| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Congratulations
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. On 11/8/2006 8:37 PM, JimH wrote: Considering your statement to be correct I guess you are saying that the economy, record stock market levels and unemployment rates during the Clinton years were the result of the Republican controlled Congress. Correct? I'm sorry, Jim, but my poor little brain simply cannot follow the incredible leaps of logic that sustain your side of the aisle. And that is the reason you snipped our previous posts to this thread? Nice try. Let me repost them: ======================================== " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. On 11/8/2006 8:22 PM, JimH wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. On 11/8/2006 8:13 PM, JimH wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. On 11/8/2006 7:29 PM, JimH wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. On 11/8/2006 7:03 PM, JimH wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. On 11/8/2006 6:42 PM, NOYB wrote: " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... Congratulations to the Dems (I aint no Dem either). Congratulations? "Getting people to vote for moderates, in order to put extremists in power, may be the newest and biggest voter fraud." --Thomas Sowell Sowell? Sheesh. A gasbag. I wish your party well Harry. Note the baseline you are inheriting: as of today: A 4.4% unemployment rate (I believe that is the lowest in over a decade), record stock market levels, gasoline around $2/gallon and a booming economy. Most importantly..........no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11. I hope your party succeeds in improving all of these conditions. The ball is soon in your court. :-) Inherited? President Idiot is still in residence at 1600 Penn. When there's a Dem in there, you can start your clock. Are you conceding that conditions will worsen with the Dems in power? Too many variables for your pin job. So the House and Senate are not responsible for conditions related to the US unemployment rate, Homeland security and the economy? What? Do I need to restate my questions? We have an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch of government. The executive makes the decisions, and can approve or not approve legislation with a pen, and pay attention to or ignore judicial opinions with "signing statements" Congress can provide oversight and investigate. Nice try. A Presidential veto can be overturned by the Congress. Considering your statement to be correct I guess you saying that the economy, record stock market levels and unemployment rates during the Clinton years were the result of the Republican controlled Congress. Correct? (Your reply as noted at the beginning of this post): "I'm sorry, Jim, but my poor little brain simply cannot follow the incredible leaps of logic that sustain your side of the aisle." The US employment rate is a farce; it is padded with "crap" jobs these days. Was it also a farce during the Clinton years? ================================================== I guess some factual information would be in order. Can you provide it? |
Congratulations
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only alternative is gridlock. Three observations: 1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the other one. 2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather than personal attacks. 3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other words, nothing new. Max |
Congratulations
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:57:07 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: You put to much blame on Corporations and stockholders. Blame for what? I just don't want any broker, corporation or stockholder getting their hands on my retirement money without my permission because they bought off politicians to get it extracted from my paycheck. Nothing wrong with that. Where do you get your pay from? I'm retired now, but might go back to work. Quit my corporate job this year when the workplace got about half-full of imported foreigners. Nothing wrong with the foreigners, mind you, but I felt filthy whenever I was around the "American" execs who hired them to save a buck for their own bonus. These "American" execs decided that "shareholder value" demanded that the resume of a vet returning from Iraq went directly to the circular file, because the job could be done cheaper by an imported foreigner. Sorta rubbed me the wrong way, you might say. And I don't try too hard to hide it when I'm disgusted. Most Americans don't work for publicly traded corporations, and/or don't get exposed to these types of slimy CEO's and execs. But you can see them on any TV financial channel if you're interested in that kind of thing. BTW, I sometimes trade commodities as a hobby. I risk my own money, and wouldn't even think of using my retirement money, much less a dishwasher's retirement money extracted from his paycheck by some Wall Street/Fed retirement scheme. The SS is a mess. There are no funds there. It is a Ponzi scheme, as the promised rewards are based on the paying base expanding in regards to the collecting group. And in about 20 years, the baby boomers and the next boom will have retired and the amount of payers will not be enough to maintain a good life on SS. What makes you think the average SS recipient can live a "good life" on that kind of dough? It's enough to get by with, that's all. Without guaranteed SS, would you rather have the gov start building housing and contracting food vendors to keep all the old people alive, or maybe a euthanasia program? As to the Ponzi aspect, that was a 50% increase in investment every 90 days scheme, and it lasted about 6 months before it blew up, causing a number of bank and personal bankruptcies. SS is a conservative insurance plan, has been around 70 years and has never had even 1 of *billions* of checks bounce. If you want to call that a Ponzi scheme, go right ahead. But understand you lose 20 points for each infraction. Sounds to me like you're just trying to scare old people (-: Plus you have all those who did not pay into the system collecting. An immigrant (legal) on SSI will collect more than the minimum payments of a working SS recipient. As I think was Eisboch said, was to keep you from starving and living in a hobo camp. It has changed to be the middle class lifestyle for the retiree collecting SS. It still *is* a hobo type survival for many. The average SS recipient gets about $1,000 per month. Hardly middle class.. Some get more because they contributed more, or longer. Some contribute for 50 years, kick off with no survivors, and get zilch. Means testing has been proposed, but I don't like that idea. I agree there's a lot of fraud. I see lawyers advertising on TV all the time on how they will get you SSI. On my vacation in Florida this year I met at the resort a couple younger than me (59) who were *both* on SSI disability because of "back problems" yet who seemed to be moving perfectly fine. You know, in the private insurance industry fraud investigators save that industry many times the investigators' salaries. The Feds should do the same with SS. And where is the money to come from to pay the bills? The money is in bonds held by lots of people and foreign entities. We have spent the funds. Part of Clintons "Balanced Budget" was the use of SS funds. And I am not just picking on Clinton, he just tried to claim a balanced budget. All the presidents and Congress have been using the SS funds to run the country and avoid lots of the pain on not overspending. The source for any Fed gov spending, including SS, is taxes. TANSTAAFL. Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in about 20 years. The bonds will nominally keep the system paying the same SS benefits to about 2042. ,As we approach the start of the bond drawdown date in 20 years, the SS surplus will decrease each year and won't be available for the general revenue spending bucket. Unless non-SS spending is reduced, new taxes will have to be raised to pay off the SS bonds. They will be. Sometime before the twenty year point is met, either Fed or SS taxes will be raised to project SS benefits further into the future, maybe in combination with a payout reduction to SS recipients at the high end. That's how it will be. Unless we start offing old people at some proscribed age, or build internment camps with soup kitchens to let them live out their golden years. I got a feeling taxes will be raised. It could be said we are fighting the war in Iraq with invisible money. The war is real. But the money paying for it is more a matter of perception and politics than reality. Billions a week, and the "economy is great." --Vic |
Congratulations
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "ACP" wrote in message ... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message . .. "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... Congratulations to the Dems (I aint no Dem either). Congratulations? "Getting people to vote for moderates, in order to put extremists in power, may be the newest and biggest voter fraud." --Thomas Sowell You think Mr. and Mrs. Johnston in bum-foch N. Carolina have any idea just how far to the left Nancy Pelosi is compared to their newly-elected representative...Heath Schuler? The Democrats ran candidates from the far right in order to put their far-left candidates in power. That won't play well in the '08 election. Yes....congratulations to the Democrats. The Republicans let us down..........they did not support conservative views....they did not control spending.......they moved to the old time extreme right abandoning conservatives. The ball is now in their court. Bush will give them all the rope they want as evidenced by the Rumsfeld *resignation*. They will either hang themselves or prove that the change was good for the Country. The next 2 years will indeed be interesting. BTW: I wish we would do away with Republican/Democrat political titles and start voting strictly on worth of the candidate. From the sound of your last sentence you don't vote for a candidate but for the "party" of your choice. It's impossible for *all* the most qualified candidates to be from the same party. Go look in the "Interesting Documentary" thread.and view my post in that thread on 11/05/06 at 11:02 a.m. Hmmm? Now go directly to jail and do not collect $200 when passing Go. How you were able to come to your conclusion based on my reply above (to NOYB) proves you are indeed psychic. So what is my birthday? ROTF! Can't waste my powers on a trivial request such as that. |
Congratulations
I agree. I hope #3 is wrong.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only alternative is gridlock. Three observations: 1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the other one. 2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather than personal attacks. 3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other words, nothing new. Max |
Congratulations
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:57:07 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: You put to much blame on Corporations and stockholders. Blame for what? I just don't want any broker, corporation or stockholder getting their hands on my retirement money without my permission because they bought off politicians to get it extracted from my paycheck. Nothing wrong with that. Where do you get your pay from? I'm retired now, but might go back to work. Quit my corporate job this year when the workplace got about half-full of imported foreigners. Nothing wrong with the foreigners, mind you, but I felt filthy whenever I was around the "American" execs who hired them to save a buck for their own bonus. These "American" execs decided that "shareholder value" demanded that the resume of a vet returning from Iraq went directly to the circular file, because the job could be done cheaper by an imported foreigner. Sorta rubbed me the wrong way, you might say. And I don't try too hard to hide it when I'm disgusted. Most Americans don't work for publicly traded corporations, and/or don't get exposed to these types of slimy CEO's and execs. But you can see them on any TV financial channel if you're interested in that kind of thing. BTW, I sometimes trade commodities as a hobby. I risk my own money, and wouldn't even think of using my retirement money, much less a dishwasher's retirement money extracted from his paycheck by some Wall Street/Fed retirement scheme. The SS is a mess. There are no funds there. It is a Ponzi scheme, as the promised rewards are based on the paying base expanding in regards to the collecting group. And in about 20 years, the baby boomers and the next boom will have retired and the amount of payers will not be enough to maintain a good life on SS. What makes you think the average SS recipient can live a "good life" on that kind of dough? It's enough to get by with, that's all. Without guaranteed SS, would you rather have the gov start building housing and contracting food vendors to keep all the old people alive, or maybe a euthanasia program? As to the Ponzi aspect, that was a 50% increase in investment every 90 days scheme, and it lasted about 6 months before it blew up, causing a number of bank and personal bankruptcies. SS is a conservative insurance plan, has been around 70 years and has never had even 1 of *billions* of checks bounce. If you want to call that a Ponzi scheme, go right ahead. But understand you lose 20 points for each infraction. Sounds to me like you're just trying to scare old people (-: Plus you have all those who did not pay into the system collecting. An immigrant (legal) on SSI will collect more than the minimum payments of a working SS recipient. As I think was Eisboch said, was to keep you from starving and living in a hobo camp. It has changed to be the middle class lifestyle for the retiree collecting SS. It still *is* a hobo type survival for many. The average SS recipient gets about $1,000 per month. Hardly middle class.. Some get more because they contributed more, or longer. Some contribute for 50 years, kick off with no survivors, and get zilch. Means testing has been proposed, but I don't like that idea. I agree there's a lot of fraud. I see lawyers advertising on TV all the time on how they will get you SSI. On my vacation in Florida this year I met at the resort a couple younger than me (59) who were *both* on SSI disability because of "back problems" yet who seemed to be moving perfectly fine. You know, in the private insurance industry fraud investigators save that industry many times the investigators' salaries. The Feds should do the same with SS. And where is the money to come from to pay the bills? The money is in bonds held by lots of people and foreign entities. We have spent the funds. Part of Clintons "Balanced Budget" was the use of SS funds. And I am not just picking on Clinton, he just tried to claim a balanced budget. All the presidents and Congress have been using the SS funds to run the country and avoid lots of the pain on not overspending. The source for any Fed gov spending, including SS, is taxes. TANSTAAFL. Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in about 20 years. The bonds will nominally keep the system paying the same SS benefits to about 2042. ,As we approach the start of the bond drawdown date in 20 years, the SS surplus will decrease each year and won't be available for the general revenue spending bucket. Unless non-SS spending is reduced, new taxes will have to be raised to pay off the SS bonds. They will be. Sometime before the twenty year point is met, either Fed or SS taxes will be raised to project SS benefits further into the future, maybe in combination with a payout reduction to SS recipients at the high end. That's how it will be. Unless we start offing old people at some proscribed age, or build internment camps with soup kitchens to let them live out their golden years. I got a feeling taxes will be raised. It could be said we are fighting the war in Iraq with invisible money. The war is real. But the money paying for it is more a matter of perception and politics than reality. Billions a week, and the "economy is great." --Vic \ Hope you better in commodities evaluation than on the SS and 401K evaluation. 401K is a free choice item. You can join or not. Most of my employers over the years had a wide range of choices. Stock funds, bond funds. And millions of people are employed by publicly traded corporations. There are bad ones, but the majority are run by good people. Otherwise, you are accusing all employers of being crooks. Just not noticed if not publically traded. As to SS, where is the tax money to come from? When you only have about 3 workers for each retiree. Is even worse in Europe. In about 10 years, there will be only 2 payers for each retiree. Why there are lots of public employee strikes in France and Germany. The governments are trying to correct the situation. |
Congratulations
wrote in message ... On 8 Nov 2006 12:32:56 -0800, "Frogwatch" wrote: As a small businessman, I have to fund my own retirement system, why cant everyone else? Stop whining that you dont have a pension, i dont either and never expected one. If you dont put enough away for retirement, its your own fault.. You have had the opportunity, if you didnt do it, dont whine. The problem with that thinking is there are a lot of people who thought they did have a vested pension and worked building it for decades, until their company went belly up. There are loopholes in ERISA that allow the benefits to be slashed and PBGC will not make up the difference. And for years you could put lots of money in to a SEP IRA plan in excess of a person contributing to standard IRA. If you were covered under a pension, you were really limited in tax deferred investing. |
Congratulations
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:27:46 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
We have an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch of government. The executive makes the decisions, and can approve or not approve legislation with a pen, and pay attention to or ignore judicial opinions with "signing statements" Congress can provide oversight and investigate. With a Democratic Congress, those signing statements might bite Bush. Clinton v. New York held that the President must veto the whole bill. Using a signing statement like a line item veto should prove unconstitutional. |
Congratulations
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:19:15 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
This afternoon I listened to Diane Feinstein being interviewed on MSNBC. I have to paraphrase her remarks, but basically she said: 1. A date should be set for the withdrawral of troops from Iraq, even if Iraq's forces aren't ready to take over for themselves. 2. The concept of military chain of command should be ignored or eliminated by allowing senior military officers on active duty to publically give their personal opinions of US policy and it's effectiveness. They should also be able to report directly to the President, rather going through a chain of command. Hmmmm..... not a good sign of things to come, I think. Ok. I hereby vow to make an earnest attempt to get off the politics ...... for about 2 years. Note: "earnest attempt" Eisboch Dual hat the Chairman of the JCS? Make him the SecDef also? I wonder if they'll raise his pay. |
Congratulations
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:32:59 -0500, DSK wrote: Unfortunately, you picked a reform that is needed. Social Security. Quit giving all our children's money to the older generation now. SS was never the national retirement system. No, it was really more of a welfare-for-old-folks program, intended to keep the wolf from the door of people who had no other resources. wrote: The problem is it has become one. The corporations are abandoning pensoin systems as fast as they can and the existing ones are largely underfunded. True, a train wreck that (so far) seems to be below the political radar... but nonetheless is on a lot of people's minds. w.... Of course SS itself is a Ponzi that will start falling apart in about 10 years when the surplus is gone and it goes looking for those bonds. (AKA government debt) Actually, that's not true. SS is solvent until 2042 as of last count, and the long term viability trend is going up not down. That doesn't mean it should be ignored. Most people don't look at the accounting behind SS. Manipulation of monies in different ledgers is standard accounting practice. Current SS taxes taken directly from a dishwashers paycheck are being spent as general revenues, while debt is being run up, some of it to subsidize tax cuts for oil companies, no less. The same SS paycheck money is entered into the SS ledgers for later repayment to SS contributors. Any one who pays SS taxes already has a facsimile individual SS account and gets a statement each year as to total paycheck contributions and likely benefits he is entitled to retrieve. The gov backs up the accounts with bonds. These debt bonds are in essence no different than the bonds the gov issues to the Chinese commies. If the Chinese commies expect to collect on U.S. debt, and the oil companies expect to collect on their U.S. tax cuts, you can damn well rest assured that Americans who contribute cash out of their paychecks to SS expect to likewise collect. Anybody who doesn't expect their SS money back is a sucker, pure and simple. I find it facinating that we can get our panties in a bunch about some global warming models that may predict a melt down of the ice caps in a century or two and we ignore a financial melt down that WILL happen in a decade or two. The problem here is that a lot of people apparently can't do math. Partly. The other problem is they listen to Wall Street BS. The propaganda effect is tremendous. Hence you hear an insurance plan (SS) which has operated successfully for the better part of a century, and backed by the U.S. government, called a "Ponzi Scheme." Because it is essentially that. The money being paid in doesn't go to the individual that paid it in, and there is no guarantee that ANY money has to be paid out. Secondly, have the money paid in is hidden by assessing the employer people it shows up on a paycheck Wall Street got directly into the pocket of workers with 401's, whose funds are commonly raped by fund managers and their Wall Street cronies. Some do ok and some don't, but it's a gamble. SS isn't a gamble. BWHAHAHAHAHA.......try dying befor you recover any of the $$$$ and after your kids turn 21. It may need modification in the future as it has in the past, but can never leave certain minimum payout, and government guarantee. You betcha Wall Street wants that 15% combo from every employer/worker paycheck going right into the accounts they control. Free hint....there is no government guarantee. I'm all for savings/investment, but want control. Having seen a number of 401k offerings, the investment options are limited and unattractive compared to the open market. That non-competiveness isn't accidental. Somewhere in his writings, Robert Heinlein said that there are two types of people, mathematicians and peasants. If the gov tries to screw SS, add ****ed off retirees, massed for the "20 Million Geezer March on Washington." .... I am retired now but I fully expect to go back to work. I may take up smoking so I won't outlive my money. Funny. I'm thinking of quitting smoking so I'll have time to spend mine. Not that there's a lot, but my needs aren't great. Why didn't you save more, and invest intelligently, when you had the chance? The real answer is to be self reliant and accountable for one's actions. Sure, but stuff happens, and that's why SS is there as a fallback. It's enough to keep a roof over your head and food on the table. Only as long as the government deems it that way, and as less pay in and more want the payout, the result will be higher taxes and or less payout. If you want some style you need to save more. Also to hold the CEOs who have looted pension funds accountable... that would help too. Another vacuuming of taxpayer money, funding retirees through the PBGC because CEO's, execs and shareholders raped the corporate pension funding. BTW, polling shows the so-called Tsunami which tossed the Republicans from the Congress was caused by a number of complaints, and I think one I saw said 42% Iraq, 39% economy. If the Dems don't address that, they'll be tossed out next cycle. --Vic |
OT- Congratulations
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Keep right on shreiking about how the mainstream of Democratic Party is a bunch of leftist whackos. That's what brought you yesterday's vote. Yup, that's what brought yesterday's vote. Had nothing to do with an unpopular war in the Middle East, right? |
Congratulations
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. On 11/8/2006 8:37 PM, JimH wrote: Considering your statement to be correct I guess you saying that the economy, record stock market levels and unemployment rates during the Clinton years were the result of the Republican controlled Congress. Correct? I'm sorry, Jim, but my poor little brain simply cannot follow the incredible leaps of logic that sustain your side of the aisle. The US employment rate is a farce; it is padded with "crap" jobs these days. Was it also a farce during the Clinton years? The percentage of "McJobs" was far smaller in the total mix in the Clinton years. But the average hourly wage (inflation-corrected) is higher today than it was through the 90's. Why are the McJobs paying higher than the non-McJobs during Clinton's reign? |
Congratulations
wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:27:46 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: when Clinton swallowed Please don't use those two words in the same paragraph again. Images of fat interns in blue dresses keep popping into my head now. |
Congratulations
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:27:46 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: We have an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch of government. The executive makes the decisions, and can approve or not approve legislation with a pen, and pay attention to or ignore judicial opinions with "signing statements" Congress can provide oversight and investigate. With a Democratic Congress, those signing statements might bite Bush. Clinton v. New York held that the President must veto the whole bill. Using a signing statement like a line item veto should prove unconstitutional. Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork. |
Congratulations
wrote in message ... On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:29:03 -0500, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: Inherited? President Idiot is still in residence at 1600 Penn. When there's a Dem in there, you can start your clock. Are you conceding that conditions will worsen with the Dems in power? I think the dems are on the spot. They got elected because people want change. If they can actually show some significant changes they will be positioned to win the white house. If the economy is down, unemployment is up or we are still losing a dozen kids in Iraq the week before the election they will lose what they gained yesterday Oh, but Harry says the clock doesn't start until the next President takes office. |
Congratulations
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... This afternoon I listened to Diane Feinstein being interviewed on MSNBC. I have to paraphrase her remarks, but basically she said: 1. A date should be set for the withdrawral of troops from Iraq, even if Iraq's forces aren't ready to take over for themselves. 2. The concept of military chain of command should be ignored or eliminated by allowing senior military officers on active duty to publically give their personal opinions of US policy and it's effectiveness. They should also be able to report directly to the President, rather going through a chain of command. Hmmmm..... not a good sign of things to come, I think. Sure it is... If you're pulling for a Republican President in '08. ;-) |
OT- Congratulations
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:07:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Yup, that's what brought yesterday's vote. Had nothing to do with an unpopular war in the Middle East, right? Let's not forget, exit polls had corruption right up there with Iraq. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ex...uption&ie=UTF8 |
Congratulations
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:13:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork. Didn't pay attention to the Republicans' Contract With America? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional. It violates the Presentment clause of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...ty_of_New_York |
Congratulations
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:10:55 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:15:34 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in about 20 years That is 10 according to the 2006 trustee's report. SSA.GOV You're right. You said and I said it. Fix it. The fix is right there in the conclusion posted below. It's right there in black and white. Pick any suggested method. I'm fine with any of them. None will even show a blip on the economy. Let's see if the Dems get it legislated. Then everybody can quit crying about the "Looming SS Crisis" and how it's a Ponzi scheme for the next 75 years and start worrying about Medicare instead. Or maybe they'll just keep whining about SS "because it's there." .. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/T...s.html#wp76460 quote Conclusion Annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2017 for the combined OASDI Trust Funds, which are projected to become exhausted and thus unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2040 under the long-range intermediate assumptions. For the trust funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, the combined payroll tax rate could be increased during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.02 percentage points, benefits could be reduced during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 13.3 percent, general revenue transfers equivalent to $4.6 trillion (in present value) could be made during the period, or some combination of approaches could be adopted. Significantly larger changes would be required to maintain solvency beyond 75 years. The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers. The sooner adjustments are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be. Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of this year's 49 million beneficiaries, and 162 million covered workers and their families. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, we will ensure that Social Security continues to protect future generations. end quote --Vic |
Congratulations
Hope you better in commodities evaluation than on the SS and 401K evaluation. 401K is a free choice item. You can join or not. Most of my employers over the years had a wide range of choices. Stock funds, bond funds. No choice you mentioned is guaranteed. Not even the poor return money markets, which can actually go negative. No 401k I know of offers a single insured option. That may or may not be ok for a youngster, but it's not for me. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. You can invest any way you please with your 401k, but don't fool yourself there's no vigorish or that you operate in a free financial market. I have done well with my 401k's because I made it a point to save to the max and live frugally, and because of employer contributions and tax savings, not because of investment returns. All else being equal, the return on commonly offered bank CD's would have increased my savings considerably. As to 401k's comparison to SS, many employees aren't offered 401k's or don't have the money to contribute for a variety of reasons. A 401k is an inadequate substitute to replace the intent of SS. That is my opinion. You may disagree. I'm done with it. And millions of people are employed by publicly traded corporations. There are bad ones, but the majority are run by good people. Otherwise, you are accusing all employers of being crooks. Just not noticed if not publically traded. As to SS, where is the tax money to come from? When you only have about 3 workers for each retiree. Is even worse in Europe. In about 10 years, there will be only 2 payers for each retiree. Why there are lots of public employee strikes in France and Germany. The governments are trying to correct the situation. I covered that SS scare BS in another post with a SSA cite. You can read it or not. The solution is printed in black and white by the SSA. If you disagree feel free take it up with them. I'm done with it. As to corporate sleazeballs, read the newspapers. I've met and worked with them in person and think an American corporation whose execs toss Iraq vets' resumes in the trash because it's cheaper to import a foreigner is a sleazeball corporation. You may disagree. I'm done with it. Your putting words in my mouth about "accusing all employers of being crooks" is not an admirable trait. But that's ok, since I'm not you. As to commodities trading, I have just as many teeth as the trader on the other side of the contract. So far mine have proved sharper. But that's my gambling hobby, not my retirement plan. I'm done on this thread. --Vic |
Congratulations
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:10:55 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:15:34 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in about 20 years That is 10 according to the 2006 trustee's report. SSA.GOV You're right. You said and I said it. Fix it. The fix is right there in the conclusion posted below. It's right there in black and white. Pick any suggested method. I'm fine with any of them. None will even show a blip on the economy. Let's see if the Dems get it legislated. Then everybody can quit crying about the "Looming SS Crisis" and how it's a Ponzi scheme for the next 75 years and start worrying about Medicare instead. Or maybe they'll just keep whining about SS "because it's there." . http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/T...s.html#wp76460 quote Conclusion Annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2017 for the combined OASDI Trust Funds, which are projected to become exhausted and thus unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2040 under the long-range intermediate assumptions. For the trust funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, the combined payroll tax rate could be increased during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.02 percentage points, benefits could be reduced during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 13.3 percent, general revenue transfers equivalent to $4.6 trillion (in present value) could be made during the period, or some combination of approaches could be adopted. Significantly larger changes would be required to maintain solvency beyond 75 years. The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers. The sooner adjustments are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be. Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of this year's 49 million beneficiaries, and 162 million covered workers and their families. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, we will ensure that Social Security continues to protect future generations. end quote --Vic Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? |
Congratulations
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? Willie Wonka's Money Factory? Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed back. |
Congratulations
Calif Bill wrote:
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? Willie Wonka's Money Factory? Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed back. Kevin must be demonstrating once again why he is the "king" |
Congratulations
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only alternative is gridlock. Three observations: 1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the other one. 2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather than personal attacks. 3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other words, nothing new. I agree. I hope #3 is wrong. Dreamer. Max |
Congratulations
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:13:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork. Didn't pay attention to the Republicans' Contract With America? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional. It violates the Presentment clause of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...ty_of_New_York " On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nathan A. Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center testified by written statement before the House Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed legislation.[21] Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal operations. The proposed Act was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006 by a vote of 24-9.[1] " |
Congratulations
Harsh.
(But so true...and so delicious) "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:42:21 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only alternative is gridlock. Three observations: 1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the other one. 2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather than personal attacks. 3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other words, nothing new. I agree. I hope #3 is wrong. Dreamer. It's already starting. Murtha wants to be Majority Whip. And all those Blue Dog Democrats - oh, boy, this is going to be interesting. And now I just read that the new head of the House Intelligence Oversight committee is going to be Alycee Hastings. Anybody remember Alycee Hastings? And now, it appears that Rep. Jane Harmon who was in line to get the job until the new Speaker decided she was too "hawkish" is under investigation by Justice because of her close ties to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) itself under investigation for violating the Espionage Act in the Lewis Franklin case. Harrumph - hell, it ain't even been two days and already the Dems have ethics problems. It's only a matter of time until some gay Democrat starts taking 17 year old male page to Spain on a trip and essentially rape him. Or maybe even start a prostitution ring out of his apartment. Oh wait - that's already been done. My bad. |
Congratulations
|
Congratulations
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:27:08 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: I just want to get my boat and do some fishing before the **** hits the fan. Now that's the smartest thing anybody has said in this thread yet. :) Just need a boat, fishing poles and guns and a list of the local Mormons. |
Congratulations
"Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:13:04 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Duke Nukem" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? Willie Wonka's Money Factory? Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed back. Of course - why didn't the politicians listen? Why - why - why? Why, Oh Why Why can't a dish break a hammer? Why oh why oh why?! 'Cause a hammer's a hard head. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why, oh why, oh why oh, why? Why, oh why, oh why? Because because because because Goodbye goodbye goodbye Why can't a bird eat an elephant? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause an elephant's got a pretty hard skin. Goodby goodbye goodbye. Why can't a mouse eat a streetcar? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause a mouse's stomach could never get big enough to hold a streetcar. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why does a horn make music? Why, oh why, oh why? Because the horn-blower blows it. Goodbye goodbye goodbye Why does a cow drink water? Tell me why n why? Because the cow gets thirsty just like you or me or anybody else. Goodye goodbye goodbye. Why don't you answer my questions? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause I don't know the answers. Goodby goodbye goodbye. What make the landlord take money? Why, oh why, oh why? I don't know that one myself. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why's there no pennies for ice cream Why, oh why, oh why? You put all the pennies in the telephone. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why can't a rabbit chase an eagle? Tell me why, oh why? 'Cause the last rabbit that took out and chased after an eagle didn't come out so good and that's why rabbits don't chase after eagles that's all I know about rabbits and eagles? Because because because. Why ain't my grandpa my grandma? Why, oh why, oh why? Same reason your dad's not your mommy. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why couldn't the wind blow backwards? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause it might backfire and hurt somebody and if it hurt somebody it'd keep on hurting them Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Words and Music by Woody Guthrie |
Congratulations
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:13:01 +0000, NOYB wrote: Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork. Didn't pay attention to the Republicans' Contract With America? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional. It violates the Presentment clause of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...ty_of_New_York " On June 8, 2006, Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and Nathan A. Sales, John M. Olin Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center testified by written statement before the House Committee on the Budget on the constitutional issues in connection with the proposed legislation.[21] Dinh and Sales argued that the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 satisfies the Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment Clause, and therefore avoids the constitutional issues raised in the 1996 Act struck down by the Supreme Court. They also stated that the proposed Act is consistent with the basic principle that grants Congress broad discretion to establish procedures to govern its internal operations. The proposed Act was approved by the House Budget Committee on June 14, 2006 by a vote of 24-9.[1] " Actually do not need the line item veto, just overturn the court ruling that the Executive branch had to spend all money allocated by the legislative branch. Worked for nearly 200 years, until after Nixon was tossed and the Congress got such a ruling. |
Congratulations
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:31:35 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "Duke Nukem" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:13:04 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Duke Nukem" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? Willie Wonka's Money Factory? Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed back. Of course - why didn't the politicians listen? Why - why - why? Why, Oh Why Why can't a dish break a hammer? Why oh why oh why?! 'Cause a hammer's a hard head. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why, oh why, oh why oh, why? Why, oh why, oh why? Because because because because Goodbye goodbye goodbye Why can't a bird eat an elephant? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause an elephant's got a pretty hard skin. Goodby goodbye goodbye. Why can't a mouse eat a streetcar? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause a mouse's stomach could never get big enough to hold a streetcar. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why does a horn make music? Why, oh why, oh why? Because the horn-blower blows it. Goodbye goodbye goodbye Why does a cow drink water? Tell me why n why? Because the cow gets thirsty just like you or me or anybody else. Goodye goodbye goodbye. Why don't you answer my questions? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause I don't know the answers. Goodby goodbye goodbye. What make the landlord take money? Why, oh why, oh why? I don't know that one myself. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why's there no pennies for ice cream Why, oh why, oh why? You put all the pennies in the telephone. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why can't a rabbit chase an eagle? Tell me why, oh why? 'Cause the last rabbit that took out and chased after an eagle didn't come out so good and that's why rabbits don't chase after eagles that's all I know about rabbits and eagles? Because because because. Why ain't my grandpa my grandma? Why, oh why, oh why? Same reason your dad's not your mommy. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why couldn't the wind blow backwards? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause it might backfire and hurt somebody and if it hurt somebody it'd keep on hurting them Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Words and Music by Woody Guthrie He must not have had Google to help him find answers. |
Congratulations
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 04:31:35 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Duke Nukem" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:13:04 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "Duke Nukem" wrote in message m... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: Let's see. 2.2% actually 4.4% increase as both the employer and the employee pay. Plus where is the 4.4 trillion dollars from the General Revenue fund to come from? That is about $58 billion a year for 75 years. And this is with a 13.3% cut in benefits. And what happens when we legalize 10 million illegals and they their and dependents come here and collect SS and SSI? Plus where is the $8 trillion in Medicare drug benefits to come from? Willie Wonka's Money Factory? Kevin says we just owe the borrowed money to ourselves, so just get it payed back. Of course - why didn't the politicians listen? Why - why - why? Why, Oh Why Why can't a dish break a hammer? Why oh why oh why?! 'Cause a hammer's a hard head. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why, oh why, oh why oh, why? Why, oh why, oh why? Because because because because Goodbye goodbye goodbye Why can't a bird eat an elephant? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause an elephant's got a pretty hard skin. Goodby goodbye goodbye. Why can't a mouse eat a streetcar? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause a mouse's stomach could never get big enough to hold a streetcar. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why does a horn make music? Why, oh why, oh why? Because the horn-blower blows it. Goodbye goodbye goodbye Why does a cow drink water? Tell me why n why? Because the cow gets thirsty just like you or me or anybody else. Goodye goodbye goodbye. Why don't you answer my questions? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause I don't know the answers. Goodby goodbye goodbye. What make the landlord take money? Why, oh why, oh why? I don't know that one myself. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why's there no pennies for ice cream Why, oh why, oh why? You put all the pennies in the telephone. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why can't a rabbit chase an eagle? Tell me why, oh why? 'Cause the last rabbit that took out and chased after an eagle didn't come out so good and that's why rabbits don't chase after eagles that's all I know about rabbits and eagles? Because because because. Why ain't my grandpa my grandma? Why, oh why, oh why? Same reason your dad's not your mommy. Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Why couldn't the wind blow backwards? Why, oh why, oh why? 'Cause it might backfire and hurt somebody and if it hurt somebody it'd keep on hurting them Goodbye goodbye goodbye. Words and Music by Woody Guthrie He must not have had Google to help him find answers. LOL. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com