"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 11/8/2006 8:37 PM, JimH wrote:


Considering your statement to be correct I guess you are saying that the
economy, record stock market levels and unemployment rates during the
Clinton years were the result of the Republican controlled Congress.
Correct?


I'm sorry, Jim, but my poor little brain simply cannot follow the
incredible leaps of logic that sustain your side of the aisle.


And that is the reason you snipped our previous posts to this thread?

Nice try.

Let me repost them:

========================================
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 11/8/2006 8:22 PM, JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 11/8/2006 8:13 PM, JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 11/8/2006 7:29 PM, JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 11/8/2006 7:03 PM, JimH wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 11/8/2006 6:42 PM, NOYB wrote:
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ups.com...
Congratulations to the Dems (I aint no Dem either).
Congratulations?

"Getting people to vote for moderates, in order to put
extremists in power, may be the newest and biggest voter
fraud." --Thomas Sowell
Sowell? Sheesh. A gasbag.
I wish your party well Harry.

Note the baseline you are inheriting: as of today: A 4.4%
unemployment rate (I
believe that is the lowest in over a decade), record stock market
levels,
gasoline around $2/gallon and a booming economy. Most
importantly..........no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11.

I hope your party succeeds in improving all of these conditions.
The ball is soon in your court. :-)


Inherited? President Idiot is still in residence at 1600 Penn. When
there's a Dem in there, you can start your clock.
Are you conceding that conditions will worsen with the Dems in
power?
Too many variables for your pin job.
So the House and Senate are not responsible for conditions related to
the US unemployment rate, Homeland security and the economy?


What?

Do I need to restate my questions?

We have an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch of government.
The executive makes the decisions, and can approve or not approve
legislation with a pen, and pay attention to or ignore judicial opinions
with "signing statements" Congress can provide oversight and investigate.


Nice try. A Presidential veto can be overturned by the Congress.

Considering your statement to be correct I guess you saying that the
economy, record stock market levels and unemployment rates during the
Clinton years were the result of the Republican controlled Congress.
Correct?

(Your reply as noted at the beginning of this post): "I'm sorry, Jim, but
my poor little brain simply cannot follow the
incredible leaps of logic that sustain your side of the aisle."



The US employment rate is a farce; it is padded with "crap" jobs these
days.

Was it also a farce during the Clinton years?
==================================================

I guess some factual information would be in order. Can you provide it?

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them
situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some
thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate
goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only alternative
is gridlock.

Three observations:

1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes
dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the other
one.

2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its
ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional oversight
will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather than personal
attacks.

3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive
election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other
words, nothing new.

Max

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:57:07 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


You put to much blame on Corporations and stockholders.

Blame for what? I just don't want any broker, corporation or
stockholder getting their hands on my retirement money without my
permission because they bought off politicians to get it extracted
from my paycheck.
Nothing wrong with that.

Where do you get your pay from?

I'm retired now, but might go back to work. Quit my corporate job
this year when the workplace got about half-full of imported
foreigners. Nothing wrong with the foreigners, mind you, but I felt
filthy whenever I was around the "American" execs who hired them to
save a buck for their own bonus.
These "American" execs decided that "shareholder value" demanded that
the resume of a vet returning from Iraq went directly to the circular
file, because the job could be done cheaper by an imported foreigner.
Sorta rubbed me the wrong way, you might say. And I don't try too
hard to hide it when I'm disgusted.
Most Americans don't work for publicly traded corporations, and/or
don't get exposed to these types of slimy CEO's and execs.
But you can see them on any TV financial channel if you're interested
in that kind of thing.
BTW, I sometimes trade commodities as a hobby. I risk my own money,
and wouldn't even think of using my retirement money, much less a
dishwasher's retirement money extracted from his paycheck by some
Wall Street/Fed retirement scheme.

The SS is a mess. There are no funds there. It is a Ponzi
scheme, as the promised rewards are based on the paying base expanding in
regards to the collecting group. And in about 20 years, the baby boomers
and the next boom will have retired and the amount of payers will not be
enough to maintain a good life on SS.

What makes you think the average SS recipient can live a "good life"
on that kind of dough? It's enough to get by with, that's all.
Without guaranteed SS, would you rather have the gov start building
housing and contracting food vendors to keep all the old people alive,
or maybe a euthanasia program?
As to the Ponzi aspect, that was a 50% increase in investment every 90
days scheme, and it lasted about 6 months before it blew up, causing a
number of bank and personal bankruptcies.
SS is a conservative insurance plan, has been around 70 years and has
never had even 1 of *billions* of checks bounce.
If you want to call that a Ponzi scheme, go right ahead.
But understand you lose 20 points for each infraction.
Sounds to me like you're just trying to scare old people (-:

Plus you have all those who did not
pay into the system collecting. An immigrant (legal) on SSI will collect
more than the minimum payments of a working SS recipient. As I think was
Eisboch said, was to keep you from starving and living in a hobo camp. It
has changed to be the middle class lifestyle for the retiree collecting SS.

It still *is* a hobo type survival for many. The average SS recipient
gets about $1,000 per month. Hardly middle class..
Some get more because they contributed more, or longer. Some
contribute for 50 years, kick off with no survivors, and get zilch.
Means testing has been proposed, but I don't like that idea.
I agree there's a lot of fraud. I see lawyers advertising on TV all
the time on how they will get you SSI. On my vacation in Florida this
year I met at the resort a couple younger than me (59) who were *both*
on SSI disability because of "back problems" yet who seemed to be
moving perfectly fine. You know, in the private insurance industry
fraud investigators save that industry many times the investigators'
salaries. The Feds should do the same with SS.

And where is the money to come from to pay the bills? The money is in bonds
held by lots of people and foreign entities. We have spent the funds. Part
of Clintons "Balanced Budget" was the use of SS funds. And I am not just
picking on Clinton, he just tried to claim a balanced budget. All the
presidents and Congress have been using the SS funds to run the country and
avoid lots of the pain on not overspending.

The source for any Fed gov spending, including SS, is taxes.
TANSTAAFL.
Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in
about 20 years. The bonds will nominally keep the system paying the
same SS benefits to about 2042.
,As we approach the start of the bond drawdown date in 20 years, the
SS surplus will decrease each year and won't be available for the
general revenue spending bucket. Unless non-SS spending is reduced,
new taxes will have to be raised to pay off the SS bonds. They will
be.
Sometime before the twenty year point is met, either Fed or SS taxes
will be raised to project SS benefits further into the future, maybe
in combination with a payout reduction to SS recipients at the high
end. That's how it will be. Unless we start offing old people at
some proscribed age, or build internment camps with soup kitchens
to let them live out their golden years. I got a feeling taxes will
be raised.
It could be said we are fighting the war in Iraq with invisible money.
The war is real. But the money paying for it is more a matter of
perception and politics than reality. Billions a week, and the
"economy is great."

--Vic

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"ACP" wrote in message
...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
Congratulations to the Dems (I aint no Dem either).

Congratulations?

"Getting people to vote for moderates, in order to put extremists in
power, may be the newest and biggest voter fraud." --Thomas Sowell

You think Mr. and Mrs. Johnston in bum-foch N. Carolina have any idea
just how far to the left Nancy Pelosi is compared to their
newly-elected representative...Heath Schuler?

The Democrats ran candidates from the far right in order to put their
far-left candidates in power. That won't play well in the '08
election.




Yes....congratulations to the Democrats. The Republicans let us
down..........they did not support conservative views....they did not
control spending.......they moved to the old time extreme right
abandoning conservatives.

The ball is now in their court. Bush will give them all the rope they
want as evidenced by the Rumsfeld *resignation*. They will either hang
themselves or prove that the change was good for the Country.

The next 2 years will indeed be interesting.

BTW: I wish we would do away with Republican/Democrat political titles
and start voting strictly on worth of the candidate.

From the sound of your last sentence you don't vote for a candidate but
for the "party" of your choice. It's impossible for *all* the most
qualified candidates to be from the same party.


Go look in the "Interesting Documentary" thread.and view my post in that
thread on 11/05/06 at 11:02 a.m.

Hmmm?

Now go directly to jail and do not collect $200 when passing Go.

How you were able to come to your conclusion based on my reply above (to
NOYB) proves you are indeed psychic.

So what is my birthday?

ROTF!


Can't waste my powers on a trivial request such as that.

I agree. I hope #3 is wrong.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No congratulations are in order. This shouldn't be an us vs. them
situation. Now that the House is under Dem leadership, perhaps some
thoughtful discussion can happen between the two parties. If the Senate
goes also, that will make it even more likely, since the only alternative
is gridlock.

Three observations:

1) The two-party system still works. When the electorate becomes
dissatisfied with the current party in power, it replaces it with the
other one.

2) Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bush administration lost its
ideological way somewhere along the line. Hopefully congressional
oversight will mean a close examination of issues and dollars, rather than
personal attacks.

3) Sadly the outcome of what could be a productive and constructive
election will likely be bitter party division and bickering. In other
words, nothing new.

Max

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:57:07 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


You put to much blame on Corporations and stockholders.

Blame for what? I just don't want any broker, corporation or
stockholder getting their hands on my retirement money without my
permission because they bought off politicians to get it extracted
from my paycheck.
Nothing wrong with that.

Where do you get your pay from?

I'm retired now, but might go back to work. Quit my corporate job
this year when the workplace got about half-full of imported
foreigners. Nothing wrong with the foreigners, mind you, but I felt
filthy whenever I was around the "American" execs who hired them to
save a buck for their own bonus.
These "American" execs decided that "shareholder value" demanded that
the resume of a vet returning from Iraq went directly to the circular
file, because the job could be done cheaper by an imported foreigner.
Sorta rubbed me the wrong way, you might say. And I don't try too
hard to hide it when I'm disgusted.
Most Americans don't work for publicly traded corporations, and/or
don't get exposed to these types of slimy CEO's and execs.
But you can see them on any TV financial channel if you're interested
in that kind of thing.
BTW, I sometimes trade commodities as a hobby. I risk my own money,
and wouldn't even think of using my retirement money, much less a
dishwasher's retirement money extracted from his paycheck by some
Wall Street/Fed retirement scheme.

The SS is a mess. There are no funds there. It is a Ponzi
scheme, as the promised rewards are based on the paying base expanding in
regards to the collecting group. And in about 20 years, the baby boomers
and the next boom will have retired and the amount of payers will not be
enough to maintain a good life on SS.

What makes you think the average SS recipient can live a "good life"
on that kind of dough? It's enough to get by with, that's all.
Without guaranteed SS, would you rather have the gov start building
housing and contracting food vendors to keep all the old people alive,
or maybe a euthanasia program?
As to the Ponzi aspect, that was a 50% increase in investment every 90
days scheme, and it lasted about 6 months before it blew up, causing a
number of bank and personal bankruptcies.
SS is a conservative insurance plan, has been around 70 years and has
never had even 1 of *billions* of checks bounce.
If you want to call that a Ponzi scheme, go right ahead.
But understand you lose 20 points for each infraction.
Sounds to me like you're just trying to scare old people (-:

Plus you have all those who did not
pay into the system collecting. An immigrant (legal) on SSI will collect
more than the minimum payments of a working SS recipient. As I think was
Eisboch said, was to keep you from starving and living in a hobo camp. It
has changed to be the middle class lifestyle for the retiree collecting
SS.

It still *is* a hobo type survival for many. The average SS recipient
gets about $1,000 per month. Hardly middle class..
Some get more because they contributed more, or longer. Some
contribute for 50 years, kick off with no survivors, and get zilch.
Means testing has been proposed, but I don't like that idea.
I agree there's a lot of fraud. I see lawyers advertising on TV all
the time on how they will get you SSI. On my vacation in Florida this
year I met at the resort a couple younger than me (59) who were *both*
on SSI disability because of "back problems" yet who seemed to be
moving perfectly fine. You know, in the private insurance industry
fraud investigators save that industry many times the investigators'
salaries. The Feds should do the same with SS.

And where is the money to come from to pay the bills? The money is in
bonds
held by lots of people and foreign entities. We have spent the funds.
Part
of Clintons "Balanced Budget" was the use of SS funds. And I am not just
picking on Clinton, he just tried to claim a balanced budget. All the
presidents and Congress have been using the SS funds to run the country
and
avoid lots of the pain on not overspending.

The source for any Fed gov spending, including SS, is taxes.
TANSTAAFL.
Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in
about 20 years. The bonds will nominally keep the system paying the
same SS benefits to about 2042.
,As we approach the start of the bond drawdown date in 20 years, the
SS surplus will decrease each year and won't be available for the
general revenue spending bucket. Unless non-SS spending is reduced,
new taxes will have to be raised to pay off the SS bonds. They will
be.
Sometime before the twenty year point is met, either Fed or SS taxes
will be raised to project SS benefits further into the future, maybe
in combination with a payout reduction to SS recipients at the high
end. That's how it will be. Unless we start offing old people at
some proscribed age, or build internment camps with soup kitchens
to let them live out their golden years. I got a feeling taxes will
be raised.
It could be said we are fighting the war in Iraq with invisible money.
The war is real. But the money paying for it is more a matter of
perception and politics than reality. Billions a week, and the
"economy is great."

--Vic
\
Hope you better in commodities evaluation than on the SS and 401K
evaluation. 401K is a free choice item. You can join or not. Most of my
employers over the years had a wide range of choices. Stock funds, bond
funds. And millions of people are employed by publicly traded corporations.
There are bad ones, but the majority are run by good people. Otherwise, you
are accusing all employers of being crooks. Just not noticed if not
publically traded. As to SS, where is the tax money to come from? When you
only have about 3 workers for each retiree. Is even worse in Europe. In
about 10 years, there will be only 2 payers for each retiree. Why there are
lots of public employee strikes in France and Germany. The governments are
trying to correct the situation.

wrote in message
...
On 8 Nov 2006 12:32:56 -0800, "Frogwatch"
wrote:

As a small businessman, I have to fund my own retirement system, why
cant everyone else? Stop whining that you dont have a pension, i dont
either and never expected one. If you dont put enough away for
retirement, its your own fault.. You have had the opportunity, if you
didnt do it, dont whine.

The problem with that thinking is there are a lot of people who
thought they did have a vested pension and worked building it for
decades, until their company went belly up. There are loopholes in
ERISA that allow the benefits to be slashed and PBGC will not make up
the difference.

And for years you could put lots of money in to a SEP IRA plan in excess of
a person contributing to standard IRA. If you were covered under a pension,
you were really limited in tax deferred investing.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:27:46 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


We have an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch of
government. The executive makes the decisions, and can approve or not
approve legislation with a pen, and pay attention to or ignore judicial
opinions with "signing statements" Congress can provide oversight and
investigate.

With a Democratic Congress, those signing statements might bite Bush.
Clinton v. New York held that the President must veto the whole bill.
Using a signing statement like a line item veto should prove
unconstitutional.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:19:15 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


This afternoon I listened to Diane Feinstein being interviewed on MSNBC. I
have to paraphrase her remarks, but basically she said:

1. A date should be set for the withdrawral of troops from Iraq, even if
Iraq's forces aren't ready to take over for themselves.

2. The concept of military chain of command should be ignored or eliminated
by allowing senior military officers on active duty to publically give their
personal opinions of US policy and it's effectiveness. They should also be
able to report directly to the President, rather going through a chain of
command.

Hmmmm..... not a good sign of things to come, I think.

Ok. I hereby vow to make an earnest attempt to get off the politics ......
for about 2 years.
Note: "earnest attempt"

Eisboch


Dual hat the Chairman of the JCS? Make him the SecDef also? I wonder if
they'll raise his pay.

Vic Smith wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:32:59 -0500, DSK wrote:


Unfortunately, you picked a reform that is needed. Social Security. Quit
giving all our children's money to the older generation now. SS was never
the national retirement system.

No, it was really more of a welfare-for-old-folks program,
intended to keep the wolf from the door of people who had no
other resources.


wrote:

The problem is it has become one. The corporations are abandoning
pensoin systems as fast as they can and the existing ones are largely
underfunded.

True, a train wreck that (so far) seems to be below the
political radar... but nonetheless is on a lot of people's
minds.



w.... Of course SS itself is a
Ponzi that will start falling apart in about 10 years when the surplus
is gone and it goes looking for those bonds. (AKA government debt)


Actually, that's not true. SS is solvent until 2042 as of
last count, and the long term viability trend is going up
not down. That doesn't mean it should be ignored.


Most people don't look at the accounting behind SS.
Manipulation of monies in different ledgers is standard accounting
practice.
Current SS taxes taken directly from a dishwashers paycheck are being
spent as general revenues, while debt is being run up, some of it to
subsidize tax cuts for oil companies, no less. The same SS paycheck
money is entered into the SS ledgers for later repayment to SS
contributors.
Any one who pays SS taxes already has a facsimile individual SS
account and gets a statement each year as to total paycheck
contributions and likely benefits he is entitled to retrieve. The gov
backs up the accounts with bonds. These debt bonds are in essence no
different than the bonds the gov issues to the Chinese commies. If
the Chinese commies expect to collect on U.S. debt, and the oil
companies expect to collect on their U.S. tax cuts, you can damn well
rest assured that Americans who contribute cash out of their paychecks
to SS expect to likewise collect.
Anybody who doesn't expect their SS money back is a sucker, pure and
simple.

I find it facinating that we can get our panties in a bunch about some
global warming models that may predict a melt down of the ice caps in
a century or two and we ignore a financial melt down that WILL happen
in a decade or two.

The problem here is that a lot of people apparently can't do
math.


Partly. The other problem is they listen to Wall Street BS.
The propaganda effect is tremendous. Hence you hear an insurance plan
(SS) which has operated successfully for the better part of a century,
and backed by the U.S. government, called a "Ponzi Scheme."

Because it is essentially that. The money being paid in doesn't go to
the individual that paid it in, and there is no guarantee that ANY money
has to be paid out. Secondly, have the money paid in is hidden by
assessing the employer people it shows up on a paycheck

Wall Street got directly into the pocket of workers with 401's, whose
funds are commonly raped by fund managers and their Wall Street
cronies. Some do ok and some don't, but it's a gamble.



SS isn't a
gamble.

BWHAHAHAHAHA.......try dying befor you recover any of the $$$$ and after
your kids turn 21.

It may need modification in the future as it has in the past,
but can never leave certain minimum payout, and government guarantee.
You betcha Wall Street wants that 15% combo from every employer/worker
paycheck going right into the accounts they control.

Free hint....there is no government guarantee.

I'm all for savings/investment, but want control. Having seen a
number of 401k offerings, the investment options are limited and
unattractive compared to the open market. That non-competiveness
isn't accidental.


Somewhere in his writings, Robert Heinlein said that there
are two types of people, mathematicians and peasants.


If the gov tries to screw SS, add ****ed off retirees, massed for the
"20 Million Geezer March on Washington."

.... I am retired now but I fully expect to go back to work. I
may take up smoking so I won't outlive my money.

Funny. I'm thinking of quitting smoking so I'll have time to spend
mine. Not that there's a lot, but my needs aren't great.


Why didn't you save more, and invest intelligently, when you
had the chance? The real answer is to be self reliant and
accountable for one's actions.


Sure, but stuff happens, and that's why SS is there as a fallback.
It's enough to keep a roof over your head and food on the table.


Only as long as the government deems it that way, and as less pay in and
more want the payout, the result will be higher taxes and or less payout.

If you want some style you need to save more.


Also to hold the CEOs who have looted pension funds
accountable... that would help too.


Another vacuuming of taxpayer money, funding retirees
through the PBGC because CEO's, execs and shareholders
raped the corporate pension funding.
BTW, polling shows the so-called Tsunami which tossed the Republicans
from the Congress was caused by a number of complaints, and I think
one I saw said 42% Iraq, 39% economy. If the Dems don't address that,
they'll be tossed out next cycle.

--Vic