At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The
proposal would shift Social Securitys annual surpluses into a
reserve account that would be converted into risky private
accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative
equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold
(mortgages) and high leverage.

So they are insolvent, in more simple terms.

Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their
equity.

While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious
reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these
insolvent banks to make them not insolvent.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Oct 9, 2:41*pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
19789.invalid wrote:
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The
proposal would shift Social Security’s annual surpluses into a
reserve account that would be converted into risky private
accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative
equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold
(mortgages) and high leverage.

So they are insolvent, in more simple terms.

Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their
equity. *

While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious
reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these
insolvent banks to make them not insolvent.

--
* *Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
* * * to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
* * * *from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
* * * * *more readers you will need to find a different means of
* * * * * * * * * * * *posting on Usenet.
* * * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/

I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

Therefore, it follows that notwithstanding our rudely advanced,
passionate positions on the issue, our decision on who we vote for in
the upcoming election will impact this mess about as profoundly as
whether we decide to drive a Chevy or a Ford.

Ron Paul had it right. Unfortunately, nobody took him seriously.

Idealistically,

Vernon

On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:41?pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
19789.invalid wrote:
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The
proposal would shift Social Security?s annual surpluses into a
reserve account that would be converted into risky private
accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative
equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold
(mortgages) and high leverage.

So they are insolvent, in more simple terms.

Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their
equity. ?

While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious
reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these
insolvent banks to make them not insolvent.


I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

Very true. Very many parties and groups to blame.

If Social Security money was invested into stocks, mortgages, etc, the
likely outcome of that would actually be that the bubble would last
longer (so we'd be all celebrating right now, instead of the
opposite), and would go higher, but the end result would be even
worse.

Therefore, it follows that notwithstanding our rudely advanced,
passionate positions on the issue, our decision on who we vote for in
the upcoming election will impact this mess about as profoundly as
whether we decide to drive a Chevy or a Ford.

I would respectfully disagree, and think that at least to some degree,
the outcome of election will make a difference.

Keep in mind, however (check intrade.com if you want) that the market
is already expecting Obama to win.

Ron Paul had it right. Unfortunately, nobody took him seriously.

I, for one, would love to know what Ron Paul said, I respect him
greatly from a long time ago.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Oct 9, 3:08*pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
19789.invalid wrote:
On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote:





On Oct 9, 2:41?pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
19789.invalid wrote:
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The
proposal would shift Social Security?s annual surpluses into a
reserve account that would be converted into risky private
accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative
equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold
(mortgages) and high leverage.

So they are insolvent, in more simple terms.

Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their
equity. ?

While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious
reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these
insolvent banks to make them not insolvent.

I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. *More than enough to go
around.

Very true. Very many parties and groups to blame.

If Social Security money was invested into stocks, mortgages, etc, the
likely outcome of that would actually be that the bubble would last
longer (so we'd be all celebrating right now, instead of the
opposite), and would go higher, but the end result would be even
worse.

Therefore, it follows that notwithstanding our rudely advanced,
passionate positions on the issue, our decision on who we vote for in
the upcoming election will impact this mess about as profoundly as
whether we decide to drive a Chevy or a Ford.

I would respectfully disagree, and think that at least to some degree,
the outcome of election will make a difference.

Keep in mind, however (check intrade.com if you want) that the market
is already expecting Obama to win.

Ron Paul had it right. *Unfortunately, nobody took him seriously.

I, for one, would love to know what Ron Paul said, I respect him
greatly from a long time ago.

--
* *Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
* * * to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
* * * *from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
* * * * *more readers you will need to find a different means of
* * * * * * * * * * * *posting on Usenet.
* * * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way
directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of
civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I
haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten...
although that might be a stretch.

V

On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote:
Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way
directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of
civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I
haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten...
although that might be a stretch.

I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say?

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message
...
On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote:
Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way
directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of
civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I
haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten...
although that might be a stretch.

I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say?

Five days ago, addressing the John Birch Society, Paul said, responding to
"pundits who challenged his opposition to the bailout with statements such
as, 'Surely you can't believe that we should do nothing.' Dr. Paul's
response was that the federal government should return to sound money and
lower taxes, and take more care in regulating the regulators. He pointed out
that we got into this mess because of too much government spending, too much
debt, too much inflation, and too much regulation. Now we are being told
that the solution is more of the same!"

Iggy, I'm sure you know the relationship between "sound money" (Paul means
gold-backed money) and the money supply, right? They have practically
nothing to do with each other. Certainly we have too much debt (duh...). As
for regulation, you see what he's saying he that the problem was caused
partly by too much of it.

This guy either has no understanding of economics, credit and money, or he's
playing off the fact that most people listening to him don't.

Tell us, Dr. Paul, how would "sound money" have prevented the current
crisis? Do you think he really understands how all that money came into
being in the first place? (Hint for Ron Paul supporters: it wasn't from
printing it. Most of it was never printed at all; it's ciphers on a computer
screen. How it got there is the key question -- and the answer has nothing
to do with anything Paul said, except for the regulation part.)

--
Ed Huntress

Ignoramus19789 wrote:
On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote:
Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way
directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of
civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I
haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten...
although that might be a stretch.

I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say?

He apparently has a pretty good web site, which my wife was reading
for quite a while.

Jon

"Vernon" wrote in message
...
On Oct 9, 2:41 pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
19789.invalid wrote:
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The
proposal would shift Social Security’s annual surpluses into a
reserve account that would be converted into risky private
accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative
equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold
(mortgages) and high leverage.

So they are insolvent, in more simple terms.

Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their
equity.

While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious
reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these
insolvent banks to make them not insolvent.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

Therefore, it follows that notwithstanding our rudely advanced,
passionate positions on the issue, our decision on who we vote for in
the upcoming election will impact this mess about as profoundly as
whether we decide to drive a Chevy or a Ford.

Ron Paul had it right. Unfortunately, nobody took him seriously.

Ron Paul had it exactly backwards. There is no more rabid anti-regulation
looney-tune than him. That's what makes him a libertarian.

The entire domino series started with unregulated trade in securities, held
at unconscionable leverage ratios and with unaudited ratings. The fact that
they were based on mortgages is almost incidental; given the scheme,
anything that looked secure would have worked. No regulatory scheme is
bulletproof, but this was like sticking your belly out and inviting the
thieves and pirates to cut off a few pounds of flesh.

Now Paul and the other anti-regulatory nutbags will find some sophistic
arguments to suggest that it wouldn't have happened on their watch. Thank
God it wasn't their watch, or the entire economy would be out to lunch by
now -- permanently.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:13:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Now Paul and the other anti-regulatory nutbags will find some sophistic
arguments to suggest that it wouldn't have happened on their watch. Thank
God it wasn't their watch, or the entire economy would be out to lunch by
now -- permanently.
snip
There are regulations and there are regulations. The key is to
be able to tell the difference between those that are vital and
those are simply a PITA.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:13:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Now Paul and the other anti-regulatory nutbags will find some sophistic
arguments to suggest that it wouldn't have happened on their watch. Thank
God it wasn't their watch, or the entire economy would be out to lunch by
now -- permanently.
snip
There are regulations and there are regulations. The key is to
be able to tell the difference between those that are vital and
those are simply a PITA.

Which is why regulation, as it exists, wasn't effective.
What was enforced was a philosophy, not the law, and the thinking was
defective.
BTW, it also ignored something derided by Republicans as the common good.

JC

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:13:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Now Paul and the other anti-regulatory nutbags will find some sophistic
arguments to suggest that it wouldn't have happened on their watch. Thank
God it wasn't their watch, or the entire economy would be out to lunch by
now -- permanently.
snip
There are regulations and there are regulations. The key is to
be able to tell the difference between those that are vital and
those are simply a PITA.

This "key" always shows up after a crisis. Until then, you can count on the
_Free to Choose_ wackos to call all of it bad. To them, a regulation is only
good when the horse is already out of the barn.

--
Ed Huntress

Vernon wrote:

I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings.

Wes

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, Wes wrote:

Vernon wrote:

I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings.

Wes
==================
I have watched some of the Waxman hearings.

These display the usual total lack of hard facts. For example
Greenberg of AIG blaming the new management, and the new
management for blaming Greenberg for the AIG bust-out. The fatal
blow was given to AIG by the credit defaults swaps [CDSs] written
by one small division. These contracts have a date when these
were written, and it is known when Mr. Greenberg was relieved as
President/CEO of AIG. Were the bulk of the toxic CDSs written on
his watch or not? This is not a question of opinion or debate.

F. George McDuffee wrote:


And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings.

Wes
==================
I have watched some of the Waxman hearings.


Well, hopefully C-span will re-air them over the weekend.

Wes

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Vernon wrote:

I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings.

And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings
instead of bailouts.

--
"Given the low level of competence among politicians,
every American should become a Libertarian."
-- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Vernon wrote:

I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings.

And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings
instead of bailouts.

They, like you and yours, have been ignorant promoters of markets being self
correcting.

JC

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:20:55 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Vernon wrote:

I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings.

And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings
instead of bailouts.

They, like you and yours, have been ignorant promoters of markets being self
correcting.

JC

=================
Actually in one sense the markets still are self-correcting, and
we are seeing the process. The whole idea is to avoid natural
disciplines such as disasters, plagues, wars, famines, etc. by
the application of a little foresight and a little self
discipline.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:


Vernon wrote:


I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for
this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go
around.

And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings.


And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings
instead of bailouts.


Maybe not here on this news group, but a few of my friends have written
along those lines.

My girlfriend is devising down right mideveal stuff for them.

And she's a real sweety.

I thought!

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message
...
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.
snip

Of course, you do understand that the proposal only allotted 15% of one's SS
MAY be used for private accounts. You try and make it sound like all SS was
going into the stock market.

On 2008-10-09, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message
...
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.
snip

Of course, you do understand that the proposal only allotted 15% of one's SS
MAY be used for private accounts. You try and make it sound like all SS was
going into the stock market.

That 15% would be 9% now...

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message
...
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.
snip

Of course, you do understand that the proposal only allotted 15% of one's
SS MAY be used for private accounts. You try and make it sound like all
SS was going into the stock market.

I don't think the rest of the world wants to look like either Ohio Brosh or
Ohio Mr. Gardner.
Scouting out scrap metal to build you products from doesn't speak highly of
Ohio Brush's quality.
It is a good reflection of your character, however.

Here is what you and yours have lead your State into.

This is fall. This is Ohio State Buckeye football time. But, you know,
there's a lot of people still saying, "Thank God for Michigan, because,
without Michigan, we'd be number 50 instead of just number 49 in a lot of
economic measures."

Our unemployment is at a 16-year high. Our Medicaid rolls are the highest in
history. Our food stamp rolls are the highest in history. The WIC enrollment
is at highest in history.

Food lines are growing. People who used to volunteer and serve in those food
lines are now in the line getting food themselves. It's pretty bad here, so
people are talking about the economy as issues one, two, and three, at
least.


Well done Porky.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message
...
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.
snip

Of course, you do understand that the proposal only allotted 15% of one's
SS MAY be used for private accounts. You try and make it sound like all
SS was going into the stock market.

I don't think the rest of the world wants to look like either Ohio Brosh
or Ohio Mr. Gardner.
Scouting out scrap metal to build you products from doesn't speak highly
of Ohio Brush's quality.
It is a good reflection of your character, however.

Here is what you and yours have lead your State into.

This is fall. This is Ohio State Buckeye football time. But, you know,
there's a lot of people still saying, "Thank God for Michigan, because,
without Michigan, we'd be number 50 instead of just number 49 in a lot of
economic measures."

Our unemployment is at a 16-year high. Our Medicaid rolls are the highest
in history. Our food stamp rolls are the highest in history. The WIC
enrollment is at highest in history.

Food lines are growing. People who used to volunteer and serve in those
food lines are now in the line getting food themselves. It's pretty bad
here, so people are talking about the economy as issues one, two, and
three, at least.


Well done Porky.

JC


Reap = sow. I'm hiring, and have already added 5 new jobs this year and
plan at least 2 more. Too bad you have to wait in a food line, try to get
some meat...meat's good! Can we help? Maybe take up a collection for you
so you can buy your meds. My people and I are always glad to help the less
fortunate.

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message
...
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.
snip


Reap = sow. I'm hiring, and have already added 5 new jobs this year and
plan at least 2 more. Too bad you have to wait in a food line, try to get
some meat...meat's good! Can we help? Maybe take up a collection for you
so you can buy your meds. My people and I are always glad to help the
less fortunate.

Hey Tom.
You do indeed reap what you sew but then you are the one selling scrap as
first goods.
The statement I posred was from an editor at the Cleaveland Plain Dealer and
it's a reflection of you and yours.
Yopu have managed in your lifetime to turn a silk purse into a sowes ear.
You "people" can't even help yourselves and I'm not surprised. You all want
something for nothing.

Those five jobs you added weren't anything on your payroll. I've added
thousands to mine by your measure, and buying scrap metal to build an order
from isn't anything America ought to aspire to as a productivity
enhancement. It's a return to a barter system. In fact, it's the Chinese
business model in spades.

You have won in the great race to the bottom.
Monday next, 10/13/2008, I'll begin to reverse the insanity in this country
in my own small way. My group has ponied up, and we have gotten three to one
leverage on, thirty million of our own dollars. Excluding my property in
Costa Rica, I'll be all in. As the managing partner I won't get a thin dime
unless our long term goals are met. Should this effort go to hell, so will
I.

You Tom, would be horse laughed out of an exploratory talk about leverage. I
got a six percent LOC and an interest in allowing that funding source to
trade along side us. They would like to front run me but that would be
illegal.
I've known and done business with each of them for more than two decades
Tom. We turned a couple hundred grand into five million dollars on
Northridge.

Having sewn and sown well and reaped, we will once again cast aside the
broken parochial model you thrive on and make a future for the generation we
spawned that doesn't include mounds of debt - on them - to pay for our
excercise.



JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
snip
I've never posted a nasty word to anyone unless I feel maliciously insulted.
You have triggered some bile-like verbiage from me when you do this. And,
for this I am truly sorry. (I know, it's infantile to say "well, you
started it.") I will no longer do that, as I no longer care about
insulting, disingenuous, misleading, phony or provocative statements from
anybody. You may post whatever strikes your fancy but, I will no longer
react in kind. I've decided that it's beneath my dignity.

Now, can you explain the difference between 12 ga. x 2" x 36" stainless
strip and "scrap" having the same grade and size? I have plenty of "scrap"
carbon steel strip that is obsolete for me yet I carry it in inventory and
have sold plenty of it at a discount to other companies that can use
it...for making new parts. Your whole argument about this was just silly
because I know that you know better.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:41:18 -0500, Ignoramus19789
wrote:

At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The
proposal would shift Social Security's annual surpluses into a
reserve account that would be converted into risky private
accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]


Iggy. I think that was an option that individuals could select.
People weren't going to be forced into taking market risk. The risk
with social security as it is today for those of us with good incomes
is that we aren't going to collect. In retirement we're going to
continue to subsidize other people. No matter what we do, the
politicians keep bleeding us. Term limits is one of the ways to keep
politicians from becoming entrenched and making government their
career.

We've never had a choice for president of "None of the Above" That's
who I'd vote for this year if I had the choice. I can't say I've
heard any really good ideas from any of the candidates this time
around.

RWL

On 2008-10-11, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:41:18 -0500, Ignoramus19789
wrote:

At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The
proposal would shift Social Security's annual surpluses into a
reserve account that would be converted into risky private
accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]


Iggy. I think that was an option that individuals could select.
People weren't going to be forced into taking market risk. The risk
with social security as it is today for those of us with good incomes
is that we aren't going to collect. In retirement we're going to
continue to subsidize other people. No matter what we do, the
politicians keep bleeding us. Term limits is one of the ways to keep
politicians from becoming entrenched and making government their
career.

We've never had a choice for president of "None of the Above" That's
who I'd vote for this year if I had the choice. I can't say I've
heard any really good ideas from any of the candidates this time
around.

They would not be forced, yes, so they would voluntarily lose their
money and then, guess what, another bailout of imprudent old retired
people by prudent people.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:25:56 -0500, Ignoramus18712
wrote:

At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted.

In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The
proposal would shift Social Security's annual surpluses into a
reserve account that would be converted into risky private
accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06]

========================

On 2008-10-11, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:

Iggy. I think that was an option that individuals could select.
People weren't going to be forced into taking market risk. The risk
with social security as it is today for those of us with good incomes
is that we aren't going to collect.

==============
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:41:18 -0500, Ignoramus19789
wrote:

They would not be forced, yes, so they would voluntarily lose their
money and then, guess what, another bailout of imprudent old retired
people by prudent people.

===============

Iggy. That's really what's going on now with our current social
security system. It's a Ponzi scheme with an IOU from the government,
and with our aging population, you and I are going to be left holding
the bag.

Further off topic. One of the comments I heard growing up was that
Roosevelt didn't get us out of the depression, World War II did. With
the current lack of a response to interventions our by government,
it's adding some credence to that allegation. I'm not implying that
we need a war to get us out of this. It's just an interesting
observation.

RWL

On 2008-10-11, GeoLane at PTD dot NET GeoLane wrote:
Iggy. That's really what's going on now with our current social
security system. It's a Ponzi scheme with an IOU from the government,
and with our aging population, you and I are going to be left holding
the bag.

That's what Wall Street, Bush and McCain wanted you to believe in
order to allow Wall Street to play with your social security money.

There are some differences between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme
(check out Wikipedia's article on Ponzi scheme).

1) Ponzi schemes are voluntary and thus are subject to eventual
investor flight. Social security is not voluntary and is funded by
mandatory payments.

2) Ponzi schemes make promises that are very unrealistic

3) The majority of money in Ponzi schemes is stolen.

4) It is very easy to keep Social Security solvent, which is to lower
benefits or raise retirement age.

Further off topic. One of the comments I heard growing up was that
Roosevelt didn't get us out of the depression, World War II did. With
the current lack of a response to interventions our by government,
it's adding some credence to that allegation. I'm not implying that
we need a war to get us out of this. It's just an interesting
observation.

We already have two wars going on, and they are not helping matters
very much.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:06:51 -0500, Ignoramus18605

Further off topic. One of the comments I heard growing up was that
Roosevelt didn't get us out of the depression, World War II did. With
the current lack of a response to interventions our by government,
it's adding some credence to that allegation. I'm not implying that
we need a war to get us out of this. It's just an interesting
observation.

We already have two wars going on, and they are not helping matters
very much.

I'll agree with you on that one; they are a drain on the economy. ;-)

RWL

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:41:18 -0500, Ignoramus19789
wrote:
snip
By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative
equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold
(mortgages) and high leverage.

So they are insolvent, in more simple terms.

Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their
equity.
snip
=====================
Two insolvent companies with financial exposure [GMAC and
Chrysler Finance] to combine and ask the FRB for a direct loan
[of tax payer money]?
-----------------
"GM, Chrysler in merger talks: source
Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:48am EDT
DETROIT/NEW YORK (Reuters) - General Motors has had talks with
smaller rival Chrysler LLC about a merger that would combine the
No. 1 and No. 3 American automakers at a time when both are
struggling to cut costs and shore up cash, according to a source
briefed on the matter.
snip
Finally, Barron's reported that GM was preparing to approach the
U.S. Federal Reserve about borrowing money from the central
bank's discount window because of the logjam in credit markets
that has shut it out of other kinds of borrowing.
snip
----------------------------
Are these two organizations more like vampires or zombies?
for the complete article click on
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...081011?sp=true

FWIW -- Anyone else notice how much Henry "Bazooka" Paulson looks
like [and sounds/acts like] Daddy Warbucks [Little Orphan Annie]?

Treasure trove of European thought on global credit crunch and
stock market break.
http://voxeu.org/

Enjoy


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Some keen insight from a Brit economist [Liam Halligan] (and a
shot of cold p**s to the heart).

=========
snip
What the world now needs is stability. That will stem from
governments standing behind massively over-exposed Western banks
while more collapse, others prevail, and the system is
reconfigured. That requires deep, deep reserves – and, after
decades of profligacy, the Western coffers look bare.

==For all its posturing, the G7 has only 20 per cent of the
world’s currency reserves. Four emerging markets – Brazil,
Russia, India and China – account for 40 per cent. And then
there’s the Middle East.==
snip
==========
for complete article click on
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...sub-prime.html

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).