On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:29:40 -0500, DSK wrote:

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

I've blamed you for nothing other than your post. Show me where I've *ever*
proclaimed the superiority of anything. I think the administration has made
several mistakes. I don't just yap a bunch of horse **** about it, however.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:35:01 -0500, HarryKrause wrote:

DSK wrote:
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


If he doesn't, his army pension checks will stop.

I think Obsession was a perfume.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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."


John H wrote:
I've blamed you for nothing other than your post.

In that case, you should acknowledge that my post was in agreement with
"Bert's." Nothing insulting about it at all.

... Show me where I've *ever*
proclaimed the superiority of anything. I think the administration has made
several mistakes. I don't just yap a bunch of horse **** about it, however.


Is that why you haven't said anything about the Bush Administration's
accomplishments?

DSK

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:02:58 -0500, DSK wrote:

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."


John H wrote:
I've blamed you for nothing other than your post.

In that case, you should acknowledge that my post was in agreement with
"Bert's." Nothing insulting about it at all.

... Show me where I've *ever*
proclaimed the superiority of anything. I think the administration has made
several mistakes. I don't just yap a bunch of horse **** about it, however.


Is that why you haven't said anything about the Bush Administration's
accomplishments?

DSK

Is that question supposed to show me where I've proclaimed the superiority of
the Bush/Cheney administration?

Or is it just a way to bypass the fact that you spread some more crap?

--
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:


"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.



Thanks for the laugh.

Your welcome Harry, thanks for the adrenaline rush.

Really, you need to watch your tendency toward rudeness. It marks you as a
northerner grin..

Is that why you haven't said anything about the Bush Administration's
accomplishments?


John H wrote:
Is that question supposed to show me where I've proclaimed the superiority of
the Bush/Cheney administration?


Well then you should be willing to admit that they are inferior, then.

In any event, you blow a lot of gas about how many wonderful things the
Bush Administration has accomplished, and yet you seem unable to name any.

Or is it just a way to bypass the fact that you spread some more crap?


Quote one single post of mine that isn't fact. You've already struck out
on the insults, while feeling free to be offensive.

DSK

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:30:56 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

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?

No, they're not "worthless", but there are no guarantees that you or I
will ever see the proceeds of them. I have no control at all over the
SS or what the government may choose to do with it. I do have some
control over a private account.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:56:45 -0500, DSK wrote:

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?

I don't know. Maybe long term performance? Longevity? Stability?

Does it really matter as long as the return on investment for the
citizen is improved?


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!

How is it different from a typical IRA or 401K?


... 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.

You made the statement along the lines of : "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".

I assume you can tell me how he plans to "steer large amounts of
wealth into the pockets of his supporters"? Where is that "wealth"
coming from, if not from the investors?


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.

But how is a reasonable administration fee interpreted as something
sinister and underhanded?


... 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?

I want to put *ALL* of my SS money into my 401K and eliminate SS
entirely. If everyone has a 401K, why the need for SS at all? The
people stand to expect a better long term benefit, there is no chance
that the government can "raid" the fund for pork projects.


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.

Where's the proof?


The most obvious example I can present is Bush's own statements:
1- it will somehow "fix" Social Security

It can. Why do you assume that this is a "lie"?


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)

If the money brought into SS is diverted into private accounts, how
does that increase the deficit? Remember that the SS payout will
decrease to those who opt out in favor of the private account.


3- that "all options are on the table" when they reject other proposals
more directly aimed at stabilizing SS in the long run

He said that "all options are on the table". That does not mean that
every one will be enacted. So tell me again how that's a lie?


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

Because the minions of the DNC like "moveon.org" are spending equal
amounts of money spreading scare propaganda (Which you have apparently
bought into hook line and sinker) to trash the idea, to scare
seniors, who aren't even affected by the 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?)

You are claiming that the SS fund has never been "raided" or otherwise
"appropriated" for projects not directly relating to SS? There are
many who would vehemently disagree with you, including certain
democrats who accuse republicans of that very deed.


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.

Considering your loose definition of what constitutes a "fact", I'm
not surprised.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:28:37 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

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 additionall

I already have a company paid policy that covers much of that. Any
additional coverage that I might need, based on my age and health will
not be all that bad. Certainly less than the interest I'll be getting
from the 401K over what I'd get from SS.

Dave

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 21:35:09 -0500, DSK wrote:

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!

Believe me, I'd like that, if I could.

Taxes are collected all wrong anyway. I pay the most to the federal
government, then the state, and the least to the locals. Yet I gain
the most direct benefit from the locals, then the states, and I get
the very least from the feds.

Dave