On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:32:43 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:04:25 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:

Back atcha. Instead of parroting the party line, why not learn about your
so-called 'surplus' and why it isn't.

...and explain why the phantom surplus increased the national debt rather
than reducing it.

Careful, Doug, we just want to hit him with one ugly truth at a time.
First he has to become aware that Clinton was/is a liar, then we'll work
him towards understanding the implications of that fact.

Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:

Au contraire. President Clinton left a balanced budget for Shrub, who
immediately undertook to reestablish fiscal debt, and in a big way. It
isn't that the economy suddenly went south, but that conservatives found
themselves in complete control, said "fiscal responsibility be damned," took
the bit in their mouths and took off. Eagerness to cut taxes, and make the
tax structure less progressive, overran fiscal concerns.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


"Steven and Gail Peterson" wrote in message
link.net...



Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren.


This has become such a tired and pathetic line. Geeze, I mean... tell
me
one single government program, sponsored by anyone at all, that does not
add
the cost of the program to our children and grandchildren. For the love
of
Pete, that's the way funding works. Always has been, always will be.
--

-Mike-


You can find the official treasury figures if you care to know what you are talking about. The national debt under Clinton increased by 1.6 trillion dollars.

Stewart

The reality is that SS is and always was a welfare program. When LBJ put in "on
budget" any illusion of "insurance" or investment" was gone. They should simply
roll the FICA tax into the income tax tables and let the taxpayer understand
what the program really is.
There will be no advantage to the illusion as soon as revenues start to fall
since the difference will come from general revenue. There are NO bonds. That
is simply a vehicle to raise taxes to pay off the obligation.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 23:33:51 GMT, "Steven and Gail Peterson"
wrote:

Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren.


Shrub's method is to borrow money from lenders and invest
it in stocks. Obviously, the lenders who have a trillion and a
half or so laying around to fund this are too dumb to realize
that they could be making a lot more in stocks than they could
be by lending money to buy those stocks. It's a secret known
to no one but you and me and everyone else in this country,
except for those dumb lenders who happen to have all of those
trillions.

Bob G. wrote:

: Anyhow (and I am not positive) Georgies' plan would allow individuals
: to set 4 percent of their contributions (another good, discriptive
: term) in securities...

A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the
SS system seem much smaller than it is. The figure is
actually four percent of *salary*, which is about sixty-five
percent of your total contribution to SS.


-- Andy Barss

Todd Fatheree wrote:

: It's funny...Bill Clinton outlined a program during his administration where
: a small portion of the supposed SS Trust Fund would be invested in mutual
: funds. I don't recall mass protests at the time.


That's a very different example, isn't it? Investing a small amount of
the surplus in anything, vs. cutting revenues by 65%.

-- Andy Barss

Lets look at the facts:

1. Social security was not setup to be an end all retirement pension.
2. If the politicians (Government!) had put a lockbox on it and
invested the surplusses through the years, there wouldn't be a problem
for a long time!
3. It wasn't created to be a disabilty safety net.
4. It's a political nightmare that Washington really doesn't want to
deal with other than to control people with a dependency on the system.
5. If a percentage had been invested in securities since it's
inception, there wouldn't be a problem.
6. IRA's were setup to help the everyday citizen of this county to
accumulate wealth and not depend on the government.
7. Some people can't afford to stick money in an IRA, so this proposal
would allow those people and anyone else that wanted to participate
divert some of the money they earned (i.e. it's theirs in the first
place) headed to the Federal tax revenue, to a privately owned account
that they control.
8. The problem with diversion of the funds is it reduces the tax income
of the government to spend on anything the well please plus redistribute
to those who are on SS.

My take, why allow the government to continue to screw up with the full
percentage we workers now send to Washington. They have proven over and
over they can't do a good job handling our money. The "sky is falling"
mentality that talks about diverting a small percentage will cause SS to
become insolvent faster need to be looking at ALL the money that
Washington spends because it's one big bucket of money. The idea of
three witholdings (Fed Income tax, Soc Sec, Medicare) is all an
illusion, because when it gets to Washington it is all goes into the
same bucket.
Do I like it the W is spending money, no, but I didn't like it in all
the past Presidents, and it's both parties. I do think W realizes that
Washington can't be fiscally responsible because of partisan politics,
and he wants to give people some control of their retirement.

Me I'm 52 and I will retire next year. I grew up being taught to save,
not to depend on the government, and don't count on SS. My subpar
pension will be increased 3 fold by interest off my private
investments. I personally could care less what happens to SS for me,
but I sure don't want my son to have to scrape that much harder because
all the greedy politicians want more of his hard earned money.

People understand something, the government lives off your an my money.
It's called taxes. I want more of my money back, and the government to
stop wasting it however they see fit.

Phil

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
*salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution to
SS.

It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
misinformation by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%. So, since it
is voluntary, and at least the liberal half of the country wouldn't want
to participate in such a risky investment, the rate would be down from
32% to 16% of total contributions at a maximum.

- Doug


--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

The president who invented the SS-budget shell game was
Nixon

Actually LBJ invented it in 68, Nixon was just the first one to claim a surplus
because of it

If the politicians (Government!) had put a lockbox on it and
invested the surplusses through the years, there wouldn't be a problem
for a long time!

The problem with the "government" doing the investing is they would be the
majority stockholder in most of the companies in the world today. They have
collected and not distributed to retirees close to 2 trillion but if that was
invested in the Dow since the 30s it would essentually be the Dow.
Do we really want polititians running companies? The Soviets tried that and
they are broke.

BTW if you do want to see a system that did do this and was successful look at
the Florida State retirement system. They are rolling in money ... but they
didn't let political pressure affect their investments (like positions in
Phillip Morris)

I never really have bought into that "employer contribution"
stuff anyway. Lets be realistic. If the employer is matching
your funds into SS, what that really means he's putting into
SS what he's not paying you. Businesses and government
are alike in this matter. Whatever monies they are spending
is coming out of our pockets one way or another.
"Contribution" is another ironic term. The word implies
a voluntary action. But a refusal to contribute would result
in jail time for any of us. SS is a TAX, pure and simple. Failure
to pay this tax is punishable just like a refusal to pay any
other tax.
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
*salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution
to
SS.

It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
misinformation by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%. So, since it
is voluntary, and at least the liberal half of the country wouldn't want
to participate in such a risky investment, the rate would be down from
32% to 16% of total contributions at a maximum.

- Doug


--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert
Hubbard)

In article , Todd Fatheree
wrote:

I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
filled with all the indigent elderly.

Of course you wouldn't. The "indigent elderly" die unnoticed by the
writers of history books. They have always been too common to be
noticed. The bulk of humanity die indigent and not just in Third World
countries either - even with government programs.

Gerry

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:55:39 +0000, Joseph Smith wrote:

I never really have bought into that "employer contribution" stuff anyway.
Lets be realistic. If the employer is matching your funds into SS, what
that really means he's putting into SS what he's not paying you.
Businesses and government are alike in this matter. Whatever monies they
are spending is coming out of our pockets one way or another.
"Contribution" is another ironic term. The word implies a voluntary
action. But a refusal to contribute would result in jail time for any of
us. SS is a TAX, pure and simple. Failure to pay this tax is punishable
just like a refusal to pay any other tax.

All true, but it doesn't change the fact that the employers *do* match
what we contribute in real dollars and the rate of contributions in our
names is 12.4%. IMO, we should be paying it all assuming the employers
would raise pay comensurate, and it all should be going to individual
private investments other than what is required to take care of those that
can't take care of themselves through no fault of their own. This would
eliminate all the additions to the national debt, the phantom surplusses,
the taxation of future generations for monies we spent on ourselves, etc.
The big objections seem to be risk, as though folks don't believe in the
long term viability of our capitalistic sytem, profits, markets etc. that
have been proven over the lifetime of our nation. The fact is that if
that system fails, the gov won't be able to meet their obligations either.

Try to think how you would start a mandatory retirement system from
scratch rather than transition the one we have. Would you choose one
that spends the contributions for the future on current needs and sends
the IOU to future taxpayers without their consent, or would you make it
mandatory to do some amount in the form of current IRAs, 401Ks etc with
that stimulate business an have much higher historical returns and no
accumulation of debt on those future taxpayers, and rather than taxes on
future taxpayers redeem their IOUs with the profits that those nasty rich
folks get for their investments in the same sort of things?

- Doug

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

"G.E.R.R.Y." wrote in message
...
In article , Todd Fatheree
wrote:

I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
filled with all the indigent elderly.

Of course you wouldn't. The "indigent elderly" die unnoticed by the
writers of history books. They have always been too common to be
noticed. The bulk of humanity die indigent and not just in Third World
countries either - even with government programs.

Gerry

If only we had another, larger, federal program we could eliminate that. In
fact, why don't we all just fast forward to the ending and just sign our
entire paychecks over to the government and let them decide how much they'll
let us have when they're through.

todd

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
*salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution to
SS.

It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
misinformation by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%.

But if someone diverts 65% of his half, does the employer still have to
match that? Or does he only have to match the remaining 35%? Nobody
has answered that question yet.


--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

True statement, at that junction I was still thinking good old us treasuries. If
they had simply sold T bills on the SS surplus and kept general funds seperate was
the intent of my point.
I don't advocate the "government" doing any investing, and the only way to that
point is allowing the private citizen to do it.

Greg wrote:

If the politicians (Government!) had put a lockbox on it and
invested the surplusses through the years, there wouldn't be a problem
for a long time!

The problem with the "government" doing the investing is they would be the
majority stockholder in most of the companies in the world today. They have
collected and not distributed to retirees close to 2 trillion but if that was
invested in the Dow since the 30s it would essentually be the Dow.
Do we really want polititians running companies? The Soviets tried that and
they are broke.

BTW if you do want to see a system that did do this and was successful look at
the Florida State retirement system. They are rolling in money ... but they
didn't let political pressure affect their investments (like positions in
Phillip Morris)

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

It's only the way it is because we allow it to be. My grandmother is
92.
If she needed assistance, our family would be there. Unfortunately, an
increasing number of families can't be bothered. So they cede more and
more
of their responsibilities to the government. I guess it a trend
liberals
like, but I don't.

Ha,ha,ha. Yes, all the folks in nursing homes and other care facilities
have liberal offspring who just have no family values so won't take care
of them. You won't find any parents of conservative families in there.

I guess English comprehension isn't your strong suit. I didn't say anything
about them having to live at home. My point was that if she was in need and
(heaven forbid) SS didn't exist, she would be cared for by the family, no
matter where she lived.

todd

If
they had simply sold T bills on the SS surplus

That is the problem with all this "bond" talk. Selling bonds is by definition
debt. They already had the money, they didn't need to borrow any more. They
spent it and said they bought a bond but they bought it from themselves.
In fact that was simply spending and promising they would pay us back from
future tax revenue when we get old but nothing was ever saved.
The whole lockbox idea is ludercous when you remember the government prints the
money and there is really nothing behind that money. "Saving" money for the
government is the same as simply reducing the money supply, not something they
like to do. The SS trust fund is just a bookkeeping entry, not a vault full of
gold.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:15:08 -0600, Todd Fatheree wrote:

It didn't happen. Families took care of their elderly. But everyone's
too busy to do it now and shove their responsibility onto the
government.

Some families still do take care of their elderly. My 93 year old mother
lives in her own house with the assistance of my niece who lives with
herand works during the day. My 84 year old MIL lives with my wife and
myself and she is a joy to be around. If my mother were not able to live
in her own home, the assisted living routine would drain her funds in less
than a year, not to mention the fact that she would probably roll up her
tent and bag it if she couldn't stay in her own home and if she became
dependent on the government (her words).

- Doug

I was a bit too broad...what I meant to convey is that there is an
increasing number of people who look to the government for this and just
don't know what on earth would happen without the government handing out
money.

todd

Now you know why he was called SLICK Willy. He knew his party did not
control congress.

The same people who think the government should take care of everyone think
things like marriage, parents and family are anachronisms.

So if the goverment has proven themselves as not being able to spend
wisely and both parties do it. Why re-elect any politician.
And why wont any president veto any bill that has anything in it that
does not pertain to the original bill. No pork barrel.
Wondering how the pols refer to the pork barrel. Must be thinking, well
this is all I could steal for my state this year. Or I am better at
stealing this money then my opponent, so elect me. And we do.

All true. If an investment firm approached me the same plan
and "security" of SS I'd tell them to take a flying leap and
report 'em the BBB; where they'd probably be investigated
and maybe even prosecuted for the way they handled
funds. But with the government running the show on SS and
making the laws as they go we'll never get any of those SOB's
put in jail where they belong for what they've done with SS.
As i've told people before, if they let me opt out of SS, they
can keep the 20 yrs of taxes I've paid into it and never pay
me a dime for it so long as I could relieve my children of
inhereting this abomination.
"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:55:39 +0000, Joseph Smith wrote:

I never really have bought into that "employer contribution" stuff
anyway.
Lets be realistic. If the employer is matching your funds into SS, what
that really means he's putting into SS what he's not paying you.
Businesses and government are alike in this matter. Whatever monies they
are spending is coming out of our pockets one way or another.
"Contribution" is another ironic term. The word implies a voluntary
action. But a refusal to contribute would result in jail time for any of
us. SS is a TAX, pure and simple. Failure to pay this tax is punishable
just like a refusal to pay any other tax.

All true, but it doesn't change the fact that the employers *do* match
what we contribute in real dollars and the rate of contributions in our
names is 12.4%. IMO, we should be paying it all assuming the employers
would raise pay comensurate, and it all should be going to individual
private investments other than what is required to take care of those that
can't take care of themselves through no fault of their own. This would
eliminate all the additions to the national debt, the phantom surplusses,
the taxation of future generations for monies we spent on ourselves, etc.
The big objections seem to be risk, as though folks don't believe in the
long term viability of our capitalistic sytem, profits, markets etc. that
have been proven over the lifetime of our nation. The fact is that if
that system fails, the gov won't be able to meet their obligations either.

Try to think how you would start a mandatory retirement system from
scratch rather than transition the one we have. Would you choose one
that spends the contributions for the future on current needs and sends
the IOU to future taxpayers without their consent, or would you make it
mandatory to do some amount in the form of current IRAs, 401Ks etc with
that stimulate business an have much higher historical returns and no
accumulation of debt on those future taxpayers, and rather than taxes on
future taxpayers redeem their IOUs with the profits that those nasty rich
folks get for their investments in the same sort of things?

- Doug

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert
Hubbard)

Why not invest some of the SS surplus?
It has nothing to do with the security of SS.
It is because the government wants the money in the general revenue fund.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
: On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:

: A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
: seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
: *salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution to
: SS.

: It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
: misinformation

And as usual, you're being overly caustic. Did you read my commentary on
your attitude (see plywood armor thread)? You might benefit from some
self-examination, if the concept isn't too foreign to you.

by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
: contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%.

I've nowhere seen any info on what the Bush "plan" does with the employer
matching concept. If person X decides to reduce his/her contribution from
6.4% to, say, 2.1% (as allowed under the Bush scenario), then does the
employer toss in

a) 6.4%?
b) 2.1%
c) something else?


So, since it
: is voluntary, and at least the liberal half of the country wouldn't want
: to participate in such a risky investment

I think, personally, anyone who wouldn't want to follow this plan is
sennsible and ration, politics be damned.

Have a look:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...lan/index.html


-- Andy

Larry Blanchard wrote:
: In article ,
: says...
: On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:20:12 +0000, Andrew Barss wrote:
:
: A common misperception, and one that makes the impact on the SS system
: seem much smaller than it is. The figure is actually four percent of
: *salary*, which is about sixty-five percent of your total contribution to
: SS.
:
: It would be better yet if it *was* 65%, but as usual, you're giving
: misinformation by ignoring the fact that the matching employer
: contribution makes the total contribution 12.4%, not 6.2%.

: But if someone diverts 65% of his half, does the employer still have to
: match that? Or does he only have to match the remaining 35%? Nobody
: has answered that question yet.



Of course not -- the Bush Admin need not be stumped by such irrelevant
matters as this, or how to pay the two trillion dollars the transition
alone will cost. Didn't you get the memo?

-- Andy Barss

(O D) wrote in news:25364-42082F27-370@storefull-
3115.bay.webtv.net:

So if the goverment has proven themselves as not being able to spend
wisely and both parties do it. Why re-elect any politician.
And why wont any president veto any bill that has anything in it that
does not pertain to the original bill. No pork barrel.
Wondering how the pols refer to the pork barrel. Must be thinking, well
this is all I could steal for my state this year. Or I am better at
stealing this money then my opponent, so elect me. And we do.


Total vetoes (regular, pocket vetoes, and overridden) for modern presidents
(through 2003)

Regular Pocket Total Overridden
Truman 180 70 250 12
Eisenhower 73 108 181 2
Kennedy 12 9 21 0
LBJ 16 14 30 0
Nixon 26 17 43 7
Ford 48 18 66 12
Carter 13 18 31 2
Reagan 39 39 78 9
G.H.W.Bush 29 15 44 1
Clinton 36 1 37 2
G.W.Bush 0 0 0 0

r how to pay the two trillion dollars the transition
alone will cost.

The 2 trillion is not what they have to pay the retirees, it is the 2 trillion
the government won't have to spend on other programs.
If SS was not "on budget" that 2 trillion would be a lot smaller number,
perhaps even zero. There is still a very large surplus, that if it was
invested, would produce quite a nest egg by the time SS goes upside down. The
current "bonds" are just more debt we pay interest on with our taxes and have
no real investment componant.

In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

I guess English comprehension isn't your strong suit. I didn't say anything
about them having to live at home. My point was that if she was in need and
(heaven forbid) SS didn't exist, she would be cared for by the family, no
matter where she lived.

Oh yes, heaven forbid, you certainly wouldn't want some old person
stinking up your home - better to ship them off to some "retirement"
faciltiy where the minimum wage attendants are high on meth most of the
time.

Just yankin' your chain. You touched a sore spot with what I read as
liberals don't want to take care of their own family and would rather
others do it for them. Along the lines of liberals have no family
values. Only liberals plunk their elderly in nursing homes; only
liberals peeked at Janet Jackson's breast or ogle the pro-sports
cheerleaders; liberals are the ones behind the high ratings of such
shows as Desperate Housewives, Howard Stern, Fifth (?) Wheel, etc.; only
liberals buy Playboy, Penthouse, Big Mama Tits - conservatives only buy
them for the articles; if it weren't for liberals the internet would be
altogether free of porn; only liberals allow their kids to be out
raising hell; it's only liberals who swear, flip the bird, and set such
fine public examples for their children; its only liberals who have no
religious beliefs and values.

BTW, I sat on a jury last summer (a domestic abuse case) where the
plaintif was relating that she was often high on meth while at her
nursing home attendant's job.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

In article ,
(Greg) wrote:

The same people who think the government should take care of everyone think
things like marriage, parents and family are anachronisms.

So in countries that are socialist or communist, there are no such
things as marriages, parents or families? Odd how I never noticed that.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____

"Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised
as 100% Americanism." -- Huey P. Long

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 19:03:51 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

If only we had another, larger, federal program we could eliminate that. In
fact, why don't we all just fast forward to the ending and just sign our
entire paychecks over to the government and let them decide how much they'll
let us have when they're through.


I see that you figured out what it's going to take to pay for
Bush's deficits, foreign adventures, and his bid to "save"
the social security system.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:32:15 GMT, "Joseph Smith"
wrote:

All true. If an investment firm approached me the same plan
and "security" of SS I'd tell them to take a flying leap and
report 'em the BBB; where they'd probably be investigated
and maybe even prosecuted for the way they handled
funds.

"They" have handled the funds quite well, paying out over
99% of the money "they" have taken in. That's a hell of a lot
better than your typical "investment firm" whose pimary
goal is to separate you from as much of your money as it
can get away with.

On 7 Feb 2005 22:34:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Easy for you to say, but the fact is, your boy told the lie, and Bush
hasn't. That is consistant with the pattern that you cannot see.


Bush hasn't lied about budgets ??? When has he told the
truth about anything ?

You're kidding, right?
"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:32:15 GMT, "Joseph Smith"
wrote:

All true. If an investment firm approached me the same plan
and "security" of SS I'd tell them to take a flying leap and
report 'em the BBB; where they'd probably be investigated
and maybe even prosecuted for the way they handled
funds.

"They" have handled the funds quite well, paying out over
99% of the money "they" have taken in. That's a hell of a lot
better than your typical "investment firm" whose pimary
goal is to separate you from as much of your money as it
can get away with.

"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Todd Fatheree" wrote:

I guess English comprehension isn't your strong suit. I didn't say
anything
about them having to live at home. My point was that if she was in need
and
(heaven forbid) SS didn't exist, she would be cared for by the family,
no
matter where she lived.

Oh yes, heaven forbid, you certainly wouldn't want some old person
stinking up your home - better to ship them off to some "retirement"
faciltiy where the minimum wage attendants are high on meth most of the
time.

Just yankin' your chain. You touched a sore spot with what I read as
liberals don't want to take care of their own family and would rather
others do it for them. Along the lines of liberals have no family
values. Only liberals plunk their elderly in nursing homes; only
liberals peeked at Janet Jackson's breast or ogle the pro-sports
cheerleaders; liberals are the ones behind the high ratings of such
shows as Desperate Housewives, Howard Stern, Fifth (?) Wheel, etc.; only
liberals buy Playboy, Penthouse, Big Mama Tits - conservatives only buy
them for the articles; if it weren't for liberals the internet would be
altogether free of porn; only liberals allow their kids to be out
raising hell; it's only liberals who swear, flip the bird, and set such
fine public examples for their children; its only liberals who have no
religious beliefs and values.

BTW, I sat on a jury last summer (a domestic abuse case) where the
plaintif was relating that she was often high on meth while at her
nursing home attendant's job.

--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company

A simple "Oh, sorry for putting words in your mouth" would have sufficed.

todd

Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:

Republicans seem unable to look at what is going on and learn from
experience. At least since the Reagan era they have been the party of
"Borrow and spend" and leave it to someone else to eventually pay it back.
In the meantime, they continue to mouth tired old charges about democrats.
Working with both parties in Congress, Clinton gradually reduced the budget
deficits that 41 left for him until he left a budget surplus. This does not
mean that the National Debt was reduced, but Shrub is now recklessly
borrowing to support spending. It is part of a long term plan to cripple
the government with debt, so new programs cannot be funded. Wake up and
smell the roses.






Steven and Gail,

Not trying to be personal, but you two seem perfect examples of Liberals
marching in lockstep Groupthink with Teddy Kennedy as your drill sergeant.

Look up the Bureau of Public Debt and use it as a reference when you
want to talk about government spending.

Stewart

"O D" wrote in message
...
So if the goverment has proven themselves as not being able to spend
wisely and both parties do it. Why re-elect any politician.

Good. The republicans have all the important power. Please do vote against
incumbents. We certainly don't want the benefit of experience if it means
we get Trent Lott.

"They" have handled the funds quite well, paying out over
99% of the money "they" have taken in.

Bull****, They have stolen about 2 trillion and left a worthless IOU in the
pot.
SS is pay as you go and if they were honest the tax would be exactly what the
payouts were plus that 1% handling fee.

Market investment was tried by other countries and surprise, surprise
the stocks were picked for political reasons instead of financial
reasons.

Although our politicians would never stoop to that level they would
always do what is best for the taxpayers, wouldn't they?

I agree. My dad was forced to pay into SS for 40 years and only got
the lousy $300 and nothing else when he passed. My mother gets nothing
from Uncle Sam.