"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