On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:55:12 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:


"John Scheldroup" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/0...bit/index.html

I heard Johnny hated black people.
Something about that he alienated his
own son for marrying a black girl.

John

I always thought he was a bit stupid; I mean he would ask questions that
even I as a youngster knew, and after so many guests- he never learned
anything ? But if this is true then I say it confirms his stupidity- I'm
glad the dumshisse is gone. Good riddance.

Why does CNN cancel special reports on Terrorism in the US to re-run an old
Larry King with Carson's sidekick ? Jeeze what a fkd up world

Well, we have proof that Carson existed.
Found any WMDs? Saudi nationals?

Pics of a Bush at a bin Laden "compound"/party/yacht/oil firm?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:32:17 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

All people who bought into bad CIA "analysis." After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, while the CIA sat there with their jaws dropped to the ground,
it isn't smart to trust them again.

Bush's fault, right?

Gee-whiz, Gummer.
"Reagan officials emphasized that Bush, a former director of the
CIA" ... Ring ANY bells? Just ONE?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:06:23 -0500, Strabo
wrote:

It really makes no difference.

Why did GHWB invade Nicaragua, because it posed a physical threat
to the US or was it drug smuggling? Or was it the need to quiet
Manuel Noriega ASAP.

Columbia seems to be the one remaining "ally" of
the US in South America since Herr shrubbie & the neocons
took over.
Must be the drug money.

Let's hear one for the wingers & neocons !!!
--
Cliff

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Sunworshipper
wrote back on Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:51:56 -0800 in
rec.crafts.metalworking :

What about Johnny ? My most memorable thing with the TS was banging
my girlfriend right in front of her parents TV and noticing all the
sexual connotations throughout the whole show. ) Not from her
parents , they weren't home.

I recall a cartoon, couple naked and sprawled, obviously having just
completed making the sign of the triple fined aardvark. Caption read "Oh
yes, that's what we did before late night TV."

tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

"Laz" wrote in message news

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:17:50 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:


WMDs ARE difficult to justify. Although I would've used a neutron bomb on
bin laden at tora bora.

Beyond that, I have never used WMDs or attacked civilians.


Just curious what's are H-Bomb's selling for now days ?

John

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:48:04 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:

the 2 year combined deficit of
$1 trillion compared to the clinton administration surplus

There never was a surplus. Hate to tell you that.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:48:04 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:

the 2 year combined deficit of
$1 trillion compared to the clinton administration surplus

There never was a surplus. Hate to tell you that.

Uh-oh. Gunner is branching out into economics. NOW we're in trouble.

After Blog History and Blog Politics, Blog Economics ought to be a real
hell-bender. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:49:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:48:04 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:

the 2 year combined deficit of
$1 trillion compared to the clinton administration surplus

There never was a surplus. Hate to tell you that.

Uh-oh. Gunner is branching out into economics. NOW we're in trouble.

After Blog History and Blog Politics, Blog Economics ought to be a real
hell-bender. d8-)

He could just blame Monica or Vince Foster again & get it
over with G.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:49:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:48:04 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:

the 2 year combined deficit of
$1 trillion compared to the clinton administration surplus

There never was a surplus. Hate to tell you that.

Uh-oh. Gunner is branching out into economics. NOW we're in trouble.

After Blog History and Blog Politics, Blog Economics ought to be a real
hell-bender. d8-)

So Ed, tell us all about the surplus, if you would be so kind.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:49:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:48:04 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:

the 2 year combined deficit of
$1 trillion compared to the clinton administration surplus

There never was a surplus. Hate to tell you that.

Uh-oh. Gunner is branching out into economics. NOW we're in trouble.

After Blog History and Blog Politics, Blog Economics ought to be a real
hell-bender. d8-)

So Ed, tell us all about the surplus, if you would be so kind.

I don't do your homework for you anymore Gunner. Once you've seen that the
facts don't agree with your assertions, you just turn around and pull some
other piece of crap out of the stew-pot and try to make *that* one stick to
the wall.

It's tiresome, it's frustrating, and I'm sure that it only annoys you.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
It's tiresome, it's frustrating, and I'm sure that it only annoys you.


Like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I don't know why you still bother.

"Kathy" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
It's tiresome, it's frustrating, and I'm sure that it only annoys you.


Like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the
pig.
I don't know why you still bother.

I don't. I've given up on Gunner. There's so much phlegm in there, I
couldn't pump it out with a fire pump.

Maybe he'll marinade in the stuff he quotes and it will tenderize him some
day.

--
Ed Huntress

Kathy wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
It's tiresome, it's frustrating, and I'm sure that it only annoys you.



Like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I don't know why you still bother.


Same reason we all do that, one way or another: If we COULD teach
our pigs to sing, then we might get an invitation from Johnny Carson,
and be on the Tonight Sh... Oh. Sorry. I thought this was a thread
about Carson. It's prolly best that he won't see it. I doubt that he'd
find it humorous or entertaining.

KG

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:44:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Kathy" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
It's tiresome, it's frustrating, and I'm sure that it only annoys you.


Like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the
pig.
I don't know why you still bother.

I don't. I've given up on Gunner.

Not I G.

I'm still tuning though. Do you twist the tail clockwise
or counterclockwise to get higher pitched squeals?
--
Cliff

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:22:53 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:49:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:48:04 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:

the 2 year combined deficit of
$1 trillion compared to the clinton administration surplus

There never was a surplus. Hate to tell you that.

Uh-oh. Gunner is branching out into economics. NOW we're in trouble.

After Blog History and Blog Politics, Blog Economics ought to be a real
hell-bender. d8-)

So Ed, tell us all about the surplus, if you would be so kind.

I don't do your homework for you anymore Gunner. Once you've seen that the
facts don't agree with your assertions, you just turn around and pull some
other piece of crap out of the stew-pot and try to make *that* one stick to
the wall.

It's tiresome, it's frustrating, and I'm sure that it only annoys you.

So you are unable to tell us all about the surplus? Im surprised.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:15:33 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:

I am only a cnc guy, not a political scientist or
government official.


You are one up on the Noid, as he is "none of the above"

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:22:53 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:49:21 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
news On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:48:04 -0500, "Laz"
wrote:

the 2 year combined deficit of
$1 trillion compared to the clinton administration surplus

There never was a surplus. Hate to tell you that.

Uh-oh. Gunner is branching out into economics. NOW we're in trouble.

After Blog History and Blog Politics, Blog Economics ought to be a
real
hell-bender. d8-)

So Ed, tell us all about the surplus, if you would be so kind.

I don't do your homework for you anymore Gunner. Once you've seen that
the
facts don't agree with your assertions, you just turn around and pull
some
other piece of crap out of the stew-pot and try to make *that* one stick
to
the wall.

It's tiresome, it's frustrating, and I'm sure that it only annoys you.

So you are unable to tell us all about the surplus? Im surprised.

Don't mistake absence of proof (in this thread, anyway) for proof of
absence.

The NeoCon debate technique: Lie, get all your mouthpieces to constantly
repeat the lie with you. Deny everything, regardless of proof. Smear your
accusers, go after their jobs, friends and family. Make
counter-accusations.

Jeff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:36:00 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


The NeoCon debate technique: Lie, get all your mouthpieces to constantly
repeat the lie with you. Deny everything, regardless of proof. Smear your
accusers, go after their jobs, friends and family. Make
counter-accusations.

Jeff

Isnt it clever to have hijacked the DNC playbook and use their tactics
against them, then watch the Dems go hermentile?

Snicker...

Gunner
"Republicans want to starve your children, push Granny out in the snow
to die, poison the air, land and water and take away your Social
Security" DNC Handbook, page 127,


This message does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
myself, my company, my friends, or my cat; Don't quote me on that;
Don't quote me on anything; All rights reserved; You may distribute
this message freely but you may not make a profit from it; Terms are
subject to change without notice; Illustrations are slightly enlarged
to show detail; Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is
unintentional and purely coincidental; Do not remove this disclaimer
under penalty of law; Hand wash only, Tumble dry on low heat; Do not
bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; Your mileage may vary; No
substitutions allowed; Offer good for a limited time only; This
message is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted;
Caveat emptor; Message is provided "as is" without any warranties;
Reader assumes full responsibility; An equal opportunity message; No
shoes, no shirt, no message; Quantities are limited while supplies
last; If any defects are discovered, do not attempt to read them
yourself, but return to an authorized service center; Read at your own
risk; Parental advisory - explicit lyrics; Text may contain explicit
materials some readers may find objectionable, parental guidance is
advised; Keep away from sunlight; Keep away from pets and small
children; Limit one-per-family please; No money down; No purchase
necessary; You need not be present to win; Some assembly required;
Batteries not included; Instructions are included; Action figures
sold separately; No preservatives added; Slippery when wet; Safety
goggles may be required during use; Sealed for your protection, Do not
read if safety seal is broken; Call before you dig; Not liable for
damages arising from use or misuse; For external use only; If rash,
irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue reading; Read
only with proper ventilation; Avoid extreme temperatures and store in
a cool dry place; Keep away from open flames; Avoid contact with eyes
and skin and avoid inhaling fumes; Do not puncture, incinerate, or
store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit; Do not place near a flammable or
magnetic source; Smoking this message could be hazardous to your
health; Reading is addictive; No salt, MSG, artificial color or
flavoring added; If ingested, do not induce vomiting, and if symptoms
persist, consult a physician; May cause drowsiness, alcohol may
intensify this effect; Read with food; Use caution when operating
a car or dangerous machinery; Possible penalties for early withdrawal;
Offer valid only at participating sites; Slightly higher west of the
Rockies; Allow four to six weeks for delivery; Must be 18 to read;
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear; Use of this message is
governed by the terms and conditions of the Bank and Messageholder
Agreement received by the Messageholder. Message remains the property
of the Bank and must be returned on request. Disclaimer does not cover
misuse, accident, lightning, flood, tornado, tsunami, volcanic
eruption, earthquake, hurricanes and other Acts of God, neglect,
damage from improper reading, incorrect line voltage, improper or
unauthorized reading, broken antenna or marred cabinet, missing or
altered serial numbers, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts,
sonic boom vibrations, customer adjustments that are not covered in
this list, and incidents owing to an airplane crash, ship sinking or
taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, dropping the item,
falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass, mud slides, forest fire, or
projectile (which can include, but not be limited to, arrows, bullets,
shot, BB's, shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, or emissions of
X-rays, Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays, knives, stones, etc.); Other
restrictions may apply; Contest ends 12-31-2001.To prevent damage, feel the film continuously during the showing. Do not
rewind after the last showing. Return all filmparts around their proper reels,
thank you.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:36:00 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


The NeoCon debate technique: Lie, get all your mouthpieces to constantly
repeat the lie with you. Deny everything, regardless of proof. Smear
your
accusers, go after their jobs, friends and family. Make
counter-accusations.

Jeff

Isnt it clever to have hijacked the DNC playbook and use their tactics
against them, then watch the Dems go hermentile?

Snicker...

Gunner
"Republicans want to starve your children, push Granny out in the snow
to die, poison the air, land and water and take away your Social
Security" DNC Handbook, page 127,

Pretty good summary, I'd say.

Jeff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:36:00 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


So you are unable to tell us all about the surplus? Im surprised.

Don't mistake absence of proof (in this thread, anyway) for proof of
absence.

The NeoCon debate technique: Lie, get all your mouthpieces to constantly
repeat the lie with you. Deny everything, regardless of proof. Smear your
accusers, go after their jobs, friends and family. Make
counter-accusations.

Jeff

chortle, you call ME partisan?


SMOKE & MIRRORS

The Budget Surplus That
Does Not Exist

By Janet Hook and
Peter G. Gosselin
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

WASHINGTON, DC-Politicians in Washington, acting as if Uncle Sam had
just won the Powerball jackpot, are rapt in dreams of splurging on big
tax cuts, extra Medicare benefits, shiny new airports and additional
stretches of highway. But the bounteous federal budget surplus upon
which their dreams rest could evaporate before lawmakers get their
hands on it. Recent budget analyses that forecast the ever-mounting
pot of gold rest on assumptions about politics and the economy that
may prove as reliable as the profits from a Ponzi scheme. (Are you
surprised that the Liar-in-Chief may be fibbing to make himself and
his administration look good? WFI Editor)

One example: Budget analysts base their recent accounting of the
surplus - a mind-boggling $5.9 trillion over the next 15 years, by one
measure - on the dubious bet that Congress will stay within strict
ceilings for spending on current federal programs. But if Congress
instead allows spending to grow enough merely to keep pace with
inflation, as it often has in the past, much of the surplus will
disappear.

And another: White House analysts have taken the unusual step of
making their surplus estimates over 15 years, rather than the more
conventional five or ten. The longer time period magnifies the effects
of good economic news - but it also compounds the effects of even tiny
errors in forecasting. Indeed, the White House admits that if it has
overestimated just one variable - productivity growth, or the increase
in what one worker can produce in one hour - by a mere half a
percentage point over the 15-year period, that would wipe out the
surplus altogether.

"If current projections… turn out to be even slightly optimistic, the
castles that political leaders are building in the sky will all come
tumbling down," said an analysis by the Concord Coalition, a
nonpartisan budget watchdog group based in Washington. What worries
many independent budget experts is that, by the time Washington
discovers any forecasting mistakes, it will already have spent the
money. "The problem is not in doing projections, even ones for 15
years," said C. Eugene Steurle, a former senior Treasury official now
at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan policy research group in
Washington. "The problem is spending the revenues the projections
suggest might become available. It takes all the slack out of the
system."

The one undeniable truth about recent budget predictions is that they
have been way wide of the mark. A recent review of congressional
analysts' five-year deficit projections found errors averaging $250
billion a year over the last 10 years. But Washington's traditional
caution in the face of uncertain projections seems to be melting in
the sun of two recent reports that show surpluses mounting faster than
anyone had imagined. First the White House found that the surplus
would total $5.9 trillion over 15 years, half in the Social Security
program and half in all the government's other operations. That was a
tidy $1 trillion more than the administration had predicted as
recently as February. Then the Congressional Budget Office issued a
10-year forecast that reflected a similar trend.

Those estimates set off a raucous debate about what to do with the
windfall. Clinton wants a new drug benefit for Medicare. Republicans
want a big tax cut. The House has passed bills vastly increasing
highway and airport spending. And everyone wants to bail out Social
Security. Largely overlooked in the frenzy is the fact that the
surplus projections assume that Congress will make significant cuts in
"discretionary" spending for programs whose budgets are set year by
year in appropriation bills. Spending for these programs - from weapon
procurement to education grants, they make up one-third of the budget
- has been limited by a series of caps set in the 1997
budget-balancing agreement between Clinton and Congress.

The ceilings, which did not hurt much in the first couple of years,
are now growing painful. From $574 billion this year, discretionary
spending is supposed to fall to $569 billion in 2002. And Republicans
already have committed to spending increases for defense, education
and transportation. That would mean deep offsetting cuts elsewhere. A
bitter internal war is raging among Republicans, who control Congress,
over whether to raise the spending caps. Conservatives insist they
won't budge. "When hell freezes over," said House Majority Leader Dick
Armey (R-Texas). Moderates, by contrast, recoil at the political
risks. House Appropriations Committee members say the necessary cuts
are so deep as to be impossible.

Clinton and the Democrats are ready to pounce. The White House
estimates, for example, that one spending bill would have to slash
many labor, health and education programs as much as 18%. (It's ironic
that the Democrats and the Republicans are willing to "play politics"
with the most important issues effecting American nationals, without
any sense of moral compunction, after all, the slashes in programs
will be the result of an agreement the President entered into with
Congress. The self-serving agendas of each party is little more than a
source of national shame. WFI Editor) "I do not believe there is a
consensus in this Congress or in this country to make the kind of
draconian reductions that would be required," said Rep. David R. Obey
of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

The government's giant health care programs have generated much the
same kind of concerns as the smaller discretionary spending programs.
In their forecasts of giant surpluses, for example, both White House
and congressional analysts assumed the government would stick with a
1997 law to restrict Medicare coverage of home health care, nursing
home care and health maintenance organizations. Congress is now under
tremendous pressure from both the health care industry and the elderly
to ease those restrictions. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is usually a
budget hawk, a determined opponent of federal spending. But at a
recent public hearing in Wichita, he promised to roll back some of the
1997 law's provisions when he was told that they had proved
devastating to rural health care agencies.

Official Washington may find all manner of reasons to roll back some
of the tough spending decisions of recent years. But it has voiced
almost no objections to the White House decision to measure the
surplus over 15 years. That's largely because administration
budgeteers have used conservative economic assumptions in making their
surplus estimates, in sharp contrast to predecessors who depended on
projections of unrealistically robust economic growth to justify
proposals to boost spending or cut taxes. But according to a broad
spectrum of critics, the credibility the White House added to its
estimates with conservative assumptions was effectively subtracted by
the decision to extend the estimates 15 years into the future.

"Believe me, we were stretching it when we did five-year projections,"
said Leon E. Panetta, who was once Clinton's chief of staff, his
budget director and chairman of the House Budget Committee. "Any time
you get out beyond a few years, you're in never-never land." And from
the Republican side, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici
of New Mexico, said: "I don't think [Clinton] should have done 15-year
numbers. It created a distorted picture. It made the numbers look way
too big." (Surprise, surprise! Bill Clinton did something that created
a distorted picture! WFI Editor)
SOURCE: Excerpted from the 11 July, 1999, issue of the Los Angeles
Times, Orange County Edition, from an article entitled, "Heaping
Surplus Built on Mountain of Assumptions." Reprinted in the public
service of the national interest of the American people.
This message does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
myself, my company, my friends, or my cat; Don't quote me on that;
Don't quote me on anything; All rights reserved; You may distribute
this message freely but you may not make a profit from it; Terms are
subject to change without notice; Illustrations are slightly enlarged
to show detail; Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is
unintentional and purely coincidental; Do not remove this disclaimer
under penalty of law; Hand wash only, Tumble dry on low heat; Do not
bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; Your mileage may vary; No
substitutions allowed; Offer good for a limited time only; This
message is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted;
Caveat emptor; Message is provided "as is" without any warranties;
Reader assumes full responsibility; An equal opportunity message; No
shoes, no shirt, no message; Quantities are limited while supplies
last; If any defects are discovered, do not attempt to read them
yourself, but return to an authorized service center; Read at your own
risk; Parental advisory - explicit lyrics; Text may contain explicit
materials some readers may find objectionable, parental guidance is
advised; Keep away from sunlight; Keep away from pets and small
children; Limit one-per-family please; No money down; No purchase
necessary; You need not be present to win; Some assembly required;
Batteries not included; Instructions are included; Action figures
sold separately; No preservatives added; Slippery when wet; Safety
goggles may be required during use; Sealed for your protection, Do not
read if safety seal is broken; Call before you dig; Not liable for
damages arising from use or misuse; For external use only; If rash,
irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue reading; Read
only with proper ventilation; Avoid extreme temperatures and store in
a cool dry place; Keep away from open flames; Avoid contact with eyes
and skin and avoid inhaling fumes; Do not puncture, incinerate, or
store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit; Do not place near a flammable or
magnetic source; Smoking this message could be hazardous to your
health; Reading is addictive; No salt, MSG, artificial color or
flavoring added; If ingested, do not induce vomiting, and if symptoms
persist, consult a physician; May cause drowsiness, alcohol may
intensify this effect; Read with food; Use caution when operating
a car or dangerous machinery; Possible penalties for early withdrawal;
Offer valid only at participating sites; Slightly higher west of the
Rockies; Allow four to six weeks for delivery; Must be 18 to read;
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear; Use of this message is
governed by the terms and conditions of the Bank and Messageholder
Agreement received by the Messageholder. Message remains the property
of the Bank and must be returned on request. Disclaimer does not cover
misuse, accident, lightning, flood, tornado, tsunami, volcanic
eruption, earthquake, hurricanes and other Acts of God, neglect,
damage from improper reading, incorrect line voltage, improper or
unauthorized reading, broken antenna or marred cabinet, missing or
altered serial numbers, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts,
sonic boom vibrations, customer adjustments that are not covered in
this list, and incidents owing to an airplane crash, ship sinking or
taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, dropping the item,
falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass, mud slides, forest fire, or
projectile (which can include, but not be limited to, arrows, bullets,
shot, BB's, shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, or emissions of
X-rays, Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays, knives, stones, etc.); Other
restrictions may apply; Contest ends 12-31-2001.To prevent damage, feel the film continuously during the showing. Do not
rewind after the last showing. Return all filmparts around their proper reels,
thank you.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:36:00 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


So you are unable to tell us all about the surplus? Im surprised.

Don't mistake absence of proof (in this thread, anyway) for proof of
absence.

The NeoCon debate technique: Lie, get all your mouthpieces to constantly
repeat the lie with you. Deny everything, regardless of proof. Smear your
accusers, go after their jobs, friends and family. Make
counter-accusations.

Jeff

More chortling

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/fe...8/budget1.html

Mr. James Miller, counselor at the Citizens for Sound Economy,
responds:

You are correct. For fiscal years 1999 through 2002, the President
claims surpluses of $9.5 billion, $8.5 billion, $28.2 billion, $89.7
billion, and $82.8 billion respectively. Yet, the Administration
estimates that over the same years payments into the Social Security
program will exceed outlays by $113 billion, $123 billion, $130
billion, and $139 billion respectively. Since, by law, these surpluses
are exchanged for Treasury debt, they immediately go into the general
fund and are used to support ordinary spending. In other words, there
is nothing in the Social Security trust fund but IOUs on future
generations. To the extent that people assume that the trust fund
contains real assets (or something other than Treasury debt), the
claim that the budget will be in surplus is phoney. Indeed, the way
ordinary people think the books are kept, under the President's budget
the federal government will run deficits of $104 billion, $114
billion, $102 billion, and $49 billion respectively.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...27/ai_54680884
Clinton Boxes in the Republicans - scheme to deceive American public
into believing there is a budget surplus by manipulating Social
Security funds
USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), May, 1999 by
Robert J. Bresler

The political stakes for the 2000 election are the highest they have
been in a generation. Whichever party wins the presidency could, in
all likelihood, win the House and Senate and, thus, shape public
policy for at least the next couple of decades. Barring a change in
the current political climate, Pres. Clinton and the 106th Congress
probably will be unable to reach a compromise on most major questions:
Will income taxes be reduced, modified, or flattened? Will Social
Security and Medicare be financially secured? Will any education
funding be channeled into school vouchers? How will the surplus,
should it actually materialize, be handled--by paying down the
national debt, reducing taxes, increasing spending, or, more
realistically, by what combination of the three?

Having avoided conviction by the Senate after the House voted for
impeachment, Clinton has shown dazzling footwork on domestic policy
and has the Republican Party off balance. Much of his program is
designed to make voters think he has solved problems without much
visible pain or cost. Like his private behavior, Clinton's programs
largely are tailored for the satisfaction of the moment with little
regard for the future.

The Clinton illusions begin with the alleged surpluses for this fiscal
year and the next. In reality, they do not exist. They all come from
the Social Security fund. This is important because the Treasury
cannot use the Social Security surplus to pay down the national debt.
Those funds, invested in U.S. bonds and held in trust, must be
redeemed eventually to meet future Social Security obligations.

If the current Social Security surplus is subtracted from Clinton's
budget, the Federal government actually will be running a
$42,000,000,000 deficit in Fiscal Year 1999 and a $12,000,000,000
deficit in FY 2000. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) does not
project a significant government surplus (minus the Social Security
funds) until FY 2002, and these OMB projections, as the nation has
learned from painful experience, can be widely off the mark. The
Congressional Budget Office, which generally makes more cautious
predictions, has warned that OMB's projected non-Social Security
surplus of $188,000,000,000 for FY 2009 could be as much as
$300,000,000,000 in error.

Clinton's proposal to "save Social Security" is eye-crossingly
complicated and represents the President at his slickest. It involves
the use of the projected non-Social Security surplus in a way that
only a few observers have been able to decipher. On the one hand,
Clinton would use some of that surplus to reduce the national debt and
the interest payments that go with it. However, one has to watch this
presidential Houdini very carefully for, on the other hand, he would
deposit an equivalent amount of special U.S. Treasury securities into
the Social Security and Medicare trust fund. They would be earmarked
as a new reserve fund and would be "off the books," not formally
included as part of the national debt.

The Clinton Administration calls this money "donations." Robert J.
Samuleson of the Washington Post rightfully refers to these funds as
funny money. Over a period of 15 years, these so-called donations
would total 2.7 trillion dollars. Since they would have to be redeemed
eventually to fund Social Security and Medicare when those programs
fall into serious deficit, this funny money would no longer be very
funny. These obligations would have to be redeemed by additional
borrowing, more taxes, or steep spending reductions. By then, of
course, Clinton will be chasing God knows what or whom around the golf
course, and his fellow boomers will be safely in retirement. Their
children then will have to figure out how to pay off this
multi-trillion-dollar debt to Social Security and Medicare. This is
the politics of moment at its most cynical, designed to win the next
election or the next several elections without a thought for the
recipients' future.

The Republican Party, once brimming with ideas and expectations after
the 1994 Congressional election triumph, now seems afraid of its own
agenda and reluctant to confront Clinton. The most devilishly clever
politician of his generation, Clinton has been an exploding cigar for
the Republican Party. Despite his private reckless and arrogant
behavior and brutal treatment of women, the Republicans' pursuit of
his impeachment served only to make them appear to be mean-spirited
and sex-obsessed. They refused to defend Independent Counsel Ken
Starr, jettisoned Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, let his
successor, Bob Livingston, disappear into the night, and made nary a
peep over Juanita Broaddrick's belated rape charge. Now, when faced
with his double-bookkeeping plan to save Social Security, worthy of
the slickest underhanded accountant, the Republicans seem like deer
caught in the headlights.

Having been defeated in their attempt to unseat Clinton, they may be
reluctant to take on the President again. Politically, the truth in
this matter may be difficult to utter. It would involve acknowledging
that, for the next two years at least, there is no real budget
surplus. In addition, it would require recognizing that, in order to
save Social Security without using smoke and mirrors, it would be
necessary to reduce certain benefits, raise the retirement age over
the years, and introduce some measure of privatization. The first two
options would earn the ire of the senior citizens' lobby, and the
third would bring down the wrath of the labor unions. Given the level
of distrust that has infected Washington politics and the stakes of
the next election, an honest bipartisan solution seems out of reach.

Clinton partially could restore some of his tarnished legacy by
helping to craft such a compromise. If his thoughts are primarily on
the next election, he will take a pass, keep Social Security as an
issue, and watch the Republicans struggle to find their own solutions.
If Clinton's thoughts were to be on the future and on America's
children, to whom he already has done considerable damage, he will
invest his remaining political capital in a compromise that will not
leave the next generation with the bill. Such statesmanship and
unselfishness, though, are totally out of character. We wait to be
surprised.

Dr. Bresler, National Affairs Editor of USA Today, is professor of
public policy, Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg.

COPYRIGHT 1999 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group
This message does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
myself, my company, my friends, or my cat; Don't quote me on that;
Don't quote me on anything; All rights reserved; You may distribute
this message freely but you may not make a profit from it; Terms are
subject to change without notice; Illustrations are slightly enlarged
to show detail; Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is
unintentional and purely coincidental; Do not remove this disclaimer
under penalty of law; Hand wash only, Tumble dry on low heat; Do not
bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; Your mileage may vary; No
substitutions allowed; Offer good for a limited time only; This
message is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted;
Caveat emptor; Message is provided "as is" without any warranties;
Reader assumes full responsibility; An equal opportunity message; No
shoes, no shirt, no message; Quantities are limited while supplies
last; If any defects are discovered, do not attempt to read them
yourself, but return to an authorized service center; Read at your own
risk; Parental advisory - explicit lyrics; Text may contain explicit
materials some readers may find objectionable, parental guidance is
advised; Keep away from sunlight; Keep away from pets and small
children; Limit one-per-family please; No money down; No purchase
necessary; You need not be present to win; Some assembly required;
Batteries not included; Instructions are included; Action figures
sold separately; No preservatives added; Slippery when wet; Safety
goggles may be required during use; Sealed for your protection, Do not
read if safety seal is broken; Call before you dig; Not liable for
damages arising from use or misuse; For external use only; If rash,
irritation, redness, or swelling develops, discontinue reading; Read
only with proper ventilation; Avoid extreme temperatures and store in
a cool dry place; Keep away from open flames; Avoid contact with eyes
and skin and avoid inhaling fumes; Do not puncture, incinerate, or
store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit; Do not place near a flammable or
magnetic source; Smoking this message could be hazardous to your
health; Reading is addictive; No salt, MSG, artificial color or
flavoring added; If ingested, do not induce vomiting, and if symptoms
persist, consult a physician; May cause drowsiness, alcohol may
intensify this effect; Read with food; Use caution when operating
a car or dangerous machinery; Possible penalties for early withdrawal;
Offer valid only at participating sites; Slightly higher west of the
Rockies; Allow four to six weeks for delivery; Must be 18 to read;
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear; Use of this message is
governed by the terms and conditions of the Bank and Messageholder
Agreement received by the Messageholder. Message remains the property
of the Bank and must be returned on request. Disclaimer does not cover
misuse, accident, lightning, flood, tornado, tsunami, volcanic
eruption, earthquake, hurricanes and other Acts of God, neglect,
damage from improper reading, incorrect line voltage, improper or
unauthorized reading, broken antenna or marred cabinet, missing or
altered serial numbers, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts,
sonic boom vibrations, customer adjustments that are not covered in
this list, and incidents owing to an airplane crash, ship sinking or
taking on water, motor vehicle crashing, dropping the item,
falling rocks, leaky roof, broken glass, mud slides, forest fire, or
projectile (which can include, but not be limited to, arrows, bullets,
shot, BB's, shrapnel, lasers, napalm, torpedoes, or emissions of
X-rays, Alpha, Beta and Gamma rays, knives, stones, etc.); Other
restrictions may apply; Contest ends 12-31-2001.To prevent damage, feel the film continuously during the showing. Do not
rewind after the last showing. Return all filmparts around their proper reels,
thank you.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:06:05 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:36:00 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


The NeoCon debate technique: Lie, get all your mouthpieces to constantly
repeat the lie with you. Deny everything, regardless of proof. Smear
your
accusers, go after their jobs, friends and family. Make
counter-accusations.

Jeff

Isnt it clever to have hijacked the DNC playbook and use their tactics
against them, then watch the Dems go hermentile?

Snicker...

Gunner
"Republicans want to starve your children, push Granny out in the snow
to die, poison the air, land and water and take away your Social
Security" DNC Handbook, page 127,

Pretty good summary, I'd say.

Jeff

Thanks for confirming it.

Gunner



" We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
Shakespeare...Thanks to AOL and WebTv, we know this is not possible."

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:06:05 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:36:00 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


The NeoCon debate technique: Lie, get all your mouthpieces to constantly
repeat the lie with you. Deny everything, regardless of proof. Smear
your
accusers, go after their jobs, friends and family. Make
counter-accusations.

Jeff

Isnt it clever to have hijacked the DNC playbook and use their tactics
against them, then watch the Dems go hermentile?

Snicker...

Gunner
"Republicans want to starve your children, push Granny out in the snow
to die, poison the air, land and water and take away your Social
Security" DNC Handbook, page 127,

Pretty good summary, I'd say.

What? And leave poor Gunner with no bennies, like health
care or welfare payments?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:24:56 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

the President's budget
the federal government will run deficits of $104 billion, $114
billion, $102 billion, and $49 billion respectively.

Don't you miss the Clinton days, Gunner?
NOW Herr shrubbie may be running a real total deficit
of nearly US$ 1,000 billion per year (or more).
How much is the black budget?

THEN he wants to steal the SS "surplus" (needs to be
repaid by raising taxes) .....
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote in news:daalv01cc2u6o0fp3mdc1upeeuevqmc1f6@
4ax.com:

snip

THEN he wants to steal the SS "surplus" (needs to be
repaid by raising taxes) .....

Got foorp? IIRC, We've been through this little lie about ten times. By law
he can't do anything with that money. Social Security is not a savings
plan. It is a pay as you go system, and has to be funded annualy by
congress. Any surplus funds are used to buy T-bills as mandated by current
law. The money then goes into the general fund as mandated by law. The
House and Senate are both required to pass a budget every year by law. The
President then has the option of signing it or sending it back. You keep
writing about Bush stealing the Soc. Sec. surplus. I'll type slowly so you
can understand this; You have been lied to, and you are speading a lie.
I've posted links in the past to the relevant laws, Google them up if you
must. Now if you know of pending legislation sponsered by the President,
please supply a link to the relevant section in the bill, where he is
stealing the "surplus". I'll write my congressman to make sure that doesn't
happen. BTW, where is the money going after he steals it? Stealing is a
crime, is it not? Seems like this would be a pretty high profile crime to
me. Seems he would very likely get caught, wouldn't it?

Dan

P.S. There is no surplus unless you count breaking even with a 25%
reduction in benefits a surplus.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:34:11 -0700, "jon banquer"
wrote:

Don't know "The Virus" very well do you. Wait till the lies and stalking
start.

Oh, goodie G.
It's clueless again.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote in
:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

Dan

"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
Cliff wrote in
:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

Dan



If you have not read it perhaps you and others might want to read it so that
you can understand what "The Virus" really suffers from :

This is following is a post from Michael Gailey to alt.machi*nes.cnc.
and is buried in a thread called "CADDS 5 Help". It seemed *to me that
it would be helpful for others to see so that they can gain *an
understanding about what the real problem is and perhaps con*vince the
person to get some badly needed help.

From: Michael
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; *rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc
Subject: CADDS 5 Help
References:





In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 201
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace:
52616e646f6d4956d422779dc538c04b923339e90dd54fdb78 91ed4fe69d*27d4d7d92bcd5a5
dc6e91e65a8ec1e55b903cd887079349ee33d969a6db9*ac60 072f8a8cc52a0665e8f99d826d
41b927885824dcb14776162478645f*0adc4e1662e4
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward ALL headers so that *we may
process your complaint properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:20:10 GMT
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:20:10 GMT





"Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:35:32 GMT, Michael
wrote:

You don't need to whine & snivel.
Just learn.


More groveling would be nice too G.


HTH


Yet another dodge of my question.


Have you ever heard of Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
See explanation above for clues.
Michael


Michael,


A) You usually post a load of BS about some term you
have *heard of*, just like jb did/does. You make most
of it up without actually knowing much. Usually things
are NOT as you imagined.


This makes your posts full of bad information. Some
may actually not know any better of later find your junk
in the archives when searching for valid information.



Oh, you need the links to verify what I posted, no problem.
I suppose another of Cliff's Urban Legends has been exposed.

Go see if this describes you Cliff.
There may still be time for you to get help.
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/
http://www.healthyplace.com/communit...orders/narciss...
http://www.healthyplace.com/communit...orders/narciss...
http://www.healthyplace.com/Communit...orders/Site/Tr...


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...nality+Disorde...



B) You very clearly don't care about truth or you just
might check some of your BS first. ALL you care about
is posting your guesses and then objecting when someone
else corrects your nearly endless misinformation.



Here is a snippet derived from the American Psychiatric Asso*ciation:
Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
Definition, Fact Sheet and Tips

What is Narcissism?


A pattern of traits and behaviors which signify infatuation *and
obsession with one's self to the exclusion of all others and* the
egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification, domin*ance and
ambition.


Most narcissists (75%) are men.


NPD is one of a "family" of personality disorders (formerly *known as
"Cluster B").


Other members: Borderline PD, Antisocial PD and Histrionic P*D.


NPD is often diagnosed with other mental health disorders
("co-morbidity") - or with substance abuse, or impulsive and* reckless
behaviors ("dual diagnosis").


NPD is new (1980) mental health category in the Diagnostic a*nd
Statistics Manual (DSM).


There is only scant research regarding narcissism. But what *there is
has
not demonstrated any ethnic, social, cultural, economic, gen*etic, or
professional predilection to NPD.


It is estimated that 0.7-1% of the general population suffer* from NPD.


Pathological narcissism was first described in detail by Fre*ud. Other
major contributors a Klein, Horney, Kohut, Kernberg, Mill*on,
Roningstam, Gunderson, Hare.


The onset of narcissism is in infancy, childhood and early a*dolescence.


It is commonly attributed to childhood abuse and trauma infl*icted by
parents, authority figures, or even peers.


There is a whole range of narcissistic reactions - from the *mild,
reactive and transient to the permanent personality disorder*.


Narcissists are either "Cerebral" (derive their narcissistic* supply
from
their intelligence or academic achievements) - or "Somatic" *(derive
their narcissistic supply from their physique, exercise, phy*sical or
sexual prowess and "conquests").


Narcissists are either "Classic" - see definition below - or* they are
"Compensatory", or "Inverted" - see definitions he "The I*nverted
Narcissist".


NPD is treated in talk therapy (psychodynamic or cognitive-b*ehavioral).


The prognosis for an adult narcissist is poor, though his ad*aptation to


life and to others can improve with treatment. Medication is* applied to


side-effects and behaviors (such as mood or affect disorders* and
obsession-compulsion) - usually with some success.


Please read CAREFULLY!


The text in italics is NOT based on the Diagnostics and Stat*istics
Manual, Fourth Edition-Text Revision (2000).


The text in italics IS based on "Malignant Self Love - Narci*ssism
Revisited", fourth, revised, printing (2003)


An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behav*iour), need


for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beg*inning by
early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or mo*re) of the
following criteria must be met:


Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achiev*ements and
talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as s*uperior
without commensurate achievements)


Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fears*ome power
or
omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist)*, bodily
beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or id*eal,
everlasting, all-conquering love or passion


Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special*, can only
be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate wi*th, other
special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)


Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affi*rmation -
or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (n*arcissistic


supply)


Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorabl*e priority
treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or* her
expectations


Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achi*eve his or
her own ends


Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with o*r
acknowledge the feelings and needs of others


Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the *same about
him or her


Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage *when
frustrated, contradicted, or confronted



C) Even after all that you usually persist with your
misinformation way past any point of sanity.



If you think I posted misinformation, please read the last s*nippett
again.


D) You are a gun-toting winger, living in fear
& denial of much truth.



I have a legal permit to protect myself.


E) You at times seem to do the Sunday Fundie thing.



That is your paranoia talking again.


F) You seem incapable of learning much.



Back to the NPD snippet.


G) You are loads of fun G.



I don't think you are capable of having fun, mental illness *does that
to
people. Get some help Cliff.
Michael


HTH



--

Michael Gailey
Artistic CNC Mill, Router and Engraver Programming
3D modeling for Product Design and Development
http://www.microsystemsgeorgia.com/toc.htm "


My thanks to Michael for the post and hope others benefit fr*om it as I
have.


jon

Took ya long enough I plonked Cliff a long time ago. I do not suffer
fools gladly
"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
Cliff wrote in
:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

Dan

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:54:39 -0700, "jon banquer"
wrote:

If you have not read it

I take it we found yet another subject that poor cleless is clueless
about G.
--
Cliff

On 30 Jan 2005 01:36:50 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

So tell us what YOU think that the neocon's plan would do G.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:18:13 -0800, "Glenn"
wrote:

Took ya long enough I plonked Cliff a long time ago. I do not suffer
fools gladly

Different "Glenn" or the same old one with a new address?
If the later, what happened? Chuch burn down or the Mexicans
managed to sneak across the border to Oregon & steal your
credit card in the dead of night?
--
Cliff

"Glenn" wrote in message
...
Took ya long enough I plonked Cliff a long time ago. I do not suffer
fools gladly
"Dan Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
Cliff wrote in
:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

Dan



He's not a fool but he is very sick:


This is following is a post from Michael Gailey to alt.machi*nes.cnc.
and is buried in a thread called "CADDS 5 Help". It seemed *to me that
it would be helpful for others to see so that they can gain *an
understanding about what the real problem is and perhaps con*vince the
person to get some badly needed help.

From: Michael
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; *rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.machines.cnc
Subject: CADDS 5 Help
References:





In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 201
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace:
52616e646f6d4956d422779dc538c04b923339e90dd54fdb78 91ed4fe69d*27d4d7d92bcd5a5
dc6e91e65a8ec1e55b903cd887079349ee33d969a6db9*ac60 072f8a8cc52a0665e8f99d826d
41b927885824dcb14776162478645f*0adc4e1662e4
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward ALL headers so that *we may
process your complaint properly.
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:20:10 GMT
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:20:10 GMT





"Cliff wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:35:32 GMT, Michael
wrote:

You don't need to whine & snivel.
Just learn.


More groveling would be nice too G.


HTH


Yet another dodge of my question.


Have you ever heard of Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
See explanation above for clues.
Michael


Michael,


A) You usually post a load of BS about some term you
have *heard of*, just like jb did/does. You make most
of it up without actually knowing much. Usually things
are NOT as you imagined.


This makes your posts full of bad information. Some
may actually not know any better of later find your junk
in the archives when searching for valid information.



Oh, you need the links to verify what I posted, no problem.
I suppose another of Cliff's Urban Legends has been exposed.

Go see if this describes you Cliff.
There may still be time for you to get help.
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/
http://www.healthyplace.com/communit...orders/narciss...
http://www.healthyplace.com/communit...orders/narciss...
http://www.healthyplace.com/Communit...orders/Site/Tr...


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...nality+Disorde...



B) You very clearly don't care about truth or you just
might check some of your BS first. ALL you care about
is posting your guesses and then objecting when someone
else corrects your nearly endless misinformation.



Here is a snippet derived from the American Psychiatric Asso*ciation:
Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
Definition, Fact Sheet and Tips

What is Narcissism?


A pattern of traits and behaviors which signify infatuation *and
obsession with one's self to the exclusion of all others and* the
egotistic and ruthless pursuit of one's gratification, domin*ance and
ambition.


Most narcissists (75%) are men.


NPD is one of a "family" of personality disorders (formerly *known as
"Cluster B").


Other members: Borderline PD, Antisocial PD and Histrionic P*D.


NPD is often diagnosed with other mental health disorders
("co-morbidity") - or with substance abuse, or impulsive and* reckless
behaviors ("dual diagnosis").


NPD is new (1980) mental health category in the Diagnostic a*nd
Statistics Manual (DSM).


There is only scant research regarding narcissism. But what *there is
has
not demonstrated any ethnic, social, cultural, economic, gen*etic, or
professional predilection to NPD.


It is estimated that 0.7-1% of the general population suffer* from NPD.


Pathological narcissism was first described in detail by Fre*ud. Other
major contributors a Klein, Horney, Kohut, Kernberg, Mill*on,
Roningstam, Gunderson, Hare.


The onset of narcissism is in infancy, childhood and early a*dolescence.


It is commonly attributed to childhood abuse and trauma infl*icted by
parents, authority figures, or even peers.


There is a whole range of narcissistic reactions - from the *mild,
reactive and transient to the permanent personality disorder*.


Narcissists are either "Cerebral" (derive their narcissistic* supply
from
their intelligence or academic achievements) - or "Somatic" *(derive
their narcissistic supply from their physique, exercise, phy*sical or
sexual prowess and "conquests").


Narcissists are either "Classic" - see definition below - or* they are
"Compensatory", or "Inverted" - see definitions he "The I*nverted
Narcissist".


NPD is treated in talk therapy (psychodynamic or cognitive-b*ehavioral).


The prognosis for an adult narcissist is poor, though his ad*aptation to


life and to others can improve with treatment. Medication is* applied to


side-effects and behaviors (such as mood or affect disorders* and
obsession-compulsion) - usually with some success.


Please read CAREFULLY!


The text in italics is NOT based on the Diagnostics and Stat*istics
Manual, Fourth Edition-Text Revision (2000).


The text in italics IS based on "Malignant Self Love - Narci*ssism
Revisited", fourth, revised, printing (2003)


An all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behav*iour), need


for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy, usually beg*inning by
early adulthood and present in various contexts. Five (or mo*re) of the
following criteria must be met:


Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates achiev*ements and
talents to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as s*uperior
without commensurate achievements)


Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fears*ome power
or
omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist)*, bodily
beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or id*eal,
everlasting, all-conquering love or passion


Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special*, can only
be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate wi*th, other
special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)


Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affi*rmation -
or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (n*arcissistic


supply)


Feels entitled. Expects unreasonable or special and favorabl*e priority
treatment. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or* her
expectations


Is "interpersonally exploitative", i.e., uses others to achi*eve his or
her own ends


Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with o*r
acknowledge the feelings and needs of others


Constantly envious of others or believes that they feel the *same about
him or her


Arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes coupled with rage *when
frustrated, contradicted, or confronted



C) Even after all that you usually persist with your
misinformation way past any point of sanity.



If you think I posted misinformation, please read the last s*nippett
again.


D) You are a gun-toting winger, living in fear
& denial of much truth.



I have a legal permit to protect myself.


E) You at times seem to do the Sunday Fundie thing.



That is your paranoia talking again.


F) You seem incapable of learning much.



Back to the NPD snippet.


G) You are loads of fun G.



I don't think you are capable of having fun, mental illness *does that
to
people. Get some help Cliff.
Michael


HTH



--

Michael Gailey
Artistic CNC Mill, Router and Engraver Programming
3D modeling for Product Design and Development
http://www.microsystemsgeorgia.com/toc.htm "


My thanks to Michael for the post and hope others benefit fr*om it as I
have.


jon

Cliff wrote in news:v0mqv05kp3g053voo8uql34j17t6r90rja@
4ax.com:

On 30 Jan 2005 01:36:50 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
m:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

So tell us what YOU think that the neocon's plan would do G.

I would hope that it will start a debate about changing a horrible
regressive tax. It would be great if the great retirement Ponzi scheme were
to be replaced with something more worthwhile.
Why is it that Uber-Libs turn into conservative nut jobs when you start
talking about their pet welfare program, that has outlived its usefullness?
Why do you think that a welfare program concieved in 1934 during the Great
Depression, is still the perfect solution in 2005? I know what you don't
like about the proposed changes. They give hard working folks a CHOICE
about where THEIR money goes. I fully understand that elitist progressive
thinkers are against giving the riff-raff a chance to make decisions for
themselves. They're not qualified, right? Pffft.

Dan

On 30 Jan 2005 22:23:22 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:v0mqv05kp3g053voo8uql34j17t6r90rja@
4ax.com:

On 30 Jan 2005 01:36:50 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

So tell us what YOU think that the neocon's plan would do G.

I would hope that it will start a debate about changing a horrible
regressive tax. It would be great if the great retirement Ponzi scheme were
to be replaced with something more worthwhile.
Why is it that Uber-Libs turn into conservative nut jobs when you start
talking about their pet welfare program, that has outlived its usefullness?
Why do you think that a welfare program concieved in 1934 during the Great
Depression, is still the perfect solution in 2005? I know what you don't
like about the proposed changes. They give hard working folks a CHOICE
about where THEIR money goes. I fully understand that elitist progressive
thinkers are against giving the riff-raff a chance to make decisions for
themselves. They're not qualified, right? Pffft.

Dan
Greetings Dan,
A change in Social Security may indeed be in order. But what exactly
are these changes? If we let people invest some or all of their SS tax
do we let them invest in anything? What if they decide to not invest
it at all and spend it on beer? If they are required to either invest
it or put it into a SS account and they decide to invest it how do we
make sure it is invested properly? If we let them invest in anything
then there will be many bad investments that will leave these people
broke. If there are only certain government approved investments they
can put their money into then I see two potential problems. First, if
these are gov't approved then why bother with all the individual
investors? This will only cause a net loss compared to the gov't
putting your money into the accounts because every individual will
have fees that are associated with their individual account. Either up
front or a lower return from no load investments. Since the gov't
already has to administer part of your money then there is already one
account with your name on it. Two or more accounts with your name on
it will eat up money, even if it's only a couple percent. And that 1
or 2 percent can mean lots of money over the years. Second, since the
gov't is approving these investments and calling them safe can we sue
the gov't if the investments go bad? Remember, since everybody will be
encouraged to invest privately there will be thousands who plain don't
understand investing and how to judge for themselves where to put
their money. Will gov't approval translate into gov't liability? The
reason Social Security was implemented is because old people were
starving and freezing to death. Old people were literally dying in the
street. Private charities were either unable or unwilling to take care
of all these old people. If old people are once again put in this
situation because investments go bad will the gov't take care of them?
Or will we have to be willing, once again, to let these people starve
and freeze to death? This has nothing to do with whether people are
qualified, or think they are qualified, to make their own investment
decisions. There will always be bad investments, or bad economies,
that make even the best investments perform poorly. Take for instance
WPPS in Washington state. WPPS stands for Washington Public Power
Supply. These were bonds rated AAA and were issued to pay for power
plants that were never completed. WPPS went bankrupt. Mostly because
of inept planning and execution. Then recently we have Enron and
Worldcom. Both high rated investments and both went bankrupt because
of criminal activities at the highest level. And what about people who
get to be 65 or 70 and it's time to retire but the economy happens to
be in the toilet so their investments are practically worthless? And
because of their age can't continue working another 10 years while the
economy improves and their investments are once again worth enough to
retore? Do we take care of these people? Or let them starve? Once all
these questions are answered with some kind of plan then we can decide
if the change is a good idea. So far, none of these queastion have
been answered. I don't have the answers, do you? If so, please post
them so it can be discussed further and maybe implemented.
Cheers,
Eric R Snow

Glenn wrote:

I plonked Cliff a long time ago. I do not suffer
fools gladly

Glenn:

Is that Glenn of "Oregon coast" fame? If so, I always thought your
posts informative and/or interesting, even when I sometimes didn't agree
with your conclusions.

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

Eric R Snow wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2005 22:23:22 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:v0mqv05kp3g053voo8uql34j17t6r90rja@ 4ax.com:

On 30 Jan 2005 01:36:50 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
m:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

So tell us what YOU think that the neocon's plan would do G.

I would hope that it will start a debate about changing a horrible
regressive tax. It would be great if the great retirement Ponzi scheme
were to be replaced with something more worthwhile.
Why is it that Uber-Libs turn into conservative nut jobs when you
start
talking about their pet welfare program, that has outlived its
usefullness? Why do you think that a welfare program concieved in 1934
during the Great Depression, is still the perfect solution in 2005? I
know what you don't like about the proposed changes. They give hard
working folks a CHOICE about where THEIR money goes. I fully
understand that elitist progressive thinkers are against giving the
riff-raff a chance to make decisions for themselves. They're not
qualified, right? Pffft.

Dan
Greetings Dan,
A change in Social Security may indeed be in order. But what exactly
are these changes?

A change is most assuredly in order. S.S. is a "pay as you go" system.
The pending retirement of the Baby Boom generation is going to put a
strain on the system. S.S. was concieved to eliminate a shameful problem
that existed in the early 20th century. Namely, a large percentage of the
elderly were poor, and a large percentage of the poor were elderly. Pay
as you go was the only option at the time. The country was in the midst
of a depression. In the intervening years, this welfare program designed
to prevent poverty amongst the elderly, became a retirement entitlement
and a safety net for the disabled among other things. Which is all well
and good. But the funding is no different than a pyramid scheme. All
pyramid schemes eventually collapse. The prudent thing to do would be to
add a savings component to S.S. There is no doubt that the transition
will be painful, but we are the wealthiest nation in the world. We should
be able to figure it out. Here are some of the problems with the current
system as I see it:

(1) S.S. is a tax. And it's a regressive tax at that. The poorest of the
poor have to pay it, and there is no garantee that they will recieve any
benefit. Low income folks should pay in less, and it should go into a
private account which will fund some of their benefit. This could be paid
for by removing the cap on what higher income earners pay in. Why should
a poor person pay 12.4% of their total income while a guy earnin a
million dollars pays omly $10,900.00? That's just 1%. It's shameful. I'm
fortunate enough to hit the cap. And while I don't make anywhere near a
million bucks, I wouldn't mind paying more, so a low income person could
get on their feet.

(2) Future obligations are not funded. Well, not really. The goverment is
currently collecting more funds than it needs to fund S.S. due to the
cost of the Baby Boom generation obligation. Since the system was not
designed to be a savings plan, the politicians decided to craft a law
that put these funds into Treasury bills. The money from the sale of T-
bills goes into the general fund and is spent. Considering the huge
deficit we are running up at the moment, and the rate of return on T-
bills, this is a fairly shakey house of cards.

(3) Demographics have changed since the Great Depression. The elderly are
now some of the wealthiest Americans. The amount of elderly living below
the poverty line is near an all time low.

(4) Adding a savings component to S.S. will help reduce the trade deficit
and will provide more investment capitol. Countries with low savings
rates are net importers. Countries with high savings rates are net
exporters.

If we let people invest some or all of their SS tax
do we let them invest in anything?

No. You could have index funds, bond funds, REITS, and good old T-bills.
All no load, BTW.

What if they decide to not invest
it at all and spend it on beer? If they are required to either invest
it or put it into a SS account and they decide to invest it how do we
make sure it is invested properly? If we let them invest in anything
then there will be many bad investments that will leave these people
broke.

Not likely. Relying on a smaller group of workers to take care of an
increasingly larger and longer lived group of retirees, seem like a good
way to go broke too. What if we have another depression?

If there are only certain government approved investments they
can put their money into then I see two potential problems. First, if
these are gov't approved then why bother with all the individual
investors? This will only cause a net loss compared to the gov't
putting your money into the accounts because every individual will
have fees that are associated with their individual account. Either up
front or a lower return from no load investments. Since the gov't
already has to administer part of your money then there is already one
account with your name on it. Two or more accounts with your name on
it will eat up money, even if it's only a couple percent. And that 1
or 2 percent can mean lots of money over the years.

Right now you get no return and have no assurance that you will ever get
anything. S.S. is only funded year to year. In my case they've raised the
age I can retire at, and reduced the projected benefit by 25%. Getting a
return of 5% instead of 5.5% is way better than what I'm getting now.
These funds could be set up to be no load and very low fees. I don't
think we are talking about thousands of choices. Maybe a couple of dozen.
As far as administrating multiple accounts, you're under the mistaken
impression that you have an account right now. You don't. And you only
have an entitlement for as long as congress continues to fund it each
year.

Second, since the
gov't is approving these investments and calling them safe can we sue
the gov't if the investments go bad? Remember, since everybody will be
encouraged to invest privately there will be thousands who plain don't
understand investing and how to judge for themselves where to put
their money. Will gov't approval translate into gov't liability?

No. The investments are optional. But let's face reality, if all stocks,
bonds and T-bills were to become worthless overnight, there would be no
conventional S.S. anyway.

The
reason Social Security was implemented is because old people were
starving and freezing to death. Old people were literally dying in the
street. Private charities were either unable or unwilling to take care
of all these old people. If old people are once again put in this
situation because investments go bad will the gov't take care of them?

I think that we should keep the traditional system and add a savings
component to it. Again, if all investments become worthless there would
be no money in the pay as you go Ponzi plan we have now.

snip more doomsday scenarios

By using index funds, and diverse investments risk will be minimized.
Let's face it, some will get a higher rate of return than others. But if
every old person were to lose all of their money, we would be in the
midst of an historic economic collapse. There would be no money anyway.
Also, why is it that we think people can't handle some simple investment
choices? These are the same people who get educations, have careers,
raise families, and contribute to making this the wealthiest country on
the planet. But I'm supposed to believe that they won't be able to shift
their investments to safer ones like bonds etc. as they get older? I have
more faith in my fellow Americans than that.

Dan

On 31 Jan 2005 01:40:52 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Eric R Snow wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2005 22:23:22 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
news:v0mqv05kp3g053voo8uql34j17t6r90rja@ 4ax.com:

On 30 Jan 2005 01:36:50 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
om:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

So tell us what YOU think that the neocon's plan would do G.

I would hope that it will start a debate about changing a horrible
regressive tax. It would be great if the great retirement Ponzi scheme
were to be replaced with something more worthwhile.
Why is it that Uber-Libs turn into conservative nut jobs when you
start
talking about their pet welfare program, that has outlived its
usefullness? Why do you think that a welfare program concieved in 1934
during the Great Depression, is still the perfect solution in 2005? I
know what you don't like about the proposed changes. They give hard
working folks a CHOICE about where THEIR money goes. I fully
understand that elitist progressive thinkers are against giving the
riff-raff a chance to make decisions for themselves. They're not
qualified, right? Pffft.

Dan
Greetings Dan,
A change in Social Security may indeed be in order. But what exactly
are these changes?

A change is most assuredly in order. S.S. is a "pay as you go" system.
The pending retirement of the Baby Boom generation is going to put a
strain on the system. S.S. was concieved to eliminate a shameful problem
that existed in the early 20th century. Namely, a large percentage of the
elderly were poor, and a large percentage of the poor were elderly. Pay
as you go was the only option at the time. The country was in the midst
of a depression. In the intervening years, this welfare program designed
to prevent poverty amongst the elderly, became a retirement entitlement
and a safety net for the disabled among other things. Which is all well
and good. But the funding is no different than a pyramid scheme. All
pyramid schemes eventually collapse. The prudent thing to do would be to
add a savings component to S.S. There is no doubt that the transition
will be painful, but we are the wealthiest nation in the world. We should
be able to figure it out. Here are some of the problems with the current
system as I see it:

(1) S.S. is a tax. And it's a regressive tax at that. The poorest of the
poor have to pay it, and there is no garantee that they will recieve any
benefit. Low income folks should pay in less, and it should go into a
private account which will fund some of their benefit. This could be paid
for by removing the cap on what higher income earners pay in. Why should
a poor person pay 12.4% of their total income while a guy earnin a
million dollars pays omly $10,900.00? That's just 1%. It's shameful. I'm
fortunate enough to hit the cap. And while I don't make anywhere near a
million bucks, I wouldn't mind paying more, so a low income person could
get on their feet.

(2) Future obligations are not funded. Well, not really. The goverment is
currently collecting more funds than it needs to fund S.S. due to the
cost of the Baby Boom generation obligation. Since the system was not
designed to be a savings plan, the politicians decided to craft a law
that put these funds into Treasury bills. The money from the sale of T-
bills goes into the general fund and is spent. Considering the huge
deficit we are running up at the moment, and the rate of return on T-
bills, this is a fairly shakey house of cards.

(3) Demographics have changed since the Great Depression. The elderly are
now some of the wealthiest Americans. The amount of elderly living below
the poverty line is near an all time low.

(4) Adding a savings component to S.S. will help reduce the trade deficit
and will provide more investment capitol. Countries with low savings
rates are net importers. Countries with high savings rates are net
exporters.

If we let people invest some or all of their SS tax
do we let them invest in anything?

No. You could have index funds, bond funds, REITS, and good old T-bills.
All no load, BTW.

What if they decide to not invest
it at all and spend it on beer? If they are required to either invest
it or put it into a SS account and they decide to invest it how do we
make sure it is invested properly? If we let them invest in anything
then there will be many bad investments that will leave these people
broke.

Not likely. Relying on a smaller group of workers to take care of an
increasingly larger and longer lived group of retirees, seem like a good
way to go broke too. What if we have another depression?

If there are only certain government approved investments they
can put their money into then I see two potential problems. First, if
these are gov't approved then why bother with all the individual
investors? This will only cause a net loss compared to the gov't
putting your money into the accounts because every individual will
have fees that are associated with their individual account. Either up
front or a lower return from no load investments. Since the gov't
already has to administer part of your money then there is already one
account with your name on it. Two or more accounts with your name on
it will eat up money, even if it's only a couple percent. And that 1
or 2 percent can mean lots of money over the years.

Right now you get no return and have no assurance that you will ever get
anything. S.S. is only funded year to year. In my case they've raised the
age I can retire at, and reduced the projected benefit by 25%. Getting a
return of 5% instead of 5.5% is way better than what I'm getting now.
These funds could be set up to be no load and very low fees. I don't
think we are talking about thousands of choices. Maybe a couple of dozen.
As far as administrating multiple accounts, you're under the mistaken
impression that you have an account right now. You don't. And you only
have an entitlement for as long as congress continues to fund it each
year.

Second, since the
gov't is approving these investments and calling them safe can we sue
the gov't if the investments go bad? Remember, since everybody will be
encouraged to invest privately there will be thousands who plain don't
understand investing and how to judge for themselves where to put
their money. Will gov't approval translate into gov't liability?

No. The investments are optional. But let's face reality, if all stocks,
bonds and T-bills were to become worthless overnight, there would be no
conventional S.S. anyway.

The
reason Social Security was implemented is because old people were
starving and freezing to death. Old people were literally dying in the
street. Private charities were either unable or unwilling to take care
of all these old people. If old people are once again put in this
situation because investments go bad will the gov't take care of them?

I think that we should keep the traditional system and add a savings
component to it. Again, if all investments become worthless there would
be no money in the pay as you go Ponzi plan we have now.

snip more doomsday scenarios

By using index funds, and diverse investments risk will be minimized.
Let's face it, some will get a higher rate of return than others. But if
every old person were to lose all of their money, we would be in the
midst of an historic economic collapse. There would be no money anyway.
Also, why is it that we think people can't handle some simple investment
choices? These are the same people who get educations, have careers,
raise families, and contribute to making this the wealthiest country on
the planet. But I'm supposed to believe that they won't be able to shift
their investments to safer ones like bonds etc. as they get older? I have
more faith in my fellow Americans than that.

Dan
Dan- Who says all the investments will go bad. I was only talking
about the ones that would be government approved investments. And if
the investments are good then why waste all that money from the cost
of all those millions of extra accounts. Speaking of accounts, if I
don't have one then what is the letter I get from SSA that tells me
how much I've put into my SS account. The SSA is administering an
account in my name even if it can't be handed down to my heirs. There
is still an account in my name that keeps track of how much I've put
in. Then why is our saving rate is so low? And as far as doomsday
scenarios go, all examples were things that happened in the USA in our
past. You think these can't happen again? Finally, You didn't answer
why it is better to have millions of extra individual accounts for us
to invest in.if these accounts are approved by our government. You
just implied that I said that most Americans won't be able to invest
wisely. I'm not opposed to changes in SS but the schemes being
touted now will not be better than what we have now. And since you
didn't answer my questions I don't think you have the answers either.
ERS

Eric R Snow wrote in
:

snip


Dan- Who says all the investments will go bad. I was only talking
about the ones that would be government approved investments. And if
the investments are good then why waste all that money from the cost
of all those millions of extra accounts.

There are no accounts right now. You get no return on the money you pay in.
The money you pay in goes to current beneficiaries. I don't see how this is
going to cost millions. If the money is invested in interest bearing funds,
(not millions of accounts), and a small percentage of that return is used
to pay for overhead. How is the cost of this a problem to you, when right
now the money earns nothing? Now take inflation into account and it's
costing quite a bit, right?

Speaking of accounts, if I
don't have one then what is the letter I get from SSA that tells me
how much I've put into my SS account. The SSA is administering an
account in my name even if it can't be handed down to my heirs. There
is still an account in my name that keeps track of how much I've put
in. Then why is our saving rate is so low?


Eric,
You don't have an account. You have a statement showing what benefit you
MAY be entitled to come retirement age. Read the following from the SSA web
site:



Current Social Security system is unsustainable in the long run

Many people think that the Social Security taxes they pay are held
in interest-bearing accounts earmarked for their own future retirement
needs. The fact is that Social Security is a pay-as-you-go retirement
system—the Social Security taxes paid by today’s workers and their
employers are used to pay the benefits for today’s retirees and other
beneficiaries.

Social Security is now taking in more money than it pays out in
benefits, and the remaining money goes to the program’s trust funds. There
are now large “reserves” in the trust funds, but even this money is small
compared to future scheduled benefit payments. In 2018 benefits owed will
be more than taxes collected, and Social Security will need to begin
tapping the trust funds to pay benefits. The trust funds will be exhausted
in 2042. At that time, Social Security will not be able to meet all of its
benefit obligations ... if no changes are made.

Read it youself here - http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10055.html

The "reseves" they talk about have been spent. The surplus money collected
is used to buy T-bills which are used to finance the national debt. The
national debt as I'm writing this stands at $7,631,908,609,602.32 or if you
prefer a smaller number $25,892.82 for every man, woman and child in the
country. So, in a nutshell, to even be able to tap into those "reserves" we
have to pay off the deficit, or refinance the debt.


And as far as doomsday
scenarios go, all examples were things that happened in the USA in our
past. You think these can't happen again? Finally, You didn't answer
why it is better to have millions of extra individual accounts for us
to invest in.

Sorry, I'm not following why we would need millions of individual accounts.
Why wouldn't it just work like a mutual fund? You're money goes into a pool
with everyone else who chose that investment.

if these accounts are approved by our government. You
just implied that I said that most Americans won't be able to invest
wisely. I'm not opposed to changes in SS but the schemes being
touted now will not be better than what we have now. And since you
didn't answer my questions I don't think you have the answers either.

I answered your questions. I never claimed to have any answers, just some
thoughts. Unlike you, I've read up on this extensively and understand fully
how the current system works. Ask yourself this. Do we need a welfare
benefit for every single retiree anymore? Look at the demographics,
retirees are amongst the wealthiest Americans. Should our children and
grandchildren have to shoulder an enormous debt that is being incurred
needlessly? We need a mandatory retirement plan that forces people to put
away money for retirement. It doesn't have to be Social Security. It could
just be that every employer has to provide a 401k and participation is
compulsory. The "schemes", as you call them, to change social security are
lousy. There is no doubt about that. They are going to reduce benefits even
further, and possibly move out the age of eligibility for retirement. They
want to go to a "price indexing" plan for calculating benefits, instead of
the current "wage indexing" method. This will further reduce the amount of
money you get at retirement. To help the unmanagable debt further, they are
hoping to allow people to put money away in interest bearing investments.
The so called "privitization". All of the nut job Politicians have people
in a lather over privitization. That's a red herring. The system is broke,
and it's very unlikely you or I will ever get the benefit from it that
current and past retirees have recieved. Although we will pay in a whole
lot more than they did.

Dan

On 30 Jan 2005 22:23:22 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in news:v0mqv05kp3g053voo8uql34j17t6r90rja@
4ax.com:

On 30 Jan 2005 01:36:50 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

snip

I'm done. There's no point.

So tell us what YOU think that the neocon's plan would do G.

I would hope that it will start a debate about changing a horrible
regressive tax.

Did it?
Deficits are regressive taxes.
The estimated 2 trillion *initial added deficit* would be yet
another regressive tax. And you know how the neocons understimate
costs ...... never more than 50% is ever mentioned AFAIK ......

It would be great if the great retirement Ponzi scheme were
to be replaced with something more worthwhile.

Like free money?
Like raising taxes on the "rich" to pay for all the deficits?

NOTHING that the neocons have yet done has been of any benefit
to the middle or lower economioc "class".
(I'll remind you that almost all hourly employees are in that
later catagory.)

Why is it that Uber-Libs turn into conservative nut jobs when you start
talking about their pet welfare program, that has outlived its usefullness?

Explain G.

Why do you think that a welfare program concieved in 1934 during the Great
Depression, is still the perfect solution in 2005?

What's YOUR better idea? Better for "We the People"?

I know what you don't like about the proposed changes.

As you know all about them, what are they? Exactly?
How does the math come out over what time span?
Compared to?

They give hard working folks a CHOICE
about where THEIR money goes.

So they can spend it all on beer?

I fully understand that elitist progressive
thinkers are against giving the riff-raff a chance to make decisions for
themselves. They're not qualified, right? Pffft.

Chips?
--
Cliff