"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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've not seen the slightest evidence that anything Bush "thinks" is either
well-thought-out or moral. Bush is the ultimate expedient politician,
pandering to one group of righties after another.

Your not "Seeing" any evidence doesn't surprise me. You can't just listen
to the news, you have to read what is said by the parties involved. When
you do this you will probably say; " but that's not what he said". That
happens to me allot. Your problem is that you want to believe what you read
and you probably seek out news that supports your bias.

On foreign policy there is not enough information released about the
decision tree for us to judge. This is the result of "secrecy"
requirements. On environmental policy, education policy, SS we do have
enough information to judge him and I find his policies rational, reasonable
and good for the country in both the short term and long term.

One of the reasons our foreign policy appears to be working is the
CONSISTENT policy by BUSH and the reelection of BUSH by America. The
previous presidents including Bush SR. policies were political expediency.
In the long term that's fatal, in the short term popular.

It is costing us lives and money. Much of the cost and lives can be
attributed to educating the world to these new facts. He means what he says
and America backs him. I expect that our enemies are rethinking their
strategy in the face of this reality. Expect interesting times. I expect
that Iran does not want us out of Iraq any time soon as this frees us to
respond to them. But they don't want a Democracy in Iraq either as this
would destabilize them. I expect that they will try to start a religious
war in Iraq.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
On foreign policy there is not enough information released about the
decision tree for us to judge. This is the result of "secrecy"
requirements.

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.

To say that we, the American public, cannot be allowed to know the
results of our foreign policy because of "secrecy requirements" is
ridiculous.

... On environmental policy, education policy, SS we do have
enough information to judge him and I find his policies rational, reasonable
and good for the country in both the short term and long term.

Like what?

The Bush/Cheney "environmental policy" is 'rape it all while there's
still something left.' The EPA has been almost totally dismantled as an
enforcement agency. Of course, research on the environment and on health
issues is also chopped, so that reduces the amount of bad news filtering
out to the public.

Educational policy? Name *one* Bush/Cheney program that has actually
furthered any level of education, that has had any positive result in
this field. Take a look at NOYB's recent post on the subject, all he has
is some silly propaganda.

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


One of the reasons our foreign policy appears to be working is the
CONSISTENT policy by BUSH and the reelection of BUSH by America. The
previous presidents including Bush SR. policies were political expediency.
In the long term that's fatal, in the short term popular.

It is costing us lives and money.

And this is a success in your opinion?

Your definition of "success" is rather wierd. Your definition of
"conservative" seems to be rather flexible too.

DSK

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

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."

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."

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

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.