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?

--

Lewis Lang

"Joseph Smith" wrote in message news:...
If you look at all the money you've already lost if you had
been allowed to take the tax you pay for Social(ist) Security
and stick it into an IRA (or a simple savings account) for all
these years; then you've already been "screwed".
Bush has no control over Social Security (other than
political influence). The Social Security Program is
controlled by the Congress, and any changes to it
really is up to them.
"Lewis Lang" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

--

Lewis Lang

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....

--
Jeff P.

A truck carrying copies of Roget's Thesaurus over-turned on the
highway. The local newspaper reported that the onlookers were
"stunned, overwhelmed, astonished, bewildered, and dumfounded."


Check out my woodshop at: www.sawdustcentral.com


"Unisaw A100" wrote in message
...

"Jeff P." wrote in message
...
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....


He's speechless.
--

-Mike-

In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:

If you choose the savings accounts, will your employer still have to
contribute half?

And I haven't heard anyone talk about disability payments. Will they
stay the same?

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?

--
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

Article in this mornings paper said the SS trustees made their estimates
of the funds demise based on an annual growth rate of 1.8%, while the
average growth rate over the last 50 years has been 3.5%. I don't blame
them for a little conservatism, but half is a bit too conservative.

The real problem is that at some point, not that far away, SS is going
to have to start cashing in some of those government bonds it holds,
The government (both parties) doesn't want to have to pay off those
bonds. Or to "refinance" by issuing new bonds.

Note that the "personal savings accounts" are not voluntary in the sense
that you can choose whether or not to spend any money. The only choice
you have is whether to stay in conventional SS or put the money in
savings accounts. In either case, the "it's your money" ploy is
political BS.

Note that keeping it mandatory is a good idea, otherwise a lot of folks
would just spend the money. It's just the rhetoric that's bad.

If you choose the savings accounts, will your employer still have to
contribute half?

And I haven't heard anyone talk about disability payments. Will they
stay the same?

Pig in a poke time????

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:

If you choose the savings accounts, will your employer still have to
contribute half?

And I haven't heard anyone talk about disability payments. Will they
stay the same?

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?

Last year there was a $150 Billion SS surplus. It was spent on other stuff.
If money is invested, it cannot be spent on other stuff and we all find out
how big the deficit really is.

What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,
but since these withholding are actually a Tax rather than
a withholding it was ruled (Supreme Court)that it is treated
like any other tax and can be spent by the government.


"Fly-by-Night CC" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Larry Blanchard wrote:

If you choose the savings accounts, will your employer still have to
contribute half?

And I haven't heard anyone talk about disability payments. Will they
stay the same?

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?

--
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

There is a very good story about to come out this week (?) . It lays out
some of the myth about this SS plan. One very important piece was that
they took a hypothetical case of someone that had$100,000 in the S&P
index when they retired in 1999 they would get or could take $700+ each
mont to add to their SS. But the same person with the same amount of
shares and retired in 2000 would only be able to draw $260 some dollars
each month.
The author took some time and effort to write this and it does make you
wonder if this is a pig in a polk. The gov gave SS
an iou for the excess money it has been taking in and now has spent it.
( both parties to blame ) Now when it comes time to cash in the iou's
the gov will have to borrow to pay them off . And borrow some heavy
money. Gov has cut almost every tax there is EXCEPT the SS tax and the
medicare tax. So if you cut benefits is that the same as a tax raise.?
Suggest if you see the time mag in the drs. office read it. Me: no
connection with time other than the time on the clock.

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?

--

Lewis Lang

Up until about 12 or 15 years ago, I would have relinquished all claims
to the monies that I had put into the Social Security System in return
for my investing all future monies. At that point, I would have come
out well ahead. The situation has changed since then:

1. The stock market has remained rather stagnant since recovering from
the recent recession. The days of investing in anything and making a
killing are long gone.

2. This administration is not the most trustworthy group in recent
memory. Their real agenda is not particularly obvious.

3. By most accounts, Social Security is not in grave danger. Raising
the tax limit to say $100K will push the problem area many more years
into the future. It is definitely NOT time to panic. See item 2.

4. Read up on the Brits experiences with a plan quite similar to the
Bush plan. By most accounts it has been a disaster. One of the repair
options being studied is a plan like the current US plan.

5. Read up on the Chilean experiences where results have been better.

6. This may not be a good time to start adding to the $7+ trillion
national debt especially if less of it will be purchased by Social
Security. I am not convinced that the People's Republic of China
(holder of a good chunk of our debt) always has our best interests at heart.

I would suggest that the problem be characterized. The original intent
of SS was to provide a modest sum to those overtaken by age or
infirmity. The workers, employers, and now the government are putting
money into the system. Is there a reason to change this rather
minimalist system? Should we go to a system where the risk is higher
but the worker may end up with a nice retirement? The other side of
risk is a smaller nest egg. If we do this, can we take the planning out
of the political arena and let a group (or groups) of academics design
methodologies? See item 2 above.

The administration, congress, and the media are supplying much more heat
than light on this subject. And we don't even seem to mention the
really large domestic problem areas: medicare/healthcare, energy,
crumbling infrastructure, etc.

Enough of this. Time to make some sawdust.
mahalo,
jo4hn

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:53:37 GMT, "Joseph Smith"
wrote:

What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,
but since these withholding are actually a Tax rather than
a withholding it was ruled (Supreme Court)that it is treated
like any other tax and can be spent by the government.

=================
Have to agree on that last statement.... The federal tax on your
telephone tax was enacted a ba-zillion years ago..when there was only
300 phones in New York City ... as a tempory tax yep tempoary is
such a good discription...

Anyhow (and I am not positive) Georgies' plan would allow individuals
to set 4 percent of their contributions (another good, discriptive
term) in securities...and the proposed types of investments are bonds
etc...

Since I am now 61 and have been retired since age 55 I do not know the
current figures...and do not yet collect SS ..

but the tax is or was almost 7 oercent on the first 90,000 of
earnings... or about 6300 bucks... if 4 percent of this is allowed to
be redirected into individual accounts (about 2-300 hundred bucks)
I do not see what all the fuss is about...

Of course things would double if your employer contributions (lol) are
also redirected... .

I most likely have "my facts" all screwed up and most likely I do BUT
I am sure the Democrats will straighten me out... I do know that I
never even figured SS into my retirement picture anything I get is a
bonus ..BUT my grand son is in deep crap right now...

Bob Griffiths

jo4hn wrote:


2. This administration is not the most trustworthy group in recent
memory. Their real agenda is not particularly obvious.

Agreed; however, their agenda is obvious.

The systematic dismantling of the government.

It has nothing to do with ones political beliefs, it is simply an
observation of the obvious.

Lew

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

- Doug

--

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

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
ink.net...

The systematic dismantling of the government.


At the rate the Bush administration has been spending money on all fronts,
how the government is being dismantled is a tough sales pitch to make. Its
funny that the very thought of taking a minute percentage of SS money from
the goverment control and putting it into the private sector causes such
waves of panic. It's not like the entire SS fund is going to be invested in
high risk stocks.

Frank

I wish they would come out with a voluntary "opt out"
program. I am 37 now and have been employed for
20 years. I would gladly give up all SS benefits and
let the government keep what I've already paid into
the system if they'd let me out of it so I could take
that money and start up my own IRA or low/med
risk fund. That way if I die at 64 (one year before I
could draw on SS) at least my family would get the money.

"Bob G." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:53:37 GMT, "Joseph Smith"
wrote:

What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,
but since these withholding are actually a Tax rather than
a withholding it was ruled (Supreme Court)that it is treated
like any other tax and can be spent by the government.

=================
Have to agree on that last statement.... The federal tax on your
telephone tax was enacted a ba-zillion years ago..when there was only
300 phones in New York City ... as a tempory tax yep tempoary is
such a good discription...

Anyhow (and I am not positive) Georgies' plan would allow individuals
to set 4 percent of their contributions (another good, discriptive
term) in securities...and the proposed types of investments are bonds
etc...

Since I am now 61 and have been retired since age 55 I do not know the
current figures...and do not yet collect SS ..

but the tax is or was almost 7 oercent on the first 90,000 of
earnings... or about 6300 bucks... if 4 percent of this is allowed to
be redirected into individual accounts (about 2-300 hundred bucks)
I do not see what all the fuss is about...

Of course things would double if your employer contributions (lol) are
also redirected... .

I most likely have "my facts" all screwed up and most likely I do BUT
I am sure the Democrats will straighten me out... I do know that I
never even figured SS into my retirement picture anything I get is a
bonus ..BUT my grand son is in deep crap right now...

Bob Griffiths

You aren't paying attention. The real issue isn't about reducing SS system
income by about a third, it is about reducing future benefits by at least a
third, or 40%. The rest is just an attempt to make it palatable. The
problem, to politicians, is that SS will stop running huge excesses and they
will have to come up with some other way to fund SS benefits and the rest of
the government. Shrub's proposed method is to add trillions to the deficit,
which will add to the tax burden of our children and grandchildren. I
haven't heard anything that suggests the return from private accounts will
balance the cost of supporting the debt. But, since the republicans will
have already named everything for Reagan (the other big debtor), about the
only thing left to name in Bush's "honor" will be the GWB National Debt.

"Frank Ketchum" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
ink.net...

The systematic dismantling of the government.


At the rate the Bush administration has been spending money on all fronts,
how the government is being dismantled is a tough sales pitch to make.
Its funny that the very thought of taking a minute percentage of SS money
from the goverment control and putting it into the private sector causes
such waves of panic. It's not like the entire SS fund is going to be
invested in high risk stocks.

Frank

In article 5BuNd.20699$uc.463@trnddc03, says...
What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,

I've never understood those who claim the government is "spending" the
SS surplus. Of course they are - the funds are invested in government
bonds. The only way SS can "keep" the money is to hide it under the
bed.

Please explain where I'm wrong.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article UrxNd.20739$uc.13322@trnddc03, says...
wish they would come out with a voluntary "opt out"
program. I am 37 now and have been employed for
20 years. I would gladly give up all SS benefits and
let the government keep what I've already paid into
the system if they'd let me out of it so I could take
that money and start up my own IRA or low/med
risk fund. That way if I die at 64 (one year before I
could draw on SS) at least my family would get the money.

And what happens to all the people who opt out and get old and/or
disabled without any voluntary savings? They all go on welfare? We let
them die? We euthanize them?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Larry Blanchard wrote:

In article 5BuNd.20699$uc.463@trnddc03, says...


What ever money the SS Administration makes will just be
spent by congress on pork barrel projects. Remember:
Social Security "withholdings" are a TAX. Taxes get
spent regardless of what their original purpose was for.
Years ago some one tried to sue to keep the Federal
Government from spending the annual Social Security surplusses,



I've never understood those who claim the government is "spending" the
SS surplus. Of course they are - the funds are invested in government
bonds. The only way SS can "keep" the money is to hide it under the
bed.

Please explain where I'm wrong.



Larry,

You have to understand that the national debt is the total of two
categories. One is "debt owed to the public" and this is reguar
government bonds that are bought by individuals , corporations,
retirement systems, and foreign governments. This category represents
60% of the total debt. These bonds have to be paid or we are a bankrupt
nation.

The other category is "intra-governtal debt" and it is comprised of debt
owed to Social Security, the Railroad Retirement Fund and to the
military and government workers retirement funds. When Congress spends
the surplus from these funds the money is replaced with special bonds
that are not available to the public. Also, interest is due on these
bonds every year, but it is not paid. Instead of interest payments,
each agency receives more of the special bonds in the amount of the
interest. This category is considered money we "owe to ourselves" and
there is no law that it has to be paid.

The amount owed to SS is now 1.5 trillion dollars and I don't believe
anyone here will see the day when the money is paid back.

Stewart

Personally I was raised with the "you make your bed,
you lie in it" type of mentality. But if the government
MUST, then a mandated IRA or other fairly safe
account/fund would be okay w/me. JUST AS LONG
AS I OWN THE ACCOUNT, not the government!
Maybe I'm outdated and maybe because I came from
a family that didn't have a lot and asked for even less;
but I don't get this mentality of wanting the government
to provide so much and be such a big part of one's life.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article UrxNd.20739$uc.13322@trnddc03, says...
wish they would come out with a voluntary "opt out"
program. I am 37 now and have been employed for
20 years. I would gladly give up all SS benefits and
let the government keep what I've already paid into
the system if they'd let me out of it so I could take
that money and start up my own IRA or low/med
risk fund. That way if I die at 64 (one year before I
could draw on SS) at least my family would get the money.

And what happens to all the people who opt out and get old and/or
disabled without any voluntary savings? They all go on welfare? We let
them die? We euthanize them?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

"Steven and Gail Peterson" wrote in message
nk.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-

Last year there was a $150 Billion SS surplus. It was spent on other stuff.
If money is invested, it cannot be spent on other stuff and we all find out
how big the deficit really is.


This is the real deal. In fact the day SS fails is not the day the hypothetical
bond value is exhausted or even the day that income doesn't cover payout. The
real crunch is the first day the surplus stops increasing. Every dime it drops
is immediately posted on the deficiet.
That day is very close.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article UrxNd.20739$uc.13322@trnddc03, says...
wish they would come out with a voluntary "opt out"
program. I am 37 now and have been employed for
20 years. I would gladly give up all SS benefits and
let the government keep what I've already paid into
the system if they'd let me out of it so I could take
that money and start up my own IRA or low/med
risk fund. That way if I die at 64 (one year before I
could draw on SS) at least my family would get the money.

And what happens to all the people who opt out and get old and/or
disabled without any voluntary savings? They all go on welfare? We let
them die? We euthanize them?

I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we do prior
to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
filled with all the indigent elderly. Unfortunately, the nanny state is so
firmly entrenched that self-reliance is a foreign concept.

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.

todd

Todd Fatheree wrote:

I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we
do prior
to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass
graves being
filled with all the indigent elderly. Unfortunately, the nanny state
is so
firmly entrenched that self-reliance is a foreign concept.


There is a reality you conveniently skim over. Prior to the WWII
keeping the extended
family around was the norm. Grandma could rely on always having a room
with kin or having family nearby enough to help out. Also,in the 30's
Granndma only lived to about 65 on average. Average life expectancy is
now about 80 for women and the ability to rely on extended family has
eroded. Another aspect of increased life expectancy is a shift in the
diseases afflicting the elderly. With a mean expectancy of 65 there
was relatively little dementia; with mean life at 80 it is very common.
You will die of something, we know how to fix/manage most of the
systems below the neck. That leaves brain rot as a cause of death.
This is not to condemn nor defend the nanny state but only to point out
that comparision of aging with pre-1937 and now is meaningless.

May you live long enough to become demented.

hex
-30-

Rex is right as is the portion of post below. What they did prior to 1937 IF
there was no extended family to take care of the infirm was, they were sent
to the County Poor Farm or the Asylum. I still remember the Poor Farm we
passed going to town from our farm. We were also Poor but didn't realize it
because most everyone else was in the same condition. "Great Depression
Era". Standards for "being poor" have greatly changed.

Walt Conner

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.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:42:56 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we do prior
to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
filled with all the indigent elderly.

Well then, why don't you study up on your history instead of assuming
everything was hunky dorry.

Renata

-snip-

todd

"Renata" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 00:42:56 -0600, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we do
prior
to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves
being
filled with all the indigent elderly.

Well then, why don't you study up on your history instead of assuming
everything was hunky dorry.

Renata

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.

todd

"hex" wrote in message
oups.com...

Todd Fatheree wrote:

I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we
do prior
to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass
graves being
filled with all the indigent elderly. Unfortunately, the nanny state
is so
firmly entrenched that self-reliance is a foreign concept.


There is a reality you conveniently skim over. Prior to the WWII
keeping the extended
family around was the norm. Grandma could rely on always having a room
with kin or having family nearby enough to help out. Also,in the 30's
Granndma only lived to about 65 on average. Average life expectancy is
now about 80 for women and the ability to rely on extended family has
eroded. Another aspect of increased life expectancy is a shift in the
diseases afflicting the elderly. With a mean expectancy of 65 there
was relatively little dementia; with mean life at 80 it is very common.
You will die of something, we know how to fix/manage most of the
systems below the neck. That leaves brain rot as a cause of death.
This is not to condemn nor defend the nanny state but only to point out
that comparision of aging with pre-1937 and now is meaningless.

May you live long enough to become demented.

hex
-30-

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.

todd

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
nk.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-

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


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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:21:30 +0000, 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.

How did Clinton manage that and still increase the national debt every
year of his administration?

- Doug

--

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

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:14:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:21:30 +0000, 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.

How did Clinton manage that and still increase the national debt every
year of his administration?

- Doug
=================================
I would have to ask the same question....The Democrates have always
been the TAX & SPEND party in my opinion..... BUT even I have to
question how long the country can continue spending the way we have
the last few years....

Bob Griffiths

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:06:37 -0500, Bob G. wrote:

I would have to ask the same question....The Democrates have always been
the TAX & SPEND party in my opinion..... BUT even I have to question
how long the country can continue spending the way we have the last few
years....

If you think the spending increases in the wake of 9-11 and for things
like medicade drug coverage, no child left behind, etc caused wails of
anguish from the neolibs, wait till they start weighing in on the spending
rate reductions being proposed by the administration.

- Doug

--

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

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.

"Bob G." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:14:31 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 14:21:30 +0000, 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.

How did Clinton manage that and still increase the national debt every
year of his administration?

- Doug
=================================
I would have to ask the same question....The Democrates have always
been the TAX & SPEND party in my opinion..... BUT even I have to
question how long the country can continue spending the way we have
the last few years....

Bob Griffiths

In article ,
says...
I can hear the hand-wringing from here. I don't know...what did we do prior
to 1937? I don't recall reading in my history books about mass graves being
filled with all the indigent elderly. Unfortunately, the nanny state is so
firmly entrenched that self-reliance is a foreign concept.

It was called the "poorhouse" or the "workhouse". Just an earlier form
of welfare.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article ,
says...
How did Clinton manage that and still increase the national debt every
year of his administration?

You're confusing the annual deficit with the total accumulated debt.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:32:46 GMT, 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.

There was _NEVER_ a budget surplus under Clinton. His claims that there
were was due to his Enron-esque money reporting methods, which counted as
income the money that was already allocated for Social Security.

Wake up and smell the roses.

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

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.

--
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, 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.

- Doug

--

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