspan, who
said it would increase spending and contribute to larger deficit(s).

DSK

Did President Bush go on French TV and lie about what Alan Greenspan
said concerning Bush's Social Security plan? IIRC that was in the
American media... and nobody pointed out Bush's contradiction of what
Greenspan had actually said...

That darn liberal biased media!



John H wrote:
Show me. And no, I didn't see Bush on French TV. French TV is...French, i.e.
anti-US and anti-Bush. It did seem to favor Kerry a lot though.

How do you know? You watch a lot of French TV?

DSK

Note the difference between "smoke" and "fog."

It's not quite as difficult as the difference between "diplomacy" and
"coercion."



Jeff Rigby wrote:
No, I'm told by a Forest ranger that it was smoke.

Dang, he must be the oldest living forest ranger... 200 years?!? He must
be building up a heck of a retirement...

... Certain times of the
year you do get fog

yep, about 11 1/2 months

... but there were fires that slowly burned (natural,
promoted by the pine trees for their germination) that caused SMOKE for
months. It's a combination of wind currents that keep the smoke in that
area (trapped).


Of course, that must be it... lots and lots of slow burning fires...
that happens far more often than simple common clouds intercepted by the
mountain slopes...

DSK

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:44:44 -0500, DSK wrote:

Did President Bush go on French TV and lie about what Alan Greenspan
said concerning Bush's Social Security plan? IIRC that was in the
American media... and nobody pointed out Bush's contradiction of what
Greenspan had actually said...

That darn liberal biased media!



John H wrote:
Show me. And no, I didn't see Bush on French TV. French TV is...French, i.e.
anti-US and anti-Bush. It did seem to favor Kerry a lot though.

How do you know? You watch a lot of French TV?

DSK

I try to watch the news from as many countries as I can.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:43:22 -0500, DSK wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money.

This is "getting real"?

It is if you're not politically blind to the motives of those most
opposed to private saving accounts.



... The reasons the
Republicans are for this is 1) They believe it will benefit the public,

And you want to call other people "politically naive?"


2) It robs the democrats of money they need to buy their power base.

You forgot 3- increases campaign contribution to favored Republican pockets.


Like whom? The people who own the accounts?

... It
shrinks the size of the federal budget.


Ya think so? Gee, I guess you know more about it than Greenspan, who
said it would increase spending and contribute to larger deficit(s).

I want you to explain to the class how diverting a portion of the SS
tax money, already being collected, into a privately maintained (and
interest bearing) account would increase spending? The money is
already coming in, and it stands to earn a larger return for the
individual over the long term.

Now, the only thing that would suffer is the general SS fund. But if
you reduce the SS fund pay out to the people who opted to use the
private accounts, it should turn out to be a wash. Unless of course,
you are one of those government types who like to raid the SS fund for
projects not related to SS. If that money is no longer available to
be raided, then I guess it will cause spending in other areas to
increase. But they shouldn't be raiding SS in the first place.

Dave

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Note the difference between "smoke" and "fog."

It's not quite as difficult as the difference between "diplomacy" and
"coercion."



Jeff Rigby wrote:
No, I'm told by a Forest ranger that it was smoke.

Dang, he must be the oldest living forest ranger... 200 years?!? He must
be building up a heck of a retirement...

... Certain times of the
year you do get fog

yep, about 11 1/2 months

... but there were fires that slowly burned (natural,
promoted by the pine trees for their germination) that caused SMOKE for
months. It's a combination of wind currents that keep the smoke in that
area (trapped).


Of course, that must be it... lots and lots of slow burning fires...
that happens far more often than simple common clouds intercepted by the
mountain slopes...

DSK
Gesh, Great Smoky Mountains not foggy mountains, or is it always assumed
that descriptions are not literal. Lightning created fires are very common
and once started burn for months until an external event like rain puts them
out and even then if it's not a large enough downpoor it can start up again.
It's so common that the trees have incorporated the event into it's
reproductive cycle and some can't germinate without a fire. To incorporate
something like that into your reproductive cycle takes 100K plus years of
CONSISTENT FIRE.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:

It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks are
because of their grandparents.


It's been my observation that "most of the really successful Blacks" are
because (sic) of their hard work, just like most successful whites.

What a wonderfully mind-expanding forum this is.

One of our friends just finished her medical residency at a nearby
teaching hospital. She's 36 or 37, orphaned while a young teen,
grandparents on another continent, and a single mom. She had foster
parents who provided her with shelter until she was 18 and then she
left. On her own ever since. Oh, and she's black. She got to where she
is today by working her butt off.

Ke-rist.

It's a given that successful means they worked their tails off. Where did
this woman get her values? Some life lesson made a difference. You are not
talking about an American here who grew up in the black culture. In any
case well done to her.

Of course, that must be it... lots and lots of slow burning fires...
that happens far more often than simple common clouds intercepted by the
mountain slopes...



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Gesh, Great Smoky Mountains not foggy mountains, or is it always assumed
that descriptions are not literal.

Is it always assumed that they are?


It's so common that the trees have incorporated the event into it's
reproductive cycle and some can't germinate without a fire. To incorporate
something like that into your reproductive cycle takes 100K plus years of
CONSISTENT FIRE.


1- that still doesn't mean that "smoke" can't possibly refer to clouds
(fog) which are still a far more common occurence than fire

2- if you go around assuming that evolution is a scientific fact, then
you will really PO the Bush/Cheney cheerleaders and they'll kick you out
of the club.

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:
You know that, I know that, and most politically savvy people know
that. But before we can enlighten the hopelessly indoctrinated
liberals (and those who claim to be conservatives), to see this, we
have to first defuse the idea that Bush's private account proposal is
not much different than the current 401K plan that most people already
have.

Bush's private account proposal is nothing less than a very cynical
attempt to manipulate the system and steer large amounts of wealth into
the pockets of his supporters. Whether or not it benefits anybody else
is immaterial as far as they're concerned.

Regarding the comparison of Bush's SS proposal to the 401K plans.... if
the goal was to increase people's ownership of their retirement (as is
claimed) then the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the
allowed 401K deduction and lowering SS taxes. Very simple, but it
doesn't steer that money into the "right" pockets.


Dave Hall wrote:
Liberals have to demonize this plan to put people in charge of their
own retirement planning by spinning it as a windfall for
wall-streeters, simply because investment firms usually manage such
plans. The fee for managing a 401K is usually much less than interest
earned, so you're still ahead of the game.


Does that change the *fact* that the Wall St'rs involved are now getting
a gov't mandated profit from Social Security dollars, which will have to
be replaced by further gov't spending?

Does "liberal demonization" of Bush's SS proposal change the *fact* that
the Bush-Cheney team have lied about his plan and it's impact?

If it's so great, why can't they tell the truth?

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:43:22 -0500, DSK wrote:


Jeff Rigby wrote:

LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money.

This is "getting real"?


It is if you're not politically blind to the motives of those most
opposed to private saving accounts.



... The reasons the
Republicans are for this is 1) They believe it will benefit the public,

And you want to call other people "politically naive?"



2) It robs the democrats of money they need to buy their power base.

You forgot 3- increases campaign contribution to favored Republican pockets.



Like whom? The people who own the accounts?


... It
shrinks the size of the federal budget.


Ya think so? Gee, I guess you know more about it than Greenspan, who
said it would increase spending and contribute to larger deficit(s).


I want you to explain to the class how diverting a portion of the SS
tax money, already being collected, into a privately maintained (and
interest bearing) account would increase spending? The money is
already coming in, and it stands to earn a larger return for the
individual over the long term.

Now, the only thing that would suffer is the general SS fund. But if
you reduce the SS fund pay out to the people who opted to use the
private accounts, it should turn out to be a wash. Unless of course,
you are one of those government types who like to raid the SS fund for
projects not related to SS. If that money is no longer available to
be raided, then I guess it will cause spending in other areas to
increase. But they shouldn't be raiding SS in the first place.

Dave

Even Bush admits that private funds will do nothing to help the current
projected shortfall; in fact additional funds will be needed to make up
for that money diverted to private funds.

Face it -- the REAL reason for the 'crisis" (and I have a hard time
accepting the term "crisis" for something 30-50 years down the road, is
that the money is already spent. Comes time for the SS administration
to start cashing bonds (or as Bush described them "worthless scraps of
paper"), the government has to either come up with money or default.
Given the bonds held by foreigners, default would equal disaster.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:29:53 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:43:22 -0500, DSK wrote:


Jeff Rigby wrote:

LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money.

This is "getting real"?


It is if you're not politically blind to the motives of those most
opposed to private saving accounts.


No one is stopping you from setting up a private savings account, and I
don't know anyone who opposes private savings accounts.

I agree. I think I should be able to divert all of my SS withholding
into my 401K. I'll earn much more that way.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:30:23 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I want you to explain to the class how diverting a portion of the SS
tax money, already being collected, into a privately maintained (and
interest bearing) account would increase spending? The money is
already coming in, and it stands to earn a larger return for the
individual over the long term.

Now, the only thing that would suffer is the general SS fund. But if
you reduce the SS fund pay out to the people who opted to use the
private accounts, it should turn out to be a wash. Unless of course,
you are one of those government types who like to raid the SS fund for
projects not related to SS. If that money is no longer available to
be raided, then I guess it will cause spending in other areas to
increase. But they shouldn't be raiding SS in the first place.

Dave

Even Bush admits that private funds will do nothing to help the current
projected shortfall; in fact additional funds will be needed to make up
for that money diverted to private funds.

You make up for the money diverted by reducing the benefits to those
who put into the private accounts.


Face it -- the REAL reason for the 'crisis" (and I have a hard time
accepting the term "crisis" for something 30-50 years down the road, is
that the money is already spent.

It is, in many ways, a pyramid scheme.


Comes time for the SS administration
to start cashing bonds (or as Bush described them "worthless scraps of
paper"), the government has to either come up with money or default.
Given the bonds held by foreigners, default would equal disaster.

Which is why I cringe when I hear democrats describe SS benefits as
"guaranteed", when they try to scare seniors and other people into
opposing private accounts. A private 401K has a better guarantee than
the SS fund, considering the fragile nature of the program.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 08:53:47 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
You know that, I know that, and most politically savvy people know
that. But before we can enlighten the hopelessly indoctrinated
liberals (and those who claim to be conservatives), to see this, we
have to first defuse the idea that Bush's private account proposal is
not much different than the current 401K plan that most people already
have.

Bush's private account proposal is nothing less than a very cynical
attempt to manipulate the system and steer large amounts of wealth into
the pockets of his supporters.

Please explain how this happens?

Whether or not it benefits anybody else
is immaterial as far as they're concerned.

And you talk about cynical?



Regarding the comparison of Bush's SS proposal to the 401K plans.... if
the goal was to increase people's ownership of their retirement (as is
claimed) then the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the
allowed 401K deduction and lowering SS taxes. Very simple, but it
doesn't steer that money into the "right" pockets.

That's pretty much the plan. Where do you get the notion that some
mythical phantom people will be skimming the personal accounts of the
holders? That's pure scare tactic propaganda directly from the DNC.




Dave Hall wrote:
Liberals have to demonize this plan to put people in charge of their
own retirement planning by spinning it as a windfall for
wall-streeters, simply because investment firms usually manage such
plans. The fee for managing a 401K is usually much less than interest
earned, so you're still ahead of the game.


Does that change the *fact* that the Wall St'rs involved are now getting
a gov't mandated profit from Social Security dollars, which will have to
be replaced by further gov't spending?

Post your "facts". What "wall streeters" are involved (considering
that the plan is not even law yet)? How are they involved? Is a
reasonable plan administration fee not appropriate in a managed equity
private account? Would not that fee be deducted from earned interest
resulting in no additional outlay from the government?

That's the way my 401K works.


Does "liberal demonization" of Bush's SS proposal change the *fact* that
the Bush-Cheney team have lied about his plan and it's impact?

Who said they lied? In what way?

If it's so great, why can't they tell the truth?

That you think that they are not being truthful is an example of the
liberal demonization at work.

Prove that they aren't.

Dave

Bush's private account proposal is nothing less than a very cynical
attempt to manipulate the system and steer large amounts of wealth into
the pockets of his supporters.


Dave Hall wrote:
Please explain how this happens?


It's very very simple, Dave. How do you think they choose which Wall St
firms get to handle the new accounts?


Regarding the comparison of Bush's SS proposal to the 401K plans.... if
the goal was to increase people's ownership of their retirement (as is
claimed) then the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the
allowed 401K deduction and lowering SS taxes. Very simple, but it
doesn't steer that money into the "right" pockets.


Dave Hall wrote:
That's pretty much the plan.

No it isn't. Not even close!

... Where do you get the notion that some
mythical phantom people will be skimming the personal accounts of the
holders?

Please quote where I said any such thing.

Dave Hall wrote:
Liberals have to demonize this plan to put people in charge of their
own retirement planning by spinning it as a windfall for
wall-streeters, simply because investment firms usually manage such
plans. The fee for managing a 401K is usually much less than interest
earned, so you're still ahead of the game.


Does that change the *fact* that the Wall St'rs involved are now getting
a gov't mandated profit from Social Security dollars, which will have to
be replaced by further gov't spending?


Post your "facts".

It's very simple, Dave (see above).

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.


... Is a
reasonable plan administration fee not appropriate in a managed equity
private account? Would not that fee be deducted from earned interest
resulting in no additional outlay from the government?

That's the way my 401K works.


Then why not put more money into your 401K and devote some time & effort
into actually *fixing* Social Security?



Does "liberal demonization" of Bush's SS proposal change the *fact* that
the Bush-Cheney team have lied about his plan and it's impact?


Who said they lied? In what way?


They (and you) lie about almost every single aspect of it.

The most obvious example I can present is Bush's own statements:
1- it will somehow "fix" Social Security
2- it will not increase deficits (and he compounded this lie by stating
that Alan Greenspan said it would not increase the deficit, which is the
exact opposite of what Greenspan actually said)
3- that "all options are on the table" when they reject other proposals
more directly aimed at stabilizing SS in the long run
4- that this plan should "stand on it's own" when there are
behind-the-scenes pro-Bush/Cheney publicity campaigns spending tens of
millions of dollars promoting this plan
5- Democrat opposition is based on the supposition that Dems want to
"spend" that money (as opposed to what... the wise & conservative fiscal
management of the Bush Administration so far? And the fact that Congress
can't spend SS, and never could?)


If it's so great, why can't they tell the truth?


That you think that they are not being truthful is an example of the
liberal demonization at work.

No, the thing that makes me think they are lying is that their
statements don't match up with facts in the real world.

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:30:23 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I want you to explain to the class how diverting a portion of the SS
tax money, already being collected, into a privately maintained (and
interest bearing) account would increase spending? The money is
already coming in, and it stands to earn a larger return for the
individual over the long term.

Now, the only thing that would suffer is the general SS fund. But if
you reduce the SS fund pay out to the people who opted to use the
private accounts, it should turn out to be a wash. Unless of course,
you are one of those government types who like to raid the SS fund for
projects not related to SS. If that money is no longer available to
be raided, then I guess it will cause spending in other areas to
increase. But they shouldn't be raiding SS in the first place.

Dave

Even Bush admits that private funds will do nothing to help the current
projected shortfall; in fact additional funds will be needed to make up
for that money diverted to private funds.

You make up for the money diverted by reducing the benefits to those
who put into the private accounts.


Face it -- the REAL reason for the 'crisis" (and I have a hard time
accepting the term "crisis" for something 30-50 years down the road, is
that the money is already spent.

It is, in many ways, a pyramid scheme.


Comes time for the SS administration
to start cashing bonds (or as Bush described them "worthless scraps of
paper"), the government has to either come up with money or default.
Given the bonds held by foreigners, default would equal disaster.

Which is why I cringe when I hear democrats describe SS benefits as
"guaranteed", when they try to scare seniors and other people into
opposing private accounts. A private 401K has a better guarantee than
the SS fund, considering the fragile nature of the program.

The fact of the matter is that there is no guarantee, SS payments are made
at the whim of congress. It is simply amazing to see the librals whine
about the possibility of people controling their own money and destiny,
instead of a guvment mandate.



Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:29:53 -0500, HarryKrause
wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:43:22 -0500, DSK wrote:



Jeff Rigby wrote:


LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money.

This is "getting real"?


It is if you're not politically blind to the motives of those most
opposed to private saving accounts.


No one is stopping you from setting up a private savings account, and I
don't know anyone who opposes private savings accounts.


I agree. I think I should be able to divert all of my SS withholding
into my 401K. I'll earn much more that way.

Dave


OK divert everything -- now go find an insurance policy that will pay
you if you're disabled, pay your wife and kids if you die, be indexed to
inflation -- what do you think that would co$t you additionally?

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:30:23 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Dave Hall wrote:



I want you to explain to the class how diverting a portion of the SS
tax money, already being collected, into a privately maintained (and
interest bearing) account would increase spending? The money is
already coming in, and it stands to earn a larger return for the
individual over the long term.

Now, the only thing that would suffer is the general SS fund. But if
you reduce the SS fund pay out to the people who opted to use the
private accounts, it should turn out to be a wash. Unless of course,
you are one of those government types who like to raid the SS fund for
projects not related to SS. If that money is no longer available to
be raided, then I guess it will cause spending in other areas to
increase. But they shouldn't be raiding SS in the first place.

Dave


Even Bush admits that private funds will do nothing to help the current
projected shortfall; in fact additional funds will be needed to make up
for that money diverted to private funds.


You make up for the money diverted by reducing the benefits to those
who put into the private accounts.

Money diverted to private accounts will only hasten the need for the SS
administration to start cashing in bonds.



Face it -- the REAL reason for the 'crisis" (and I have a hard time
accepting the term "crisis" for something 30-50 years down the road, is
that the money is already spent.


It is, in many ways, a pyramid scheme.



Comes time for the SS administration
to start cashing bonds (or as Bush described them "worthless scraps of
paper"), the government has to either come up with money or default.
Given the bonds held by foreigners, default would equal disaster.


Which is why I cringe when I hear democrats describe SS benefits as
"guaranteed", when they try to scare seniors and other people into
opposing private accounts. A private 401K has a better guarantee than
the SS fund, considering the fragile nature of the program.

So Bonds, guaranteed by the "Full Faith and Credit of the US" are worthless?

Dave

No one is stopping you from setting up a private savings account, and I
don't know anyone who opposes private savings accounts.


Dave Hall wrote:
I agree. I think I should be able to divert all of my SS withholding
into my 401K. I'll earn much more that way.


You should totally skip on paying *all* your tax obligations. The
gov'mint just wastes all your money anyway. Just think how much you
could save!

DSK

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

Jeff Rigby wrote:


It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks are
because of their grandparents.


It's been my observation that "most of the really successful Blacks" are
because (sic) of their hard work, just like most successful whites.

What a wonderfully mind-expanding forum this is.

One of our friends just finished her medical residency at a nearby
teaching hospital. She's 36 or 37, orphaned while a young teen,
grandparents on another continent, and a single mom. She had foster
parents who provided her with shelter until she was 18 and then she
left. On her own ever since. Oh, and she's black. She got to where she
is today by working her butt off.

Ke-rist.


It's a given that successful means they worked their tails off. Where
did
this woman get her values? Some life lesson made a difference. You are
not
talking about an American here who grew up in the black culture. In any
case well done to her.




She's as American as I am. She was born in the Boston area and grew up
in Roxbury, which for many years has been a pretty grim area.

I've encountered a great number of "really successful Blacks" in my
life. They're successful because their parents imbued them with the
proper values and because of that, they worked hard to get where they
are. Just like most successful white folks. I believe your "grandparents
factor" is a canard. I'm not saying that solid grandparents aren't a
help for any kid of any color, but to state that most black success is
due to grandparents is more than a little racist.

Where do you get racist? To say that grandparents are a critical resource t
o our society and that they are being wasted when they retire to Florida is
racist?? My example occurs with ALL peoples but it is most apparent with
blacks. Hmm, that's where you call it racist, I call it reality. Blacks
ARE disadvantaged and discriminated against because of many factors, they
earn less and have to work harder. THUS they have less time to raise their
children, grandparent are needed more in that situation.

Because some parents do a good job and have time and energy to properly
devote to their children does not obviate my point.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Jeff Rigby wrote:
LETS GET REAL HERE!! The real reason the Democrats are against ANY
plan
for PRIVATE savings is because THEY CAN"T SPEND that money.

This is "getting real"?

... The reasons the
Republicans are for this is 1) They believe it will benefit the public,

And you want to call other people "politically naive?"


2) It robs the democrats of money they need to buy their power base.

You forgot 3- increases campaign contribution to favored Republican
pockets.


... It
shrinks the size of the federal budget.


Ya think so? Gee, I guess you know more about it than Greenspan, who
said it would increase spending and contribute to larger deficit(s).

DSK

Okay for your education, there is NO SS money that hasn't been spent, there
is NONE that is sitting in an account waiting for your retirement. The
Federal government has already spent it. If the Federal government isn't
allowed to spend, say 20% of the money coming in for SS and it's deposited
in a 401K type account in your name that money can't be spent and somewhere
the federal budget has to be reduced because the money is not available to
be spent.

That's why the democrats who are "the deficit spenders" are against ANY plan
that calls for PRIVATE accounts.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Of course, that must be it... lots and lots of slow burning fires...
that happens far more often than simple common clouds intercepted by the
mountain slopes...



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Gesh, Great Smoky Mountains not foggy mountains, or is it always assumed
that descriptions are not literal.

Is it always assumed that they are?


It's so common that the trees have incorporated the event into it's
reproductive cycle and some can't germinate without a fire. To
incorporate
something like that into your reproductive cycle takes 100K plus years
of
CONSISTENT FIRE.


1- that still doesn't mean that "smoke" can't possibly refer to clouds
(fog) which are still a far more common occurence than fire

2- if you go around assuming that evolution is a scientific fact, then
you will really PO the Bush/Cheney cheerleaders and they'll kick you out
of the club.

DSK

Perhaps you are having a problem envisioning the conditions before WE
started a policy of putting out those natural fires. IMAGINE perpetual
fires, occurring 9-10 months of the year with a smog like haze covering
everything. The smell of burning pine needles everywhere. It would be a
rare day when there would be clear skies. These conditions occur because of
Pine trees.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 07:39:57 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

Jeff Rigby wrote:


It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks are
because of their grandparents.


It's been my observation that "most of the really successful Blacks" are
because (sic) of their hard work, just like most successful whites.

What a wonderfully mind-expanding forum this is.

One of our friends just finished her medical residency at a nearby
teaching hospital. She's 36 or 37, orphaned while a young teen,
grandparents on another continent, and a single mom. She had foster
parents who provided her with shelter until she was 18 and then she
left. On her own ever since. Oh, and she's black. She got to where she
is today by working her butt off.

Ke-rist.


It's a given that successful means they worked their tails off. Where
did
this woman get her values? Some life lesson made a difference. You are
not
talking about an American here who grew up in the black culture. In any
case well done to her.




She's as American as I am. She was born in the Boston area and grew up
in Roxbury, which for many years has been a pretty grim area.

I've encountered a great number of "really successful Blacks" in my
life. They're successful because their parents imbued them with the
proper values and because of that, they worked hard to get where they
are. Just like most successful white folks. I believe your "grandparents
factor" is a canard. I'm not saying that solid grandparents aren't a
help for any kid of any color, but to state that most black success is
due to grandparents is more than a little racist.

Where do you get racist? To say that grandparents are a critical resource t
o our society and that they are being wasted when they retire to Florida is
racist?? My example occurs with ALL peoples but it is most apparent with
blacks. Hmm, that's where you call it racist, I call it reality. Blacks
ARE disadvantaged and discriminated against because of many factors, they
earn less and have to work harder. THUS they have less time to raise their
children, grandparent are needed more in that situation.

Because some parents do a good job and have time and energy to properly
devote to their children does not obviate my point.


Jeff, in 2002, if you were born Black, there was almost a 70% chance that your
mother was unmarried.

That is a fact. Liberals can use facts like that in their desire to maintain the
dependance of the majority of blacks on liberal policies. If a conservative
should use statistics like that for *any* reason, he is a racist.

Harry is well known for attempting to turn any mention of blacks by a
conservative into a 'race issue'.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Perhaps you are having a problem envisioning the conditions before WE
started a policy of putting out those natural fires.

No, I'm having a problem trying to connect your suggested etymology with
actual reality.


... IMAGINE perpetual
fires, occurring 9-10 months of the year with a smog like haze covering
everything.

What, it never rained before WE started a policy of putting out those
natural fires?

DSK

Ya think so? Gee, I guess you know more about it than Greenspan, who
said it would increase spending and contribute to larger deficit(s).




Jeff Rigby wrote:
Okay for your education, there is NO SS money that hasn't been spent, there
is NONE that is sitting in an account waiting for your retirement. The
Federal government has already spent it.

If that's true, then why is there such a thing as the SS Trust Fund and
why does the Treasury Dept sell it bonds?


... If the Federal government isn't
allowed to spend, say 20% of the money coming in for SS and it's deposited
in a 401K type account in your name that money can't be spent and somewhere
the federal budget has to be reduced because the money is not available to
be spent.


You're really very heavily inoculated against facts, aren't you?

Truth- SS tax income is spent on only two things: SS benefits and buying
Treasuries for the SS Trust Fund.

That's why the democrats who are "the deficit spenders" are against ANY plan
that calls for PRIVATE accounts.


Now please explain why Republicans, who under Bush Jr & Reagan have run
up historically high deficits, are always claiming that Democrats are
the big spenders?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Ya think so? Gee, I guess you know more about it than Greenspan, who
said it would increase spending and contribute to larger deficit(s).




Jeff Rigby wrote:
Okay for your education, there is NO SS money that hasn't been spent,
there
is NONE that is sitting in an account waiting for your retirement. The
Federal government has already spent it.

If that's true, then why is there such a thing as the SS Trust Fund and
why does the Treasury Dept sell it bonds?

The bonds are given to the alleged SS Trust Fund by the federal government
when the money confiscated from working people is is passed through the
alleged SS Trust Fund into the federal governments general fund.

This not a single penny sitting in the alleged SS Trust Fund, it is just one
big pile of IOU's.

... If the Federal government isn't
allowed to spend, say 20% of the money coming in for SS and it's
deposited
in a 401K type account in your name that money can't be spent and
somewhere
the federal budget has to be reduced because the money is not available
to
be spent.


You're really very heavily inoculated against facts, aren't you?

Truth- SS tax income is spent on only two things: SS benefits and buying
Treasuries for the SS Trust Fund.

Pass the pipe over here dude! "Buying Treasuries", you have got to be
kidding? More like receiving pieces of paper when Congress appropriates the
money alleged being deposited into the SS Trust Fund.

That's why the democrats who are "the deficit spenders" are against ANY
plan
that calls for PRIVATE accounts.


Now please explain why Republicans, who under Bush Jr & Reagan have run up
historically high deficits, are always claiming that Democrats are the big
spenders?

Its all politics and the art of getting re-elected!

Okay for your education, there is NO SS money that hasn't been spent,
there
is NONE that is sitting in an account waiting for your retirement. The
Federal government has already spent it.

If that's true, then why is there such a thing as the SS Trust Fund and
why does the Treasury Dept sell it bonds?


Bert Robbins wrote:
The bonds are given to the alleged SS Trust Fund by the federal government
when the money confiscated from working people

SS taxes are no more "confiscated" than any other tax

... is is passed through the
alleged SS Trust Fund into the federal governments general fund.


Wrong. Money does not "pass thru" the SS Trust Fund into the "general fund."

This not a single penny sitting in the alleged SS Trust Fund, it is just one
big pile of IOU's.


Like I said... Treasury bonds... generally considered the most secure
investment available.


Truth- SS tax income is spent on only two things: SS benefits and buying
Treasuries for the SS Trust Fund.


Pass the pipe over here dude! "Buying Treasuries", you have got to be
kidding? More like receiving pieces of paper when Congress appropriates the
money alleged being deposited into the SS Trust Fund.


Guess what... if a lot of people, like say the gov'ts of Japan & China
for example along with the SS Trust, were not willing to invest in US
Treasury debt instruments, then the U.S gov't could not indulge in
deficit spending, like for Bush/Cheney's Iraq invasion for example.



That's why the democrats who are "the deficit spenders" are against ANY
plan
that calls for PRIVATE accounts.


Now please explain why Republicans, who under Bush Jr & Reagan have run up
historically high deficits, are always claiming that Democrats are the big
spenders?


Its all politics and the art of getting re-elected!


In other words, certain Republicans lie like a rug in order to fool
people like you & JohnH & Nobby etc etc into voting for them, again and
again.

DSK

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:30:49 -0500, DSK wrote:

Okay for your education, there is NO SS money that hasn't been spent,
there
is NONE that is sitting in an account waiting for your retirement. The
Federal government has already spent it.

If that's true, then why is there such a thing as the SS Trust Fund and
why does the Treasury Dept sell it bonds?


Bert Robbins wrote:
The bonds are given to the alleged SS Trust Fund by the federal government
when the money confiscated from working people

SS taxes are no more "confiscated" than any other tax

... is is passed through the
alleged SS Trust Fund into the federal governments general fund.


Wrong. Money does not "pass thru" the SS Trust Fund into the "general fund."

This not a single penny sitting in the alleged SS Trust Fund, it is just one
big pile of IOU's.


Like I said... Treasury bonds... generally considered the most secure
investment available.


Truth- SS tax income is spent on only two things: SS benefits and buying
Treasuries for the SS Trust Fund.


Pass the pipe over here dude! "Buying Treasuries", you have got to be
kidding? More like receiving pieces of paper when Congress appropriates the
money alleged being deposited into the SS Trust Fund.


Guess what... if a lot of people, like say the gov'ts of Japan & China
for example along with the SS Trust, were not willing to invest in US
Treasury debt instruments, then the U.S gov't could not indulge in
deficit spending, like for Bush/Cheney's Iraq invasion for example.



That's why the democrats who are "the deficit spenders" are against ANY
plan
that calls for PRIVATE accounts.


Now please explain why Republicans, who under Bush Jr & Reagan have run up
historically high deficits, are always claiming that Democrats are the big
spenders?


Its all politics and the art of getting re-elected!


In other words, certain Republicans lie like a rug in order to fool
people like you & JohnH & Nobby etc etc into voting for them, again and
again.

DSK

Then again, some of us have some sense and don't regurgitate crap just to see
ourselves on the internet.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Ya think so? Gee, I guess you know more about it than Greenspan, who
said it would increase spending and contribute to larger deficit(s).




Jeff Rigby wrote:
Okay for your education, there is NO SS money that hasn't been spent,
there
is NONE that is sitting in an account waiting for your retirement.
The
Federal government has already spent it.

If that's true, then why is there such a thing as the SS Trust Fund and
why does the Treasury Dept sell it bonds?

The bonds are given to the alleged SS Trust Fund by the federal
government
when the money confiscated from working people is is passed through the
alleged SS Trust Fund into the federal governments general fund.

This not a single penny sitting in the alleged SS Trust Fund, it is just
one
big pile of IOU's.

... If the Federal government isn't
allowed to spend, say 20% of the money coming in for SS and it's
deposited
in a 401K type account in your name that money can't be spent and
somewhere
the federal budget has to be reduced because the money is not
available
to
be spent.


You're really very heavily inoculated against facts, aren't you?

Truth- SS tax income is spent on only two things: SS benefits and
buying
Treasuries for the SS Trust Fund.

Pass the pipe over here dude! "Buying Treasuries", you have got to be
kidding? More like receiving pieces of paper when Congress appropriates
the
money alleged being deposited into the SS Trust Fund.

No kidding, when are the brain dead liebrals going to realize that when
you borrow money from yourself, it is simply spending.........same thing as
if you went to the bank, cleaned out your savings account, and left an IOU
to yourself.......there is only two ways to replace that money......one,
spend less in the future, two, make more money.....and we all know how the
guvmint 'makes' more money.


That's why the democrats who are "the deficit spenders" are against
ANY
plan
that calls for PRIVATE accounts.


Now please explain why Republicans, who under Bush Jr & Reagan have run
up
historically high deficits, are always claiming that Democrats are the
big
spenders?

Its all politics and the art of getting re-elected!

Truth- SS tax income is spent on only two things: SS benefits and buying
Treasuries for the SS Trust Fund.


Guess what... if a lot of people, like say the gov'ts of Japan & China
for example along with the SS Trust, were not willing to invest in US
Treasury debt instruments, then the U.S gov't could not indulge in
deficit spending, like for Bush/Cheney's Iraq invasion for example.


Now please explain why Republicans, who under Bush Jr & Reagan have run up
historically high deficits, are always claiming that Democrats are the big
spenders?



John H wrote:
Then again, some of us have some sense and don't regurgitate crap just to see
ourselves on the internet.


So far everything I have posted is 100% true & accurate. And you?

DSK

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:23:20 -0500, DSK wrote:

Truth- SS tax income is spent on only two things: SS benefits and buying
Treasuries for the SS Trust Fund.


Guess what... if a lot of people, like say the gov'ts of Japan & China
for example along with the SS Trust, were not willing to invest in US
Treasury debt instruments, then the U.S gov't could not indulge in
deficit spending, like for Bush/Cheney's Iraq invasion for example.


Now please explain why Republicans, who under Bush Jr & Reagan have run up
historically high deficits, are always claiming that Democrats are the big
spenders?



John H wrote:
Then again, some of us have some sense and don't regurgitate crap just to see
ourselves on the internet.


So far everything I have posted is 100% true & accurate. And you?

DSK

It's not worth getting into it, Doug. You snipped the comment which prompted my
response. Cute.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
It's not worth getting into it, Doug.

In that case, don't.

Believe me, the world will not mourn the ending of you OT posts to this
newsgroup.

... You snipped the comment which prompted my
response. Cute.

???

My statements are 100% true & accurate.

So far we've seen a long list of charades & outright lies about Social
Security.... almost all of them pulled straight from Bush/Cheney's
propaganda effort to gain support for their looting of the SS Trust
Fund. All I have done is show up the misconception & lies.

If you find this offensive, I suggest you re-examine your core values.
An agenda that relies on deceit & ignorance is not a good path for America.

DSK

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:37:53 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
It's not worth getting into it, Doug.

In that case, don't.

Believe me, the world will not mourn the ending of you OT posts to this
newsgroup.

... You snipped the comment which prompted my
response. Cute.

???

My statements are 100% true & accurate.

So far we've seen a long list of charades & outright lies about Social
Security.... almost all of them pulled straight from Bush/Cheney's
propaganda effort to gain support for their looting of the SS Trust
Fund. All I have done is show up the misconception & lies.

If you find this offensive, I suggest you re-examine your core values.
An agenda that relies on deceit & ignorance is not a good path for America.

DSK

You keep managing to snip this:

"In other words, certain Republicans lie like a rug in order to fool
people like you & JohnH & Nobby etc etc into voting for them, again and
again."

Cute.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

Jeff Rigby wrote:

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


Jeff Rigby wrote:



It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks
are
because of their grandparents.


It's been my observation that "most of the really successful Blacks"
are
because (sic) of their hard work, just like most successful whites.

What a wonderfully mind-expanding forum this is.

One of our friends just finished her medical residency at a nearby
teaching hospital. She's 36 or 37, orphaned while a young teen,
grandparents on another continent, and a single mom. She had foster
parents who provided her with shelter until she was 18 and then she
left. On her own ever since. Oh, and she's black. She got to where she
is today by working her butt off.

Ke-rist.


It's a given that successful means they worked their tails off. Where

did

this woman get her values? Some life lesson made a difference. You
are

not

talking about an American here who grew up in the black culture. In
any
case well done to her.




She's as American as I am. She was born in the Boston area and grew up
in Roxbury, which for many years has been a pretty grim area.

I've encountered a great number of "really successful Blacks" in my
life. They're successful because their parents imbued them with the
proper values and because of that, they worked hard to get where they
are. Just like most successful white folks. I believe your "grandparents
factor" is a canard. I'm not saying that solid grandparents aren't a
help for any kid of any color, but to state that most black success is
due to grandparents is more than a little racist.


Where do you get racist? To say that grandparents are a critical
resource t
o our society and that they are being wasted when they retire to Florida
is
racist?? My example occurs with ALL peoples but it is most apparent
with
blacks. Hmm, that's where you call it racist, I call it reality.
Blacks
ARE disadvantaged and discriminated against because of many factors,
they
earn less and have to work harder. THUS they have less time to raise
their
children, grandparent are needed more in that situation.

Because some parents do a good job and have time and energy to properly
devote to their children does not obviate my point.



Your intent was quite clear. Your implication was that black parents
could not raise their children, and that black grandparents did the job.
Now you come up with a rationalization.

Harry, obviously my intent was not clear to YOU. You have that left
mentality that jumps to the conclusion that all on the right are racist.
It's also been my observation that Democrats are MORE racist than
republicans that there is more racism in the north than in the south. I can
argue this point and win, there are documented studies that support this
observation.

Now why did I say that. Because you struck a sore point with me Harry.
Racism and bigotry are the purview of the ignorant. You called me ignorant
Harry and that's the pot calling the kettle black.

If you find this offensive, I suggest you re-examine your core values.
An agenda that relies on deceit & ignorance is not a good path for America.



John H wrote:
You keep managing to snip this:

"In other words, certain Republicans lie like a rug in order to fool
people like you & JohnH & Nobby etc etc into voting for them, again and
again."

Cute.

Why are you blaming me for the current administration's mendacity? I was
merely restating what your pal "Bert Robbins" said.

BTW You're the one who keeps proclaiming the superiority of the
Bush/Cheney Administration, but cannot state one accomplishment of
theirs. And you also keep proclaiming how you're "winning."

DSK