"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?

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

"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. ;-)

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

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

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

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