" 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.

Congratulations to the Dems (I aint no Dem either).


NOYB wrote:
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?


That's right, all the voters are stupid because they didn't
pick your candidate, NOBBY?

Wait a minute, not long ago that's what you claimed the
elitist left-wing snobs were saying...


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.


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.

DSK

"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.

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

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


I echo your statement.

Bush will most likely give them everything they want (as evidenced by
Rumsfeld *resigning* today) in an effort to either help them succeed or
hang themselves. The ball will soon be in their court and it will be
time for them to walk the walk.

Let's all date stamp the conditions 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.

The baseline has been set.

OK Democrats........don't let us down. ;-)






The unemployment figures are good, the stock market is not. Probably 20% of
the market is inflation. All that spending for the last bunch of years has
caused some big time inflation. It is up to the Dem's in Congress, to
control spending. If they do not and only raise taxes to balance the
budget, they will be out in 2 years. And a 3rd party may be kicking ass.
And you say can not happen? Ross Peerot influenced the election enough to
elect Clinton the first time.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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."
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. 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.
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.
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

You put to much blame on Corporations and stockholders. Where do you get
your pay from? 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. 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.
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.

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.


Vic Smith wrote:
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.

My understanding is that the 'surplus' SS revenue, ie
whatever money they take in from SS taxes over and above
immediate payouts to SS benefits, is spent as general
revenue. The SS surplus is what they've been using to mask
the true size of the debt for decades.



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.

Right... this seems to really PO a number of right-wing
peasant types, who insist that U.S. bonds are "worthless paper."



... 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.

If the U.S. gov't defaults on a major portion of it's debt
(*our* debt even though most of us never agreed to it) then
there will be a LOT of trouble that will make squabbling
over Social Security become trivial.




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.

Among others

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."

Well, it is a Ponzi scheme, only legal.

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.

BINGO!
That's the point that all the supporters of President Bush's
recent attempt to loot SS cannot stand to utter. Social
Security can't be compared to investment performance because
it's not an investment.



... 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.

Yep... with kickbacks to the PACs of the politicians who
help them get their mitts on it. Vice President Cheney was
gloating about this rather openly.


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.


It's part of what you pay for a supervised... and supposedly
safer... retirement investment. FWIW I agree with you.



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


But they're all terrorist-coddling fag libby-rulls, just
like AARP and the AMA and DIA and U.N. and the Supreme Court
(except for one brief moment in fall of 2000) and those
generals in the Pentagon who actually wanted a force on the
ground large enough to stabilize Iraq after the invasion.



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.


I just hope they'll act in good faith and not indulge in
partisan muscle-flexing, witch-hunting, and squandering
supertanker-loads of our hard-earned tax dollars.

DSK

"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. :-)

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

"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.




And so they were to pick far right candidates, to continue overspending?
Hopefully the moderates, will take any far left Democrat in Congress out
behind the building and beat some sense into them. Tell them, that the
people wanted moderates. And they will vote out the left extreme next time.

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

Arguing politics is fun, even when it is OT. I admit, I have broken my
promise not to do so but I'll try to resist.