Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "DSK" wrote in message .. . Keep right on shreiking about how the mainstream of Democratic Party is a bunch of leftist whackos. That's what brought you yesterday's vote. Yup, that's what brought yesterday's vote. Had nothing to do with an unpopular war in the Middle East, right? |
#52
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. On 11/8/2006 8:37 PM, JimH wrote: Considering your statement to be correct I guess you saying that the economy, record stock market levels and unemployment rates during the Clinton years were the result of the Republican controlled Congress. Correct? I'm sorry, Jim, but my poor little brain simply cannot follow the incredible leaps of logic that sustain your side of the aisle. The US employment rate is a farce; it is padded with "crap" jobs these days. Was it also a farce during the Clinton years? The percentage of "McJobs" was far smaller in the total mix in the Clinton years. But the average hourly wage (inflation-corrected) is higher today than it was through the 90's. Why are the McJobs paying higher than the non-McJobs during Clinton's reign? |
#53
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:27:46 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: when Clinton swallowed Please don't use those two words in the same paragraph again. Images of fat interns in blue dresses keep popping into my head now. |
#54
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:27:46 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: We have an executive, a legislative, and a judicial branch of government. The executive makes the decisions, and can approve or not approve legislation with a pen, and pay attention to or ignore judicial opinions with "signing statements" Congress can provide oversight and investigate. With a Democratic Congress, those signing statements might bite Bush. Clinton v. New York held that the President must veto the whole bill. Using a signing statement like a line item veto should prove unconstitutional. Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork. |
#55
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:29:03 -0500, " JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote: Inherited? President Idiot is still in residence at 1600 Penn. When there's a Dem in there, you can start your clock. Are you conceding that conditions will worsen with the Dems in power? I think the dems are on the spot. They got elected because people want change. If they can actually show some significant changes they will be positioned to win the white house. If the economy is down, unemployment is up or we are still losing a dozen kids in Iraq the week before the election they will lose what they gained yesterday Oh, but Harry says the clock doesn't start until the next President takes office. |
#56
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Eisboch" wrote in message ... This afternoon I listened to Diane Feinstein being interviewed on MSNBC. I have to paraphrase her remarks, but basically she said: 1. A date should be set for the withdrawral of troops from Iraq, even if Iraq's forces aren't ready to take over for themselves. 2. The concept of military chain of command should be ignored or eliminated by allowing senior military officers on active duty to publically give their personal opinions of US policy and it's effectiveness. They should also be able to report directly to the President, rather going through a chain of command. Hmmmm..... not a good sign of things to come, I think. Sure it is... If you're pulling for a Republican President in '08. ;-) |
#57
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:07:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Yup, that's what brought yesterday's vote. Had nothing to do with an unpopular war in the Middle East, right? Let's not forget, exit polls had corruption right up there with Iraq. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ex...uption&ie=UTF8 |
#58
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:13:01 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Then why not give the President the line item veto? It would cut pork. Didn't pay attention to the Republicans' Contract With America? The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was found unconstitutional. It violates the Presentment clause of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton...ty_of_New_York |
#59
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:10:55 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:15:34 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Using current projections, the SS bonds will need to be drawn upon in about 20 years That is 10 according to the 2006 trustee's report. SSA.GOV You're right. You said and I said it. Fix it. The fix is right there in the conclusion posted below. It's right there in black and white. Pick any suggested method. I'm fine with any of them. None will even show a blip on the economy. Let's see if the Dems get it legislated. Then everybody can quit crying about the "Looming SS Crisis" and how it's a Ponzi scheme for the next 75 years and start worrying about Medicare instead. Or maybe they'll just keep whining about SS "because it's there." .. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/T...s.html#wp76460 quote Conclusion Annual cost will begin to exceed tax income in 2017 for the combined OASDI Trust Funds, which are projected to become exhausted and thus unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis in 2040 under the long-range intermediate assumptions. For the trust funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection period, the combined payroll tax rate could be increased during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of 2.02 percentage points, benefits could be reduced during the period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 13.3 percent, general revenue transfers equivalent to $4.6 trillion (in present value) could be made during the period, or some combination of approaches could be adopted. Significantly larger changes would be required to maintain solvency beyond 75 years. The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers. The sooner adjustments are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have to be. Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of this year's 49 million beneficiaries, and 162 million covered workers and their families. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, we will ensure that Social Security continues to protect future generations. end quote --Vic |
#60
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Hope you better in commodities evaluation than on the SS and 401K evaluation. 401K is a free choice item. You can join or not. Most of my employers over the years had a wide range of choices. Stock funds, bond funds. No choice you mentioned is guaranteed. Not even the poor return money markets, which can actually go negative. No 401k I know of offers a single insured option. That may or may not be ok for a youngster, but it's not for me. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. You can invest any way you please with your 401k, but don't fool yourself there's no vigorish or that you operate in a free financial market. I have done well with my 401k's because I made it a point to save to the max and live frugally, and because of employer contributions and tax savings, not because of investment returns. All else being equal, the return on commonly offered bank CD's would have increased my savings considerably. As to 401k's comparison to SS, many employees aren't offered 401k's or don't have the money to contribute for a variety of reasons. A 401k is an inadequate substitute to replace the intent of SS. That is my opinion. You may disagree. I'm done with it. And millions of people are employed by publicly traded corporations. There are bad ones, but the majority are run by good people. Otherwise, you are accusing all employers of being crooks. Just not noticed if not publically traded. As to SS, where is the tax money to come from? When you only have about 3 workers for each retiree. Is even worse in Europe. In about 10 years, there will be only 2 payers for each retiree. Why there are lots of public employee strikes in France and Germany. The governments are trying to correct the situation. I covered that SS scare BS in another post with a SSA cite. You can read it or not. The solution is printed in black and white by the SSA. If you disagree feel free take it up with them. I'm done with it. As to corporate sleazeballs, read the newspapers. I've met and worked with them in person and think an American corporation whose execs toss Iraq vets' resumes in the trash because it's cheaper to import a foreigner is a sleazeball corporation. You may disagree. I'm done with it. Your putting words in my mouth about "accusing all employers of being crooks" is not an admirable trait. But that's ok, since I'm not you. As to commodities trading, I have just as many teeth as the trader on the other side of the contract. So far mine have proved sharper. But that's my gambling hobby, not my retirement plan. I'm done on this thread. --Vic |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Pete Clinch - Congratulations. | UK Paddle | |||
Congratulations Chuck | General | |||
Congratulations | General | |||
Congratulations Bobsprit | ASA | |||
Congratulations, boys! | ASA |