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