That is rather different from "skimming". I explained how the chosen
Wall St firms will profit, but I suppose you weren't paying attention.


Dave Hall wrote:
How did you explain? How CAN you explain something that hasn't even
been codified yet? You are only echoing the speculation and scare
tactics that the DNC have used to try and discredit this plan.


Baloney. What I have said is based 100% on what has been announced by
the Bush Administration as their plan, and applying some very straight
forward common sense.



Since we're on the subject, what practical alternatives have the
democrats offered up to help to "fix" SS? Other than the typical raise
taxes and lower payments that is?


Oh, other than actually fixing it, you mean?

The ONLY way to "fix" the upcoming (in about 20+ years) imbalance in
Social Security is to either reduce payouts, or increase taxes, or both.



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?


(sigh) As I said before-


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?


I never said anything was sinister or underhanded... only that it was
flirting with being illegal and that the most likely reason is to reap
increased campaign fund contributions from the chosen firms.


How? Private investment firms set up accounts to suit all sorts of
situations. They also do not do it for free. There are fees for
managing those accounts. Are they not entitled to recover a small
amount of money to defray their operating costs?

And you think it's just dandy to steer tax money, previously earmarked
to be paid out to those who paid in, into those pockets to "defray their
operating costs" (and of course make a small contribution to selected
campaign funds).



.. If you have a 401K
fund now, you're already paying those "greedy wall streeters", so how
would the federal plan be any different? Should it be?

Umm, no. Actually the simplest and most practical way would be to
increase the IRA / 401K allowance... but once again, that would not
steer that money into the "right" pockets.

If it looks like a duck and quack likes a duck, the odds are pretty good
it's a duck.


.... I tend to look at occurences in the real world as "fact." You seem
to think that if Bush & Cheney announce that water runs up hill, then by
golly enybody who says otherwise is a liberal fag-loving traitor. I'm
sure this is great for self-esteem but it's not a good approach to
practical decision making.


Not at all.

Yes. That's all. So far you have not once proven your contentions, while
all my statements are based on fact. Your posts rely heavily... almost
entirely... on pro Bush/Cheney propaganda and you constantly insist that
anything outside this is somehow tainted liberal dogma.


... Your "real world" occurrences are based on what you
perceive as truth. But unless you are there directly, that "truth" is
brought to you in the form of a second (or third) hand report. Someone
collected and arranged that report. The report is then subject to
whatever spin or manipulation the reporter sees fit to apply.


Repeat- when it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like
a duck, it might as well be a duck. The info that I rely on is from many
widely different sources, and is consistant with facts that I have
observed directly myself. The "info" that you post is straight from the
Bush/Cheney tub-thumpers playbook.

DSK