No, we should clothe, feed and house them at taxpayer expense. It
would be totally unreasonable to expect people to be held responsible
or accountable for their decisions/actions.

I would also add to google "galveston alternate plan" and read up on a
real life option that has been in operation for over 20 years in the
US.

One of our local radio station guys in NJ has a term that would fix
that problem, GRIP.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians!

Vote against whoever is in office.

Ahhh Jim Garehart

Yep, that's the smartest thing he has said and supported.
Otherwise I have watched him slant some things 180 degrees to his way of
thinking. Even when the facts don't support it.

When he started saying outsourcing wasn't a problem He lost me.
My industry has been outsource to India and Russia... I've been looking
for work for quite some time...

Ray wrote:
One of our local radio station guys in NJ has a term that would fix
that problem, GRIP.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians!

Vote against whoever is in office.

Hopefully you listen to Jim from "the other side" of the river in PA
and are not in NJ.

If those of you not in the northeast really want to see politicians at
their finest check out NJ. Some of the latest ideas they have come up
with to spend more money a
Sell the turnpike
Seize unredeemed US savings bonds for "safekeeping"
Tax contributions to 401Ks
Seize unredeemed gift certificates

This is just the per-emptive stuff, the Governor hasn't even proposed
the budget yet. Then the fun will really start.

I've been "outsourced" too. No medical insurance now, and my federal
taxes for 2004 dropped to zero. I guess with paying no FICA I must
say I'm not helping SS at all. Hmmm, maybe the government should
stop spending like I have?

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 15:30:30 -0500, tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com
wrote:

Ahhh Jim Garehart

Yep, that's the smartest thing he has said and supported.
Otherwise I have watched him slant some things 180 degrees to his way of
thinking. Even when the facts don't support it.

When he started saying outsourcing wasn't a problem He lost me.
My industry has been outsource to India and Russia... I've been looking
for work for quite some time...

Ray wrote:
One of our local radio station guys in NJ has a term that would fix
that problem, GRIP.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians!

Vote against whoever is in office.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:23:43 GMT, "Joseph Smith"
wrote:

You're kidding, right?

You got me, you devil you ! Of course ! know that all investment
firms are filled with hard-working, selfless servants of the public
good whose highest priority is my financial welfare, while all the
guys (and gals) who run that nefarious ss system have siphoned
off millions into secret bank accounts in the Caymans,

No you got me! Because we all know how fiscally
responsible the government is with OUR money and
how no private investment firm stays in business by
making money for their clients. They stay in business
because they lose money!
On top of that I really doubt that any financial
advisor or investment firm can beat what the government
can offer because they don't have the power to force
their clients to hand over more money when they screw up.
Gotta love government: "Oh we spent the SS money on
research of how cows farting are depleting the ozone, so
pay us more in taxes or go to jail".
My credit union's meager savings account has better and
safer returns. And since my CU is not the government
they can actually go to jail for theft of peoples' money.
I just loved it when all these congressmen were screaming
about ENRON. ENRON's bust was childsplay
compared to congresses mishandling of funds.
"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 11:23:43 GMT, "Joseph Smith"
wrote:

You're kidding, right?

You got me, you devil you ! Of course ! know that all investment
firms are filled with hard-working, selfless servants of the public
good whose highest priority is my financial welfare, while all the
guys (and gals) who run that nefarious ss system have siphoned
off millions into secret bank accounts in the Caymans,

Here's an article from today's Post giving a different
analysis/perspective.

Renata

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2005Feb7.html
Bush Marketing Beats His Plan

By Allan Sloan

Tuesday, February 8, 2005; Page E01

You've got to give President Bush an A-plus for the way he marketed
the Social Security proposals in his State of the Union address last
week.

"If you've got children in their twenties, as some of us do, the idea
of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a
small matter," he said -- a sentiment with which even a skeptic like
me, who has twenty- and thirty-something kids, totally agrees.

You can't argue with Bush's stated goals of making Social Security
financially sound to allow Americans a secure retirement. But the
centerpiece of his proposals -- allowing workers the option to divert
up to 4 percent of payroll taxes into private accounts -- doesn't do
anything to fix Social Security's financial woes. Instead, it's a
fiendishly clever device that serves the political goal of remaking
the nation's most popular social program so that it's "a better deal"
for younger workers. There was a twinkle in Bush's eye when he said
that, a clever allusion to the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
father of Social Security. You could almost hear the Democrats
gnashing their teeth.

In their current incarnation, you'd almost certainly want to sign up
for these accounts if you were younger than 55. Yes, you'd have to
accept a smaller guaranteed benefit. But you'd come out ahead if your
account produced an annual return -- cash income and price gains -- of
more than 3 percent above inflation. That's not a slam-dunk, but it
ought to be attainable because you would have a choice among a handful
of high-grade, very-low-cost, very diversified mutual funds. But
there's a catch. You would own the account, sort of, but you wouldn't
control it. And you'd have to fork over the aforementioned 3 percent
return -- by taking a smaller benefit -- when you cash in your
account.

Bush, brilliantly, is marketing these accounts as empowering people
who'd have no other assets. But I don't think things would work out
well for these folks. There would be strict limitations on the
accounts -- you couldn't take money out of them before you retire or
even borrow against them. And the odds of low-income people being able
to leave a significant account to their heirs -- one of Bush's major
selling points -- strike me as remote.

Here's why. When it's retirement time, low-income people would
probably have to convert most or all of their private accounts into
annuities to have enough money to live on or to meet requirements that
their guaranteed benefits plus annuity income would exceed certain
levels. If you had to convert your entire account into an annuity,
there would be nothing left for your heirs when you died. Higher-paid
people, by definition, would have bigger private Social Security
accounts and less need for annuity income than lower-income people
would. This gives them a far greater chance of having something left
to hand down to their heirs and gives lower-paid people less chance.
Not to be snotty, but we higher-income types hardly need additional
breaks. We've already got plenty.

Staying power matters big-time, too -- and higher-income people have
more of it than lower-income people do. Although stocks tend to rise
over the long term, you'd have to cash in some or all of your
retirement account to buy an annuity when you retire. That puts you at
the mercy of events. Consider the following, produced at my request by
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Say you retired in March
2000, with a private account that held $100,000 of stock in a Standard
& Poor's 500-stock index fund. (Index funds match the performance of a
benchmark; they don't try to beat the market.) Your inflation-adjusted
annuity would have been $7,558 a year -- about $630 a month -- by the
center's calculation. But if you had had the same number of shares in
your account and instead retired in October 2002, your account would
have had less than $60,000 in it. Your annuity: $3,352 a year, or $279
a month. The combination of lower values and lower interest rates is a
double whammy. You see the problem? You can get much less -- or much
more -- than someone who has saved at the same rate as you but retired
a little earlier or later.

If you've got financial staying power, you could wait for better days
or buy the smallest annuity the government will permit. If you don't
have staying power, you have to take what the market gives you.
Higher-paid people thus have a big advantage. The guaranteed Social
Security benefit, by contrast, is tilted toward lower-income people,
with a benefit of about 56 percent of Social Security-covered wages
for a minimum-wage earner, 30 percent for folks like me who have
reached the Social Security maximum every year. You're swapping
benefits skewed toward lower-income people for investment
opportunities skewed toward higher-income people.

I'm in favor of private accounts constructed along the lines that Bush
suggested. But the accounts ought to be in addition to the basic
benefit, not a replacement for about half of it. Democrats are crazy
to oppose private accounts. They really do empower you. The current
generation is used to investing and is understandably skeptical about
government promises. This isn't the 1930s, when only a handful of
people bought stocks and many of them came to regret it. It's the
aughts, guys, get with it. FDR's been dead for 60 years. The world has
changed.

If the president really wants to fix Social Security rather than pick
a political fight -- and the Democrats feel the same -- it wouldn't be
difficult. They'd compromise by putting more money into the system by
raising wage taxes a tad, taking less out by increasing the retirement
age and trimming benefit formulas and setting up private accounts
funded by wage earners, not by government borrowings. Put a few
willing negotiators in a room and a deal's done in a month. I won't
hold my breath, though.

Bush has marketed the pants off the Democrats by setting the terms of
debate. Do you want to pay higher taxes or lower taxes? Clearly,
lower. Do you want to pay estate tax or not? Do you want private
accounts, or don't you? He has done a fabulous job of showing the
goodies -- and of hiding the costs. People, naturally, have opted for
the goodies. The Bushies are in full sales mode, including sticking
recordings on Social Security's phone lines preaching that the system
has to change. In the name of empowering my kids, he's asking them to
pay full freight for my retirement and for trillions in new
borrowings, while forking over the same wage taxes for lower benefits.
If he can sell this one, the Marketing Hall of Fame should start
planning his induction ceremony.

Sloan is Newsweek's Wall Street editor. His e-mail address is
.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

On 6 Feb 2005 02:54:03 -0800, "Lewis Lang" wrote:

Bush says that he wants to switch from the current Social Security
system to an individual retirement account (IRA?) system. He swears
that people over 50 will not be affected. What about the people under
50? Will they get screwed?

Renata wrote:
Here's an article from today's Post giving a different
analysis/perspective.

Renata
[snip]
Amen. About as well researched as any I've read.
mahalo,
jo4hn

Doug Winterburn wrote:
: On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:19:44 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

: What strikes me is:
:
: If investing in the stock market for these personal accounts is supposed
: to bring higher SS retirement payments to the younger crowd, why not
: authorize the SS administration to bypass this whole change over and
: invest the held funds in the stock market itself?

: Here's what the father of SS had to say on the subject:

: " In the important field of security for our old people, it seems
: necessary to adopt three principles--first, noncontributory old-age
: pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance; it
: is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have
: to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these
: pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will
: establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future
: generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual
: initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is
: proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the
: old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by
: self-supporting annuity plans."

: FDR
: Letter to Congress
: Jan 17, 1935

: In other words, FDR recommended we should privatize half of SS by 1965.

How do you get that out of the passage? It seems to me he
was basically saying this:

a) old-age pensions needed to be established for people at or nearing
retirement in 1937. This is the pension refered to in the last sentences
of the quoted passage.

b) for perhaps 30 years, the states and federal governments would have to
pay for this (out of general revenue, I assume).

c) he proposed that half of this pension system be funded by the federal
government (leaving the other half for the states to pick up).

d) contributory annuities would, after this period of time, have built
up enough that (b) would no longer apply.




: Makes GWB's privatization plan look kind of meager as well as 40 years
: late (but that isn't GWBs fault). Maybe the libs who label GWB as
: "the gambler in chief" pinned the tag on the wrong guy.

Nope. He's gambing away our children's financial security by driving up
astonishing deficits.

Even FDR
: recognized the way SS was initially structured couldn't be
: "self-supporting".

At the beginning of the program, yes. But that's just plain common sense
-- someone who was 65 in 1937 had paid nothing into SS, so obviously (for
a while) funds had to be added into SS from some source other than payroll
taxes (see above).


-- Andy Barss

Nope. He's gambing away our children's financial security by driving up
astonishing deficits."

Did someone forget here that we were attacked and have been fighting two
wars?

Even FDR recognized the way SS was initially structured couldn't be

Right

Walt Conner

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
snip
no matter what, they say Bush was wrong.

Dave Hinz

Right on. He claims to make the US safe by invading a sovereign nation on
trumped up charges. Even his daddy avoided making that mistake. If you
think deposing Sadaam makes it all right, you must think that the end
justifies the means. Lots of trouble in that. Power corrupts.

Steve

Jeff P. wrote:
I love your replies Unisaw. They're like fine Minimalist art. I sat
staring at the blank screen for several minutes wondering just what
the
meaning was. The best I can figure is that you're making a reply
that says
replying is pointless. That it would be a waste of your time...or did
you
just accidentally hit the "send" button? hmmm, I'll have to stare at
that
blank screen some more....



OP posted to: rec.woodworking
But set follow-ups to: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm

What does that tell you?

--

FF

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:06:50 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".

There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
things Bush has done that you don't agree with?

Sure. There's a half dozen lies that he let Kerry get away with during
the debates, do those count?

In article ,
says...
I'm in favor of private accounts constructed along the lines that Bush
suggested. But the accounts ought to be in addition to the basic
benefit, not a replacement for about half of it.

Now that I could agree to. Even though it's too late for me to take
advantage of it.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article ,
says...
It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".

There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
things Bush has done that you don't agree with?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:06:50 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:
In article ,
says...
It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".

There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
things Bush has done that you don't agree with?

Sure. There's a half dozen lies that he let Kerry get away with during
the debates, do those count?

Are we supposed to think of them ourselves?

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:33:24 GMT, Steven and Gail Peterson wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:06:50 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:
In article ,
says...
It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".

There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
things Bush has done that you don't agree with?

Sure. There's a half dozen lies that he let Kerry get away with during
the debates, do those count?

Are we supposed to think of them ourselves?

(sigh). topics include the "ban on stem-cell research" (there never
has been one), "assault weapons ban" (the ban was about cosmetics, and
was completely ineffective). oh. I don't really know anymore. Had
a list at the time, and haven't cared since Kerry conceded. I also think
Bush is out of line on the whole gay marriage thing, because while I don't
think it's right, I also don't think that a constitutional change is
warranted for something that just isn't that important.

It's interesting how people who disagree with my support of one guy
or the other, assume that I agree with that guy on _everything_,
and agree with everyone else who supports him. The "You obviously
like Rush then" syndrome. What an oversimplistic world those people
must live in.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:06:50 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

In article ,
says...
It's obvious that there's no combination of "Bush + Any action" that you
would agree with. That's what is known as "irrational dislike".

There's also "irrational adoration", Dave. Care to give us a list of
things Bush has done that you don't agree with?


Not Dave, but since I've been accused of the same thing, I'll pipe in
he
1) In the beginning of his term, he compromised *way* too much with the
Dems in the senate and the house, backing down on many of his nominees and
accepting legislation that he should have vetoed.
2) Let Ted Kennedy essentially write the education bill and compromised
away the promise of school vouchers
3) Steel tariffs
4) Way too lax on border security and his willingess to essentially give a
free pass to illegal aliens.
5) Signed the campaign finance reform bill, even when he knew that it
violated the first amendment
6) Let the house and senate on both sides of the aisle put "pork barrel" in
the budget following the 9/11 attacks and the necessary ramp-up to
eradicate global terrorism and its state sponsors.

There are others, but I suspect those are the issues that those on the
left would consider he has done right. (What am I saying, the left says
that nothing he does is right).



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety
Army General Richard Cody
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article , Renata
wrote:

He has done a fabulous job of showing the goodies -- and of hiding
the costs.

*He* has done nothing. You have to look closely for the hand up his
arse and see whose ideas this puppet is stating. Do any of you really
think he has the intelligence to have thought this up by himself?

Bush as profound, financial strategist? Now, that's funny.

Gerry

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

He also didn't take OBL when he was offered to him, and failed to
attack when he could have got him.

Well, jeez. At least Clinton didn't train and arm him and his cohorts as
Reagan/HWBush did - but then bin Laden was against the same government
we were against. Kinda simular to ol'Sadamn, no?

One lesson to be learned from the last 25 years is that the bad guy you
are *USING* to fight your battles and further your own cause today will
likely turn around and attempt to bite your ass tomorrow. Did it really
pay off in the long run to support bin Laden and Hussein 20 years ago?

--
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

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:


He also didn't take OBL when he was offered to him, and failed to
attack when he could have got him.


Well, jeez. At least Clinton didn't train and arm him and his cohorts as
Reagan/HWBush did - but then bin Laden was against the same government
we were against. Kinda simular to ol'Sadamn, no?

One lesson to be learned from the last 25 years is that the bad guy you
are *USING* to fight your battles and further your own cause today will
likely turn around and attempt to bite your ass tomorrow. Did it really
pay off in the long run to support bin Laden and Hussein 20 years ago?

Do you really expect our, or any, government to learn from past mistakes?
Joe

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:00:02 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

One lesson to be learned from the last 25 years is that the bad guy you
are *USING* to fight your battles and further your own cause today will
likely turn around and attempt to bite your ass tomorrow. Did it really
pay off in the long run to support bin Laden and Hussein 20 years ago?

The lesson is much older than that - having the Soviets as allies
against Nazi Germany was the right decision, even considering their post
WWII actions. You do what you have to at the time to win and survive.

- Doug

--

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

On 8 Feb 2005 10:42:43 -0800, "Ray" wrote:

No, we should clothe, feed and house them at taxpayer expense. It
would be totally unreasonable to expect people to be held responsible
or accountable for their decisions/actions.


Damn right. That's why we still have the same administration
we had last year.

On 9 Feb 2005 19:36:15 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Don't distort what I'm saying and pretend to be quoting me, asshole.


No, he hit you right on the button. If you bend over any
further, you'll be breathing dirt.

Is this a WOODWORKING NEWS GROUP OR A POLITICAL ONE????


"GregP" wrote in message
...
On 9 Feb 2005 19:36:15 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


Don't distort what I'm saying and pretend to be quoting me, asshole.


No, he hit you right on the button. If you bend over any
further, you'll be breathing dirt.

On 8 Feb 2005 13:01:09 -0800, "Ray" wrote:


If those of you not in the northeast really want to see politicians at
their finest check out NJ. Some of the latest ideas they have come up
with to spend more money a


Our Republican governor is following in Reagan's & Bush II's
footsteps: spend as much money as possible, tax as little as
possible, and hope that somewhere sometime down the road
a few folks like Bush I & Clinton will come down the road to
clean up and straighten things out.

I repeat!
Is this a WOODWORKING NEWS GROUP OR A POLITICAL ONE????



"GregP" wrote in message
...
On 8 Feb 2005 13:01:09 -0800, "Ray" wrote:


If those of you not in the northeast really want to see politicians at
their finest check out NJ. Some of the latest ideas they have come up
with to spend more money a


Our Republican governor is following in Reagan's & Bush II's
footsteps: spend as much money as possible, tax as little as
possible, and hope that somewhere sometime down the road
a few folks like Bush I & Clinton will come down the road to
clean up and straighten things out.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 00:46:40 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I did NOT write this. Take more care with your attributions.

Well, jeez. At least Clinton didn't train and arm him and his cohorts as
Reagan/HWBush did - but then bin Laden was against the same government
we were against. Kinda simular to ol'Sadamn, no?

This, however, I did write:

Does the term "lesser of two evils (at the time)" have any faint
glimmering of meaning to you?

Perhaps not in these instances. Would the victory Iran might have won
over Iraq been more detrimental and costly to the US than the Gulf War
and the Iraq War plus any retribution for the current events we may yet
see in the coming decades?

What part of "at the time" didn't you get? Forseeable future, sure.
Decades later? Are even you that good at predicting, without the
benefit of hindsight?

Did outfitting bin Laden in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets gain us all
that much considering the devastating loss of life on 9/11, the
financial hit our economy took, the costs of the war and rebuilding in
Afghanistan plus all the extremely costly security measures we have (and
have yet) to put into place?

Well, the Soviets are gone and never nuked us, so it seems like maybe
there may have been a benefit to that, yes.

I've not seen any analysis of these two issues and I'm not a political
historian or strategist so don't know how differing outcomes in either
situation might have affected world history. Perhaps we should have let
both bin Laden and Hussein fight their own wars and then dealt with the
outcomes and the victors.

Or, perhaps we should continue to do what makes the most sense at the time
for the forseeable future, and deal with exceptions as they come up. I
think we should be more vocal about "behave or we'll take you out" when we
do that.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:10:16 GMT, Bob wrote:
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478

I repeat!
Is this a WOODWORKING NEWS GROUP OR A POLITICAL ONE????

If you upgrade your newsreader to pretty much anything other than
the virus-vector called outlook express, you will find that killfiles
are a wonderful thing.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Or, perhaps we should continue to do what makes the most sense at the
time
for the forseeable future, and deal with exceptions as they come up. I
think we should be more vocal about "behave or we'll take you out" when
we
do that.

Hey! Guess what? I agree with you :-).

And while I still think Iraq was a mistake, I wish the next time some
fanatical Iraqi cleric tells his followers to attack us, we'd hang him
and plow his mosque under.


Wow! That and a betta mean you're not so bad after all, Larry.

dwhite

In article ,
says...
Or, perhaps we should continue to do what makes the most sense at the time
for the forseeable future, and deal with exceptions as they come up. I
think we should be more vocal about "behave or we'll take you out" when we
do that.

Hey! Guess what? I agree with you :-).

And while I still think Iraq was a mistake, I wish the next time some
fanatical Iraqi cleric tells his followers to attack us, we'd hang him
and plow his mosque under.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:06:30 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
Or, perhaps we should continue to do what makes the most sense at the time
for the forseeable future, and deal with exceptions as they come up. I
think we should be more vocal about "behave or we'll take you out" when we
do that.

Hey! Guess what? I agree with you :-).

Holy ****. Alert the media. It was inevitable that at some point,
we'd agree, but I'm...stunned.

And while I still think Iraq was a mistake, I wish the next time some
fanatical Iraqi cleric tells his followers to attack us, we'd hang him
and plow his mosque under.

I think that was a "don't **** off those who are marginally tolerant
of us at the moment" decision. It annoys me, though, that while it's
perfectly acceptable for them to hide in churches and schools and
shoot at us, they get ****y if we shoot back at them there. If it's
a sacred site, great, but don't use it as a military base then.

"Bob" wrote in news:rDMPd.65949$EG1.64055@attbi_s53:

Is this a WOODWORKING NEWS GROUP OR A POLITICAL ONE????

Politics, gets everywhere, shame eh!?