Should Bush reform Social Security?

Rex is right as is the portion of post below. What they did prior to 1937 IF
there was no extended family to take care of the infirm was, they were sent
to the County Poor Farm or the Asylum. I still remember the Poor Farm we
passed going to town from our farm. We were also Poor but didn't realize it
because most everyone else was in the same condition. "Great Depression
Era". Standards for "being poor" have greatly changed.

Walt Conner

> It's funny...Bill Clinton outlined a program during his administration
> where
> a small portion of the supposed SS Trust Fund would be invested in mutual
> funds. I don't recall mass protests at the time.

I never really have bought into that "employer contribution"
stuff anyway. Lets be realistic. If the employer is matching
your funds into SS, what that really means he's putting into
SS what he's not paying you. Businesses and government
are alike in this matter. Whatever monies they are spending
is coming out of our pockets one way or another.
"Contribution" is another ironic term. The word implies
a voluntary action. But a refusal to contribute would result
in jail time for any of us. SS is a TAX, pure and simple. Failure
to pay this tax is punishable just like a refusal to pay any
other tax.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:
>
>> A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
>> seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
>> *salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution
>> to
>> SS.
>
> It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
> misinformation by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
> contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%. So, since it
> is voluntary, and at least the liberal half of the country wouldn't want
> to participate in such a risky investment, the rate would be down from
> 32% to 16% of total contributions at a maximum.
>
> - Doug
>
>
> --
>
> To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert
> Hubbard)
>

In article <[email protected]>, Todd Fatheree
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
> filled with all the indigent elderly.

Of course you wouldn't. The "indigent elderly" die unnoticed by the
writers of history books. They have always been too common to be
noticed. The bulk of humanity die indigent and not just in Third World
countries either - even with government programs.

Gerry

In article <[email protected]>, Renata
<[email protected]> wrote:

> He has done a fabulous job of showing the goodies -- and of hiding
> the costs.

*He* has done nothing. You have to look closely for the hand up his
arse and see whose ideas this puppet is stating. Do any of you really
think he has the intelligence to have thought this up by himself?

Bush as profound, financial strategist? Now, that's funny.

Gerry

Todd Fatheree wrote:
>
> I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we
do prior
> to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass
graves being
> filled with all the indigent elderly. Unfortunately, the nanny state
is so
> firmly entrenched that self-reliance is a foreign concept.
>

There is a reality you conveniently skim over. Prior to the WWII
keeping the extended
family around was the norm. Grandma could rely on always having a room
with kin or having family nearby enough to help out. Also,in the 30's
Granndma only lived to about 65 on average. Average life expectancy is
now about 80 for women and the ability to rely on extended family has
eroded. Another aspect of increased life expectancy is a shift in the
diseases afflicting the elderly. With a mean expectancy of 65 there
was relatively little dementia; with mean life at 80 it is very common.
You will die of something, we know how to fix/manage most of the
systems below the neck. That leaves brain rot as a cause of death.
This is not to condemn nor defend the nanny state but only to point out
that comparision of aging with pre-1937 and now is meaningless.

May you live long enough to become demented.

hex
-30-

Market investment was tried by other countries and surprise, surprise
the stocks were picked for political reasons instead of financial
reasons.

Although our politicians would never stoop to that level they would
always do what is best for the taxpayers, wouldn't they?

I agree. My dad was forced to pay into SS for 40 years and only got
the lousy $300 and nothing else when he passed. My mother gets nothing
from Uncle Sam.

No, we should clothe, feed and house them at taxpayer expense. It
would be totally unreasonable to expect people to be held responsible
or accountable for their decisions/actions.

I would also add to google "galveston alternate plan" and read up on a
real life option that has been in operation for over 20 years in the
US.

Jeff P. wrote:
> I love your replies Unisaw. They're like fine Minimalist art. I sat
> staring at the blank screen for several minutes wondering just what
the
> meaning was. The best I can figure is that you're making a reply
that says
> replying is pointless. That it would be a waste of your time...or did
you
> just accidentally hit the "send" button? hmmm, I'll have to stare at
that
> blank screen some more....
>


OP posted to: rec.woodworking
But set follow-ups to: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm

What does that tell you?

--

FF

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050300000001040506000202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Larry Blanchard wrote:

>In article <5BuNd.20699$uc.463@trnddc03>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>>What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
>>spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
>>Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
>>spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
>>Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
>>Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,
>>
>>
>>
>I've never understood those who claim the government is "spending" the
>SS surplus. Of course they are - the funds are invested in government
>bonds. The only way SS can "keep" the money is to hide it under the
>bed.
>
>Please explain where I'm wrong.
>
>
>
Larry,

You have to understand that the national debt is the total of two
categories. One is "debt owed to the public" and this is reguar
government bonds that are bought by individuals , corporations,
retirement systems, and foreign governments. This category represents
60% of the total debt. These bonds have to be paid or we are a bankrupt
nation.

The other category is "intra-governtal debt" and it is comprised of debt
owed to Social Security, the Railroad Retirement Fund and to the
military and government workers retirement funds. When Congress spends
the surplus from these funds the money is replaced with special bonds
that are not available to the public. Also, interest is due on these
bonds every year, but it is not paid. Instead of interest payments,
each agency receives more of the special bonds in the amount of the
interest. This category is considered money we "owe to ourselves" and
there is no law that it has to be paid.

The amount owed to SS is now 1.5 trillion dollars and I don't believe
anyone here will see the day when the money is paid back.

Stewart


--------------050300000001040506000202
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">
Larry Blanchard wrote:
<blockquote cite="[email protected]" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In article &lt;5BuNd.20699$uc.463@trnddc03&gt;, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> says...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,

</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I've never understood those who claim the government is "spending" the
SS surplus. Of course they are - the funds are invested in government
bonds. The only way SS can "keep" the money is to hide it under the
bed.

Please explain where I'm wrong.

</pre>
</blockquote>
Larry,<br>
<br>
You have to understand that the national debt is&nbsp; the total of two
categories. One is "debt owed to the public"&nbsp; and this is reguar
government bonds that are bought by individuals , corporations,
retirement systems, and foreign governments.&nbsp; This category represents
60% of the total debt. These bonds have to be paid or we are a bankrupt
nation.<br>
<br>
The other category is "intra-governtal debt" and it is comprised of
debt owed to Social Security, the Railroad Retirement Fund and to the
military and government workers retirement funds. When Congress spends
the surplus from these funds the money is replaced with special bonds
that are not available to the public. Also, interest is due on these
bonds every year, but it is not paid.&nbsp; Instead of interest payments,
each agency receives more of the special bonds in the amount of the
interest. This category is considered money we "owe to ourselves" and
there is no law that it has to be paid.<br>
<br>
The amount owed to SS is now 1.5 trillion dollars and I don't believe
anyone here will see the day when the money is paid back.<br>
<br>
Stewart <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--------------050300000001040506000202--

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050409010602060704040505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:

>Au contraire. President Clinton left a balanced budget for Shrub, who
>immediately undertook to reestablish fiscal debt, and in a big way. It
>isn't that the economy suddenly went south, but that conservatives found
>themselves in complete control, said "fiscal responsibility be damned," took
>the bit in their mouths and took off. Eagerness to cut taxes, and make the
>tax structure less progressive, overran fiscal concerns.
>
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>"Steven and Gail Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
>>>which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren.
>>>
>>>
>>This has become such a tired and pathetic line. Geeze, I mean... tell
>>me
>>one single government program, sponsored by anyone at all, that does not
>>add
>>the cost of the program to our children and grandchildren. For the love
>>of
>>Pete, that's the way funding works. Always has been, always will be.
>>--
>>
>>-Mike-
>>[email protected]
>>
>You can find the official treasury figures if you care to know what you are talking about. The national debt under Clinton increased by 1.6 trillion dollars.
>
Stewart

--------------050409010602060704040505
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">
Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="[email protected]"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Au contraire. President Clinton left a balanced budget for Shrub, who
immediately undertook to reestablish fiscal debt, and in a big way. It
isn't that the economy suddenly went south, but that conservatives found
themselves in complete control, said "fiscal responsibility be damned," took
the bit in their mouths and took off. Eagerness to cut taxes, and make the
tax structure less progressive, overran fiscal concerns.

"Mike Marlow" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]">&lt;[email protected]&gt;</a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]</a>...
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Steven and Gail Peterson" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]">&lt;[email protected]&gt;</a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]</a>...

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This has become such a tired and pathetic line. Geeze, I mean... tell
me
one single government program, sponsored by anyone at all, that does not
add
the cost of the program to our children and grandchildren. For the love
of
Pete, that's the way funding works. Always has been, always will be.
--

-Mike-
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->You can find the official treasury figures if you care to know what you are talking about. The national debt under Clinton increased by 1.6 trillion dollars.</pre>
</blockquote>
Stewart
</body>
</html>

--------------050409010602060704040505--

Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:

>Republicans seem unable to look at what is going on and learn from
>experience. At least since the Reagan era they have been the party of
>"Borrow and spend" and leave it to someone else to eventually pay it back.
>In the meantime, they continue to mouth tired old charges about democrats.
>Working with both parties in Congress, Clinton gradually reduced the budget
>deficits that 41 left for him until he left a budget surplus. This does not
>mean that the National Debt was reduced, but Shrub is now recklessly
>borrowing to support spending. It is part of a long term plan to cripple
>the government with debt, so new programs cannot be funded. Wake up and
>smell the roses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Steven and Gail,

Not trying to be personal, but you two seem perfect examples of Liberals
marching in lockstep Groupthink with Teddy Kennedy as your drill sergeant.

Look up the Bureau of Public Debt and use it as a reference when you
want to talk about government spending.

Stewart

There is a very good story about to come out this week (?) . It lays out
some of the myth about this SS plan. One very important piece was that
they took a hypothetical case of someone that had$100,000 in the S&P
index when they retired in 1999 they would get or could take $700+ each
mont to add to their SS. But the same person with the same amount of
shares and retired in 2000 would only be able to draw $260 some dollars
each month.
The author took some time and effort to write this and it does make you
wonder if this is a pig in a polk. The gov gave SS
an iou for the excess money it has been taking in and now has spent it.
( both parties to blame ) Now when it comes time to cash in the iou's
the gov will have to borrow to pay them off . And borrow some heavy
money. Gov has cut almost every tax there is EXCEPT the SS tax and the
medicare tax. So if you cut benefits is that the same as a tax raise.?
Suggest if you see the time mag in the drs. office read it. Me: no
connection with time other than the time on the clock.

Article in this mornings paper said the SS trustees made their estimates
of the funds demise based on an annual growth rate of 1.8%, while the
average growth rate over the last 50 years has been 3.5%. I don't blame
them for a little conservatism, but half is a bit too conservative.

The real problem is that at some point, not that far away, SS is going
to have to start cashing in some of those government bonds it holds,
The government (both parties) doesn't want to have to pay off those
bonds. Or to "refinance" by issuing new bonds.

Note that the "personal savings accounts" are not voluntary in the sense
that you can choose whether or not to spend any money. The only choice
you have is whether to stay in conventional SS or put the money in
savings accounts. In either case, the "it's your money" ploy is
political BS.

Note that keeping it mandatory is a good idea, otherwise a lot of folks
would just spend the money. It's just the rhetoric that's bad.

If you choose the savings accounts, will your employer still have to
contribute half?

And I haven't heard anyone talk about disability payments. Will they
stay the same?

Pig in a poke time????

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <5BuNd.20699$uc.463@trnddc03>, [email protected] says...
> What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
> spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
> Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
> spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
> Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
> Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,
>
I've never understood those who claim the government is "spending" the
SS surplus. Of course they are - the funds are invested in government
bonds. The only way SS can "keep" the money is to hide it under the
bed.

Please explain where I'm wrong.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <UrxNd.20739$uc.13322@trnddc03>, [email protected] says...
> wish they would come out with a voluntary "opt out"
> program. I am 37 now and have been employed for
> 20 years. I would gladly give up all SS benefits and
> let the government keep what I've already paid into
> the system if they'd let me out of it so I could take
> that money and start up my own IRA or low/med
> risk fund. That way if I die at 64 (one year before I
> could draw on SS) at least my family would get the money.
>
And what happens to all the people who opt out and get old and/or
disabled without any voluntary savings? They all go on welfare? We let
them die? We euthanize them?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we do prior
> to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
> filled with all the indigent elderly. Unfortunately, the nanny state is so
> firmly entrenched that self-reliance is a foreign concept.
>
It was called the "poorhouse" or the "workhouse". Just an earlier form
of welfare.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> How did Clinton manage that and still increase the national debt every
> year of his administration?
>
You're confusing the annual deficit with the total accumulated debt.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:32:46 GMT, Steven and Gail Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Republicans seem unable to look at what is going on and learn from
> experience. At least since the Reagan era they have been the party of
> "Borrow and spend" and leave it to someone else to eventually pay it back.
> In the meantime, they continue to mouth tired old charges about democrats.
> Working with both parties in Congress, Clinton gradually reduced the budget
> deficits that 41 left for him until he left a budget surplus.

There was _NEVER_ a budget surplus under Clinton. His claims that there
were was due to his Enron-esque money reporting methods, which counted as
income the money that was already allocated for Social Security.

> Wake up and smell the roses.

Back atcha. Instead of parroting the party line, why not learn about
your so-called 'surplus' and why it isn't.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:32:43 -0700, Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:04:25 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Back atcha. Instead of parroting the party line, why not learn about your
>> so-called 'surplus' and why it isn't.
>
> ...and explain why the phantom surplus increased the national debt rather
> than reducing it.

Careful, Doug, we just want to hit him with one ugly truth at a time.
First he has to become aware that Clinton was/is a liar, then we'll work
him towards understanding the implications of that fact.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:
>
> > A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
> > seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
> > *salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution to
> > SS.
>
> It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
> misinformation by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
> contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%.

But if someone diverts 65% of his half, does the employer still have to
match that? Or does he only have to match the remaining 35%? Nobody
has answered that question yet.


--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 18:19:22 GMT, Walt Conner <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Nope. He's gambing away our children's financial security by driving up
>>astonishing deficits."
>
> Did someone forget here that we were attacked and have been fighting two
> wars?

Now you've gone and done it. Now you'll hear the "Those aren't the
people who attacked us" thing. You see, the lefties are pissed off
that we _didn't_ proactively get OBL (either did Clinton, but
nevermind that), while we _did_ proactively attack Iraq, which
they're also pissed off about, for the opposite reason.

In other words, no pleasing 'em, so why try. Of course, they won't
give Bush credit for Libya dismantling _their_ program, without
having to be attacked. Go figure. Attack before, or after, or not
at all, and no matter what, they say Bush was wrong.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:24:56 GMT, Steven and Gail Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> snip
> no matter what, they say Bush was wrong.
>>
>> Dave Hinz
>>
> Right on.

Don't distort what I'm saying and pretend to be quoting me, asshole.

> He claims to make the US safe by invading a sovereign nation on
> trumped up charges.

...that Clinton and Kerry agreed with, yes.

> Even his daddy avoided making that mistake. If you
> think deposing Sadaam makes it all right, you must think that the end
> justifies the means. Lots of trouble in that. Power corrupts.

Don't presume to speak for me, you're clearly not qualified to do so.

I'll repeat. People like you don't like that Bush did invade Iraq before
Hussein did something directly to us, you don't like that Bush waited to
invade Afghanistan until after OBL did something to us, and don't give
Bush credit for Libya disarming without having to be invaded at all.

It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I'm in favor of private accounts constructed along the lines that Bush
> suggested. But the accounts ought to be in addition to the basic
> benefit, not a replacement for about half of it.
>
Now that I could agree to. Even though it's too late for me to take
advantage of it.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Now you've gone and done it. Now you'll hear the "Those aren't the
> people who attacked us" thing.
>
There you go again assuming you know how others think. Actually, I
supported the war in Afghanistan. I opposed the war in Iraq because the
reasons given at the time (WMDs) were rebutted by much of the rest
of the world.

> In other words, no pleasing 'em, so why try. Of course, they won't
> give Bush credit for Libya dismantling _their_ program, without
> having to be attacked.
>
And yes, I do give the Bush administration credit for bluffing Libya - I
thought that was great. Now if we could just figure out how to do the
same to North Korea ...

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
> would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".

There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
things Bush has done that you don't agree with?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:05:17 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> Now you've gone and done it. Now you'll hear the "Those aren't the
>> people who attacked us" thing.
>>
> There you go again assuming you know how others think.

I didn't say "Now Larry will say", Larry.

> Actually, I
> supported the war in Afghanistan. I opposed the war in Iraq because the
> reasons given at the time (WMDs) were rebutted by much of the rest
> of the world.

That was _A_ reason given, not the only reason given. And, you don't need
to have the Clinton quotes about Iraq's WMDs re-posted again, do you?
Bush didn't come up with that intel on his own in a vacuum.

>> In other words, no pleasing 'em, so why try. Of course, they won't
>> give Bush credit for Libya dismantling _their_ program, without
>> having to be attacked.

> And yes, I do give the Bush administration credit for bluffing Libya - I
> thought that was great. Now if we could just figure out how to do the
> same to North Korea ...

Good thing he's got 4 more years then. Watch and see. I'm looking
forward to it.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:06:50 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
>> would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".
>
> There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
> things Bush has done that you don't agree with?

Sure. There's a half dozen lies that he let Kerry get away with during
the debates, do those count?

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:33:24 GMT, Steven and Gail Peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:06:50 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>> says...
>>>> It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
>>>> would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".
>>>
>>> There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
>>> things Bush has done that you don't agree with?
>>
>> Sure. There's a half dozen lies that he let Kerry get away with during
>> the debates, do those count?
>>
> Are we supposed to think of them ourselves?

(sigh). topics include the "ban on stem-cell research" (there never
has been one), "assault weapons ban" (the ban was about cosmetics, and
was completely ineffective). oh. I don't really know anymore. Had
a list at the time, and haven't cared since Kerry conceded. I also think
Bush is out of line on the whole gay marriage thing, because while I don't
think it's right, I also don't think that a constitutional change is
warranted for something that just isn't that important.

It's interesting how people who disagree with my support of one guy
or the other, assume that I agree with that guy on _everything_,
and agree with everyone else who supports him. The "You obviously
like Rush then" syndrome. What an oversimplistic world those people
must live in.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:37:55 -0500, Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2005 21:07:04 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> -snip-
>>That was _A_ reason given, not the only reason given. And, you don't need
>>to have the Clinton quotes about Iraq's WMDs re-posted again, do you?
>>Bush didn't come up with that intel on his own in a vacuum.
>>
> -snip-
>
> The point you folks keep missing is that Clinton did not invade Iraq.
> Perhaps because there was some doubt as to the nature of the threat.

He also didn't take OBL when he was offered to him, and failed to
attack when he could have got him.

> And Clinton didn't have the intel carefully screened, or have a
> special intel group set focusing on building a case for invasion.

Riiiight, because the entire US intel infrastructure changed when W took
over, is that what you're claiming?

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>He also didn't take OBL when he was offered to him, and failed to
>>attack when he could have got him.
>
>
> Well, jeez. At least Clinton didn't train and arm him and his cohorts as
> Reagan/HWBush did - but then bin Laden was against the same government
> we were against. Kinda simular to ol'Sadamn, no?
>
> One lesson to be learned from the last 25 years is that the bad guy you
> are *USING* to fight your battles and further your own cause today will
> likely turn around and attempt to bite your ass tomorrow. Did it really
> pay off in the long run to support bin Laden and Hussein 20 years ago?
>
Do you really expect our, or any, government to learn from past mistakes?
Joe

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:00:02 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> He also didn't take OBL when he was offered to him, and failed to
>> attack when he could have got him.
>
> Well, jeez. At least Clinton didn't train and arm him and his cohorts as
> Reagan/HWBush did - but then bin Laden was against the same government
> we were against. Kinda simular to ol'Sadamn, no?

Does the term "lesser of two evils (at the time)" have any faint
glimmering of meaning to you?

> One lesson to be learned from the last 25 years is that the bad guy you
> are *USING* to fight your battles and further your own cause today will
> likely turn around and attempt to bite your ass tomorrow. Did it really
> pay off in the long run to support bin Laden and Hussein 20 years ago?

That's why I'm of the opinion that our stance in Iraq should be:
"OK, look. We set up Hussein, and he got out of line, and we took
him out. We're setting you up now. If you get too big for your
britches, we'll take _you_ out as well. You're on notice, so behave.
Bye now, and good luck. We'll be watching."

Any time we give assistance to someone to do our dirty work for us,
we should expect them to come back and bite us a decade or two later.
We should also make it clear that we know that trick and won't tolerate
it. Then again, I've never been known for my tact or diplomatic skills,
so maybe I'm full of it.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:46:40 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

I did NOT write this. Take more care with your attributions.

>> > Well, jeez. At least Clinton didn't train and arm him and his cohorts as
>> > Reagan/HWBush did - but then bin Laden was against the same government
>> > we were against. Kinda simular to ol'Sadamn, no?

This, however, I did write:

>> Does the term "lesser of two evils (at the time)" have any faint
>> glimmering of meaning to you?

> Perhaps not in these instances. Would the victory Iran might have won
> over Iraq been more detrimental and costly to the US than the Gulf War
> and the Iraq War plus any retribution for the current events we may yet
> see in the coming decades?

What part of "at the time" didn't you get? Forseeable future, sure.
Decades later? Are even you that good at predicting, without the
benefit of hindsight?

> Did outfitting bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets gain us all
> that much considering the devastating loss of life on 9/11, the
> financial hit our economy took, the costs of the war and rebuilding in
> Afghanistan plus all the extremely costly security measures we have (and
> have yet) to put into place?

Well, the Soviets are gone and never nuked us, so it seems like maybe
there may have been a benefit to that, yes.

> I've not seen any analysis of these two issues and I'm not a political
> historian or strategist so don't know how differing outcomes in either
> situation might have affected world history. Perhaps we should have let
> both bin Laden and Hussein fight their own wars and then dealt with the
> outcomes and the victors.

Or, perhaps we should continue to do what makes the most sense at the time
for the forseeable future, and deal with exceptions as they come up. I
think we should be more vocal about "behave or we'll take you out" when we
do that.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Or, perhaps we should continue to do what makes the most sense at the time
> for the forseeable future, and deal with exceptions as they come up. I
> think we should be more vocal about "behave or we'll take you out" when we
> do that.
>
Hey! Guess what? I agree with you :-).

And while I still think Iraq was a mistake, I wish the next time some
fanatical Iraqi cleric tells his followers to attack us, we'd hang him
and plow his mosque under.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:06:30 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> Or, perhaps we should continue to do what makes the most sense at the time
>> for the forseeable future, and deal with exceptions as they come up. I
>> think we should be more vocal about "behave or we'll take you out" when we
>> do that.
>>
> Hey! Guess what? I agree with you :-).

Holy shit. Alert the media. It was inevitable that at some point,
we'd agree, but I'm...stunned.

> And while I still think Iraq was a mistake, I wish the next time some
> fanatical Iraqi cleric tells his followers to attack us, we'd hang him
> and plow his mosque under.

I think that was a "don't piss off those who are marginally tolerant
of us at the moment" decision. It annoys me, though, that while it's
perfectly acceptable for them to hide in churches and schools and
shoot at us, they get pissy if we shoot back at them there. If it's
a sacred site, great, but don't use it as a military base then.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:14:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:21:30 +0000, Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:
>
>> Au contraire. President Clinton left a balanced budget for Shrub, who
>> immediately undertook to reestablish fiscal debt, and in a big way. It
>> isn't that the economy suddenly went south, but that conservatives found
>> themselves in complete control, said "fiscal responsibility be damned,"
>> took the bit in their mouths and took off. Eagerness to cut taxes, and
>> make the tax structure less progressive, overran fiscal concerns.
>
>How did Clinton manage that and still increase the national debt every
>year of his administration?
>
>- Doug
=================================
I would have to ask the same question....The Democrates have always
been the TAX & SPEND party in my opinion..... BUT even I have to
question how long the country can continue spending the way we have
the last few years....

Bob Griffiths

All true. If an investment firm approached me the same plan
and "security" of SS I'd tell them to take a flying leap and
report 'em the BBB; where they'd probably be investigated
and maybe even prosecuted for the way they handled
funds. But with the government running the show on SS and
making the laws as they go we'll never get any of those SOB's
put in jail where they belong for what they've done with SS.
As i've told people before, if they let me opt out of SS, they
can keep the 20 yrs of taxes I've paid into it and never pay
me a dime for it so long as I could relieve my children of
inhereting this abomination.
"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:55:39 +0000, Joseph Smith wrote:
>
>> I never really have bought into that "employer contribution" stuff
>> anyway.
>> Lets be realistic. If the employer is matching your funds into SS, what
>> that really means he's putting into SS what he's not paying you.
>> Businesses and government are alike in this matter. Whatever monies they
>> are spending is coming out of our pockets one way or another.
>> "Contribution" is another ironic term. The word implies a voluntary
>> action. But a refusal to contribute would result in jail time for any of
>> us. SS is a TAX, pure and simple. Failure to pay this tax is punishable
>> just like a refusal to pay any other tax.
>
> All true, but it doesn't change the fact that the employers *do* match
> what we contribute in real dollars and the rate of contributions in our
> names is 12.4%. IMO, we should be paying it all assuming the employers
> would raise pay comensurate, and it all should be going to individual
> private investments other than what is required to take care of those that
> can't take care of themselves through no fault of their own. This would
> eliminate all the additions to the national debt, the phantom surplusses,
> the taxation of future generations for monies we spent on ourselves, etc.
> The big objections seem to be risk, as though folks don't believe in the
> long term viability of our capitalistic sytem, profits, markets etc. that
> have been proven over the lifetime of our nation. The fact is that if
> that system fails, the gov won't be able to meet their obligations either.
>
> Try to think how you would start a mandatory retirement system from
> scratch rather than transition the one we have. Would you choose one
> that spends the contributions for the future on current needs and sends
> the IOU to future taxpayers without their consent, or would you make it
> mandatory to do some amount in the form of current IRAs, 401Ks etc with
> that stimulate business an have much higher historical returns and no
> accumulation of debt on those future taxpayers, and rather than taxes on
> future taxpayers redeem their IOUs with the profits that those nasty rich
> folks get for their investments in the same sort of things?
>
> - Doug
>
> To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert
> Hubbard)
>

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The systematic dismantling of the government.
>

At the rate the Bush administration has been spending money on all fronts,
how the government is being dismantled is a tough sales pitch to make. Its
funny that the very thought of taking a minute percentage of SS money from
the goverment control and putting it into the private sector causes such
waves of panic. It's not like the entire SS fund is going to be invested in
high risk stocks.

Frank

> Lets look at the facts:

1. Social security was not setup to be an end all retirement pension.
2. If the politicians (Government!) had put a lockbox on it and
invested the surplusses through the years, there wouldn't be a problem
for a long time!
3. It wasn't created to be a disabilty safety net.
4. It's a political nightmare that Washington really doesn't want to
deal with other than to control people with a dependency on the system.
5. If a percentage had been invested in securities since it's
inception, there wouldn't be a problem.
6. IRA's were setup to help the everyday citizen of this county to
accumulate wealth and not depend on the government.
7. Some people can't afford to stick money in an IRA, so this proposal
would allow those people and anyone else that wanted to participate
divert some of the money they earned (i.e. it's theirs in the first
place) headed to the Federal tax revenue, to a privately owned account
that they control.
8. The problem with diversion of the funds is it reduces the tax income
of the government to spend on anything the well please plus redistribute
to those who are on SS.

My take, why allow the government to continue to screw up with the full
percentage we workers now send to Washington. They have proven over and
over they can't do a good job handling our money. The "sky is falling"
mentality that talks about diverting a small percentage will cause SS to
become insolvent faster need to be looking at ALL the money that
Washington spends because it's one big bucket of money. The idea of
three witholdings (Fed Income tax, Soc Sec, Medicare) is all an
illusion, because when it gets to Washington it is all goes into the
same bucket.
Do I like it the W is spending money, no, but I didn't like it in all
the past Presidents, and it's both parties. I do think W realizes that
Washington can't be fiscally responsible because of partisan politics,
and he wants to give people some control of their retirement.

Me I'm 52 and I will retire next year. I grew up being taught to save,
not to depend on the government, and don't count on SS. My subpar
pension will be increased 3 fold by interest off my private
investments. I personally could care less what happens to SS for me,
but I sure don't want my son to have to scrape that much harder because
all the greedy politicians want more of his hard earned money.

People understand something, the government lives off your an my money.
It's called taxes. I want more of my money back, and the government to
stop wasting it however they see fit.

Phil

What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,
but since these withholding are actually a Tax rather than
a withholding it was ruled (Supreme Court)that it is treated
like any other tax and can be spent by the government.


"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you choose the savings accounts, will your employer still have to
>> contribute half?
>>
>> And I haven't heard anyone talk about disability payments. Will they
>> stay the same?
>
> What strikes me is:
>
> If investing in the stock market for these personal accounts is supposed
> to bring higher SS retirement payments to the younger crowd, why not
> authorize the SS administration to bypass this whole change over and
> invest the held funds in the stock market itself?
>
> --
> Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
> ____
>
> "Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
> as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:19:44 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If investing in the stock market for these personal accounts is supposed
>to bring higher SS retirement payments to the younger crowd, why not
>authorize the SS administration to bypass this whole change over and
>invest the held funds in the stock market itself?

Everyone is guarantees to get rich. The SS Administration is responsible for
"ALL" loss, should the Stock Market collapse or frauds occur like Enron and
World Com. If that's the scenario, I'm all for it.

On 8 Feb 2005 10:42:43 -0800, "Ray" <[email protected]> wrote:

>No, we should clothe, feed and house them at taxpayer expense. It
>would be totally unreasonable to expect people to be held responsible
>or accountable for their decisions/actions.


Damn right. That's why we still have the same administration
we had last year.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <UrxNd.20739$uc.13322@trnddc03>, [email protected] says...
> > wish they would come out with a voluntary "opt out"
> > program. I am 37 now and have been employed for
> > 20 years. I would gladly give up all SS benefits and
> > let the government keep what I've already paid into
> > the system if they'd let me out of it so I could take
> > that money and start up my own IRA or low/med
> > risk fund. That way if I die at 64 (one year before I
> > could draw on SS) at least my family would get the money.
> >
> And what happens to all the people who opt out and get old and/or
> disabled without any voluntary savings? They all go on welfare? We let
> them die? We euthanize them?

I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we do prior
to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
filled with all the indigent elderly. Unfortunately, the nanny state is so
firmly entrenched that self-reliance is a foreign concept.

It's funny...Bill Clinton outlined a program during his administration where
a small portion of the supposed SS Trust Fund would be invested in mutual
funds. I don't recall mass protests at the time.

todd

"Jeff P." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I love your replies Unisaw. They're like fine Minimalist art. I sat
> staring at the blank screen for several minutes wondering just what the
> meaning was. The best I can figure is that you're making a reply that
says
> replying is pointless. That it would be a waste of your time...or did you
> just accidentally hit the "send" button? hmmm, I'll have to stare at that
> blank screen some more....
>

He's speechless.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"The point you folks keep missing is that Clinton did not invade Iraq"

No, he just bombed Aspirin Factories, let those people suffer from head
aches, that'll show 'em.

Walt Conner

jo4hn wrote:

>
> 2. This administration is not the most trustworthy group in recent
> memory. Their real agenda is not particularly obvious.

Agreed; however, their agenda is obvious.

The systematic dismantling of the government.

It has nothing to do with ones political beliefs, it is simply an
observation of the obvious.

Lew

Au contraire. President Clinton left a balanced budget for Shrub, who
immediately undertook to reestablish fiscal debt, and in a big way. It
isn't that the economy suddenly went south, but that conservatives found
themselves in complete control, said "fiscal responsibility be damned," took
the bit in their mouths and took off. Eagerness to cut taxes, and make the
tax structure less progressive, overran fiscal concerns.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steven and Gail Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
>> which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren.
>
> This has become such a tired and pathetic line. Geeze, I mean... tell
> me
> one single government program, sponsored by anyone at all, that does not
> add
> the cost of the program to our children and grandchildren. For the love
> of
> Pete, that's the way funding works. Always has been, always will be.
> --
>
> -Mike-
> [email protected]
>
>
>

>Nope. He's gambing away our children's financial security by driving up
>astonishing deficits."

Did someone forget here that we were attacked and have been fighting two
wars?

>> Even FDR recognized the way SS was initially structured couldn't be

Right

Walt Conner

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I guess English comprehension isn't your strong suit. I didn't say
anything
> > about them having to live at home. My point was that if she was in need
and
> > (heaven forbid) SS didn't exist, she would be cared for by the family,
no
> > matter where she lived.
>
> Oh yes, heaven forbid, you certainly wouldn't want some old person
> stinking up your home - better to ship them off to some "retirement"
> faciltiy where the minimum wage attendants are high on meth most of the
> time.
>
> Just yankin' your chain. You touched a sore spot with what I read as
> liberals don't want to take care of their own family and would rather
> others do it for them. Along the lines of liberals have no family
> values. Only liberals plunk their elderly in nursing homes; only
> liberals peeked at Janet Jackson's breast or ogle the pro-sports
> cheerleaders; liberals are the ones behind the high ratings of such
> shows as Desperate Housewives, Howard Stern, Fifth (?) Wheel, etc.; only
> liberals buy Playboy, Penthouse, Big Mama Tits - conservatives only buy
> them for the articles; if it weren't for liberals the internet would be
> altogether free of porn; only liberals allow their kids to be out
> raising hell; it's only liberals who swear, flip the bird, and set such
> fine public examples for their children; its only liberals who have no
> religious beliefs and values.
>
> BTW, I sat on a jury last summer (a domestic abuse case) where the
> plaintif was relating that she was often high on meth while at her
> nursing home attendant's job.
>
> --
> Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company

A simple "Oh, sorry for putting words in your mouth" would have sufficed.

todd

Renata wrote:
> Here's an article from today's Post giving a different
> analysis/perspective.
>
> Renata
[snip]
Amen. About as well researched as any I've read.
mahalo,
jo4hn

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Or, perhaps we should continue to do what makes the most sense at the
time
> > for the forseeable future, and deal with exceptions as they come up. I
> > think we should be more vocal about "behave or we'll take you out" when
we
> > do that.
> >
> Hey! Guess what? I agree with you :-).
>
> And while I still think Iraq was a mistake, I wish the next time some
> fanatical Iraqi cleric tells his followers to attack us, we'd hang him
> and plow his mosque under.
>

Wow! That and a betta mean you're not so bad after all, Larry.

dwhite

"G.E.R.R.Y." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:070220051903529743%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Todd Fatheree
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
> > filled with all the indigent elderly.
>
> Of course you wouldn't. The "indigent elderly" die unnoticed by the
> writers of history books. They have always been too common to be
> noticed. The bulk of humanity die indigent and not just in Third World
> countries either - even with government programs.
>
> Gerry

If only we had another, larger, federal program we could eliminate that. In
fact, why don't we all just fast forward to the ending and just sign our
entire paychecks over to the government and let them decide how much they'll
let us have when they're through.

todd

Lewis Lang wrote:
> Bush says that he wants to switch from the current Social Security
> system to an individual retirement account (IRA?) system. He swears
> that people over 50 will not be affected. What about the people under
> 50? Will they get screwed?
>
> --
>
> Lewis Lang
>
Up until about 12 or 15 years ago, I would have relinquished all claims
to the monies that I had put into the Social Security System in return
for my investing all future monies. At that point, I would have come
out well ahead. The situation has changed since then:

1. The stock market has remained rather stagnant since recovering from
the recent recession. The days of investing in anything and making a
killing are long gone.

2. This administration is not the most trustworthy group in recent
memory. Their real agenda is not particularly obvious.

3. By most accounts, Social Security is not in grave danger. Raising
the tax limit to say $100K will push the problem area many more years
into the future. It is definitely NOT time to panic. See item 2.

4. Read up on the Brits experiences with a plan quite similar to the
Bush plan. By most accounts it has been a disaster. One of the repair
options being studied is a plan like the current US plan.

5. Read up on the Chilean experiences where results have been better.

6. This may not be a good time to start adding to the $7+ trillion
national debt especially if less of it will be purchased by Social
Security. I am not convinced that the People's Republic of China
(holder of a good chunk of our debt) always has our best interests at heart.

I would suggest that the problem be characterized. The original intent
of SS was to provide a modest sum to those overtaken by age or
infirmity. The workers, employers, and now the government are putting
money into the system. Is there a reason to change this rather
minimalist system? Should we go to a system where the risk is higher
but the worker may end up with a nice retirement? The other side of
risk is a smaller nest egg. If we do this, can we take the planning out
of the political arena and let a group (or groups) of academics design
methodologies? See item 2 above.

The administration, congress, and the media are supplying much more heat
than light on this subject. And we don't even seem to mention the
really large domestic problem areas: medicare/healthcare, energy,
crumbling infrastructure, etc.

Enough of this. Time to make some sawdust.
mahalo,
jo4hn

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:06:50 -0800, Larry Blanchard <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>> It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
>>> would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".
>>
>> There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
>> things Bush has done that you don't agree with?
>
> Sure. There's a half dozen lies that he let Kerry get away with during
> the debates, do those count?
>
Are we supposed to think of them ourselves?

I wish they would come out with a voluntary "opt out"
program. I am 37 now and have been employed for
20 years. I would gladly give up all SS benefits and
let the government keep what I've already paid into
the system if they'd let me out of it so I could take
that money and start up my own IRA or low/med
risk fund. That way if I die at 64 (one year before I
could draw on SS) at least my family would get the money.

"Bob G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:53:37 GMT, "Joseph Smith" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
>>spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
>>Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
>>spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
>>Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
>>Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,
>>but since these withholding are actually a Tax rather than
>>a withholding it was ruled (Supreme Court)that it is treated
>>like any other tax and can be spent by the government.
>>
> =================
> Have to agree on that last statement.... The federal tax on your
> telephone tax was enacted a ba-zillion years ago..when there was only
> 300 phones in New York City ... as a tempory tax yep tempoary is
> such a good discription...
>
> Anyhow (and I am not positive) Georgies' plan would allow individuals
> to set 4 percent of their contributions (another good, discriptive
> term) in securities...and the proposed types of investments are bonds
> etc...
>
> Since I am now 61 and have been retired since age 55 I do not know the
> current figures...and do not yet collect SS ..
>
> but the tax is or was almost 7 oercent on the first 90,000 of
> earnings... or about 6300 bucks... if 4 percent of this is allowed to
> be redirected into individual accounts (about 2-300 hundred bucks)
> I do not see what all the fuss is about...
>
> Of course things would double if your employer contributions (lol) are
> also redirected... .
>
> I most likely have "my facts" all screwed up and most likely I do BUT
> I am sure the Democrats will straighten me out... I do know that I
> never even figured SS into my retirement picture anything I get is a
> bonus ..BUT my grand son is in deep crap right now...
>
> Bob Griffiths
>
>

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:42:56 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we do
prior
> >to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves
being
> >filled with all the indigent elderly.
>
> Well then, why don't you study up on your history instead of assuming
> everything was hunky dorry.
>
> Renata

It didn't happen. Families took care of their elderly. But everyone's too
busy to do it now and shove their responsibility onto the government.

todd

Here's an article from today's Post giving a different
analysis/perspective.

Renata

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6222-2005Feb7.html
Bush Marketing Beats His Plan

By Allan Sloan

Tuesday, February 8, 2005; Page E01

You've got to give President Bush an A-plus for the way he marketed
the Social Security proposals in his State of the Union address last
week.

"If you've got children in their twenties, as some of us do, the idea
of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a
small matter," he said -- a sentiment with which even a skeptic like
me, who has twenty- and thirty-something kids, totally agrees.

You can't argue with Bush's stated goals of making Social Security
financially sound to allow Americans a secure retirement. But the
centerpiece of his proposals -- allowing workers the option to divert
up to 4 percent of payroll taxes into private accounts -- doesn't do
anything to fix Social Security's financial woes. Instead, it's a
fiendishly clever device that serves the political goal of remaking
the nation's most popular social program so that it's "a better deal"
for younger workers. There was a twinkle in Bush's eye when he said
that, a clever allusion to the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
father of Social Security. You could almost hear the Democrats
gnashing their teeth.

In their current incarnation, you'd almost certainly want to sign up
for these accounts if you were younger than 55. Yes, you'd have to
accept a smaller guaranteed benefit. But you'd come out ahead if your
account produced an annual return -- cash income and price gains -- of
more than 3 percent above inflation. That's not a slam-dunk, but it
ought to be attainable because you would have a choice among a handful
of high-grade, very-low-cost, very diversified mutual funds. But
there's a catch. You would own the account, sort of, but you wouldn't
control it. And you'd have to fork over the aforementioned 3 percent
return -- by taking a smaller benefit -- when you cash in your
account.

Bush, brilliantly, is marketing these accounts as empowering people
who'd have no other assets. But I don't think things would work out
well for these folks. There would be strict limitations on the
accounts -- you couldn't take money out of them before you retire or
even borrow against them. And the odds of low-income people being able
to leave a significant account to their heirs -- one of Bush's major
selling points -- strike me as remote.

Here's why. When it's retirement time, low-income people would
probably have to convert most or all of their private accounts into
annuities to have enough money to live on or to meet requirements that
their guaranteed benefits plus annuity income would exceed certain
levels. If you had to convert your entire account into an annuity,
there would be nothing left for your heirs when you died. Higher-paid
people, by definition, would have bigger private Social Security
accounts and less need for annuity income than lower-income people
would. This gives them a far greater chance of having something left
to hand down to their heirs and gives lower-paid people less chance.
Not to be snotty, but we higher-income types hardly need additional
breaks. We've already got plenty.

Staying power matters big-time, too -- and higher-income people have
more of it than lower-income people do. Although stocks tend to rise
over the long term, you'd have to cash in some or all of your
retirement account to buy an annuity when you retire. That puts you at
the mercy of events. Consider the following, produced at my request by
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Say you retired in March
2000, with a private account that held $100,000 of stock in a Standard
& Poor's 500-stock index fund. (Index funds match the performance of a
benchmark; they don't try to beat the market.) Your inflation-adjusted
annuity would have been $7,558 a year -- about $630 a month -- by the
center's calculation. But if you had had the same number of shares in
your account and instead retired in October 2002, your account would
have had less than $60,000 in it. Your annuity: $3,352 a year, or $279
a month. The combination of lower values and lower interest rates is a
double whammy. You see the problem? You can get much less -- or much
more -- than someone who has saved at the same rate as you but retired
a little earlier or later.

If you've got financial staying power, you could wait for better days
or buy the smallest annuity the government will permit. If you don't
have staying power, you have to take what the market gives you.
Higher-paid people thus have a big advantage. The guaranteed Social
Security benefit, by contrast, is tilted toward lower-income people,
with a benefit of about 56 percent of Social Security-covered wages
for a minimum-wage earner, 30 percent for folks like me who have
reached the Social Security maximum every year. You're swapping
benefits skewed toward lower-income people for investment
opportunities skewed toward higher-income people.

I'm in favor of private accounts constructed along the lines that Bush
suggested. But the accounts ought to be in addition to the basic
benefit, not a replacement for about half of it. Democrats are crazy
to oppose private accounts. They really do empower you. The current
generation is used to investing and is understandably skeptical about
government promises. This isn't the 1930s, when only a handful of
people bought stocks and many of them came to regret it. It's the
aughts, guys, get with it. FDR's been dead for 60 years. The world has
changed.

If the president really wants to fix Social Security rather than pick
a political fight -- and the Democrats feel the same -- it wouldn't be
difficult. They'd compromise by putting more money into the system by
raising wage taxes a tad, taking less out by increasing the retirement
age and trimming benefit formulas and setting up private accounts
funded by wage earners, not by government borrowings. Put a few
willing negotiators in a room and a deal's done in a month. I won't
hold my breath, though.

Bush has marketed the pants off the Democrats by setting the terms of
debate. Do you want to pay higher taxes or lower taxes? Clearly,
lower. Do you want to pay estate tax or not? Do you want private
accounts, or don't you? He has done a fabulous job of showing the
goodies -- and of hiding the costs. People, naturally, have opted for
the goodies. The Bushies are in full sales mode, including sticking
recordings on Social Security's phone lines preaching that the system
has to change. In the name of empowering my kids, he's asking them to
pay full freight for my retirement and for trillions in new
borrowings, while forking over the same wage taxes for lower benefits.
If he can sell this one, the Marketing Hall of Fame should start
planning his induction ceremony.

Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor. His e-mail address is
[email protected].

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

On 6 Feb 2005 02:54:03 -0800, "Lewis Lang" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Bush says that he wants to switch from the current Social Security
>system to an individual retirement account (IRA?) system. He swears
>that people over 50 will not be affected. What about the people under
>50? Will they get screwed?

"Steven and Gail Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
> which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren.

This has become such a tired and pathetic line. Geeze, I mean... tell me
one single government program, sponsored by anyone at all, that does not add
the cost of the program to our children and grandchildren. For the love of
Pete, that's the way funding works. Always has been, always will be.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snip
no matter what, they say Bush was wrong.
>
> Dave Hinz
>
Right on. He claims to make the US safe by invading a sovereign nation on
trumped up charges. Even his daddy avoided making that mistake. If you
think deposing Sadaam makes it all right, you must think that the end
justifies the means. Lots of trouble in that. Power corrupts.

Steve

Bob G. <[email protected]> wrote:

: Anyhow (and I am not positive) Georgies' plan would allow individuals
: to set 4 percent of their contributions (another good, discriptive
: term) in securities...

A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the
SS system seem much smaller than it is. The figure is
actually four percent of *salary*, which is about sixty-five
percent of your total contribution to SS.


-- Andy Barss

Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:

: It's funny...Bill Clinton outlined a program during his administration where
: a small portion of the supposed SS Trust Fund would be invested in mutual
: funds. I don't recall mass protests at the time.


That's a very different example, isn't it? Investing a small amount of
the surplus in anything, vs. cutting revenues by 65%.

-- Andy Barss

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

:> A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
:> seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
:> *salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution to
:> SS.

: It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
: misinformation

And as usual, you're being overly caustic. Did you read my commentary on
your attitude (see plywood armor thread)? You might benefit from some
self-examination, if the concept isn't too foreign to you.

by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
: contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%.

I've nowhere seen any info on what the Bush "plan" does with the employer
matching concept. If person X decides to reduce his/her contribution from
6.4% to, say, 2.1% (as allowed under the Bush scenario), then does the
employer toss in

a) 6.4%?
b) 2.1%
c) something else?


So, since it
: is voluntary, and at least the liberal half of the country wouldn't want
: to participate in such a risky investment

I think, personally, anyone who wouldn't want to follow this plan is
sennsible and ration, politics be damned.

Have a look:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/03/social_security_plan/index.html


-- Andy

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
: In article <[email protected]>,
: [email protected] says...
:> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:
:>
:> > A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
:> > seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
:> > *salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution to
:> > SS.
:>
:> It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
:> misinformation by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
:> contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%.

: But if someone diverts 65% of his half, does the employer still have to
: match that? Or does he only have to match the remaining 35%? Nobody
: has answered that question yet.



Of course not -- the Bush Admin need not be stumped by such irrelevant
matters as this, or how to pay the two trillion dollars the transition
alone will cost. Didn't you get the memo?

-- Andy Barss

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:19:44 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

:> What strikes me is:
:>
:> If investing in the stock market for these personal accounts is supposed
:> to bring higher SS retirement payments to the younger crowd, why not
:> authorize the SS administration to bypass this whole change over and
:> invest the held funds in the stock market itself?

: Here's what the father of SS had to say on the subject:

: " In the important field of security for our old people, it seems
: necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age
: pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it
: is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have
: to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these
: pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will
: establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future
: generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual
: initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is
: proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the
: old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by
: self-supporting annuity plans."

: FDR
: Letter to Congress
: Jan 17, 1935

: In other words, FDR recommended we should privatize half of SS by 1965.

How do you get that out of the passage? It seems to me he
was basically saying this:

a) old-age pensions needed to be established for people at or nearing
retirement in 1937. This is the pension refered to in the last sentences
of the quoted passage.

b) for perhaps 30 years, the states and federal governments would have to
pay for this (out of general revenue, I assume).

c) he proposed that half of this pension system be funded by the federal
government (leaving the other half for the states to pick up).

d) contributory annuities would, after this period of time, have built
up enough that (b) would no longer apply.




: Makes GWB's privatization plan look kind of meager as well as 40 years
: late (but that isn't GWBs fault). Maybe the libs who label GWB as
: "the gambler in chief" pinned the tag on the wrong guy.

Nope. He's gambing away our children's financial security by driving up
astonishing deficits.

Even FDR
: recognized the way SS was initially structured couldn't be
: "self-supporting".

At the beginning of the program, yes. But that's just plain common sense
-- someone who was 65 in 1937 had paid nothing into SS, so obviously (for
a while) funds had to be added into SS from some source other than payroll
taxes (see above).


-- Andy Barss

Walt Conner <[email protected]> wrote:
:>Nope. He's gambing away our children's financial security by driving up
:>astonishing deficits."

: Did someone forget here that we were attacked and have been fighting two
: wars?


Doesn't he keep the cost of the war out of the projected deficit?
In any event, the amount appropriated for the Iraq war is
something like 200 billion. That's about a tenth of the expected cost of
privatization of the SS system.

-- Andy Barss

Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you choose the savings accounts, will your employer still have to
>> contribute half?
>>
>> And I haven't heard anyone talk about disability payments. Will they
>> stay the same?
>
> What strikes me is:
>
> If investing in the stock market for these personal accounts is
> supposed to bring higher SS retirement payments to the younger crowd,
> why not authorize the SS administration to bypass this whole change
> over and invest the held funds in the stock market itself?

Last year there was a $150 Billion SS surplus. It was spent on other stuff.
If money is invested, it cannot be spent on other stuff and we all find out
how big the deficit really is.

>

On 9 Feb 2005 21:07:04 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
-snip-
>That was _A_ reason given, not the only reason given. And, you don't need
>to have the Clinton quotes about Iraq's WMDs re-posted again, do you?
>Bush didn't come up with that intel on his own in a vacuum.
>
-snip-

The point you folks keep missing is that Clinton did not invade Iraq.
Perhaps because there was some doubt as to the nature of the threat.

And Clinton didn't have the intel carefully screened, or have a
special intel group set focusing on building a case for invasion.

Renata

Republicans seem unable to look at what is going on and learn from
experience. At least since the Reagan era they have been the party of
"Borrow and spend" and leave it to someone else to eventually pay it back.
In the meantime, they continue to mouth tired old charges about democrats.
Working with both parties in Congress, Clinton gradually reduced the budget
deficits that 41 left for him until he left a budget surplus. This does not
mean that the National Debt was reduced, but Shrub is now recklessly
borrowing to support spending. It is part of a long term plan to cripple
the government with debt, so new programs cannot be funded. Wake up and
smell the roses.

"Bob G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:14:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:21:30 +0000, Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:
>>
>>> Au contraire. President Clinton left a balanced budget for Shrub, who
>>> immediately undertook to reestablish fiscal debt, and in a big way. It
>>> isn't that the economy suddenly went south, but that conservatives found
>>> themselves in complete control, said "fiscal responsibility be damned,"
>>> took the bit in their mouths and took off. Eagerness to cut taxes, and
>>> make the tax structure less progressive, overran fiscal concerns.
>>
>>How did Clinton manage that and still increase the national debt every
>>year of his administration?
>>
>>- Doug
> =================================
> I would have to ask the same question....The Democrates have always
> been the TAX & SPEND party in my opinion..... BUT even I have to
> question how long the country can continue spending the way we have
> the last few years....
>
> Bob Griffiths

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:53:37 GMT, "Joseph Smith" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
>spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
>Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
>spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
>Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
>Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,
>but since these withholding are actually a Tax rather than
>a withholding it was ruled (Supreme Court)that it is treated
>like any other tax and can be spent by the government.
>
=================
Have to agree on that last statement.... The federal tax on your
telephone tax was enacted a ba-zillion years ago..when there was only
300 phones in New York City ... as a tempory tax yep tempoary is
such a good discription...

Anyhow (and I am not positive) Georgies' plan would allow individuals
to set 4 percent of their contributions (another good, discriptive
term) in securities...and the proposed types of investments are bonds
etc...

Since I am now 61 and have been retired since age 55 I do not know the
current figures...and do not yet collect SS ..

but the tax is or was almost 7 oercent on the first 90,000 of
earnings... or about 6300 bucks... if 4 percent of this is allowed to
be redirected into individual accounts (about 2-300 hundred bucks)
I do not see what all the fuss is about...

Of course things would double if your employer contributions (lol) are
also redirected... .

I most likely have "my facts" all screwed up and most likely I do BUT
I am sure the Democrats will straighten me out... I do know that I
never even figured SS into my retirement picture anything I get is a
bonus ..BUT my grand son is in deep crap right now...

Bob Griffiths

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:33:51 GMT, "Steven and Gail Peterson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
>which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren.


Shrub's method is to borrow money from lenders and invest
it in stocks. Obviously, the lenders who have a trillion and a
half or so laying around to fund this are too dumb to realize
that they could be making a lot more in stocks than they could
be by lending money to buy those stocks. It's a secret known
to no one but you and me and everyone else in this country,
except for those dumb lenders who happen to have all of those
trillions.

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:15:08 -0600, Todd Fatheree wrote:
>
> > It didn't happen. Families took care of their elderly. But everyone's
> > too busy to do it now and shove their responsibility onto the
government.
>
> Some families still do take care of their elderly. My 93 year old mother
> lives in her own house with the assistance of my niece who lives with
> herand works during the day. My 84 year old MIL lives with my wife and
> myself and she is a joy to be around. If my mother were not able to live
> in her own home, the assisted living routine would drain her funds in less
> than a year, not to mention the fact that she would probably roll up her
> tent and bag it if she couldn't stay in her own home and if she became
> dependent on the government (her words).
>
> - Doug

I was a bit too broad...what I meant to convey is that there is an
increasing number of people who look to the government for this and just
don't know what on earth would happen without the government handing out
money.

todd

In article <[email protected]>,
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I guess English comprehension isn't your strong suit. I didn't say anything
> about them having to live at home. My point was that if she was in need and
> (heaven forbid) SS didn't exist, she would be cared for by the family, no
> matter where she lived.

Oh yes, heaven forbid, you certainly wouldn't want some old person
stinking up your home - better to ship them off to some "retirement"
faciltiy where the minimum wage attendants are high on meth most of the
time.

Just yankin' your chain. You touched a sore spot with what I read as
liberals don't want to take care of their own family and would rather
others do it for them. Along the lines of liberals have no family
values. Only liberals plunk their elderly in nursing homes; only
liberals peeked at Janet Jackson's breast or ogle the pro-sports
cheerleaders; liberals are the ones behind the high ratings of such
shows as Desperate Housewives, Howard Stern, Fifth (?) Wheel, etc.; only
liberals buy Playboy, Penthouse, Big Mama Tits - conservatives only buy
them for the articles; if it weren't for liberals the internet would be
altogether free of porn; only liberals allow their kids to be out
raising hell; it's only liberals who swear, flip the bird, and set such
fine public examples for their children; its only liberals who have no
religious beliefs and values.

BTW, I sat on a jury last summer (a domestic abuse case) where the
plaintif was relating that she was often high on meth while at her
nursing home attendant's job.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Well, jeez. At least Clinton didn't train and arm him and his cohorts as
> > Reagan/HWBush did - but then bin Laden was against the same government
> > we were against. Kinda simular to ol'Sadamn, no?
>
> Does the term "lesser of two evils (at the time)" have any faint
> glimmering of meaning to you?

Perhaps not in these instances. Would the victory Iran might have won
over Iraq been more detrimental and costly to the US than the Gulf War
and the Iraq War plus any retribution for the current events we may yet
see in the coming decades?

Did outfitting bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets gain us all
that much considering the devastating loss of life on 9/11, the
financial hit our economy took, the costs of the war and rebuilding in
Afghanistan plus all the extremely costly security measures we have (and
have yet) to put into place?

I've not seen any analysis of these two issues and I'm not a political
historian or strategist so don't know how differing outcomes in either
situation might have affected world history. Perhaps we should have let
both bin Laden and Hussein fight their own wars and then dealt with the
outcomes and the victors.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

> He also didn't take OBL when he was offered to him, and failed to
> attack when he could have got him.

Well, jeez. At least Clinton didn't train and arm him and his cohorts as
Reagan/HWBush did - but then bin Laden was against the same government
we were against. Kinda simular to ol'Sadamn, no?

One lesson to be learned from the last 25 years is that the bad guy you
are *USING* to fight your battles and further your own cause today will
likely turn around and attempt to bite your ass tomorrow. Did it really
pay off in the long run to support bin Laden and Hussein 20 years ago?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you choose the savings accounts, will your employer still have to
> contribute half?
>
> And I haven't heard anyone talk about disability payments. Will they
> stay the same?

What strikes me is:

If investing in the stock market for these personal accounts is supposed
to bring higher SS retirement payments to the younger crowd, why not
authorize the SS administration to bypass this whole change over and
invest the held funds in the stock market itself?

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article <[email protected]>,
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's only the way it is because we allow it to be. My grandmother is 92.
> If she needed assistance, our family would be there. Unfortunately, an
> increasing number of families can't be bothered. So they cede more and more
> of their responsibilities to the government. I guess it a trend liberals
> like, but I don't.

Ha,ha,ha. Yes, all the folks in nursing homes and other care facilities
have liberal offspring who just have no family values so won't take care
of them. You won't find any parents of conservative families in there.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:19:44 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

> What strikes me is:
>
> If investing in the stock market for these personal accounts is supposed
> to bring higher SS retirement payments to the younger crowd, why not
> authorize the SS administration to bypass this whole change over and
> invest the held funds in the stock market itself?

Here's what the father of SS had to say on the subject:

" In the important field of security for our old people, it seems
necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age
pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it
is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have
to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these
pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will
establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future
generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual
initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is
proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the
old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by
self-supporting annuity plans."

FDR
Letter to Congress
Jan 17, 1935

In other words, FDR recommended we should privatize half of SS by 1965.
Makes GWB's privatization plan look kind of meager as well as 40 years
late (but that isn't GWBs fault). Maybe the libs who label GWB as
"the gambler in chief" pinned the tag on the wrong guy. Even FDR
recognized the way SS was initially structured couldn't be
"self-supporting".

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:15:08 -0600, Todd Fatheree wrote:

> It didn't happen. Families took care of their elderly. But everyone's
> too busy to do it now and shove their responsibility onto the government.

Some families still do take care of their elderly. My 93 year old mother
lives in her own house with the assistance of my niece who lives with
herand works during the day. My 84 year old MIL lives with my wife and
myself and she is a joy to be around. If my mother were not able to live
in her own home, the assisted living routine would drain her funds in less
than a year, not to mention the fact that she would probably roll up her
tent and bag it if she couldn't stay in her own home and if she became
dependent on the government (her words).

- Doug


To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:21:30 +0000, Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:

> Au contraire. President Clinton left a balanced budget for Shrub, who
> immediately undertook to reestablish fiscal debt, and in a big way. It
> isn't that the economy suddenly went south, but that conservatives found
> themselves in complete control, said "fiscal responsibility be damned,"
> took the bit in their mouths and took off. Eagerness to cut taxes, and
> make the tax structure less progressive, overran fiscal concerns.

How did Clinton manage that and still increase the national debt every
year of his administration?

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:06:37 -0500, Bob G. wrote:

> I would have to ask the same question....The Democrates have always been
> the TAX & SPEND party in my opinion..... BUT even I have to question
> how long the country can continue spending the way we have the last few
> years....

If you think the spending increases in the wake of 9-11 and for things
like medicade drug coverage, no child left behind, etc caused wails of
anguish from the neolibs, wait till they start weighing in on the spending
rate reductions being proposed by the administration.

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:04:25 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:

> Back atcha. Instead of parroting the party line, why not learn about your
> so-called 'surplus' and why it isn't.

...and explain why the phantom surplus increased the national debt rather
than reducing it.

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

> A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
> seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
> *salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution to
> SS.

It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
misinformation by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%. So, since it
is voluntary, and at least the liberal half of the country wouldn't want
to participate in such a risky investment, the rate would be down from
32% to 16% of total contributions at a maximum.

- Doug


--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:55:39 +0000, Joseph Smith wrote:

> I never really have bought into that "employer contribution" stuff anyway.
> Lets be realistic. If the employer is matching your funds into SS, what
> that really means he's putting into SS what he's not paying you.
> Businesses and government are alike in this matter. Whatever monies they
> are spending is coming out of our pockets one way or another.
> "Contribution" is another ironic term. The word implies a voluntary
> action. But a refusal to contribute would result in jail time for any of
> us. SS is a TAX, pure and simple. Failure to pay this tax is punishable
> just like a refusal to pay any other tax.

All true, but it doesn't change the fact that the employers *do* match
what we contribute in real dollars and the rate of contributions in our
names is 12.4%. IMO, we should be paying it all assuming the employers
would raise pay comensurate, and it all should be going to individual
private investments other than what is required to take care of those that
can't take care of themselves through no fault of their own. This would
eliminate all the additions to the national debt, the phantom surplusses,
the taxation of future generations for monies we spent on ourselves, etc.
The big objections seem to be risk, as though folks don't believe in the
long term viability of our capitalistic sytem, profits, markets etc. that
have been proven over the lifetime of our nation. The fact is that if
that system fails, the gov won't be able to meet their obligations either.

Try to think how you would start a mandatory retirement system from
scratch rather than transition the one we have. Would you choose one
that spends the contributions for the future on current needs and sends
the IOU to future taxpayers without their consent, or would you make it
mandatory to do some amount in the form of current IRAs, 401Ks etc with
that stimulate business an have much higher historical returns and no
accumulation of debt on those future taxpayers, and rather than taxes on
future taxpayers redeem their IOUs with the profits that those nasty rich
folks get for their investments in the same sort of things?

- Doug

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:37:55 -0500, Renata wrote:

> The point you folks keep missing is that Clinton did not invade Iraq.
> Perhaps because there was some doubt as to the nature of the threat.

There didn't seem to be any doubt at all as to the nature of the threat:
<http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-wh2.htm>
That's why Clinton did take military action against Iraq!

>
> And Clinton didn't have the intel carefully screened, or have a special
> intel group set focusing on building a case for invasion.

Not according to the cite above. Otherwise, why would he take the
military action he did?

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:00:02 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

> One lesson to be learned from the last 25 years is that the bad guy you
> are *USING* to fight your battles and further your own cause today will
> likely turn around and attempt to bite your ass tomorrow. Did it really
> pay off in the long run to support bin Laden and Hussein 20 years ago?

The lesson is much older than that - having the Soviets as allies
against Nazi Germany was the right decision, even considering their post
WWII actions. You do what you have to at the time to win and survive.

- Doug

--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

"hex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Todd Fatheree wrote:
> >
> > I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we
> do prior
> > to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass
> graves being
> > filled with all the indigent elderly. Unfortunately, the nanny state
> is so
> > firmly entrenched that self-reliance is a foreign concept.
> >
>
> There is a reality you conveniently skim over. Prior to the WWII
> keeping the extended
> family around was the norm. Grandma could rely on always having a room
> with kin or having family nearby enough to help out. Also,in the 30's
> Granndma only lived to about 65 on average. Average life expectancy is
> now about 80 for women and the ability to rely on extended family has
> eroded. Another aspect of increased life expectancy is a shift in the
> diseases afflicting the elderly. With a mean expectancy of 65 there
> was relatively little dementia; with mean life at 80 it is very common.
> You will die of something, we know how to fix/manage most of the
> systems below the neck. That leaves brain rot as a cause of death.
> This is not to condemn nor defend the nanny state but only to point out
> that comparision of aging with pre-1937 and now is meaningless.
>
> May you live long enough to become demented.
>
> hex
> -30-

It's only the way it is because we allow it to be. My grandmother is 92.
If she needed assistance, our family would be there. Unfortunately, an
increasing number of families can't be bothered. So they cede more and more
of their responsibilities to the government. I guess it a trend liberals
like, but I don't.

todd

We don't seem to be getting anywhere. The election came out about 51-49; I
think we are at about the same near-standoff. Anyone else want to go make
sawdust?

Steve

"Doug Winterburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:37:55 -0500, Renata wrote:
>
>> The point you folks keep missing is that Clinton did not invade Iraq.
>> Perhaps because there was some doubt as to the nature of the threat.
>
> There didn't seem to be any doubt at all as to the nature of the threat:
> <http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/16/981216-wh2.htm>
> That's why Clinton did take military action against Iraq!
>
>>
>> And Clinton didn't have the intel carefully screened, or have a special
>> intel group set focusing on building a case for invasion.
>
> Not according to the cite above. Otherwise, why would he take the
> military action he did?
>
> - Doug
>
> --
>
> To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert
> Hubbard)
>

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:42:56 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we do prior
>to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
>filled with all the indigent elderly.

Well then, why don't you study up on your history instead of assuming
everything was hunky dorry.

Renata

-snip-
>
>todd
>

"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It's only the way it is because we allow it to be. My grandmother is
92.
> > If she needed assistance, our family would be there. Unfortunately, an
> > increasing number of families can't be bothered. So they cede more and
more
> > of their responsibilities to the government. I guess it a trend
liberals
> > like, but I don't.
>
> Ha,ha,ha. Yes, all the folks in nursing homes and other care facilities
> have liberal offspring who just have no family values so won't take care
> of them. You won't find any parents of conservative families in there.

I guess English comprehension isn't your strong suit. I didn't say anything
about them having to live at home. My point was that if she was in need and
(heaven forbid) SS didn't exist, she would be cared for by the family, no
matter where she lived.

todd

I love your replies Unisaw. They're like fine Minimalist art. I sat
staring at the blank screen for several minutes wondering just what the
meaning was. The best I can figure is that you're making a reply that says
replying is pointless. That it would be a waste of your time...or did you
just accidentally hit the "send" button? hmmm, I'll have to stare at that
blank screen some more....

--
Jeff P.

A truck carrying copies of Roget's Thesaurus over-turned on the
highway. The local newspaper reported that the onlookers were
"stunned, overwhelmed, astonished, bewildered, and dumfounded."


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


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

Personally I was raised with the "you make your bed,
you lie in it" type of mentality. But if the government
MUST, then a mandated IRA or other fairly safe
account/fund would be okay w/me. JUST AS LONG
AS I OWN THE ACCOUNT, not the government!
Maybe I'm outdated and maybe because I came from
a family that didn't have a lot and asked for even less;
but I don't get this mentality of wanting the government
to provide so much and be such a big part of one's life.

"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <UrxNd.20739$uc.13322@trnddc03>, [email protected] says...
>> wish they would come out with a voluntary "opt out"
>> program. I am 37 now and have been employed for
>> 20 years. I would gladly give up all SS benefits and
>> let the government keep what I've already paid into
>> the system if they'd let me out of it so I could take
>> that money and start up my own IRA or low/med
>> risk fund. That way if I die at 64 (one year before I
>> could draw on SS) at least my family would get the money.
>>
> And what happens to all the people who opt out and get old and/or
> disabled without any voluntary savings? They all go on welfare? We let
> them die? We euthanize them?
>
> --
> Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

You aren't paying attention. The real issue isn't about reducing SS system
income by about a third, it is about reducing future benefits by at least a
third, or 40%. The rest is just an attempt to make it palatable. The
problem, to politicians, is that SS will stop running huge excesses and they
will have to come up with some other way to fund SS benefits and the rest of
the government. Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren. I
haven't heard anything that suggests the return from private accounts will
balance the cost of supporting the debt. But, since the republicans will
have already named everything for Reagan (the other big debtor), about the
only thing left to name in Bush's "honor" will be the GWB National Debt.

"Frank Ketchum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The systematic dismantling of the government.
>>
>
> At the rate the Bush administration has been spending money on all fronts,
> how the government is being dismantled is a tough sales pitch to make.
> Its funny that the very thought of taking a minute percentage of SS money
> from the goverment control and putting it into the private sector causes
> such waves of panic. It's not like the entire SS fund is going to be
> invested in high risk stocks.
>
> Frank
>