OT: How to Save Social Security

Don't you remember your history, and didn't the democrats rule congress for
40 straight years? Now tell me honestly who is responsible for rapeing the
social security fund with billions and billions of dollars with IOU's? If
the fund was not raped and left alone we all would be in fat city when we
retired. At least Bush is attempting to do something about it. The
democrats still haven't presented him with an alternative. He said numerous
times that he was willing to listen to any suggestions. Yet all the dems do
is criticize and will not bring a plan to him.


"William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > Basically, wealth is produced by human labor. The money you make on an
> > > investment came indirectly from people growing crops, or working in a
> > factory, or whatever.
> > <snip a bunch of socialist BS>
>
> There is no way to create wealth without labor. Gold has value only
because
> human labor is required to dig it up.
>

In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:00:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, GregP
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:23:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pardon me? What "mythology" did I introduce into the discussion?
>>>>
>>> That we have a "free market."
>>
>>Wrong twice.
>>
>>Although I admit that the market in the US is not completely free, it
>>certainly isn't a controlled economy such as existed in the former Soviet
>>Union. It's hardly "mythology" to refer to the US as a free market.
>>
> It most certainly is a mythology, even tho it is not like the
> Soviet Union's.

I guess that might be a subject for debate... I notice you completely ignored
my correction of yet another of your errors, i.e. I was not the one who
introduced that term here.
>
>
>>True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the irony of you
>>accusing tomeshew of Nazi-like behavior for criticizing a socialist program.
>
> Nope, I didn't say "Nazi" or "Nazi-like." I said "fascist."

Caught in another falsehood. These are your exact words:

"Oh my Rush, you are so right ! Let's put a nice, clean, motherland
program in its place: we'll round up all of those poor, lazy, good-
for-nothing untemensche and stick `em in camps somewhere, out
of sight, out of mind (and hey, if their keepers come up with some
sort of clever fake shower gimmick, why, that would make it nice &
cheap for the Rest of Us, wouldn 't it ? Just make sure to destroy
the pictures...) "
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/3070687d10959878


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> the total cost of the employee is factored into the price of the goods or
> services. same as the cost of the plastic, wood, glass, phones,
> advertising, business taxes, training, whatever. this cost is recovered
> when the business sells its goods or services.
>
> businesses arent in business to sell the most stuff, they're in business
to
> make the most money. they raise or lower their prices to maximize this
> number. you are implying the price is set on a whim.

No, that's what you were saying. Try to keep your story strait.

> profit is a function
> of both sale price and overhead. taxes are just another type of overhead.
>
> the money used to pay the business taxes, employee taxes, whatever taxes
> NEVER came from the business. businesses dont print money. nor do they
> create it out of thin air. it came from the person who bought the product
> from the business.

By that logic, you never pay taxes either. Maybe you do. What kind of
printing press do you use?

> so to answer your question: what you say makes absolutely no sense to me.

I am biggining to doubt if anything makes sense to you. You don't seem to
have a very firm grip on reality.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:06:30 -0500, GregP <[email protected]>
wrote:


> Democrat politicians like to spend money and raise taxes on people
> who make more money. Republican politicians like to spend a huge
> amount of money and charge it to future generations that they do not
> have to look in the eye and who can't vote against them.

Greg,
You are either very young or have a short memory. For about 60 years
the Democrats kept telling us that we could spend our way into
prosperity, that a certain amount of inflation was a good thing and
that deficits don't matter because 'we owe it to ourselves.' That
only changed when Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress of 1984
dragged Clinton, kicking and screaming to a balanced budget.

Remember that congress raises and spends all the money. There have
been deficits for most of the past 70 years and the congress has had
Democrat majorities for most of those years. The problem is that the
current crop of Republicans are too timid to drastically cut programs
that affect traditionally Democrat constituencies and feel that they
have to add spending that affects what is perceived as their
constituencies, thinking that will help keep them in office.

Meanwhile, both parties are empowering the government to engage in
activities that are not permitted to it under the constitution, with
the complicity and sometimes the encouragement and prodding of the
courts.


Brian McAllister

Sarasota, Florida

email bkm at oldtech dot net [email protected]

"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:11:21 -0400, Bill M
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Correction...Any "wing" fascism.
>
> True, but the ones areound here are on the right-hand side.

I'm a left-wing fascist with not much of a fascia

ok I'll chip in here, mostly because this is probably more relevant to me
then most of the rest of the posters here, mostly because I'll be 65 years
old in 2043, and the idea of paying more and more for benefits that I'm not
going to get upsets me a little, I like the Idea of having the option of
setting up a private account something akin to a 401k or IRA if you think
back how nice it would have been to set up a 401k with .48%(this isn't all
of SS just the proposed amount you can contribute 3% of 16% (8% you put in
and 8% your employer dose) )of your earnings from the time to turned 16 or
when ever you started working to the time your 65 ok now lets put it in an
account earning say 9% like Prudential Financial's Lifetime40 Fund (last 10
years has preformed at 9.09%) lest say you earn an average of 40,000 for 44
years (last I heard that was the average yearly income) .048 * 40,000 = 192
increasing annuity
n
r -1
a(-----) = Amount
r - 1
44
1.09 - 1
192(--------)
1.09 - 1

44
1.09 -1
192(-------)
.09

61.85 -1
192(--------)
.09

60.85
192(-----)
.09

192(687.25) = 131,953.87

add this to your other retirement investments and that's not to shabby (it's
more than my house cost) I wish they would let us invest more, like say 1/2

Stewart Schooley wrote:

> I'm starting an OT discussion because I want to follow up on some
> things that were mentioned here.
>
> To understand SS problems you have to understand the national debt. It
> is listed as 7 trillion dollars, but that is not the whole truth. Only
> 60% of it is "debt owed to the public". This is money owed to buyers of
> regular government bonds [individuals, retirement plans, corporations,
> foreign nations] and this debt must be paid or we are a bankkrupt country.
>
> 40% is "intra governmental holdings" and it is comprised of money
> 'borrowed' from SS, the railroad retirement fund, government workers
> pension fund and the military pension fund. Each year Congress 'borrows'
> the surplus from these funds and gives them special government bonds
> that were created for this purpose. The debt owed to SS alone is now
> just about 1.5 trillion dollars. These bonds pay an average rate of 2.2%
> and they are not available to the public. Every year Congress has to pay
> interest on the bonds, but no money is exchanged. Congress authorizes
> more bonds in the amount of the interest due, the money stays in the
> treasury and Congress spends it.
>
> There is no law that says Congress must pay their debt to SS or any of
> the other pension funds. Congress created this situation and Congress
> can simply wipe the books clean if they wish. You can only depend on the
> honesty and personal integrity of members of Congress to pay back the
> money they owe to SS....................
>
> Here's what I think should be done - Congress should issue more regular
> government bonds to fund the transition to privatization for younger
> workers. The money generated will automatically be deducted from the
> debt owed to SS and the "intra governmenta holdings" will now be
> reduced by that amount.
>
> Let's say one trillion dollars has to be raised. Our total national debt
> will remain the same because one trillion dollars will be subtracted
> from "intra governmental holdings" and added to the "debt owed to the
> public" which means it will then be about 5.2 trillion dollars.
>
> We can handle a 5.2 trillion debt that has to be paid. Think back over
> your own life. When you bought a house, financed a car, had some charge
> accounts to pay for the new baby, etc, as well as paying property taxes
> and other obligations due to government, what percent of your income was
> being used to pay your debts? Make the comparison and I think you will
> see that our government with a 5.2 trillion dollar debt is better off
> than you were.
>
> Privatization is the only way to keep the polititians hands away from
> your money ...............unless you are one of those Democrat Liberals
> who believe that SS should be a re-distribution of wealth scheme.
>
> Stewart

hmmmm...not sure how this got here, but it deserves a reply. to
understand SS, you don't really have to understand anything but simple
math and economics.
problem 1. you can't pay out more than you take in.
problem 2. the aging babyboomers and the overall population explosion
here on planet earth.
problem 3. the mindset of people that they are supposed to "took care
of" by their goverment.

not alot you can do about 2 or 3. number 1 is a big problem too.
everybody can't retire comfortably. everybody can't even retire. you
can't produce money from thin air. everybody can't win. for every
winner, there must be a loser. money is not "earned" in an investment,
it is an exchange of wealth. for every person that wants to buy a
piece of stock at XX dollars, there is someone who wants to sell it
just as bad. to undermine this, promotes inflation. if the timing is
good, then you will make better money with your private account. if it
is not, then someone must lose..... or someone else must guarantee your
return. guarantees cost "everybody else" instead of you. (back to
square one) so there you have it. either pay more as individuals, pay
more as a society, or accept spiralling inflation for decades to come.
any way you look at it, it is a losing proposition. the privately
funded accounts are only a band-aid...a temporary fix. better than what
we have but there still has to be losers. when we accept this, we as a
society will be better off.

well, at least william is honest. it never ceases to amaze me how
people think you can "make" money on an investment. where does this
money come from??? pete...stewart? a good answer please. not...we
should "take care of each other".... taking care of each other costs
money. are you willing to double your contributions so everyone can be
"took care of." are you willing to accept the inflation that the
"everybody wins" scenario brings. you people aren't thinking this
through at all. we must cut payouts or increase taxes to fund SS. it
is the big elephant in the room nobody will talk about because they
don't want to be deemed as uncaring....or be the bad guy who promotes
the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. time to get real
people. it is a system that will fail eventually. the question is when
and at what cost. do we suffer the costs, or do we pawn it off on our
kids and grandkids as past generations have done?

Bill M <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > And right-wing fascism is deadly to human beings.
>
> Correction...Any "wing" fascism.

Let's kill all the extremists! :)

/Centrists, unite!

paul

john, where do you get stats that black males live as long as anyone
else? don't forget...i sell life insurance? can't blame bush for
everything.

Speaking of Social Security, how about the topic of identity theft that
is now exploding. Would the adoption of a 3 or 4 digit 'pin number' to
everyone's social security number help in preventing identity theft?
I/e/ a number that SS would assign to everyone, and it could be used as
a final identity checker that would only be typed in like we now do
with credit card and atm accounts when at the store, or the extra 3
digits on back of credit cards. If someone discovered the pin number
thru fraud or whatever, you could go in person to soc security office
and provide enough information to have it reset to a new number. And
when someone tried to open new accounts under your social security
number, they would be required to know that 4-digit code. Why don't I
hear anyone talking about a solution to this problem instead of the
same old crap about shredding up your bills etc. while the problem just
skyrockets anyway???

talk about double talk john...re-read your post! plain talk...IF a
black males live past age 30, he STILL doesn't live as long as a white
male. white female, or black female.(statistically speaking) this would
lead you to believe that the elderly black male is getting left
out...... now, with that said, here is the problem with bushys lie (as
you like to put it). sure, less black men are left alive in the latter
years because of average life expectancy, but what they are not saying
is...there are also fewer that make it to SS age because of premature
death from violence, etc.. they pay less in than the others because of
this, and also because of unemployment. prison etc., etc.. also there
is substantially more paid to surviving widows and dependents. it's a
wash.

good advise for an individual, but for sure it doesn't work for a
nation. here's why....as an indivual, you are looking to be smarter
and better than everyone else. you want to sell your stock when it is
peaking. buy low, sell high. now as a nation, we can't do that.
stock prices (like everything else) are driven by supply/demand. take
this example: if we had started out using this investment account as
the SS basis.....it would have worked real good until people started
SELLING. when people sell, the prices drop. as more and more people
reach retirement age, more people sell, prices go lower. people go for
years earning little or nothing on their investment. back to square
one. it's simple...without inflation, there should be a net zero gain.
if there is a gain, it is inflation. or we busted a bunch of little
counties and took their wealth. so there you have it. higher taxes,
or conquer the world. which will it be?

Stewart Schooley wrote:
> I'm starting an OT discussion because I want to follow up on some
> things that were mentioned here.
>


Just keep in mind when having this discussion...

1. The government has been raping the SS trust fund for many years.
2. NONE of the thieves proposing "solutions" are ever likely to depend
on, or even need any aspect of SS, Medicare or Medicaid.

So, parties who have _no_ needs congruent to those who will actually
need SS are making life-decisions for that group.

Some fun, huh?

http://research.aarp.org/econ/beyond_50_econ_tables_life.pdf

No crisis or ANY kind until 2042, per Social Security's own recent
pessimistic study. No "saving" of it needed, just small tax changes.

--
Please REPLY to yonny at att,net as the msn address is a spam trap !

Thanks,
John H.
On the West Coast of New England

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020201010703000708030709
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Uncle Peter wrote:

>
>
> "Stewart Schooley" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> I'm starting an OT discussion because I want to follow up on some
> things that were mentioned here.
>
> Privitazation didn't work in Britian and other countries. What
> seems to happen is
> that the management "fees" become excessive, and you're basically
> at the mercy
> of the brokers. Long term investment seems to be a good idea, but
> for someone
> in their 50s the timeframe is way too short to ensure any
> reasonable longterm
> accumulation.
>
> Pete
>
Pete,

> Privitazation didn't work in Britian and other countries.

Not true. Only in England has there been a problem. Companies managing
the system were gouging so much that they were forced to pay back 20
billion dollars. Chile has the model system where workers have 22
different plans they can invest in and they can change from one plan to
another anytime they want to. All they have to do is make a phone call.

I'll make you a bet. I bet you can't name one union pension fund that
isn't privatized. And I'll bet you double that you can't name one city,
county, or state pension plan that isn't privatized.

Stewart




--------------020201010703000708030709
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
&nbsp;Uncle Peter wrote:
<blockquote cite="mido5yRd.83329$bu.39805@fed1read06" type="cite">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2745.2800" name="GENERATOR">
<style></style>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div>"Stewart Schooley" &lt;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt;
wrote in message <a href="news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]</a>...</div>
<div>I'm starting an OT discussion because I want&nbsp; to follow up on
some things that were mentioned here.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Privitazation didn't work in Britian and other countries.&nbsp;
What seems to happen is</div>
<div>that the management "fees" become excessive, and you're
basically at the mercy</div>
<div>of the brokers.&nbsp; Long term investment seems to be a good idea,
but for someone</div>
<div>in their 50s the timeframe is way too short to ensure any
reasonable longterm</div>
<div>accumulation.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font size="2">Pete</font></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Pete,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Privitazation didn't work in Britian and other
countries. <br>
</blockquote>
Not true. Only in England has there been a problem. Companies managing
the system were gouging so much that they were forced to pay back 20
billion dollars. Chile has the model system where workers have 22
different plans they can invest in and they can change from one plan to
another anytime they want to. All they have to do is make a phone call.<br>
<br>
I'll make you a bet. I bet you can't name one union pension fund that
isn't privatized. And I'll bet you double that you can't name one city,
county, or state pension plan that isn't privatized.<br>
<br>
Stewart<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------020201010703000708030709--

hagstar wrote:

> No crisis or ANY kind until 2042, per Social Security's own recent
> pessimistic study. No "saving" of it needed, just small tax changes.
>
Hagstar,

I think I screwed up. I think it was because someone said I wasn't
posting in plain text. I was in the habit of typing in wordpad and
copying and pasting in e-mails. I posted to both RAR+P and
rec.woodworking rather than going through the trouble of doing them
separately. Now replies from here are showing there. First time I've
done it and it won't happen again. I could let it go and the groups
could get in a fight and have a duel with woodworking tools. They have
bigger and nastier tools so I'll take care of the problem each time I reply.

Anyway, the crises starts in 2018 and that will be after more money has
been voted to meet the public clamor for more medical coverage. With
medical costs rising 12% a year there is no way Congress will meet its
full obligations to SS after 2018.

Stewart

> Privatization is the only way to keep the polititians' hands away from
> your money... unless you are one of those Democrat Liberals who
> believe that SS should be a re-distribution of wealth scheme.

Absolutely it should be.

The wealth of the rich is obtained from the labor of others. Government has a
moral obligation to rip it out of their filthy hands and spend it on something
constructive.

> well, at least william is honest. it never ceases to amaze me how
> people think you can "make" money on an investment. where does
> this money come from???

Basically, wealth is produced by human labor. The money you make on an
investment came indirectly from people growing crops, or working in a factory,
or whatever.

There is a clear distinction by creating wealth by working to produce something
of value, and receiving money via a paycheck.

For example, a gunsmith who makes and sells rifles can easily quantify the added
value that represents the wealth he has created for himself. It's his wealth,
and no one (including the government) has any real right to take it from him. In
fact, I'm in favor of abolishing Federal taxes for unincoporated individuals who
own their own manufacturing or service businesses and do all the work
themselves.

On the other hand, managers and directors don't actually do anything to create
wealth, other than seeing to it that their companies are run efficiently. That
certainly deserves a reward, but millions of dollars every year, year after
year?

Tell me... What did Carly do to justify a $20M golden parachute? She left HP in
worse condition than she found it. She ought to give her salary back.

As to "helping each other..." Here's a question I don't have an answer to.
Suppose our gunsmith hires an assistant. Shouldn't the assistant receive a wage
that allows him to live in reasonable comfort, without living in a rat-infested
tenement or having to worry where the next meal is coming from? This means the
assistant would have to produce sufficient goods and services such that their
profit covered at least that "living wage."

But employers tend to try to pay as little as possible, so they can profit from
the employees' labor. Should the employer look after only his own interests? If
the assistant is unusually productive, should he share the extra profits?

You see, the problem with both Capitalism and Communism is that there is no real
incentive to work hard to create wealth.


As long as the wealthy have the right to take wealth they didn't create, I see
no reason why working people shouldn't try to take it back.

PS: Montaigne wrote that, in his opinion, wealthy people were wealthy due to
avarice.

Doug Winterburn wrote:

> I'm sure they will look back on us with
> fondness for spending the original SS trust fund on ourselves and passing
> on the debt to them.
>
> -

Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes, Herbert Hoover, and Warren G.
Harding- step back, and let the man go through.......

--
Please REPLY to yonny at att,net as the msn address is a spam trap !

Thanks,
John H.
On the West Coast of New England

> > Basically, wealth is produced by human labor. The money you make on an
> > investment came indirectly from people growing crops, or working in a
> factory, or whatever.
> <snip a bunch of socialist BS>

There is no way to create wealth without labor. Gold has value only because
human labor is required to dig it up.

Sounds like you're more bent on vengeance than equity or problem-solving
so your voice has little merit outside of the shallow edge of the
opinion pool. Ted Turner? Is that the worst case example you could
come up with to make your point? Maybe he should share his lithium
treatments with you.

-Bill

cowboy wrote:

> don't let me, the "robin hood" cowboy ever get in charge of things, or the
> rich bastards will finally pay their fair share, I don't care if it means a
> 99% top tax rate
>
> I would divide all the land in the world by the number of people, and
> everyone would get their 20 acres or whatever.
>
> It's God's land, he will punish Ted Turner and the other evildoers for
> trying to own millions of acres of it and keeping people off of God's
> creation
>
> due to the nature of my job, I have gotten to know hundreds of millionaires
> personally, and I can say that the ones who earned it honestly, and not by
> exploitation of others and not through inheritance and luck and greed and
> crookedness, I can count on one hand. Not a very good percentage, like 1 or
> 2 %
>
> disgusting
>
> Jesus despised the wealthy of his day, the "moneychangers" at the temple
>
> Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth, and that rich men won't be
> going to heaven, and boy it is easy to see why!
>
>
> cheers!
>
> the barefoot cowboy bluesman
> (barefoot! - like Jesus)

GregP wrote:


>
> And right-wing fascism is deadly to human beings.

Correction...Any "wing" fascism.

> Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Conservatism is a moral disorder.

> Don't you remember your history, and didn't the democrats rule congress for
> 40 straight years? Now tell me honestly who is responsible for rapeing the
> social security fund with billions and billions of dollars with IOU's?

It is indeed the Democrats. I believe it started around the Vietnam war, when SS
proceeds were added to the general revenue to hide the deficits.

> Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth, and that rich men
> won't be going to heaven, and boy it is easy to see why!

Actually, he said that prostitutes and similar people would enter heaven before
the wealthy.

We live in a society that worships wealth and power. We will eventually pay for
it.

> I don't understand how people can encourage and facilitate
> greed and also claim to follow Jesus.
> Would anyone care to explain this paradox?

I believe it dates from a time when material wealth was seen as God's blessing,
and therefore proof of salvation.

> i dont disagree entirely with what you say here. but we live in a democracy
> (republic) society before we live in a capitalistic one. people have
> consitituionally protected rights, companies do not. companies do not pay
> taxes. raising taxes for a company simply passes that tax on to the
> consumer of whatever that company provides. do companies have a duty to
> society? yes. society allows them to exist. just as an errant child
> should be slapped if he gets too grabby in the sandbox, so should a greedy
> company.

Let me clarify that point. Incorporated businesses have a special privilege, not
granted to individuals, of limited liability. This makes it possible to
accumulate large amounts of capital that would not be possible if the people
investing in the company were fiscally obliged beyond their initial investments.
Businesses therefore have an obligation to use that capital for the benefit of
society as a whole, not only for the benefit of their investors.


> pure capitalism is not the answer. pure socialism isnt the answer either.
> its somewhere in between. and it would be best if workers and companies
> could work this out for themselves without getting the government involved
> at all.

Agreed.

> The first social security recipient, a female, paid in $24, and
> received $42,000 in payments.

It was actually more like $22K. But that's a big return on a small investment.
(The woman lived until 100, which was why she took out so much.)

Brian McAllister wrote:
>
>
> Social Security is, to a large extent, a transfer of money from black
> males to white females. A large percentage of black males do not live
> long enought to collect what they have paid in, while a large
> percentage of white females live long enough to collect very much more
> than is covered by what they have paid in.
>
>

This is the cruelest and most brazen trick the Bush machine is using. It
is a "lies, damned lies, and statistics" thing. ON AVERAGE, black males
don't seem to live long enough to collect enough S.S. benefits. This is
quite wrong, though, as it is just a fluke of the statistics. Lots of
YOUNG black males (who don't live long enough to pay much into the
system anyway) die early, which pulls down the AVERAGE life expectancy
of black males. But if he makes it to thirty, the average black male
worker would collect nearly the same amount dollar wise and live nearly
as long as the average white worker.

This "fact" resembles the story of putting one foot in ice water and the
other in boiling water. Average skin temperature- comfortable, right?


--
Please REPLY to yonny at att,net as the msn address is a spam trap !

Thanks,
John H.
On the West Coast of New England

> Your post is one of those Goebbelian Big Lies: it pretends that
> Republicans had power when they did not control the presidency
> and they are little hopeless boys (and a very few girls) now that
> they do. Bullpucky. The largest deficits by far since WWII were
> during the Reagan, GB I, and GB II administrations. These are
> in terms of percentage of GDP. The Republicans have no
> intent of spending less money, only more: they realize that that
> keeps them in office, and since they have no intention of living
> up to the Compact With America, the second biggest political
> lie in the US in the last 60 years - the cumulative oeuvre of the
> GB II administration is the biggest - they will continue to increase
> spending and refuse to make anyone they might have to face
> up to to pay for it.

You have it backwards.

Republicans love big deficits -- especially those created by tax cuts for the
wealthy -- because they provide a wonderful excuse to cut discretionary
spending.

Remember -- the only thing in life that matters is acquiring wealth.

Eddie Brimer wrote:
> john, where do you get stats that black males live as long as anyone
> else?

Your stats are based on an average black male who doesn't exist, the
sample consists of almost no middle examples as I explained. I love how
I explain a flaw in the statistical view and you come back with the
exact same statistic I just refuted, while adding nothing that indicates
you even tried to understand what I said.

I think you understand exactly my point but are acting deliberately
belligerent because you know many people will fall for this. THERE IS NO
AVERAGE black male eddie, just a defective statistic derived from pure
early and late deaths, with zero middle. Otherwise you would agree one
foot in boiling water and one in ice water would be comfortable. Can you
deny, eddie, the average temp here is comfortable?

--
Please REPLY to yonny at att,net as the msn address is a spam trap !

Thanks,
John H.
On the West Coast of New England

> The real elephants in the room are Medicare and Medicaid.

The estimated shortfalls on these are _tens_ trillions of dollars. Possibly
more.

I'm gonna take the chassis out shortly. Pix on ABPR as soon as I can get
them okay.

In article <[email protected]>, William Sommerwerck
<[email protected]> wrote:

For William who said:

> Let me clarify that point. Incorporated businesses have a special
> privilege, not granted to individuals, of limited liability. This
> makes it possible to accumulate large amounts of capital that would
> not be possible if the people investing in the company were fiscally
> obliged beyond their initial investments. Businesses therefore have
> an obligation to use that capital for the benefit of society as a
> whole, not only for the benefit of their investors.

and for Randy who said:

> it would be best if workers and companies could work this out for
> themselves without getting the government involved at all.

I would suggest that both of you try to get a copy of the award-winning
dicumentary "The Corporation". In the documentary, they show how
corporations achieved the almost untouchable status that they enjoy as
legal entities (persons); how corporations as persons fulfill each and
every criteria of clinical psychotics; and how their *primary* legal
duty is to create wealth for their shareholders /even/ /to/ /the/
/exclusion/ /of/ /environmental/ /issues/.

I think then that you will see why

> > Businesses therefore have an obligation to use that capital for the
> > benefit of society as a whole, not only for the benefit of their
> > investors.

and

> > it would be best if workers and companies could work this out for
> > themselves without getting the government involved at all.

can *NEVER* happen.

Gerry

"Unisaw A100" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...







Yes, do nothing...maybe it's the way to SAVE it also.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Earth to Bush and Congress: I don't WANT Social Security! I don't need
> Social Security! Just give me all the damn money NOW and let me invest
> it AS I CHOOSE. I'll bet I can do it better than you can, and If I
> don't, it's my own damn fault and nobody else's.
>
Perhaps you could, as could I. But that does not address the need for a
forced savings plan of some type for those too poor to divert income
from present necessities to future ones.

And the average under-40 type in this country, poor or not, doesn't
think much about the future. That's human nature.

Somehow I can't see us letting all those people starve when they get too
old to work.

Of course, we could always bring back the poorhouse.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Instead the administration will create another corporate boondoggle,
> like the "drug benefit" that will add a mammoth cost to people who
> actually pay taxes - the latest in the $800B range, close to double
> what the administration claimed (and lied about) when it was ramming
> it through congress; reduce benefits to seniors; and disallow price
> negotiations with drug makers.

Since I'm eligible for it, I took a long look at the program. I can get
better prices from AARP, and a lot better prices from Canada. The only
way I can justify signing up for it next year is if I bet I'm going to
get a lot sicker in the future.


> I wonder how much the drug makers
> "invested" in "campaign contributions" to pull off this monster
> transfer of wealth ?
>

IIRC, they were some of the top corporate contributors to Bush.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <%3QRd.11977$g44.6955@attbi_s54>, [email protected] says...
> Now tell me honestly who is responsible for rapeing the
> social security fund with billions and billions of dollars with IOU's?
>
One more time.

What do you think they should have done with the money - stuck it under
the bed? Please tell us.

Or invest it in Enron?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> says...
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:08:48 GMT, the inscrutable "Bob"
> <[email protected]> spake:
>
> >It would be better to stick it under the bed than to let the democratic
> >congress steal it for 40 years.
>
> BANK it and collect interest toward future payout. I don't believe in
> stock market investments of vital funds, either. It can and will go
> tits-up too easily. (See 1929, etc.)
>
They did invest it - in government bonds.

And a lot of banks went under in the depression too. Without FDIC.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> The idea of the government investing in
> government bonds is exactly the same as the idea of a private citizen
> investing in a mortgage: baloney. You invest in assets. You can't invest
> anything in debts.
>
OK, Doug. SS does take in real money. What should they do with it?

And I know you'd rather can the whole system, but that's not the
question I'm asking.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I have a suggestion: prohibit, by Constitutional amendment if necessary, the
> withholding of income taxes from payroll checks, instead requiring that all
> taxes be paid in a lump sum on April 15. Once people see how much the
> government is really taking from us, I think hardly anyone would sit still for
> it.
>
Or even better, do it quarterly like I had to do when self-employed.

I once argued a $5 difference up through several layers of the IRS - I
lost, but they spent at least $50 to get that $5 :-).

And the one I loved was when I won. They never said "Oops, we were
wrong", the letters I got (almost every year) said "We have abated your
penalties."

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:30:19 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>> We have a free market ?? That's about as true as "Creationism."
>
>You got caught spouting nonsense and drivel. Again. And immediately changed
>the subject. Again.
>
>I'm disappointed. But not surprised.

Responding to the mythology you introduced into the
thread is "changing the subject ?" So what's your role ?
Are you one of those fundamentalists who is not responsible
for his actions, they're always someone else's fault ?
You are an astute student of our administration.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:25:42 -0500, Brian McAllister
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Greg,
> You are either very young or have a short memory. For about 60 years
>the Democrats kept telling us that we could spend our way into
>prosperity, that a certain amount of inflation was a good thing and
>that deficits don't matter because 'we owe it to ourselves.' That
>only changed when Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress of 1984
>dragged Clinton, kicking and screaming to a balanced budget.
>
>Remember that congress raises and spends all the money. There have
>been deficits for most of the past 70 years and the congress has had
>Democrat majorities for most of those years. The problem is that the
>current crop of Republicans are too timid to drastically cut programs
>that affect traditionally Democrat constituencies and feel that they
>have to add spending that affects what is perceived as their
>constituencies, thinking that will help keep them in office.


Your post is one of those Goebbelian Big Lies: it pretends that
Republicans had power when they did not control the presidency
and they are little hopeless boys (and a very few girls) now that
they do. Bullpucky. The largest deficits by far since WWII were
during the Reagan, GB I, and GB II administrations. These are
in terms of percentage of GDP. The Republicans have no
intent of spending less money, only more: they realize that that
keeps them in office, and since they have no intention of living
up to the Compact With America, the second biggest political
lie in the US in the last 60 years - the cumulative oeuvre of the
GB II administration is the biggest - they will continue to increase
spending and refuse to make anyone they might have to face
up to to pay for it.

Require members of Congress and the Senate and other Government officials to
abandon their current "salary for life" plan, and make them participate in
SS benefits alone!
Tom

"Stewart Schooley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I'm starting an OT discussion because I want to follow up on some things
that were mentioned here.

To understand SS problems you have to understand the national debt. It is
listed as 7 trillion dollars, but that is not the whole truth. Only 60% of
it is "debt owed <snip>

"Scott W. Harvey" wrote:
>
> IMHO, the use of the Social Security number for any non-governmental
> purpose should be banned at this point. The problems that are now
> surfacing related to the use of this number have been known and ignored
> for years.
>
> -Scott

The state of Florida job service required you to sign in to look at
the job listing by printing your full name and SS number on a form that
was open for everyone to see. 25 names and SS numbers per page on open
clipboards for everyone in line after you to steal your information.. I
refused to sign it and went to file a complaint with one of our
congressional representatives over the careless handling of this
information. I haven't checked on the complaint because I got my
disability a month later and haven't been well enough to get back to
their office in the last two months.

--
Beware of those who suffer from delusions of adequacy!

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Stewart Schooley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'm starting an OT discussion because I want to follow up on some
> things that were mentioned here.
>

<snip a bunch of irrelevant dribble...>

So - you start an OT thread because you want to follow up on some things
that were mentioned here... and you throw in some cross-posting to unrelated
newsgroups for good measure? Why not just go to alt.politics where this
sort of thing belongs?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:34:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>
>A guy complains that SS is a socialist program [he's right, BTW] that has no
>place in a free market [he's right again], and you immediately leap in with
>your innuendos suggesting that he's a Nazi -- when in fact, he's the exact
>*opposite*. Do you even have any idea what "Nazi" means?


We have a free market ?? That's about as true as "Creationism."

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Scott W. Harvey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
> >> Scott W. Harvey wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Earth to Bush and Congress: I don't WANT Social Security! I don't need
> >>> Social Security! Just give me all the damn money NOW and let me invest
> >>> it AS I CHOOSE. I'll bet I can do it better than you can, and If I
> >>> don't, it's my own damn fault and nobody else's.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe so, but if you invest and lose it all, and wind up flat broke,
> >> retired in poor health and can't work, will you expect the government
to
> >> help you out?
> >
> > No way.....I've never taken a government handout for anything, ever. The
> > closest I've ever come to that has been a student loan (which I paid off
> > in full long ago). If I wind up destitute, it's probably going to be
> > because I did something really stupid with money, and I generally don't
do
> > anything like that.
>
> something stupid like trust your company and invest in enron for example?
> something stupid like the country goes to war, killing the economy and
> draining your pocketbook? oh i see, you have full control over
everything.
>
> but just in case, let me know if this happens. ill donate the free bullet
> to solve your problem since you offer no other alternatives.
>
> oh if it were only so simple.
>
> randy

Donate a 6V6GTA so my Airline will have it's GT back and I can fix BOTH of
them. Extremely simple.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:13:02 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>It is indeed the Democrats. I believe it started around the Vietnam war, when SS
>proceeds were added to the general revenue to hide the deficits.


No. A bit later. But SS is most benefiting Bush's budget
shenanigans.


"Back in 1983, as part of a deal to save Social Security from
impending demographic doom, Congress enacted legislation to
essentially increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits. As a result,
the government began to collect more Social Security payroll taxes
than it paid out to beneficiaries each year. The theory was that the
government would use these surpluses to pay down the national debt.
That way, when baby boomers retire—and comparatively more people are
collecting benefits while comparatively fewer people are working—the
government would be in a better position to borrow the necessary funds
to provide the promised benefits.

So much for theory. The reality? For the first 15 years, every penny
of the surplus was spent, first by Republican presidents and then by a
Democratic president. According to figures provided by the Committee
for a Responsible Federal Budget, the surpluses were relatively
insignificant for much of this period. Between 1983 and 2001 a total
of $667 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes was
spent—about $35 billion per year. It was only in fiscal 1999 and 2000,
when the government ran so-called on-budget surpluses, that excess
Social Security funds were actually used to retire debt.
...
In his first three budgets, Bush (who had the good fortune to take
office at a time when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and Congress
used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund
basic government operations—about $160 billion per year!

By so doing, Washington spenders have masked the size of the deficit.
For Fiscal 2004—which began in October 2003—if you factor out the $164
billion Social Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be at
least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak of 6 percent of
GDP. And according to its own projections (the bottom line of Table 8
represents the Social Security surplus), the administration plans to
spend an additional $990 billion in such funds between now and 2008.
That year, according to the Office of Management and Budget's
projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion. Only by
using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus does the
administration arrive at a total, unified deficit of $226 billion. And
the ultimate on-budget deficit will almost certainly be worse. OMB has
proven in the past few years that its projections can't be trusted.

The accounting for Social Security surpluses has always been
dishonest. But in the past few years, the Bush administration has made
this shady accounting a central pillar of its fiscal strategy."

Rest at http://slate.msn.com/id/2093707 which someone posted earlier
in the thread, but you guys are apparently too busy to peruse.

Renata

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:00:49 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:23:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Pardon me? What "mythology" did I introduce into the discussion?
>>>
>> That we have a "free market."
>
>Wrong twice.
>
>Although I admit that the market in the US is not completely free, it
>certainly isn't a controlled economy such as existed in the former Soviet
>Union. It's hardly "mythology" to refer to the US as a free market.
>

It most certainly is a mythology, even tho it is not like the
Soviet Union's.


>True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the irony of you
>accusing tomeshew of Nazi-like behavior for criticizing a socialist program.


Nope, I didn't say "Nazi" or "Nazi-like." I said "fascist."

In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 06:37:35 +0000, tomeshew
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Then, don't pay in? SS is a socialist program that has no place in free
>>market America these days. Nor on any day in capitalist America. Jeez!
>
> Oh my Rush, you are so right ! Let's put a nice, clean, motherland
> program in its place: we'll round up all of those poor, lazy, good-
> for-nothing untemensche and stick `em in camps somewhere, out
> of sight, out of mind (and hey, if their keepers come up with some
> sort of clever fake shower gimmick, why, that would make it nice &
> cheap for the Rest of Us, wouldn 't it ? Just make sure to destroy
> the pictures...)

Truth and reality are no obstacles in your relentless pursuit of nonsense.

A guy complains that SS is a socialist program [he's right, BTW] that has no
place in a free market [he's right again], and you immediately leap in with
your innuendos suggesting that he's a Nazi -- when in fact, he's the exact
*opposite*. Do you even have any idea what "Nazi" means?

Hint: It's an abbreviation for a longer name, the second word of which is
"socialist".

That's right, the Nazis were socialists.

But that doesn't deter you from leveling the charge of Nazism against a guy
who complains about a government program that the Nazis would have loved.

Amazing.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:02:48 -0700, "xrongor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>while republicans claim the democrats are the tax and spend people,
>republicans are the dont tax, but spend anyway people.
>
>and the nation is apparantly too stupid to figure this out.

It's about half the nation, the half that believes someone else -
their children, their grandchildren, the Iraqi people, and our
18-20 yr old servicemen - should pay for what they waste & spend.

"William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> Conservatism is a moral disorder.

Now I'm politically schizophrenic. Buy me a dollar hamburger!

HEE HAW!

Funny, when Clinton said that Social Security was in crisis the
Democrats were the amen chorus.

Bush says it's in crisis and the Dems say "Oh, no, it's fine. Bush
just wants to destroy it."

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Joe

In article <[email protected]>, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:13:02 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>It is indeed the Democrats. I believe it started around the Vietnam war, when
> SS
>>proceeds were added to the general revenue to hide the deficits.
>
>
>No. A bit later. But SS is most benefiting Bush's budget
>shenanigans.
>
>
>"Back in 1983, as part of a deal to save Social Security from
>impending demographic doom, Congress enacted legislation to
>essentially increase payroll taxes and reduce benefits.

[snip description of Congress systematically stealing money from taxpayers,
then wasting it]

Now what are we going to do about it? Runaway government spending, I mean.

I have a suggestion: prohibit, by Constitutional amendment if necessary, the
withholding of income taxes from payroll checks, instead requiring that all
taxes be paid in a lump sum on April 15. Once people see how much the
government is really taking from us, I think hardly anyone would sit still for
it.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hey those rich white guys killed the previous occupants, or otherwise
> tricked them, and took the land in america fair and square. they shouldnt
> have to give any of it to anyone...
>
> randy
>
>

G-zus Randy be quiet and go to bed

On 2/19/05 8:39 AM, in article dcIRd.84009$bu.18240@fed1read06, "Uncle
Peter" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Various IRAs, 401ks, invest as you wish!!! Who is stopping you? I
> certainly am.
>
> There are a lot of good funds and IRAs that can
>> help it grow over time. Not to mention, the SS system does not truly
>> guarantee that you will collect as the money is the property of the
>> government and they can dictate what to do with it. By privatizing it,
>> the government can't touch it as it is soley the property of the
>> individual that earned it.
>
> and more importantly, it can't be legally attached as an asset, and taken
> from you. One good illness, and you might see all of your 401Ks, IRAs
> and bank accounts wiped out by medical bills.
>
> Wouldn't SS be nice to fall back on then?

Indeed, this whole thing comes down to the philosophy of the so-called
"ownership society". As if privatizing social security would really give
individuals any real control over their own money. Gimme a break. It will
still be a huge government mandated and operated program, heavily limited in
scope compared to true individual accounts like 401k's or IRA's. And it
won't do anything to fix the solvency issue. Even Bush now admits to this.

Honestly, I think the whole idea is a non-starter. There isn't a single
Democrat who will go for it, and there's plenty of very nervous Republicans
too. They don't call it the "third rail of politics" for nothing. Far right
conservatives are angry at the very suggestion by Bush that raising the cap
on payroll taxes to fund it is on the table, yet no Republican moderates can
justify the switchover without at least partial funding.

Worse yet, I think the public is very skeptical. Most people see it as a
problem but not a crisis, and Bush has even dropped the word in his "sales
pitches". This then begs the question why Bush has made this a front burner
issue in the first place. Since he started beating the drum on this in
November, public opinion for or against hasn't budged a bit. And right now,
the majority is not convinced it is the right thing to do. Poll folks about
the basic idea of private accounts and they like it. Mention the risks
associated, or the cuts in guaranteed benefits, and support drops like a
rock.

"Eddie Brimer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hmmmm...not sure how this got here, but it deserves a reply. to
> understand SS, you don't really have to understand anything but simple
> math and economics.
> problem 1. you can't pay out more than you take in.
> problem 2. the aging babyboomers and the overall population explosion
> here on planet earth.
> problem 3. the mindset of people that they are supposed to "took care
> of" by their goverment.
>

Social Security barely keeps people out of the poverty level. Actually, here
in the Northeast SS is the poverty level. You can lose everything you own,
but at the least the SS payments will keep some food on the table, and no
one
can take that away from you.

People, AND THEIR EMPLOYERS, have paid into the fund for the
duration of their working careers, and should expect to have something
paid back when they reach 67 yrs. and 8 mos. With the number of
folks in the 40 to 70 year age bracket I see making the daily obits, I
would think the fund would be cash rich??

At worst, wasn't the projected decreased payment at 75% for 2042?
By law the payments would be reduced to meet available funds. The
idea that the fund would bankrupt is Bush bullshit. Bush would be
better served by stating the truth, instead of stretching it. And I did vote
for him.

Why are immigrants coming to our shores, who have never paid a dime
into SS, being able to collect SS immediately? If there isn't enough money
there, the government should to themselves as being the cause.

We can spend billions on wars in Iraq to preserve our oil interests; we can
take care of our own as well.

In article <TzyRd.83332$bu.78803@fed1read06>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> " I'll make you a bet. I bet you can't name one union pension fund =
>that isn't privatized. And I'll bet you double that you can't name one =
>city, county, or state pension plan that isn't privatized.
>
> Stewart

I'll go you one better than the above .... I'll bet that of all the Union
and city,county,state whatever pension plans.... that you can NOT
find one that has earned the same lousy rate of return that the SS plan
has received.... it earns something in the area of 2% ....

Thats one of the main reasons the blasted thing is going broke slowly..
plus of course... we the american people ... don't have 4 kids per
family anymore... so workforce isn't an ever increasing thing like
it was in the beginning of the SS plan ...

Peter.... U aren;t in the game anyway... none of us that are 50 or
over will ever be eligible to get into the new game if and when
they decide what the new game will be ... its for the younger
folks .... not us old geezzers

Ya know why Congress is so much against this "Privitization Plan"
so much?.... It is because the SS plan is where they have been
all these years borrowing money to pay for all the crap that congress
passes .... so our own Gubmint is paying that lousy 2% to the SS
fund... which means that YOUR TAXES are really paying it.... so that
makes it doubly stupid to have the SS plan like it is now...

Bet if your congressment had to live on SS income plan... that they
might then have real incentive to fix it...
John k9uwa

don't let me, the "robin hood" cowboy ever get in charge of things, or the
rich bastards will finally pay their fair share, I don't care if it means a
99% top tax rate

I would divide all the land in the world by the number of people, and
everyone would get their 20 acres or whatever.

It's God's land, he will punish Ted Turner and the other evildoers for
trying to own millions of acres of it and keeping people off of God's
creation

due to the nature of my job, I have gotten to know hundreds of millionaires
personally, and I can say that the ones who earned it honestly, and not by
exploitation of others and not through inheritance and luck and greed and
crookedness, I can count on one hand. Not a very good percentage, like 1 or
2 %

disgusting

Jesus despised the wealthy of his day, the "moneychangers" at the temple

Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth, and that rich men won't be
going to heaven, and boy it is easy to see why!


cheers!

the barefoot cowboy bluesman
(barefoot! - like Jesus)


> You mean privatization as in Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen?
> How about Silverado Savings and Loan (remember this one, managed
> by no other than -- Neil Bush) and the other private managers who
> brought us the Savings and Loan Scandal (for which we're still
> paying)?
> Maybe there's a reason why the neocons have worked so diligently
> and so long to try to turn the word "liberal" into blasphemy in
> the public mind (have you bought into the deception?).
>
> Why not trust our money to the former head of the New York Stock
> Exchange, Richard Grasso? Or Carly Fiorina?
>
> Why exactly should we believe that for-profit funds managers will
> be more honest than the government?
>

"cowboy" <cacheoverflow@yahooDOTcom> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| don't let me, the "robin hood" cowboy ever get in charge of
things, or the
| rich bastards will finally pay their fair share, I don't care
if it means a
| 99% top tax rate
|
| I would divide all the land in the world by the number of
people, and
| everyone would get their 20 acres or whatever.
|
| It's God's land, he will punish Ted Turner and the other
evildoers for
| trying to own millions of acres of it and keeping people off of
God's
| creation
|
| due to the nature of my job, I have gotten to know hundreds of
millionaires
| personally, and I can say that the ones who earned it honestly,
and not by
| exploitation of others and not through inheritance and luck and
greed and
| crookedness, I can count on one hand. Not a very good
percentage, like 1 or
| 2 %
|
| disgusting
|
| Jesus despised the wealthy of his day, the "moneychangers" at
the temple
|
| Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth, and that rich men
won't be
| going to heaven, and boy it is easy to see why!
|
|
| cheers!
|
| the barefoot cowboy bluesman
| (barefoot! - like Jesus)

Enjoyed it.
Thanks, Cowboy.
Seems like there's some folks practicing the "reverse Robin Hood
principle." and a few too many who have been hoodwinked to
believe that this is the pinnacle of ethics.
Dunno about Ted Turner -- I haven't heard about this. I'm glad
that you've met at least a few millionaires who are decent --
it's nice to know that it's not all black out there.
"Moneychangers" = lobbyists? This is our
"elephant-in-the-livingroom."
I don't understand how people can encourage and facilitate greed
and also claim to follow Jesus.
Would anyone care to explain this paradox?

In article <[email protected]>, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> The idea of the government investing in
>> government bonds is exactly the same as the idea of a private citizen
>> investing in a mortgage: baloney. You invest in assets. You can't invest
>> anything in debts.
>>
>OK, Doug. SS does take in real money. What should they do with it?

Invest it in an actual asset. Real estate, corporate bonds, stocks, gold,
passbook savings accounts at a commercial bank, you name it, I don't care. As
long as it's an actual asset, I'm happy. The problem we have now is that
Congress is playing a shell game, by falsely claiming that the money is
invested, when in fact it's nothing more than a fistful of government IOUs.
>
>And I know you'd rather can the whole system, but that's not the
>question I'm asking.

That's true enough, I *would* rather can the whole thing. As I've pointed out
before, it's just a Ponzi scheme (albeit on a scale that Ponzi himself would
never have imagined in his wildest dreams), and if anyone but the federal
government were operating it, he would have been jailed decades ago.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
> No can do. It's an un-moderated usenet news group.
> And it's cross posted. Use your news reader software
> to marks the thread as "Ignore" or "read" and it
> won't bother you anymore. If it's that big of an issue,
> hit "un-subscribe."


".. and his to shall pass."

What you describe is more effort than it is worth IMHO, especially since
the thread wil die of it's own weight within a couple of weeks.

Lew

"Richard Steinfeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You mean privatization as in Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen?
> How about Silverado Savings and Loan (remember this one, managed
> by no other than -- Neil Bush) and the other private managers who
> brought us the Savings and Loan Scandal (for which we're still
> paying)?

I notice that Global Crossing is absent from your list. Remember, that's
the company that Terry Mcaulife (you know the former head of the whole
Democrat party) used to turn $100,000 into $18,000,000. And don't forget
Madison Savings and Loan, run by the Clintons' business partners Jim and
Susan McDougal.

> Maybe there's a reason why the neocons have worked so diligently
> and so long to try to turn the word "liberal" into blasphemy in
> the public mind (have you bought into the deception?).
>
> Why not trust our money to the former head of the New York Stock
> Exchange, Richard Grasso? Or Carly Fiorina?
>
> Why exactly should we believe that for-profit funds managers will
> be more honest than the government?

You're kidding, right? "More honest than the government" is a pretty low
hurdle. The fact is, none of the companies on your list are mutual fund
companies that would likely be involved in SS money. I tell you what...you
go find someone who pays into a retirement system and doesn't pay into SS
that wants into SS. The fact is that the government took all of the money
paid in from SS taxes and spent it on something else. If all I expect of a
financial company is to be more honest than that, they should be easy to
find.

todd

In article <[email protected]>, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>So you're saying there's a pile of cash instead of a pile of IOU's in
>the ole "trust fund"?

I'm not sure what he's saying. The facts are that there's no pile of cash, and
no trust fund. The whole thing's a con game. It's a Ponzi scheme, that's all
it is.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| 1) increase taxes and pay off the debt. dont want to increase
taxes? sell
| alaska and pay off the debt. have a bake sale and pay off the
debt. pay
| off the god damned debt.
|
| 2) stop deficit spending. period. do whatever it takes.
dont run the
| government on the credit card method.
|
| 3) lower taxes by 15% and STILL have more money to spend than
we do now to
| fund social security, schools, health care, and the other
programs the 'evil
| liberals' want, save a little for a rainy day, and STILL have
your stupid
| war.
|
| 4) if you dont NEED social security, you dont GET it. dont
like it?
| tough.
|

5) Don't start wars on false pretenses.
6) Don't hire private contract firms (especially ones that have
the appearance of conflict-of-interest) to perform former
military work.
7. Don't run a war and occupation on the credit card method (see
#2 above).
7. Don't spend millions of taxpayer money on public relations
firms to hoodwink the American people under the pretense that the
material came from independent news reporters and columnists --
this is called "propaganda." It's most distasteful to use it
against your own people; the practice betrays democracy.

Probably tomorrow I'm running a little behind.
"Steven Dinius" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm gonna take the chassis out shortly. Pix on ABPR as soon as I can get
> them okay.
>
>

I can't save Social Security. I don't receive enough to save any.

Maybe you concur.

It would be better to stick it under the bed than to let the democratic
congress steal it for 40 years.


"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <%3QRd.11977$g44.6955@attbi_s54>, [email protected] says...
> > Now tell me honestly who is responsible for rapeing the
> > social security fund with billions and billions of dollars with IOU's?
> >
> One more time.
>
> What do you think they should have done with the money - stuck it under
> the bed? Please tell us.
>
> Or invest it in Enron?
>
> --
> Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C5160B.02199710
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


" I'll make you a bet. I bet you can't name one union pension fund =
that isn't privatized. And I'll bet you double that you can't name one =
city, county, or state pension plan that isn't privatized.

Stewart


Railroad http://www.rrb.gov/

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C5160B.02199710
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2745.2800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>" I'll make you a bet. I bet you can't name one union pension =
fund that=20
isn't privatized. And I'll bet you double that you can't name one =
city,=20
county, or state pension plan that isn't =
privatized.<BR><BR>Stewart<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Railroad&nbsp; <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.rrb.gov/">http://www.rrb.gov/</A></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQ=
UOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C5160B.02199710--

"Bill M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sounds like you're more bent on vengeance than equity or problem-solving
> so your voice has little merit outside of the shallow edge of the
> opinion pool. Ted Turner? Is that the worst case example you could
> come up with to make your point? Maybe he should share his lithium
> treatments with you.
>
> -Bill

Lithium is cheap and maybe helpful, but mostly the doctor always wants you
do drop it and do something else about as useless.

I've heard this bull many times and it is just that. If a business could
raise prices to cover those taxes, why wouldn't they just raise prices to
increase profit whenever they felt like it? They don't because then their
products wouldn't sell. Businesses ARE paying their taxes. Let's turn this
around. You actually don't pay taxes. Your employer does. That is where the
money came from, right? Make sense to you?

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> raising taxes for a company simply passes that tax on to the
> consumer of whatever that company provides.

They'll never get ride of the deficit until they pay back the money owed to
social security and treasury notes, and bonds. As long as you owe somebody
something you have a deficit.


"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> do you need it spelled out for you?
>
> the democrats have tried to get rid of the deficit, which will ultimately
> get rid of the debt, which will ultimately make solving social security a
> relatively simple issue.
>
> randy
>
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%3QRd.11977$g44.6955@attbi_s54...
> > Don't you remember your history, and didn't the democrats rule congress
> > for
> > 40 straight years? Now tell me honestly who is responsible for rapeing
> > the
> > social security fund with billions and billions of dollars with IOU's?
> > If
> > the fund was not raped and left alone we all would be in fat city when
we
> > retired. At least Bush is attempting to do something about it. The
> > democrats still haven't presented him with an alternative. He said
> > numerous
> > times that he was willing to listen to any suggestions. Yet all the
dems
> > do
> > is criticize and will not bring a plan to him.
> >
> >
> > "William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > > Basically, wealth is produced by human labor. The money you make on
> >> > > an
> >> > > investment came indirectly from people growing crops, or working in
a
> >> > factory, or whatever.
> >> > <snip a bunch of socialist BS>
> >>
> >> There is no way to create wealth without labor. Gold has value only
> > because
> >> human labor is required to dig it up.
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Worth reading, if you really are wondering where the SS funds are going..

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093707

This problem was addressed in 1983, and here's the results. What
"lockbox"???

xrongor wrote:

> the total cost of the employee is factored into the price of the goods or
> services. same as the cost of the plastic, wood, glass, phones,
> advertising, business taxes, training, whatever. this cost is recovered
> when the business sells its goods or services.
>
> businesses arent in business to sell the most stuff, they're in business to
> make the most money. they raise or lower their prices to maximize this
> number. you are implying the price is set on a whim. profit is a function
> of both sale price and overhead. taxes are just another type of overhead.
>
> the money used to pay the business taxes, employee taxes, whatever taxes
> NEVER came from the business. businesses dont print money. nor do they
> create it out of thin air. it came from the person who bought the product
> from the business.
>
> so to answer your question: what you say makes absolutely no sense to me.
>
> randy

And businesses aren't in business just for the fun of it or just to give
you a job, they are in business to make a profit, thus the business can
stay in busines, keep giving you your job so you have the money to
support your family, have the things you need and hopefully some of the
things you want. Most businesses face competition and have to price
their products to be competitive, so they may not be able to pay you
that large salary you think you deserve, but pay according to what
competition will allow so they can continue to make a profit, which
allows them to continue to stay in business and continue to offer you a
job. They don't raise or lower the price of their products at a whim, if
they raise the price of their product at a whim just to get more profit,
they will find the competition with a lower price gets the business.
Competition drives the pricing of products, not whim. Taxes are part of
the cost of doing business and of course taxes are a consideration in
the pricing of a product. So what's wrong with that? A few years of no
profit after taxes, then no business which means no job for you.

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:cv85k3$58h9
>
> the word you cant seem to find is exploitation. if someone invests his
life
> savings into a company, he does NOT inherit the right to exploit his labor
> force.

My copy of the Constitution has a 13th amendment that banned slavery and
involuntary servitude. So no one in this country is forced to work for a
particular company. If they don't like the work conditions, they can leave.
I've worked for companies I didn't like and found new work instead.

> workers have the right to negotiate their own wages, not simply 'be paid
> what someone else thinks you are worth". you conservatives never seem to
> get this.

My point was that you don't have to accept a paycheck from someone else. Of
course workers have the right to negotiate their wage. I negotiated my
current salary. So your contention that I don't get that is wrong.

> there are many options as to how the system could work to the benefit of
> all. you do not consider any middle ground. you take the typical right
> wing path of 'take it or leave it'. this is why the country is failing.
> there are ways to keep the rich happy without shitting on the rest of the
> country to do it.

Well, the idea I keep hearing on the left, as exemplified by Mr.
Sommerwerck, is to just confiscate their wealth because by virtue of their
being wealthy, they must have exploited someone else. What you libs don't
understand is that in a capitalist society, you can't continue to punish
those that create companies and employ workers and expect things to get
better. Just like here in neighboring Chicago, the Democratic city and
county have raised taxes on companies again and again and now wonder why the
industrial base is moving out of their grasp. Companies can take getting
hit on the head only so many times. Are there things about the Republican
approach to business that I would change if I had my way? You bet. But I'm
way far away from Mr. Sommerwerck's attitude of wealth confiscation.

todd

"Stewart Schooley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| Privatization is the only way to keep the polititians hands
away from
| your money ...............unless you are one of those Democrat
Liberals
| who believe that SS should be a re-distribution of wealth
scheme.
|

You mean privatization as in Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen?
How about Silverado Savings and Loan (remember this one, managed
by no other than -- Neil Bush) and the other private managers who
brought us the Savings and Loan Scandal (for which we're still
paying)?
Maybe there's a reason why the neocons have worked so diligently
and so long to try to turn the word "liberal" into blasphemy in
the public mind (have you bought into the deception?).

Why not trust our money to the former head of the New York Stock
Exchange, Richard Grasso? Or Carly Fiorina?

Why exactly should we believe that for-profit funds managers will
be more honest than the government?

RE: SUBJECT

You take it off this list.

Lew

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:18:57 -0600, John Stone <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Indeed, this whole thing comes down to the philosophy of the so-called
>"ownership society". As if privatizing social security would really give
>individuals any real control over their own money. Gimme a break. It will
>still be a huge government mandated and operated program, heavily limited in
>scope compared to true individual accounts like 401k's or IRA's. And it
>won't do anything to fix the solvency issue. Even Bush now admits to this.

Right. If Bush were truly into an "ownership society," he would
push through a reduction in SS taxes and benefits payments by
25% starting next January, recalculate future benefits to be in
line with the revised payment schedule, remove the 25% returned
from personal taxes, and give tax breaks oriented to small savers
and investors, and let people decide for themselves what to do
with the money they retain, including investing it for retirement.

Instead the administration will create another corporate boondoggle,
like the "drug benefit" that will add a mammoth cost to people who
actually pay taxes - the latest in the $800B range, close to double
what the administration claimed (and lied about) when it was ramming
it through congress; reduce benefits to seniors; and disallow price
negotiations with drug makers. I wonder how much the drug makers
"invested" in "campaign contributions" to pull off this monster
transfer of wealth ?

1) increase taxes and pay off the debt. dont want to increase taxes? sell
alaska and pay off the debt. have a bake sale and pay off the debt. pay
off the god damned debt.

2) stop deficit spending. period. do whatever it takes. dont run the
government on the credit card method.

3) lower taxes by 15% and STILL have more money to spend than we do now to
fund social security, schools, health care, and the other programs the 'evil
liberals' want, save a little for a rainy day, and STILL have your stupid
war.

4) if you dont NEED social security, you dont GET it. dont like it?
tough.

randy

John Goller, k9uwa /W4 Snowbird wrote:

> Thats one of the main reasons the blasted thing is going broke slowly..
> plus of course... we the american people ... don't have 4 kids per
> family anymore... so workforce isn't an ever increasing thing like
> it was in the beginning of the SS plan ...

Actually that has very little to do with it. The real problem is that
people just aren't dying at the age they are supposed to. DEATH is what
has kept Social Security going all these years. Back in the old days,
most people would die within a couple of years after retirement, and
they usually retired at 65. Now, a lot more people are living into their
80s and 90s, and some of them are retiring at 55.


>
> Ya know why Congress is so much against this "Privitization Plan"
> so much?.... It is because the SS plan is where they have been
> all these years borrowing money to pay for all the crap that congress
> passes .... so our own Gubmint is paying that lousy 2% to the SS
> fund... which means that YOUR TAXES are really paying it.... so that
> makes it doubly stupid to have the SS plan like it is now...

Privatization is an idea that is certainly worth debating, but the plan
that Bush is floating is a dog that won't hunt. Saddling our children
with an additional 1.5 trillion dollars in debt (The amount needed as a
stopgap for revenues to social security reduced from privatization) for
the sins of flawed policies that will never benefit them is simply immoral.

The privatization plan itself has SCAM written all over it. It really
amounts to a lot of money going to business interests on Wall
street....I've no doubt there are going to be aspects to the plan that
will encourage a lot of churn, churn, churn to jack up those commissions.

Earth to Bush and Congress: I don't WANT Social Security! I don't need
Social Security! Just give me all the damn money NOW and let me invest
it AS I CHOOSE. I'll bet I can do it better than you can, and If I
don't, it's my own damn fault and nobody else's. The focus of this
debate is always conveniently centered on what is needed to save Social
Security. It's high time that people in high places started raising the
question of whether it's worth saving at all.


>
> Bet if your congressment had to live on SS income plan... that they
> might then have real incentive to fix it...

Around here, the people I know who collect Social Security use it as an
additional source of income to buy such things as dog food and movie
tickets. That's essentially all it's good for these days (other than
Medicare, which is another train wreck waiting to happen). NO ONE that I
know uses it as a primary source of income. Those that believe you can
actually live on those payments probably also believes that deficits are
good for the economy, the Iraqis will pay us back all the money we've
spent over there, and that the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy really
exist.

-Scott


--
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)

Need a schematic? check out the Schematic Bank at:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/schematics/

Archive of alt.binaries.pictures.radio binary postings:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/abpr/

and when YOU have nothing to say, call everything you dont like propaganda
like you have been taught.

praise the lord and damn the yankees!!

randy

>Very good. When you have nothing to say, just regurgitate the propaganda
>that you have been fed.
>
>--
>Mike Schultz

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > well, at least william is honest. it never ceases to amaze me how
>> > people think you can "make" money on an investment. where does
>> > this money come from???
>>
>> Basically, wealth is produced by human labor. The money you make on an
>> investment came indirectly from people growing crops, or working in a
> factory,
>> or whatever.
> <snip a bunch of socialist BS>
>>
>> As long as the wealthy have the right to take wealth they didn't create,
>> I
> see
>> no reason why working people shouldn't try to take it back.
>
> Karl Marx must be your hero.
>
> Whew! What a relief to know that we can stop paying actors and singers
> and
> athletes since they don't produce something. And we can get rid of all
> managers since they don't add anything and just trust everyone to do their
> jobs with no supervision. Sounds like we should just either disband all
> companies or just turn them all into cooperatives so that everyone gets
> paid
> the same amount. Then we can all hold hands in a big circle and sing "Kum
> Ba Yah". Yep...the dream of the socialist: misery spread around evenly.
> In a capitalist society, people get paid in part by taking risks. When
> someone invests his life savings into starting a company, he should expect
> that that risk will be rewarded in the future. If you choose to be a
> worker
> bee, you will be paid what someone else thinks you are worth. The great
> thing about capitalism is that if you think there's a big disconnect
> between
> the value of your labor and your wage, you can start your own company.
> And
> if you work enough 80 hour weeks and turn your company into something, you
> can eventually look forward to some liberal coming along and deciding how
> much of your investment you should give to them.
>
>> PS: Montaigne wrote that, in his opinion, wealthy people were wealthy due
> to avarice.
>
> Since he himself was rich, I guess he was speaking from personal
> experience.
>
> todd

the word you cant seem to find is exploitation. if someone invests his life
savings into a company, he does NOT inherit the right to exploit his labor
force.

workers have the right to negotiate their own wages, not simply 'be paid
what someone else thinks you are worth". you conservatives never seem to
get this.

there are many options as to how the system could work to the benefit of
all. you do not consider any middle ground. you take the typical right
wing path of 'take it or leave it'. this is why the country is failing.
there are ways to keep the rich happy without shitting on the rest of the
country to do it.

randy

"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:48:13 -0500, Stewart Schooley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Privatization is the only way to keep the polititians hands away from
>>your money ...............unless you are one of those Democrat Liberals
>>who believe that SS should be a re-distribution of wealth scheme.
>>
>>Stewart
>
>
> Democrat politicians like to spend money and raise taxes on people
> who make more money. Republican politicians like to spend a huge
> amount of money and charge it to future generations that they do not
> have to look in the eye and who can't vote against them.

while republicans claim the democrats are the tax and spend people,
republicans are the dont tax, but spend anyway people.

and the nation is apparantly too stupid to figure this out.

randy

Uncle Peter wrote:

>
> "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > >
>>
>> First, SS was created as an extra kick after retirement, not as a sole
>> source of income.
>
> Source? When it was created, it was a sole source for many Americans.
>
>>
>> When SS was created, there were 50 people paying in for every person
>> collecting. Now there is 2 people paying in for every person
>> collecting. As the baby boomers continue to retire, there will be more
>> people collecting than paying in. That is where the problem is.
>
> A big part of the problem is the government using funds to reduce the
> deficit. And, giving SS benefits to folks who never paid into it.

Giving SS benefits to folks who never paid into it or giving them more than
they paid into it _is_ the problem and always has been. Social security
doesn't carry anything over from year to year or invest anything, all that
it takes in in a given year it pays out in that year.

> I
>> would love to be able to take some of that money and be responsible for
>> investing it myself.
>
> Various IRAs, 401ks, invest as you wish!!! Who is stopping you? I
> certainly am.

Nice of you to admit it. Certainly you can invest in an IRA. But you can't
invest any of your social security into an IRA.

>> There are a lot of good funds and IRAs that can
>> help it grow over time. Not to mention, the SS system does not truly
>> guarantee that you will collect as the money is the property of the
>> government and they can dictate what to do with it. By privatizing it,
>> the government can't touch it as it is soley the property of the
>> individual that earned it.
>
> and more importantly, it can't be legally attached as an asset, and taken
> from you. One good illness, and you might see all of your 401Ks, IRAs
> and bank accounts wiped out by medical bills.

There's something called "insurance" that you might have heard of.

> Wouldn't SS be nice to fall back on then?

> Pete

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Joe Bleau wrote:
> Funny, when Clinton said that Social Security was in crisis the
> Democrats were the amen chorus.
>
> Bush says it's in crisis and the Dems say "Oh, no, it's fine. Bush
> just wants to destroy it."
>
> Liberalism is a mental disorder.

POLITICS is a mental disorder.

-Scott



--
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)

Need a schematic? check out the Schematic Bank at:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/schematics/

Archive of alt.binaries.pictures.radio binary postings:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/abpr/

i do.

if thats your only objection, im sure we can come to some agreement...

randy

"John Flatley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Who gets to decide who 'needs' Social Security?
>
> Jack
>
>>
>> 4) if you dont NEED social security, you dont GET it. dont like it?
>> tough.
>>
>> randy
>>
>>
>
>

nobody ever said what you are claiming they say... the dems arent saying
its fine, and what clinton did or didnt do is irrelevant. they are saying
the bush solution will not work. they are right.

why do you conservatives have to make stuff up to support your views? if
liberals are mentally disabled, then what is the excuse of the 'sane'
conservatives for lying? i mean, you claim to be sane, so your deception
must be purposeful.

randy

> Funny, when Clinton said that Social Security was in crisis the
> Democrats were the amen chorus.
>
> Bush says it's in crisis and the Dems say "Oh, no, it's fine. Bush
> just wants to destroy it."
>
> Liberalism is a mental disorder.
>
> Joe

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:cv85k3$58h9
>>
>> the word you cant seem to find is exploitation. if someone invests his
> life
>> savings into a company, he does NOT inherit the right to exploit his
>> labor
>> force.
>
> My copy of the Constitution has a 13th amendment that banned slavery and
> involuntary servitude. So no one in this country is forced to work for a
> particular company. If they don't like the work conditions, they can
> leave.
> I've worked for companies I didn't like and found new work instead.
>
>> workers have the right to negotiate their own wages, not simply 'be paid
>> what someone else thinks you are worth". you conservatives never seem to
>> get this.
>
> My point was that you don't have to accept a paycheck from someone else.
> Of
> course workers have the right to negotiate their wage. I negotiated my
> current salary. So your contention that I don't get that is wrong.
>
>> there are many options as to how the system could work to the benefit of
>> all. you do not consider any middle ground. you take the typical right
>> wing path of 'take it or leave it'. this is why the country is failing.
>> there are ways to keep the rich happy without shitting on the rest of the
>> country to do it.
>
> Well, the idea I keep hearing on the left, as exemplified by Mr.
> Sommerwerck, is to just confiscate their wealth because by virtue of their
> being wealthy, they must have exploited someone else. What you libs don't
> understand is that in a capitalist society, you can't continue to punish
> those that create companies and employ workers and expect things to get
> better. Just like here in neighboring Chicago, the Democratic city and
> county have raised taxes on companies again and again and now wonder why
> the
> industrial base is moving out of their grasp. Companies can take getting
> hit on the head only so many times. Are there things about the Republican
> approach to business that I would change if I had my way? You bet. But
> I'm
> way far away from Mr. Sommerwerck's attitude of wealth confiscation.

i dont disagree entirely with what you say here. but we live in a democracy
(republic) society before we live in a capitalistic one. people have
consitituionally protected rights, companies do not. companies do not pay
taxes. raising taxes for a company simply passes that tax on to the
consumer of whatever that company provides. do companies have a duty to
society? yes. society allows them to exist. just as an errant child
should be slapped if he gets too grabby in the sandbox, so should a greedy
company.

i guess it just comes down to one word. humanity. you can let the
corporations rule the world their way, or you can exercise your humanity and
tell them that they have to behave themselves. we already have regulations
regarding safety and other issues. just for one example, why do you guys
fight so hard against allowing american businesses to use cheap foreign
labor? if you want to keep america great, why not make all americans great
by keeping the money in america? is this fair to the business? maybe,
maybe not. but life isnt fair, and ultimately its the people of this
country that allow the business to exist, and not the other way around.
although there seems to be confusion in this area lately...

i believe there has to be a middle ground. which is to say it exists. a
place where the 'capitalists' can roll in money and honey and hang out their
penthouse windows spitting on the lowly workers, fat and happy. AND the
average american can afford things like a house, healthcare, and a 2 week
vacation in hawaii each year.

pure capitalism is not the answer. pure socialism isnt the answer either.
its somewhere in between. and it would be best if workers and companies
could work this out for themselves without getting the government involved
at all.

randy

do you need it spelled out for you?

the democrats have tried to get rid of the deficit, which will ultimately
get rid of the debt, which will ultimately make solving social security a
relatively simple issue.

randy

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%3QRd.11977$g44.6955@attbi_s54...
> Don't you remember your history, and didn't the democrats rule congress
> for
> 40 straight years? Now tell me honestly who is responsible for rapeing
> the
> social security fund with billions and billions of dollars with IOU's?
> If
> the fund was not raped and left alone we all would be in fat city when we
> retired. At least Bush is attempting to do something about it. The
> democrats still haven't presented him with an alternative. He said
> numerous
> times that he was willing to listen to any suggestions. Yet all the dems
> do
> is criticize and will not bring a plan to him.
>
>
> "William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > > Basically, wealth is produced by human labor. The money you make on
>> > > an
>> > > investment came indirectly from people growing crops, or working in a
>> > factory, or whatever.
>> > <snip a bunch of socialist BS>
>>
>> There is no way to create wealth without labor. Gold has value only
> because
>> human labor is required to dig it up.
>>
>
>

Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
> Scott W. Harvey wrote:
>
>
>> Earth to Bush and Congress: I don't WANT Social Security! I don't need
>> Social Security! Just give me all the damn money NOW and let me invest
>> it AS I CHOOSE. I'll bet I can do it better than you can, and If I
>> don't, it's my own damn fault and nobody else's.
>
>
>
> Maybe so, but if you invest and lose it all, and wind up flat broke,
> retired in poor health and can't work, will you expect the government
> to help you out?

No way.....I've never taken a government handout for anything, ever. The
closest I've ever come to that has been a student loan (which I paid off
in full long ago). If I wind up destitute, it's probably going to be
because I did something really stupid with money, and I generally don't
do anything like that.



If government handouts are to be given out to anyone, it should be to
folks who are in dire straits through no fault of their own (severely
handicapped folks or their families, for instance). I'm a liberal, but
the ridiculousness of relying on the government to do anything should be
obvious to anyone with a pulse.

I would say the point is moot anyway. By the time I reach retirement
age, I think the government is probably going to be more insolvent than
I could ever dream of being- and I'm an optimist!


-Scott



--
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)

Need a schematic? check out the Schematic Bank at:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/schematics/

Archive of alt.binaries.pictures.radio binary postings:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/abpr/

so we pay it back. isnt that what i said? was i that unclear? lets get
rid of it. pay it all off. raise taxes if we have to. get the country
(which is ultimately the citizens of the country) out of debt. call that
suze on tv or something but get rid of it.

lets start by not spending more than we take in. ok? if we cant agree to
that we will never get anywhere.

randy

"Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:XXVRd.27352$tl3.4636@attbi_s02...
> They'll never get ride of the deficit until they pay back the money owed
> to
> social security and treasury notes, and bonds. As long as you owe somebody
> something you have a deficit.
>
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> do you need it spelled out for you?
>>
>> the democrats have tried to get rid of the deficit, which will ultimately
>> get rid of the debt, which will ultimately make solving social security a
>> relatively simple issue.
>>
>> randy
>>
>> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:%3QRd.11977$g44.6955@attbi_s54...
>> > Don't you remember your history, and didn't the democrats rule congress
>> > for
>> > 40 straight years? Now tell me honestly who is responsible for rapeing
>> > the
>> > social security fund with billions and billions of dollars with IOU's?
>> > If
>> > the fund was not raped and left alone we all would be in fat city when
> we
>> > retired. At least Bush is attempting to do something about it. The
>> > democrats still haven't presented him with an alternative. He said
>> > numerous
>> > times that he was willing to listen to any suggestions. Yet all the
> dems
>> > do
>> > is criticize and will not bring a plan to him.
>> >
>> >
>> > "William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> > > Basically, wealth is produced by human labor. The money you make
>> >> > > on
>> >> > > an
>> >> > > investment came indirectly from people growing crops, or working
>> >> > > in
> a
>> >> > factory, or whatever.
>> >> > <snip a bunch of socialist BS>
>> >>
>> >> There is no way to create wealth without labor. Gold has value only
>> > because
>> >> human labor is required to dig it up.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

hey those rich white guys killed the previous occupants, or otherwise
tricked them, and took the land in america fair and square. they shouldnt
have to give any of it to anyone...

randy

>> hey those rich white guys killed the previous occupants, or otherwise
>> tricked them, and took the land in america fair and square. they
>> shouldnt
>> have to give any of it to anyone...
>>
>> randy
>>
>>
>
> G-zus Randy be quiet and go to bed

everyone gets so up in arms when anyone mentions anything about 'stealing
from the rich' in this country. i think its only fair to point out how MOST
of them got that way. not ferrari rich mind you. im talking change federal
law rich. applying the 'third grade' standard to most of these people, and
its clear they have lied and cheated to get there. if they were third
graders they would be standing in the corner. but because they're
'capitalists' we say its ok?

its not ok steven. no. the conservatives WANT everyone to go back to bed.
so they can get back to their business as usual. selling water to a nation
on fire.

randy

the total cost of the employee is factored into the price of the goods or
services. same as the cost of the plastic, wood, glass, phones,
advertising, business taxes, training, whatever. this cost is recovered
when the business sells its goods or services.

businesses arent in business to sell the most stuff, they're in business to
make the most money. they raise or lower their prices to maximize this
number. you are implying the price is set on a whim. profit is a function
of both sale price and overhead. taxes are just another type of overhead.

the money used to pay the business taxes, employee taxes, whatever taxes
NEVER came from the business. businesses dont print money. nor do they
create it out of thin air. it came from the person who bought the product
from the business.

so to answer your question: what you say makes absolutely no sense to me.

randy

> I've heard this bull many times and it is just that. If a business could
> raise prices to cover those taxes, why wouldn't they just raise prices to
> increase profit whenever they felt like it? They don't because then their
> products wouldn't sell. Businesses ARE paying their taxes. Let's turn this
> around. You actually don't pay taxes. Your employer does. That is where
> the
> money came from, right? Make sense to you?
>
> "xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> raising taxes for a company simply passes that tax on to the
>> consumer of whatever that company provides.
>
>

"Scott W. Harvey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
>> Scott W. Harvey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Earth to Bush and Congress: I don't WANT Social Security! I don't need
>>> Social Security! Just give me all the damn money NOW and let me invest
>>> it AS I CHOOSE. I'll bet I can do it better than you can, and If I
>>> don't, it's my own damn fault and nobody else's.
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe so, but if you invest and lose it all, and wind up flat broke,
>> retired in poor health and can't work, will you expect the government to
>> help you out?
>
> No way.....I've never taken a government handout for anything, ever. The
> closest I've ever come to that has been a student loan (which I paid off
> in full long ago). If I wind up destitute, it's probably going to be
> because I did something really stupid with money, and I generally don't do
> anything like that.

something stupid like trust your company and invest in enron for example?
something stupid like the country goes to war, killing the economy and
draining your pocketbook? oh i see, you have full control over everything.

but just in case, let me know if this happens. ill donate the free bullet
to solve your problem since you offer no other alternatives.

oh if it were only so simple.

randy

xrongor wrote:
> "Scott W. Harvey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
>>
>>>Scott W. Harvey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Earth to Bush and Congress: I don't WANT Social Security! I don't need
>>>>Social Security! Just give me all the damn money NOW and let me invest
>>>>it AS I CHOOSE. I'll bet I can do it better than you can, and If I
>>>>don't, it's my own damn fault and nobody else's.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe so, but if you invest and lose it all, and wind up flat broke,
>>>retired in poor health and can't work, will you expect the government to
>>>help you out?
>>
>>No way.....I've never taken a government handout for anything, ever. The
>>closest I've ever come to that has been a student loan (which I paid off
>>in full long ago). If I wind up destitute, it's probably going to be
>>because I did something really stupid with money, and I generally don't do
>>anything like that.
>
>
> something stupid like trust your company and invest in enron for example?
> something stupid like the country goes to war, killing the economy and
> draining your pocketbook? oh i see, you have full control over everything.

Nope. The key here is diversification, which is based on the thoery that
the odds of some things going to hell are pretty good but the odds of
EVERYTHING going to hell are very small. I can't control what happens to
every egg in every basket, but I do have some control over how many
different baskets I put those eggs in. This is not rocket science....the
general rule of thumb is to not have more than 5% of your net worth
(excluding home ownership) in any one thing.

Enron was something of a unique case. As I understand it, Enron had a
401K plan that had a feature where the company would match a certain
percentage of the employee contribution to the plan with an equivalent
amount of Enron stock, so in essence, everyone at Enron who had a 401K
plan was also a shareholder in Enron. In the late nineties, the price of
Enron's stock went through the roof, and the value of everyone's 401K
plan appreciated spectacularly as a result, in many cases exceeding the
value of the employee contributions many times over.

Just before Enron crashed, Enron made changes to the plan which
prohibited the sale of the matched stock for 30 days while the changes
were put into effect. It was during that 30 day period that Enron's
meltdown occured, and employees could do nothing but watch as the value
of their 401Ks tumbled. Eventually all that was left was the value of
their contributions and nothing else......Kinda like putting money in a
savings account that pays no interest. For people that were counting on
the value of their 401Ks as a retirement vehicle, the losses were
devastating. IMHO, Lay, Skilling, and all the rest of the clowns
responsible for this house of cards should spend every last day of their
lives in jail for this. (Ebbers at Worldcom, too).

Now, If I had invested my entire wad in Enron, It would have been a
stupid move, regardless of what precipitated Enron's downfall. Putting
all your eggs in one basket is almost NEVER a good idea. Do you honestly
expect the government to bail me out of my own stupidity?

As far as the war goes, I hate the fact that we are at war (and the
incredibly flimsy rationale used to get us there), and I don't like the
notion that we have elected an emperor who spends most of his time
searching for his clothes, but shit happens and you have to adjust your
coping strategies accordingly. It is still possible to do quite well
investment-wise even in this shit-sandwich of an economy. In the dot-com
days, my annual ROI was about 40%; now it's running about 15% which is
still very respectable.

Would I ever accept a government handout? Probably not, unless some
sudden, unforseeable disaster happened like what happened to the folks
in certain parts of Florida last year. But getting a regular payment
from the government for doing nothing? Forget it....that would require
me to sell my soul, something I am not willing to do. :-)

-Scott









--
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)

Need a schematic? check out the Schematic Bank at:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/schematics/

Archive of alt.binaries.pictures.radio binary postings:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/abpr/

frenchy wrote:
> Speaking of Social Security, how about the topic of identity theft that
> is now exploding. Would the adoption of a 3 or 4 digit 'pin number' to
> everyone's social security number help in preventing identity theft?
> I/e/ a number that SS would assign to everyone, and it could be used as
> a final identity checker that would only be typed in like we now do
> with credit card and atm accounts when at the store, or the extra 3
> digits on back of credit cards. If someone discovered the pin number
> thru fraud or whatever, you could go in person to soc security office
> and provide enough information to have it reset to a new number. And
> when someone tried to open new accounts under your social security
> number, they would be required to know that 4-digit code. Why don't I
> hear anyone talking about a solution to this problem instead of the
> same old crap about shredding up your bills etc. while the problem just
> skyrockets anyway???
>


I'll do you one better: how 'bout an electronic card with a digital
readout that changes the card number every few minutes?

Such a thing is possible and has been used for quite awhile to provide
an ever-changing password to users of some high-security computer
systems. It works by changing the password every few minutes so that any
compromised password will only be valid for a couple of minutes. Don't
know why such a scheme couldn't work with credit cards and SS cards.

IMHO, the use of the Social Security number for any non-governmental
purpose should be banned at this point. The problems that are now
surfacing related to the use of this number have been known and ignored
for years.

Back in the late seventies, I attended a garage sale that was been put
on by members of an outlaw motorcycle gang. Their club had been recently
raided by the cops (possession of illegal weapons, I think it was), and
they were trying to raise money to pay some of their legal bills.

The club had a pretty nice console that I bought from them at the sale.
When I started dismantling the set for cleaning I discovered that two of
the chassis mount bushings were missing (probably rotted away) and
someone had propped up one side of the chassis with a tattered paperbook
book to compensate.

That book was from some underground publisher and it was all about how
to assume a new identity. It was a fascinating read....I read it from
cover to cover without putting it down once. Although I never tried any
of the techniques in the book, I had little doubt that they would
probably work.

About three-quarters of the way through it it dawned on me that the same
techniques could just as easily be used to assume someone else's
identity as well. That was kind of a warning shot over the bow for me.
Ever since that time I have made it a golden rule never to give my
correct SSN to anyone who didn't have an absolute need to know. This has
created some problems for me in the past, particularly with insurance
companies who insisted on using my SSN as a policy ID number. (One of
these companies would send me correspondence with the policy number
right on the front of the envelope-insane!)

Nowadays, most of these folks have wised up and adopted a different
numbering scheme not tied to the social security number, but widespread
non-official use of it persists nonetheless. What a mess, what a mess.


-Scott


--
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE AT THE EMAIL ADDRESS ABOVE!
Instead, go to the following web page to get my real email address:
http://member.newsguy.com/~polezi/scottsaddy.htm
(This has been done because I am sick of SPAMMERS making my email unusable)

Need a schematic? check out the Schematic Bank at:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/schematics/

Archive of alt.binaries.pictures.radio binary postings:
http://techpreservation.dyndns.org/abpr/

On 19 Feb 2005 08:14:53 -0800, "Eddie Brimer" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>we must cut payouts or increase taxes to fund SS. it
>is the big elephant in the room nobody will talk about because they
>don't want to be deemed as uncaring....or be the bad guy who promotes
>the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.


The real elephants in the room are Medicare and Medicaid.

"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >
>
> First, SS was created as an extra kick after retirement, not as a sole
> source of income.

Source? When it was created, it was a sole source for many Americans.

>
> When SS was created, there were 50 people paying in for every person
> collecting. Now there is 2 people paying in for every person
> collecting. As the baby boomers continue to retire, there will be more
> people collecting than paying in. That is where the problem is.

A big part of the problem is the government using funds to reduce the
deficit. And, giving SS benefits to folks who never paid into it.

I
> would love to be able to take some of that money and be responsible for
> investing it myself.

Various IRAs, 401ks, invest as you wish!!! Who is stopping you? I
certainly am.

There are a lot of good funds and IRAs that can
> help it grow over time. Not to mention, the SS system does not truly
> guarantee that you will collect as the money is the property of the
> government and they can dictate what to do with it. By privatizing it,
> the government can't touch it as it is soley the property of the
> individual that earned it.

and more importantly, it can't be legally attached as an asset, and taken
from you. One good illness, and you might see all of your 401Ks, IRAs
and bank accounts wiped out by medical bills.

Wouldn't SS be nice to fall back on then?

Pete

In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:34:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>A guy complains that SS is a socialist program [he's right, BTW] that has no
>>place in a free market [he's right again], and you immediately leap in with
>>your innuendos suggesting that he's a Nazi -- when in fact, he's the exact
>>*opposite*. Do you even have any idea what "Nazi" means?
>
> We have a free market ?? That's about as true as "Creationism."

You got caught spouting nonsense and drivel. Again. And immediately changed
the subject. Again.

I'm disappointed. But not surprised.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 08:50:25 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bush would be
>better served by stating the truth, instead of stretching it.

He would never have been president if he had.

"xrongor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> hey those rich white guys killed the previous occupants, or otherwise
> >> tricked them, and took the land in america fair and square. they
> >> shouldnt
> >> have to give any of it to anyone...
> >>
> >> randy
> >>
> >>
> >
> > G-zus Randy be quiet and go to bed
>
> everyone gets so up in arms when anyone mentions anything about 'stealing
> from the rich' in this country. i think its only fair to point out how
MOST
> of them got that way. not ferrari rich mind you. im talking change
federal
> law rich. applying the 'third grade' standard to most of these people,
and
> its clear they have lied and cheated to get there. if they were third
> graders they would be standing in the corner. but because they're
> 'capitalists' we say its ok?
>
> its not ok steven. no. the conservatives WANT everyone to go back to
bed.
> so they can get back to their business as usual. selling water to a
nation
> on fire.
>
> randy

I want a 6V6 GTA with good readings and advice on fixing a Bendix. I could
give a flying fart about something I already have.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C51617.477FE4B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

How to crash Social Security and bankrupt a nation:

1. take a record surplus you inherited in 2000 and promptly turn it into =
a record deficit

2. propose that people invest part of their money privately, thereby =
paying in LESS, thereby Social Security really will go bankrupt in 40 =
years or maybe less!

3. propose blowing TRILLIONS to "save" social security, that way you =
bankrupt the country quickly, and Social Security no longer even =
matters, when we are all Japanese citizens when they call in their bonds =
that they are financing the war criminal's record national debt with.


PS - here is a list of some war criminals throughout history

name number of innocents murdered
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

Joseph Stalin ~30 million
Adolph Hitler ~ 7 million
George W. Bush ~ 1/4 million
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C51617.477FE4B0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type =
content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=3D#000000 bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>How to crash Social Security and =
bankrupt a=20
nation:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1. take a record surplus you inherited =
in 2000 and=20
promptly turn it into a record deficit</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2. propose that people invest part of =
their money=20
privately, thereby paying in LESS, thereby Social Security really will =
go=20
bankrupt in 40 years or maybe less!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3. propose blowing TRILLIONS to "save" =
social=20
security, that way you bankrupt the country quickly, and Social Security =
no=20
longer even matters, when we are all Japanese citizens when they call in =
their=20
bonds that they are financing the war criminal's record national debt=20
with.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>PS - here is a list of some war =
criminals=20
throughout history</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>name&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
&nbsp;&nbsp; number of innocents murdered</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>----------------------------------------------------------------=
---------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Joseph=20
Stalin&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ~30 =
million</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Adolph=20
Hitler&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;~ 7 million</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>George W.=20
Bush&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;~ 1/4 =
million&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=20
</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C51617.477FE4B0--

Who gets to decide who 'needs' Social Security?

Jack

>
> 4) if you dont NEED social security, you dont GET it. dont like it?
> tough.
>
> randy
>
>

I would love to actually see the figures that both parties are looking
at....(they have to be different)

AND

I would like to see the projections (wild ass guesses ) both parties
are using for their projections....

Given this data...I still may not be able to state that SS is or is
not headed for a crisis in (pick your own year here)

It is just that I can NOT FIND those figures.. therefor I have
nothing to say on the subject....

GIVE US THE FIGURES.... let the people decide which set of figures is
more truthful... Then pass a law ( aka ...joke) that directs the
politicians to vote to will of the people not to vote as "my
representive without knowing my opinion...

Bob Griffiths

In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:30:19 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>> We have a free market ?? That's about as true as "Creationism."
>>
>>You got caught spouting nonsense and drivel. Again. And immediately changed
>>the subject. Again.
>>
>>I'm disappointed. But not surprised.
>
> Responding to the mythology you introduced into the
> thread is "changing the subject ?" So what's your role ?
> Are you one of those fundamentalists who is not responsible
> for his actions, they're always someone else's fault ?
> You are an astute student of our administration.

Pardon me? What "mythology" did I introduce into the discussion?

All I did was to out the irony of you pointing the finger of Nazism at someone
*else* who pointed out, correctly, that social security is a socialist
construct, incompatible with a capitalist society. You seem completely unaware
that the Nazis were socialists themselves -- and completely unable to debate
anything without changing the subject the instant your errors are pointed out.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

"William Sommerwerck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > The first social security recipient, a female, paid in $24, and
> > received $42,000 in payments.
>
> It was actually more like $22K. But that's a big return on a small
investment.
> (The woman lived until 100, which was why she took out so much.)
>

And a lot of people went to their graves without collecting a dime.

I think that is the rare exception, rather the rule.

Pete

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:11:21 -0400, Bill M
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Correction...Any "wing" fascism.

True, but the ones areound here are on the right-hand side.

In article <[email protected]>, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:23:28 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Pardon me? What "mythology" did I introduce into the discussion?
>>
> That we have a "free market."

Wrong twice.

Although I admit that the market in the US is not completely free, it
certainly isn't a controlled economy such as existed in the former Soviet
Union. It's hardly "mythology" to refer to the US as a free market.

And I wasn't the one who introduced the term, either.
>
>>All I did was to out the irony of you pointing the finger of Nazism at someone
>>*else* who pointed out, correctly, that social security is a socialist
>>construct, incompatible with a capitalist society.
>
> "And your proof of that would be ?"

Right here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.woodworking/msg/27eca6f6f36f80d1
That's my first post in this thread.
>
>>You seem completely unaware
>>that the Nazis were socialists themselves -- and completely unable to debate
>>anything without changing the subject the instant your errors are pointed out.
>
> It really does not matter what they called themselves. Nazi
> Germany was first and foremost a totalitarian state and secondly
> a particularly murderous one.

True, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is the irony of you
accusing tomeshew of Nazi-like behavior for criticizing a socialist program.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

So you're saying there's a pile of cash instead of a pile of IOU's in
the ole "trust fund"?

Renata

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:45:20 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:15:06 -0500, Renata wrote:
>
>> No. A bit later. But SS is most benefiting Bush's budget shenanigans.
>>
>>
>> "Back in 1983, as part of a deal to save Social Security from impending
>> demographic doom, Congress enacted legislation to essentially increase
>> payroll taxes and reduce benefits. As a result, the government began to
>> collect more Social Security payroll taxes than it paid out to
>> beneficiaries each year. The theory was that the government would use
>> these surpluses to pay down the national debt. That way, when baby boomers
>> retire—and comparatively more people are collecting benefits while
>> comparatively fewer people are working—the government would be in a
>> better position to borrow the necessary funds to provide the promised
>> benefits.
>
>Whomever you're quoting here has done some major revision of law and
>rhetoric. First, the law from the inception of SS requires every excess
>dollar collected for SS to purchase government securites, not pay down the
>national debt. That law hasn't been changed. This is the only guarantee
>of a "lockbox" of any sort that requires the government to repay the SS
>trust fund at some future date. Also, "raping the trust fund" would
>in fact have some merit if the trust funds were to pay down the debt
>rather than purchasing government securities.
>
>I certainly wish the law *had* been changed to allow this "paying down" of
>the debt rather than guaranteeing the increased taxation of future
>generations, but it wasn't.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 19:48:13 -0500, Joe Bleau <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Liberalism is a mental disorder.


And right-wing fascism is deadly to human beings.