On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:31:51 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"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.


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.

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.

Dave

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack
factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere,
planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely
support life.



Jeff Rigby wrote:
That's why the Great smoky mountains were called smoky by the Indians
200+
years ago.


Note the difference between "smoke" and "fog."

It's not quite as difficult as the difference between "diplomacy" and
"coercion."

DSK

No, I'm told by a Forest ranger that it was smoke. Certain times of the
year you do get fog 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).

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:31:51 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"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.


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.

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.

Dave
I've noticed that no-one on the left here answered my comment. Hmmmm,
maybe they do know something and they are just rabid democrats.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:08:37 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:31:51 -0500, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:


"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.


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.

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.

Dave
I've noticed that no-one on the left here answered my comment. Hmmmm,
maybe they do know something and they are just rabid democrats.

Sometimes they realize they're whipped and slink off to another thread.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:25 -0500, "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 shudder when I think of a leader who checks the
political wind before each decision.




The *decision* is the result of binary thinking. That does not mean that
the
individuals making the decision are necessarily binary thinkers. If one
uses a
decision tree to assist in selecting alternatives, he must still,
eventually,
make a decision to adopt or not adopt a selected alternative.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

If I thought that way I might be a Democrat. The real world is not that
simple. Good intentions can cause serious problems down the road. For
example; Social Security when implemented was an exceedingly good idea but
when you look at it multi-generation it creates social problems.
Grandparents used to live in one of their children's homes, they helped out
by babysitting their grandchildren. By doing this they passed down their
life's-lessons and culture to the grandchildren. Parents are generally too
busy supporting the family to do this properly. As a result of SS allowing
more grandparents to retire to Florida we have another factor that is
contributing to our cultural collapse.

It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks are
because of their grandparents.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:58:50 -0500, "Jeff Rigby" wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 07:05:25 -0500, "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 shudder when I think of a leader who checks the
political wind before each decision.




The *decision* is the result of binary thinking. That does not mean that
the
individuals making the decision are necessarily binary thinkers. If one
uses a
decision tree to assist in selecting alternatives, he must still,
eventually,
make a decision to adopt or not adopt a selected alternative.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

If I thought that way I might be a Democrat. The real world is not that
simple. Good intentions can cause serious problems down the road. For
example; Social Security when implemented was an exceedingly good idea but
when you look at it multi-generation it creates social problems.
Grandparents used to live in one of their children's homes, they helped out
by babysitting their grandchildren. By doing this they passed down their
life's-lessons and culture to the grandchildren. Parents are generally too
busy supporting the family to do this properly. As a result of SS allowing
more grandparents to retire to Florida we have another factor that is
contributing to our cultural collapse.

It's been my observation that most of the really successful Blacks are
because of their grandparents.


Are we discussing decision making and/or binary thinking?

Or are we discussing the merits of Social Security checks, which, by the way,
individuals can choose to take or not take.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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

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!



John H wrote:
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.

How do you know? You watch a lot of French TV?

DSK

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

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:44:44 -0500, DSK wrote:

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!



John H wrote:
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.

How do you know? You watch a lot of French TV?

DSK

I try to watch the news from as many countries as I can.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."