On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:43:02 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

sittingduck wrote:

Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff belong in groups like that, but they would
be drowned out by the dozens more just like them. This is why they stay in
the groups they normally frequent, thre is very little competition for
attention.

SD:

"Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff..." But, but, I thought you and
Cliff were buds? Left wing feathers flocking together, or something
like that. Did you become disillusioned for some reason?

BB,
You don't have to be "left" anything to pick apart the
favored sayings, lies & claims of nutjobs like Gunner, most of
the braindead wingers, gunnutz, fundies or jb.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:43:02 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

sittingduck wrote:

Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff belong in groups like that, but they
would
be drowned out by the dozens more just like them. This is why they stay
in
the groups they normally frequent, thre is very little competition for
attention.

SD:

"Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff..." But, but, I thought you and
Cliff were buds? Left wing feathers flocking together, or something
like that. Did you become disillusioned for some reason?

BB,
You don't have to be "left" anything to pick apart the
favored sayings, lies & claims of nutjobs like Gunner, most of
the braindead wingers, gunnutz, fundies or jb.
--
Cliff

HATE, INTOLERANCE, BIGOTRY AND STUPIDITY...STILL THE SAME CRYBABBY CRAP!!!

On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:30:54 GMT, "Tom Gardner"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:43:02 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

sittingduck wrote:

Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff belong in groups like that, but they
would
be drowned out by the dozens more just like them. This is why they stay
in
the groups they normally frequent, thre is very little competition for
attention.

SD:

"Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff..." But, but, I thought you and
Cliff were buds? Left wing feathers flocking together, or something
like that. Did you become disillusioned for some reason?

BB,
You don't have to be "left" anything to pick apart the
favored sayings, lies & claims of nutjobs like Gunner, most of
the braindead wingers, gunnutz, fundies or jb.
--
Cliff

HATE, INTOLERANCE, BIGOTRY AND STUPIDITY...STILL THE SAME CRYBABBY CRAP!!!

~100,000 + murdered so far and he's happy as a clam .... his
hatred, love of being fed lies & winger BS shines thru like
the words of neocons & TV & radio preachers telling him to give
& bend over while they do his "thinking" for him ...
--
Cliff

On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:46:05 -0500, "shu" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
[
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There
is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these
things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an
occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number
is negligible and they are stupid." -- Eisenhower in '54
]


Hi

I'm going to offer you two choices,


Other than dumping Outbreak Distress?
New Army boots?



1, You can take all the money you earn and do with it as you please, You may
stick it in a bank, you may stuff it under your mattress, you can buy
stocks, you can even give it away, it's your money, and you may do with it
as you please.



The downside* is that you will be responsible for saving a portion for your
retiremet. What you save is exactly what you'll have, after you die your
money will be given to whomever you list in your will





2, I'm going to take a percentage of your money from you. What I do with it
is none of your business; you will have no control over it. That being said,
I will likely use your money to empower myself, I will use it to spend on
collection agencies that will enforce your donation to me. If at any point
you wish to stop donating money to me, I will throw you in jail, or levy
fines against you as punishment.



After you retire you will receive some money back from me, this money will
not be anywhere near the amount that you gave me. How much I give back is
completely at my discretion, it is only limited by how much I can use force
to prevent you from taking it back. Since I have most of the force, it is by
my sheer generosity that I give ANY back. I can and will change the
retirement age at my discretion, thus also limiting how much money I decide
to give back to you. Minority groups, will get the worst return on their
(enforced) donation, as statistically speaking, they simply die at a younger
age. If you should die before you retire, I will keep your money, your
children will inherit nothing, thus helping to keep you and your family poor
for generations while I grow richer.

I also will guarantee that I will ridicule and discredit anyone who
advocates choice number 1. All this will ensure dependency on me for decades
to come!



I hope you choose wisely



* this is only a downside if you're irresponsible

http://www.stewsstripped.com/

BTW, Take a look ...... it failed & failed very
badly everyplace else it was tried (which the
neocons hold up as shining examples).
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:46:05 -0500, "shu" wrote:


"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
[
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs,
you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There
is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these
things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an
occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number
is negligible and they are stupid." -- Eisenhower in '54
]


Hi

I'm going to offer you two choices,


Other than dumping Outbreak Distress?
New Army boots?



1, You can take all the money you earn and do with it as you please, You
may
stick it in a bank, you may stuff it under your mattress, you can buy
stocks, you can even give it away, it's your money, and you may do with
it
as you please.



The downside* is that you will be responsible for saving a portion for
your
retiremet. What you save is exactly what you'll have, after you die your
money will be given to whomever you list in your will





2, I'm going to take a percentage of your money from you. What I do with
it
is none of your business; you will have no control over it. That being
said,
I will likely use your money to empower myself, I will use it to spend on
collection agencies that will enforce your donation to me. If at any
point
you wish to stop donating money to me, I will throw you in jail, or levy
fines against you as punishment.



After you retire you will receive some money back from me, this money
will
not be anywhere near the amount that you gave me. How much I give back is
completely at my discretion, it is only limited by how much I can use
force
to prevent you from taking it back. Since I have most of the force, it is
by
my sheer generosity that I give ANY back. I can and will change the
retirement age at my discretion, thus also limiting how much money I
decide
to give back to you. Minority groups, will get the worst return on their
(enforced) donation, as statistically speaking, they simply die at a
younger
age. If you should die before you retire, I will keep your money, your
children will inherit nothing, thus helping to keep you and your family
poor
for generations while I grow richer.

I also will guarantee that I will ridicule and discredit anyone who
advocates choice number 1. All this will ensure dependency on me for
decades
to come!



I hope you choose wisely



* this is only a downside if you're irresponsible

http://www.stewsstripped.com/

BTW, Take a look ...... it failed & failed very
badly everyplace else it was tried (which the
neocons hold up as shining examples).
--
Cliff


well cliffy, how bout just taking your money, and putting it in a bank?
failing that, how about sticking it under a mattress? either way you'll end
up with a lot more then what's returned back


if *you* want, you can have the govt force you to stick it in the bank for
you, but a lot of us don't want that
btw. my example has nothing to do with pensions,, you're grasping for
straws, personally i would never stick a lot of money in a pension fund in
an industry that is so heavily unionized, GM is a wonderfull example of what
happens with too much unionized labor.. too many "benefits" not enough real
cash, and no way to reverse it.

*******
shu

On Sun, 22 May 2005 06:10:09 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:45:50 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff:

Heh, sorry Cliff 'ol buddy, you'll have to find a different fish to
bite on your dogmatic political hyperbole.

Umm .... BB, ~100,000 + actually have been murdered and it was
all sold to you in packs of lies ...... and they claim that it was
done in your name & because you wanted it (recall "democracy"?)

Step up to the plate or cut bait.


Cliff:

Ssssniiiip! (That's the sound of the bait line being cut) g

Well, BB, as you like to whine & complain & do surveys in your
"line" ..... now you can have a real subject that may actually matter:
neocons, fundies, wingers & how to limit their damages.

From a biological perspective: How did their genes survive?
Why don't they think? Why are they so gullible? Is there a survival
advantage in being sheep or cattle (Yep, there is .... the farmer
takes care of you & breeds more ...)?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:59:46 -0500, "shu" wrote:

well cliffy, how bout just taking your money, and putting it in a bank?
failing that, how about sticking it under a mattress? either way you'll end
up with a lot more then what's returned back

On average, you are wrong. In both of your cases you lose to
inflation & to taxes as well in the bank.
Social Security is *supposed* to be indexed for inflation.

if *you* want, you can have the govt force you to stick it in the bank for
you, but a lot of us don't want that

You'd rather have them decide *what* you can "invest" in & under
what rules, paying which brokers how much each year to trade it
for you?

btw. my example has nothing to do with pensions,,

Oh?

you're grasping for
straws, personally i would never stick a lot of money in a pension fund

But setting up private ones was exactly your subject.

in
an industry that is so heavily unionized, GM is a wonderfull example of what
happens with too much unionized labor.. too many "benefits" not enough real
cash, and no way to reverse it.

Their major problem, much like everyone else's, seems to be the
cost of health care.
And trusting the government .... those private accounts that you
are advocating can be raided at any time by the government, just
as SS has been.

Clearly you also missed what has happened in every other nation
that has tried it ..... your trust in big & bigger government, stock
brokers (big shrubbie donors, like the medical firms), etc. is,
however, very touching indeed.

BTW, Your spelling & suchlike seems to have improved.
On the wagon? LOL ...
--
Cliff

In article , says...

On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:43:02 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

sittingduck wrote:

Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff belong in groups like that, but they would
be drowned out by the dozens more just like them. This is why they stay in
the groups they normally frequent, thre is very little competition for
attention.

SD:

"Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff..." But, but, I thought you and
Cliff were buds? Left wing feathers flocking together, or something
like that. Did you become disillusioned for some reason?

BB,
You don't have to be "left" anything to pick apart the
favored sayings, lies & claims of nutjobs like Gunner, most of
the braindead wingers, gunnutz, fundies or jb.

I don't think Gunner's a nutjob. But I have no idea what's
wrong with him, these days.

FW

On 22 May 2005 15:16:58 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

In article , says...

On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:43:02 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

sittingduck wrote:

Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff belong in groups like that, but they would
be drowned out by the dozens more just like them. This is why they stay in
the groups they normally frequent, thre is very little competition for
attention.

SD:

"Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff..." But, but, I thought you and
Cliff were buds? Left wing feathers flocking together, or something
like that. Did you become disillusioned for some reason?

BB,
You don't have to be "left" anything to pick apart the
favored sayings, lies & claims of nutjobs like Gunner, most of
the braindead wingers, gunnutz, fundies or jb.

I don't think Gunner's a nutjob. But I have no idea what's
wrong with him, these days.

FW

What are you referring to? That I dont share your view on the war in
Iraq? Or that I tend to not let bull**** remain unanswered? Or that
my capacity for being nice to buffoons has gotten smaller and smaller?

Gunner


"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Cliff wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2005 06:10:09 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff:

Ssssniiiip! (That's the sound of the bait line being cut) g

Well, BB, as you like to whine & complain & do surveys...

Cliff:

Sliiip Pop! (That's the sound of the hook slipping out again). LOL

Perhaps if you crossposted your parochial political polemic to 20 or 30
groups instead of two, you might have more luck catching some unwary
dupes that aren't familiar with your modus operandi.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

--
**********
shu

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:59:46 -0500, "shu" wrote:

well cliffy, how bout just taking your money, and putting it in a bank?
failing that, how about sticking it under a mattress? either way you'll
end
up with a lot more then what's returned back

On average, you are wrong. In both of your cases you lose to
inflation & to taxes as well in the bank.
Social Security is *supposed* to be indexed for inflation.


herm. that's just plain wrong, it's almost a guarantee that you'll lose
money,
maybe when it was first started up you got back out what you put it, but not
anymore,

if *you* want, you can have the govt force you to stick it in the bank
for
you, but a lot of us don't want that

You'd rather have them decide *what* you can "invest" in & under
what rules, paying which brokers how much each year to trade it
for you?

not at all,. *I* would rather decide what to do with *MY* money

you lib's are very funny, you bitch and moan how private stocks are risky,
yet the stock market just keeps going up up up.
have you heard of diversifying your account?
it's a crying shame that you're pitting "the poor" against the stock market,
and private industry.. thankfully thou your message is largely going
ignored, as more and more people are investing each and every year

what the hell do you libs have against private industry anyway? what the
hell do you think made this country the number one power in the world? it
sure as hell wasn't high taxes and govt interference..
you guys bitch and moan against the very things that have allowed you to
live in your nice home, with your nice car, with plenty of food, while other
socialist, tyranical empires are having mass starvation,
explain to yourself why a small tiny country such as taiwan, with ..
relatlivly speaking very little in the way of natural resources, can do far
better.. oh say.. zimbabwe,, which has abundant natural resources..

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/




btw. my example has nothing to do with pensions,,

Oh?

you're grasping for
straws, personally i would never stick a lot of money in a pension fund

But setting up private ones was exactly your subject.

in
an industry that is so heavily unionized, GM is a wonderfull example of
what
happens with too much unionized labor.. too many "benefits" not enough
real
cash, and no way to reverse it.

Their major problem, much like everyone else's, seems to be the
cost of health care.
And trusting the government .... those private accounts that you
are advocating can be raided at any time by the government, just
as SS has been.

Clearly you also missed what has happened in every other nation
that has tried it ..... your trust in big & bigger government, stock
brokers (big shrubbie donors, like the medical firms), etc. is,
however, very touching indeed.

lol, what makes you think I trust in big govts?



BTW, Your spelling & suchlike seems to have improved.
On the wagon? LOL ...
sod off, ******.

********
shu

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:24:55 -0500, "shu" wrote:

what the hell do you libs have against private industry anyway? what the
hell do you think made this country the number one power in the world? it
sure as hell wasn't high taxes and govt interference..
you guys bitch and moan against the very things that have allowed you to
live in your nice home, with your nice car, with plenty of food, while other
socialist, tyranical empires are having mass starvation,
explain to yourself why a small tiny country such as taiwan, with ..
relatlivly speaking very little in the way of natural resources, can do far
better.. oh say.. zimbabwe,, which has abundant natural resources..

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/

Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:24:55 -0500, "shu" wrote:

what the hell do you libs have against private industry anyway? what the
hell do you think made this country the number one power in the world? it
sure as hell wasn't high taxes and govt interference..
you guys bitch and moan against the very things that have allowed you to
live in your nice home, with your nice car, with plenty of food, while
other
socialist, tyranical empires are having mass starvation,
explain to yourself why a small tiny country such as taiwan, with ..
relatlivly speaking very little in the way of natural resources, can do
far
better.. oh say.. zimbabwe,, which has abundant natural resources..

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/

Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.

NeoCons are just selfish *******s who don't want to pay their fair share of
the costs, but nonetheless want all the things their uncontrolled spending
sprees buy them, as long as someone else, such as their grandkids, has to
pay. Who else would have the gall to ram through tax cuts for the wealthy
while "we're at war" and the deficit explodes?

Jeff

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:24:55 -0500, "shu" wrote:

what the hell do you libs have against private industry anyway? what
the hell do you think made this country the number one power in the
world? it sure as hell wasn't high taxes and govt interference..
you guys bitch and moan against the very things that have allowed
you to live in your nice home, with your nice car, with plenty of
food, while other socialist, tyranical empires are having mass
starvation,
explain to yourself why a small tiny country such as taiwan, with ..
relatlivly speaking very little in the way of natural resources, can
do far better.. oh say.. zimbabwe,, which has abundant natural
resources..

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/

Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.


The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a part of
American History. More than a political tool or simple act that can be
misused and taken away forever. I like to think that Social Security is a
small way of saying "Thanks" to the seniors that have made that long and
weary road to become the grandfathers of today and yesterday. A proud but
humble place to be and to some entirely necessary.


Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2 trillion as
last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were when Ike
was around or at least in theory.

Proto

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:35:22 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:24:55 -0500, "shu" wrote:

what the hell do you libs have against private industry anyway? what the
hell do you think made this country the number one power in the world? it
sure as hell wasn't high taxes and govt interference..
you guys bitch and moan against the very things that have allowed you to
live in your nice home, with your nice car, with plenty of food, while
other
socialist, tyranical empires are having mass starvation,
explain to yourself why a small tiny country such as taiwan, with ..
relatlivly speaking very little in the way of natural resources, can do
far
better.. oh say.. zimbabwe,, which has abundant natural resources..

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/

Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.

NeoCons are just selfish *******s who don't want to pay their fair share of
the costs, but nonetheless want all the things their uncontrolled spending
sprees buy them, as long as someone else, such as their grandkids, has to
pay. Who else would have the gall to ram through tax cuts for the wealthy
while "we're at war" and the deficit explodes?

Jeff

Fair share of what? Lib entitlements for illegal aliens? Top heavy
liberal education that turns out mind numbed drones only able to punch
the D in the voting booth..if they even bother? Snicker..I can go on.

Btw..Im hardly rich..and I got a tax cut. Works for me. It means that
I get to keep more of MY OWN MONEY and not be forced to pay for YOUR
socialist agendas.

The war is a given. And I agree with the need for it. Shrug. So why
dont you stop spending our childrens future on leftist entitlements?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.


The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a part of
American History. More than a political tool or simple act that can be
misused and taken away forever. I like to think that Social Security is a
small way of saying "Thanks" to the seniors that have made that long and
weary road to become the grandfathers of today and yesterday. A proud but
humble place to be and to some entirely necessary.

Too bad it was not designed or implimented to be a gift to anyone who
manages to reach a magic age.


Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2 trillion as
last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were when Ike
was around or at least in theory.

So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program that
was rammed down our collective throats, along with regulations and
mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way, on a single income.

Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.

Proto

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Sun, 22 May 2005 16:50:33 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Or that I tend to not let bull**** remain unanswered?

snicker

Or that
my capacity for being nice to buffoons has gotten smaller and smaller?

snicker

Anyone have a killfile handy?
--
Cliff

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:08:34 -0500, "shu" wrote:

Are you aware that many Social Security recipients receive more over their
lifetimes than their contributions would give them if invested in the
private market? Apparently not.

hahahahahahahahaha. apparently you live on a completey different planet if
you believe that
i'm sorry if you fell into that, you've been completely decieved, the people
that receive more then they put in are on disablities, and/or have had other
extraordinary circuminstances happen to them.

Which will never happen to you, anyone you know, anyone
that signs up for this new neocon swindle ....

for the rest of us, we aren't , and do not expect, to get diddly back.

Because you want to opt out.

i dont' really have a problem keeping disablity, it's a relativly small
portion of the total scam that is social security

So .... a new added tax on your "savings" & "investment account"
to pay for it all?

LMAO !!!
--
Cliff

On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2 trillion as
last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that will end up.

Let's see ..... another two trillion in general taxes to be
raised NOW to run a SCAM or fix a *possible* (and much disputed)
problem (that will not happen for ~40 years IF it happens at all) some
other way? Such as raising the no-taxes limit or more effective
bennies for the dollar ....
And this is not even one of the big problems .... just neocon
smoke & mirrors to distract from the murders & suchlike .....
--
Cliff

On Mon, 23 May 2005 05:29:33 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2 trillion as
last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were when Ike
was around or at least in theory.

So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program that
was rammed down our collective throats, along with regulations and
mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way, on a single income.

Gunner would now be DEAD due to his heart problems.

Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.

Feel free to stick up for your "principals", few that they
might be.
--
Cliff

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:24:55 -0500, "shu" wrote:

Shu, PLEASE LEARN HOW TO POST !!!
REMOVE PRIOR CUTLINED SIGS !!

THEN TRY NOT TOP-POSTING CUTLINES.

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 May 2005 22:59:46 -0500, "shu" wrote:

well cliffy, how bout just taking your money, and putting it in a bank?
failing that, how about sticking it under a mattress? either way you'll
end
up with a lot more then what's returned back

On average, you are wrong. In both of your cases you lose to
inflation & to taxes as well in the bank.
Social Security is *supposed* to be indexed for inflation.


herm. that's just plain wrong, it's almost a guarantee that you'll lose
money,

Oops ... after all the nice things I said you lost the caps key &
stuff again.
I give. Who really wrote that other post that you posted?

Making money is not the point of it, now is it?

maybe when it was first started up you got back out what you put it, but not
anymore,

I gather that "inflation" is a difficult concept for you.


if *you* want, you can have the govt force you to stick it in the bank
for
you, but a lot of us don't want that

You'd rather have them decide *what* you can "invest" in & under
what rules, paying which brokers how much each year to trade it
for you?

not at all,. *I* would rather decide what to do with *MY* money

So would everyone else.
You REALLY need a new Hummer, right?

you lib's are very funny, you bitch and moan how private stocks are risky,
yet the stock market just keeps going up up up.

This is a very ignorant set of comments.

have you heard of diversifying your account?

Under the plan it's NOT you that gets to decide
which stocks to buy. Missed that, eh?

And, no matter how "diversified", you can easily lose
a great deal.

How much, if ANYTHING, do YOU have "invested in the stock
market" NOW? For how long? Starting when?

it's a crying shame that you're pitting "the poor" against the stock market,
and private industry.. thankfully thou your message is largely going
ignored, as more and more people are investing each and every year

A great many that invested in the last decade lost most of it.
I know quite a few with 401Ks that are in mutual funds ..... worth
far less now that what they put into them over the last decades.

what the hell do you libs have against private industry anyway? what the
hell do you think made this country the number one power in the world? it
sure as hell wasn't high taxes and govt interference..

You think that it was brain dead neocons?

you guys bitch and moan against the very things that have allowed you to
live in your nice home, with your nice car, with plenty of food, while other
socialist, tyranical empires are having mass starvation,

Stop bombing them.

explain to yourself why a small tiny country such as taiwan, with ..
relatlivly speaking very little in the way of natural resources, can do far
better.. oh say.. zimbabwe,, which has abundant natural resources..

http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/

They refused to let American firms buy & run everything?
Being in business as a people & a culture for over 4,000
years?

btw. my example has nothing to do with pensions,,

Oh?

you're grasping for
straws, personally i would never stick a lot of money in a pension fund

But setting up private ones was exactly your subject.

in
an industry that is so heavily unionized, GM is a wonderfull example of
what
happens with too much unionized labor.. too many "benefits" not enough
real
cash, and no way to reverse it.

Their major problem, much like everyone else's, seems to be the
cost of health care.
And trusting the government .... those private accounts that you
are advocating can be raided at any time by the government, just
as SS has been.

Clearly you also missed what has happened in every other nation
that has tried it ..... your trust in big & bigger government, stock
brokers (big shrubbie donors, like the medical firms), etc. is,
however, very touching indeed.

lol, what makes you think I trust in big govts?

Your desire to hand over money to them ......

BTW, Your spelling & suchlike seems to have improved.
On the wagon? LOL ...
sod off, ******.

It was of very limited duration anyway it seems.
Who REALLY wrote it?

********
shu

BTW, Have you considered getting an education? I've
heard that some of the more liberal schools will allow you
to wear your jackboots ...
--
Cliff

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.


The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a part
of American History. More than a political tool or simple act that
can be misused and taken away forever. I like to think that Social
Security is a small way of saying "Thanks" to the seniors that have
made that long and weary road to become the grandfathers of today
and yesterday. A proud but humble place to be and to some entirely
necessary.

Too bad it was not designed or implimented to be a gift to anyone who
manages to reach a magic age.


Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2
trillion as last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that
will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were
when Ike was around or at least in theory.

So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program that
was rammed down our collective throats, along with regulations and
mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way, on a single income.

Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.

Proto



I am not sure just what it was designed for. It depends on who is doing the
spinning but I know what thing for sure it was not designed to be looted of
over 2 trillion dollars that you failed to comment on.....

On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:33:39 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.


The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a part
of American History. More than a political tool or simple act that
can be misused and taken away forever. I like to think that Social
Security is a small way of saying "Thanks" to the seniors that have
made that long and weary road to become the grandfathers of today
and yesterday. A proud but humble place to be and to some entirely
necessary.

Too bad it was not designed or implimented to be a gift to anyone who
manages to reach a magic age.


Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2
trillion as last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that
will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were
when Ike was around or at least in theory.

So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program that
was rammed down our collective throats, along with regulations and
mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way, on a single income.

Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.

Proto



I am not sure just what it was designed for. It depends on who is doing the
spinning but I know what thing for sure it was not designed to be looted of
over 2 trillion dollars that you failed to comment on.....



Looted? By whom and when? You are a big boy Proto..you know there is
NO such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund. Its all paper, subject
to borrowing by the Government at large. Perhaps now you know why
Clinton claimed to have a surplus...because he claimed those IOUs as
revenue..along with POSSIBLE future revenue..and he spent a bunch of
it.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on Mon,
23 May 2005 23:44:57 GMT in misc.survivalism :
On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:33:39 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.


The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a part
of American History. More than a political tool or simple act that
can be misused and taken away forever. I like to think that Social
Security is a small way of saying "Thanks" to the seniors that have
made that long and weary road to become the grandfathers of today
and yesterday. A proud but humble place to be and to some entirely
necessary.

Too bad it was not designed or implimented to be a gift to anyone who
manages to reach a magic age.


Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2
trillion as last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that
will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were
when Ike was around or at least in theory.

So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program that
was rammed down our collective throats, along with regulations and
mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way, on a single income.

Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.

Proto



I am not sure just what it was designed for. It depends on who is doing the
spinning but I know what thing for sure it was not designed to be looted of
over 2 trillion dollars that you failed to comment on.....



Looted? By whom and when? You are a big boy Proto..you know there is
NO such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund. Its all paper, subject
to borrowing by the Government at large.

And the first big "raid" was under LBJ. The accounting gimmicks made
the deficits from the attempt to have Guns _and_ Butter look smaller.

Perhaps now you know why
Clinton claimed to have a surplus...because he claimed those IOUs as
revenue..along with POSSIBLE future revenue..and he spent a bunch of
it.

No doubt bubbah remembers there really was a surplus.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"MTV may talk about lighting fires and killing children,
but Janet Reno actually does something about it." --Spy Magazine

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:33:39 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:


Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.


The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a part
of American History. More than a political tool or simple act that
can be misused and taken away forever. I like to think that Social
Security is a small way of saying "Thanks" to the seniors that have
made that long and weary road to become the grandfathers of today
and yesterday. A proud but humble place to be and to some entirely
necessary.

Too bad it was not designed or implimented to be a gift to anyone
who manages to reach a magic age.


Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2
trillion as last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that
will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were
when Ike was around or at least in theory.

So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program that
was rammed down our collective throats, along with regulations and
mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way, on a single
income.

Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.

Proto



I am not sure just what it was designed for. It depends on who is
doing the spinning but I know what thing for sure it was not
designed to be looted of over 2 trillion dollars that you failed to
comment on.....



Looted? By whom and when? You are a big boy Proto..you know there is
NO such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund. Its all paper, subject
to borrowing by the Government at large. Perhaps now you know why
Clinton claimed to have a surplus...because he claimed those IOUs as
revenue..along with POSSIBLE future revenue..and he spent a bunch of
it.

What do you think this is all about. The TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in
'Transition" fees to 'Reform' what they screwed up in the first place. This
'Trust (funny name in itself) Fund" has always been manipulated by both
parties of the government but never dismantled. And by the way, I would like
someone in their own words, you this time, explain to me just what SS was
indented to be anyway. It was never intended to be a retirement fund because
it was never thought that things would be so desperate for the poor. What
was only meant to help is now all some will have. So if this is what you
mean then you are right but it also does not mean it has to be changed. Why
not fund the elderly with a little help rather than Nation building. Why do
some get so bitter when the needs of the poor are addressed?

Proto

On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:02:19 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:33:39 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:


Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.


The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a part
of American History. More than a political tool or simple act that
can be misused and taken away forever. I like to think that Social
Security is a small way of saying "Thanks" to the seniors that have
made that long and weary road to become the grandfathers of today
and yesterday. A proud but humble place to be and to some entirely
necessary.

Too bad it was not designed or implimented to be a gift to anyone
who manages to reach a magic age.


Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2
trillion as last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where that
will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were
when Ike was around or at least in theory.

So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program that
was rammed down our collective throats, along with regulations and
mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way, on a single
income.

Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.

Proto



I am not sure just what it was designed for. It depends on who is
doing the spinning but I know what thing for sure it was not
designed to be looted of over 2 trillion dollars that you failed to
comment on.....



Looted? By whom and when? You are a big boy Proto..you know there is
NO such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund. Its all paper, subject
to borrowing by the Government at large. Perhaps now you know why
Clinton claimed to have a surplus...because he claimed those IOUs as
revenue..along with POSSIBLE future revenue..and he spent a bunch of
it.

What do you think this is all about. The TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in
'Transition" fees to 'Reform' what they screwed up in the first place. This
'Trust (funny name in itself) Fund" has always been manipulated by both
parties of the government but never dismantled. And by the way, I would like
someone in their own words, you this time, explain to me just what SS was
indented to be anyway. It was never intended to be a retirement fund because
it was never thought that things would be so desperate for the poor. What
was only meant to help is now all some will have. So if this is what you
mean then you are right but it also does not mean it has to be changed. Why
not fund the elderly with a little help rather than Nation building. Why do
some get so bitter when the needs of the poor are addressed?

Proto

The reason so many people have only Social Security, as they by and
large, were told that SS would be there to bail them out when they
retired. A Retirment account. Something it was NEVER intended to be.
Now we have high income pensioners with one or more pension fund
drawing SS at the same time. This puts one hell of a drain on the
system. Btw..the average Poor in the US, is considered poor in no
other part of the planet. Ever see the government figures on the
poverty level?

The Elderly are already being funded. Funded at the level they wish
to be? Some are, some are not. They by and large should have done as
their forebearers did..and planned ahead. One should also note that SS
basicly ruined the charities that performed the task of taking care of
the truely needy.

The "needs of the poor" are well addressed in this country. Free
medical, low income housing, public transportation at discount and so
forth. Food stamps, WIC vouchers, aid to dependant children yada yada
yada.

While its true that the single biggest issue is perscription med
costs...those could be addressed by the Canadian method, and still not
touch SS funds.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:02:19 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

What
was only meant to help is now all some will have.

Look at all the private *invested* pension plans that
have gone bust or been revoked with the employees
getting about nothing ..... the neocons love it.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:43:18 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

The Maroon ...

The reason so many people have only Social Security, as they by and
large, were told that SS would be there to bail them out when they
retired. A Retirment account. Something it was NEVER intended to be.
Now we have high income pensioners with one or more pension fund
drawing SS at the same time. This puts one hell of a drain on the
system.

So you think that they should get nothing?
BTW, The "drain" on the "system" (in real terms, the economy)
would be about the same as "supply side economics" or some
such, like your much beloved "deficit spending", would it not?
Or if the same money was coming out of the net economy
in some other way .... exactly the same effect.

Except, in this case, you are trying to add to the deficit
and thus INCREASE taxes (with compounded interest).

Btw..the average Poor in the US, is considered poor in no
other part of the planet. Ever see the government figures on the
poverty level?

Ever see what the cost of living in the US is?
Let's just make a deal & all retire to China or Mexico or someplace.
--
Cliff

Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:02:19 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:33:39 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:45:12 -0400, "Proto"
wrote:


Libs believe in taxing the nation into prosperity.


The Social Security System has to me always been viewed as a
part of American History. More than a political tool or simple
act that can be misused and taken away forever. I like to think
that Social Security is a small way of saying "Thanks" to the
seniors that have made that long and weary road to become the
grandfathers of today and yesterday. A proud but humble place to
be and to some entirely necessary.

Too bad it was not designed or implemented to be a gift to anyone
who manages to reach a magic age.


Then there is always the 'Transition Fee" some where around 2
trillion as last calculated taken off the top. I wonder where
that will end up.

I must be a liberal if I want things to go back the way they were
when Ike was around or at least in theory.

So would I. Now if we shut down every leftist/socialist program
that was rammed down our collective throats, along with
regulations and mandates after Ikes time..we could live that way,
on a single income.

Thanks for seeing the light and becoming a conservative.

Proto



I am not sure just what it was designed for. It depends on who is
doing the spinning but I know what thing for sure it was not
designed to be looted of over 2 trillion dollars that you failed to
comment on.....



Looted? By whom and when? You are a big boy Proto..you know there is
NO such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund. Its all paper,
subject to borrowing by the Government at large. Perhaps now you
know why Clinton claimed to have a surplus...because he claimed
those IOUs as revenue..along with POSSIBLE future revenue..and he
spent a bunch of it.

What do you think this is all about. The TWO TRILLION DOLLARS in
'Transition" fees to 'Reform' what they screwed up in the first
place. This 'Trust (funny name in itself) Fund" has always been
manipulated by both parties of the government but never dismantled.
And by the way, I would like someone in their own words, you this
time, explain to me just what SS was indented to be anyway. It was
never intended to be a retirement fund because it was never thought
that things would be so desperate for the poor. What was only meant
to help is now all some will have. So if this is what you mean then
you are right but it also does not mean it has to be changed. Why
not fund the elderly with a little help rather than Nation building.
Why do some get so bitter when the needs of the poor are addressed?

Proto

The reason so many people have only Social Security, as they by and
large, were told that SS would be there to bail them out when they
retired. A Retirement account. Something it was NEVER intended to be.

This is what I am trying to find out. Where does it say just WHAT it was
intended to be? I have heard many say what it was not intended to be. Who
can explain to me their idea of what it is supposed to be.


Now we have high income pensioners with one or more pension fund
drawing SS at the same time. This puts one hell of a drain on the
system.

How does their being able to collect money from another pension have
anything to do with the SS trust fund?

Btw..the average Poor in the US, is considered poor in no
other part of the planet. Ever see the government figures on the
poverty level?

No but it would be nice to set a site while you bring it up.

The Elderly are already being funded. Funded at the level they wish
to be? Some are, some are not.

I don't know enough of them to comment. The ones I do know are always
hurting and call it a 'fixed income' when it sure seems broke to me.

They by and large should have done as
their forebearers did..and planned ahead.
So what you are saying then they should be penalized for this.


One should also note that SS
basicly ruined the charities that performed the task of taking care of
the truely needy.
You might have to run that one by me again.



The "needs of the poor" are well addressed in this country. Free
medical, low income housing, public transportation at discount and so
forth. Food stamps, WIC vouchers, aid to dependent children yada yada
yada.
Is this before or after my mother-in-law loses her house? Being poor is
different from becoming poor.


While its true that the single biggest issue is perscription med
costs...those could be addressed by the Canadian method, and still not
touch SS funds.

Whole different topic.

Proto.

"Gunner" wrote

The reason so many people have only Social Security, as they by and
large, were told that SS would be there to bail them out when they
retired. A Retirment account.

Yeah, the private sector retirement plans are ever so much better!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Good thing my dad died when he did...

Dan


--
"...a terrorist would have to be really stupid to attack George's office,
because the odds of George being there are so slim. "

Ben Tripp

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 06:02:19 -0400, "Proto" wrote:

What
was only meant to help is now all some will have.

Look at all the private *invested* pension plans that
have gone bust or been revoked with the employees
getting about nothing ..... the neocons love it.

Not to mention the Enron folks who were prevented from taking their money
out
of the stock in their investment plans once the disaster became public.

Management had no such restriction, of course.

Good old private sector!

Dan


--
"...a terrorist would have to be really stupid to attack George's office,
because the odds of George being there are so slim. "

Ben Tripp

In article , says...

On 22 May 2005 15:16:58 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:

In article , says...

On Sat, 21 May 2005 18:43:02 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

sittingduck wrote:

Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff belong in groups like that, but they would
be drowned out by the dozens more just like them. This is why they stay in
the groups they normally frequent, thre is very little competition for
attention.

SD:

"Nutjobs like gunner, jb, and cliff..." But, but, I thought you and
Cliff were buds? Left wing feathers flocking together, or something
like that. Did you become disillusioned for some reason?

BB,
You don't have to be "left" anything to pick apart the
favored sayings, lies & claims of nutjobs like Gunner, most of
the braindead wingers, gunnutz, fundies or jb.

I don't think Gunner's a nutjob. But I have no idea what's
wrong with him, these days.

FW

What are you referring to? That I dont share your view on the war in
Iraq?

Well, that, in part. But it goes deeper. Up until recently I
would have said that the tenets of your life were "Work hard,
play fair, follow the rules no matter what the other guy does,
and don't trust government (aka if someone from the government
comes up and says "We're here to help you", run for your life)".
But now...

Bush says we need to invade other countries in the name of
national security, you not only jump on the bandwagon, you
attack - without discussion or an explaination of why you
support him - anyone who says this was a BAD idea.

Bush says we should privatize Social Security, you accept his
proposal as Gospel, ignoring even the Republican economists
who point out problems. Like that it may well cost TRILLIONS
(yes, the "T" word) to implement his plan at a time when the
government is already facing record deficets. And that there's
little popular support for such an idea.

Bush says we NEED the Patriot Act to fight terrorists; and
even though there's little evidence that the Patriot Act has
actually been effective against terrorist activities; and even
though your challenge to name one innocent person who's been
hurt by the law has been answered repeatedly and extensively
in the positive; and even though folks from all over the
spectrum worry about it endangering civil liberties, you
insist anyone who wants this act repealed is a leftist whack-
hole.

It's like you've chucked the fourth tenet and become, not
just a Bush supporter, but a Saturday Night Live parody of a
Bush supporter. Or the guy in "1984" who was reprogrammed to
love Big Brother...

I assume the first two tenets are still in place. But some
of your comments make me think you've also tossed "Follow the
rules" (or international law, the Golden Rule, basic humanity,
etc) for "kill them all and let God sort them out".

Wrath, I would point out, is one of the Seven Deadly Sins...

Or that I tend to not let bull**** remain unanswered?

You don't?

What do you classify your proposal that we nuke Mecca in
retaliation for further terrorist attacks as? Have you
actually THOUGHT of what the consequences of that would
be, international, economic, political, social, internal,
humanitarian? I have no wish to see the US go from the
world's policeman to Nazi Germany II overnight and the
world preparing to put us down like a rabid dog. If
your plan is not a bull**** idea, I don't know what is...

I don't know who's doing your thinking for you thse days, but
you should fire them. They're not doing a good job.

Or that
my capacity for being nice to buffoons has gotten smaller and smaller?

Gunner


"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

And THIS is another problem! I haven't been able to
Google it - I may be remembering it wrong - but I
recall the counter quote that "Nations are at their
most arrogant when they are in decline". Spain,
England, France, several of the Chinese dynasties
before they fall... I don't know if we're in decline
but I see worrisome signs: A crumbling infrastructure,
lack of focus on education, an increasing divide
between rich and poor, political/social/religious
divisiveness on a scale seldom seen before...

Decline CAN be reversed, but it takes people willing
to work together, identify the problems, and figure
out how to fix them.

Finding such people isn't easy...

FW

On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:52:15 -0400, "Proto" wrote:


The reason so many people have only Social Security, as they by and
large, were told that SS would be there to bail them out when they
retired. A Retirement account. Something it was NEVER intended to be.

This is what I am trying to find out. Where does it say just WHAT it was
intended to be? I have heard many say what it was not intended to be. Who
can explain to me their idea of what it is supposed to be.

"Columnist Ellen Goodman claimed that conservatives were saying "that
FDR himself endorsed personal accounts." James Roosevelt, a grandson
of the former president, called it an "outrageous distortion" that
might warrant Mr. Hume's firing. Former labor secretary Robert Reich
called the citing of Roosevelt's interest in private annuities "just
one example of how the Republican propaganda machine is lying to the
American people about Bush's plan for Social Security, just as it has
lied about so much else."





But Roosevelt had indeed proposed a plan under which all workers would
have been allowed to make periodic voluntary payments in exchange for
certificates representing the amounts they had deposited. At 65,
workers would have been able to trade in their certificates for
annuities that paid up to $100 a month (the 1935 equivalent of some
$1,300 today) based on their total deposits plus interest. In fact,
Roosevelt expressly cited the need for private plans to become
available as the worst of the Depression passed: "I am greatly hoping
that repeated promises of private investment and private initiative to
relieve the government in the immediate future of much of the burden
it has assumed will be fulfilled."
But Congress balked. In an article this month titled "When Congress
Killed Private Accounts," National Journal notes that Rep. Frederick
Vinson of Kentucky, who later became Treasury secretary under
President Truman, helped kill the private annuity plan, saying he saw
no "particular need" for it at that time. But he also told his House
colleagues, "Many of us think the time will come when the voluntary
annuity plan, which rounds out the security program for the aged, will
be written into law." Yes, the plan proposed by Roosevelt and rejected
by Congress in 1935 is substantially different from the one Mr. Bush
is advocating. But taking into account 70 years of progress in
financial instruments, there are also many similarities.
No one really knows how FDR would have thought about fixing Social
Security today, 70 years after he brought it into existence and 60
years after his death. That's because Roosevelt was anything but an
ideologue. The historian Eric Goldman wrote of FDR that "he trusted no
system except the system of endless experimentation." FDR himself said
in a speech at Oglethorpe University that "this country needs . . .
bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method
and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above
all, try something."
I suspect that, whatever his views might be on personal accounts
today, FDR would have little use for liberals who attack them without
any suggestions of their own on how to "try something."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/bresiger/bresiger6.html

this may answer your questions

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:52:15 -0400, "Proto" wrote:



Now we have high income pensioners with one or more pension fund
drawing SS at the same time. This puts one hell of a drain on the
system.

How does their being able to collect money from another pension have
anything to do with the SS trust fund?
First..there is NO trust fund.
Secondly..I was referring to double or tripple dipping. A Congressman
or millionare will not only recieve their SS stipend, but their
congressional pensions, retirement pensions etc. So while a granny in
Toledo has to make it on $875 a month..her neighbor a retired
government worker takes in a cool $3000 a month. WIth the shortfalls
in SS..I think some form of Needs Testing should be implimented.

Btw..the average Poor in the US, is considered poor in no
other part of the planet. Ever see the government figures on the
poverty level?

No but it would be nice to set a site while you bring it up.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/05poverty.shtml
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010903.html
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/qualityofgrowth/facts.htm

The Elderly are already being funded. Funded at the level they wish
to be? Some are, some are not.

I don't know enough of them to comment. The ones I do know are always
hurting and call it a 'fixed income' when it sure seems broke to me.

The ones driving the Lexus, or riding the bus?

They by and large should have done as
their forebearers did..and planned ahead.
So what you are saying then they should be penalized for this.

If you shoot yourself in the foot, Im under no obligation to sell my
house and provide you with medical care.


One should also note that SS
basicly ruined the charities that performed the task of taking care of
the truely needy.
You might have to run that one by me again.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medica...Physicians.htm

(a single example among many many.



The "needs of the poor" are well addressed in this country. Free
medical, low income housing, public transportation at discount and so
forth. Food stamps, WIC vouchers, aid to dependent children yada yada
yada.
Is this before or after my mother-in-law loses her house? Being poor is
different from becoming poor.

So why are you and the rest of the family not making sure she doesnt
lose the house? Why would any of you send Mom off to the home, at a
cost to her, and later to the taxpayers of at least $5000 a month when
you could move her into your house as most folks did prior to SS, and
feed, shelter and make sure she was taken care of?


While its true that the single biggest issue is perscription med
costs...those could be addressed by the Canadian method, and still not
touch SS funds.

Whole different topic.

Not really..wnen one is on fixed income..and the meds needed to
maintain life is shattered.....

Gunner


Proto.


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On 25 May 2005 02:58:19 GMT, (Frank White)
wrote:


Or that I tend to not let bull**** remain unanswered?

You don't?

Seldom


What do you classify your proposal that we nuke Mecca in
retaliation for further terrorist attacks as? Have you
actually THOUGHT of what the consequences of that would
be, international, economic, political, social, internal,
humanitarian? I have no wish to see the US go from the
world's policeman to Nazi Germany II overnight and the
world preparing to put us down like a rabid dog. If
your plan is not a bull**** idea, I don't know what is...

So which group of nations is big enough to take us down? Nukeing
Mecca was something of a personal fantasy..but the day may not be all
that far in the furture. Its called A Last Resort.

One I agree with btw.

I don't know who's doing your thinking for you thse days, but
you should fire them. They're not doing a good job.

I think for myself thank you veddyveddymuch. I still believe and
practice personal responsiblity and adherence to honor, truth and
justice.

You sound like you get your daily arguments via Fax from the DNC.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Dan wrote:



"Gunner" wrote

The reason so many people have only Social Security, as they by and
large, were told that SS would be there to bail them out when they
retired. A Retirment account.

Yeah, the private sector retirement plans are ever so much better!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Good thing my dad died when he did...

Unfortunately it wasn't before he had a wet dream whilst sleeping too close
to your mother...you were born.

In article , Gunner says...

So which group of nations is big enough to take us down?

The last time we didn't even know the answer to that
question before it happened. Are you sure you want to
keep on asking it?

Nukeing
Mecca was something of a personal fantasy..but the day may not be all
that far in the furture. Its called A Last Resort.

They got pretty riled up when we flushed a koran. Just think
if the same thing happened to the Kaba.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , says...

Gunner wrote:
Proto wrote:
snip
How does their being able to collect money from another pension have
anything to do with the SS trust fund?
First..there is NO trust fund.
Secondly..I was referring to double or tripple dipping. A Congressman
or millionare will not only recieve their SS stipend, but their
congressional pensions, retirement pensions etc. So while a granny in
Toledo has to make it on $875 a month..her neighbor a retired
government worker takes in a cool $3000 a month. WIth the shortfalls
in SS..I think some form of Needs Testing should be implimented.
snip

Hmm. That sounds like half of, "From each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs".

R,
Tom Q.
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

In a perfect world the first part of Marx's little ditty would be
the truth of our income tax system. Instead of "so many loopholes
and tricks the rich and powerful pay only a pittance of what they
should and the rest of us have to pay the rest..."

"To each according to his needs" would actually be a pretty good
distribution scheme, if it wasn't that whoever was in charge would
probably skew the defination of 'need' to favor his friends and
allies...

(heavy sigh)

FW

On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:48:32 GMT, Tom Quackenbush
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
Proto wrote:
snip
How does their being able to collect money from another pension have
anything to do with the SS trust fund?
First..there is NO trust fund.
Secondly..I was referring to double or tripple dipping. A Congressman
or millionare will not only recieve their SS stipend, but their
congressional pensions, retirement pensions etc. So while a granny in
Toledo has to make it on $875 a month..her neighbor a retired
government worker takes in a cool $3000 a month. WIth the shortfalls
in SS..I think some form of Needs Testing should be implimented.
snip

Hmm. That sounds like half of, "From each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs".

Actually its the opposite, with needs testing.

Gunner


R,
Tom Q.
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

They by and large should have done as

their forebearers did..and planned ahead.

So what you are saying then they should be penalized for this.

I do believe all should plan ahead and save for the years when they
cannot earn a living. I am currently, at 53, saving 1/3 of my gross
income toward retirement. I've been at 15% or more since my early 30s.
But I'm a long way from having enough to retire and live on in 10 years.
I also know that a devastating illness or a big lawsuit at any time
could make me penniless.

Rex