On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:31:50 -0500, DSK wrote:


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.

Lots snipped

DSK

Please tell us which news you've watched that presented a non-biased report
about the USA.

For damn sure it wasn't French or German. Those folks make CBS and NBC look like
a constant Bush commercial.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:48:19 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:31:50 -0500, DSK wrote:



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.

Who cares what they say? They form their opinions on equally biased
propaganda. When we succeed it makes them look worse. They have a
vested interest in seeing us fail, thus justifying their envy-based
hatred of our consumer-oriented society.



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. People over 55 would be
unaffected by the plan, so nothing changes. Younger people will be
given the OPTION to divert some of their SS taxes to private INTEREST
bearing accounts,(similar to a 401K) which should grow at a much
greater rate than current SS does. When those people reach retirement
age, they get less from SS, but they will more than make up for it by
the proceeds of the equivalent 401K account.

But no... that would be too
simple and would not increase campaign fund contributions in the form of
kickbacks from favored Wall St firms...

That is liberal propaganda, aimed at swaying support away from the
proposal. What "kick backs" are there to a 401K account?

I'd rather see my money working for me instead of sitting in a S.S.
fund that might be eliminated at the stroke of a pen by the time I
retire. That's why I laugh when democrats bandy the word "guaranteed"
fund when they refer to S.S.. There are no guarantees when it comes to
government policies. They re all subject to change. At least if you
have some of your money in a private account, YOU control it, not the
government.

Dave



I think DSK is believing some of the propaganda being tossed about. Lots of lies
out there.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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

John H wrote:
I think DSK is believing some of the propaganda being tossed about. Lots of lies
out there.

Only if you define "lies" as info from the real world, as opposed to the
barrage of propganda issuing from White House sources & it's cheerleaders.

DSK

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:28:36 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
I think DSK is believing some of the propaganda being tossed about. Lots of lies
out there.

Only if you define "lies" as info from the real world, as opposed to the
barrage of propganda issuing from White House sources & it's cheerleaders.

DSK

Real world equals French TV???
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:27:13 -0500, DSK wrote:

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

French TV equals actual facts???

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
French TV equals actual facts???


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!

DSK

"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.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:52:46 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
French TV equals actual facts???


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!

DSK

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.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:27:13 -0500, DSK wrote:

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.

You have a problem differentiating true "facts" from other opinions.


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.

A 401K is a "private account" managed by an investment firm.

You are just hung up on the "Wall street kickback angle".

The facts are that money deposited into those private accounts will
have the potential to earn much more than they would in the current SS
system.

My 401K is living proof of that.

Dave