Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Dogface, ya dun brok da code.

You also just figured out why so many politicians are opposed to the
President. Every penny that is placed in a private investment account is a
penny that those same politicians can't touch.


"Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote in message
news:y9aYd.27$we7.0@fe02.lga...
>
> "Paul Knudsen" <bigkahuna@jupada.com> wrote in message
> news:66n131d8mik2p24prkf956f362ejn0jljg@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:45:59 -0500, "Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You mean the "Social Security Trust Fund"? You mean the 3.7 TRILLION
>> >dollars that the government has looted from the people and spent instead
> of
>> >wisely investing it for the benefit of those people? The "Trust Fund"
>> >is
>> >3.7 TRILLION dollars of government IOUs that will start coming due in
> 13-20
>> >years.
>>
>> Hey, Dude, Treasury Bonds are the safest investment going. I do agree
>> that the trust funds should be invested for a higher return, though.
>
> So let me get this straight. The government taxes me and my employer
> around
> 15% combined for what is purported to be my retirement safety net. They
> then take that money and spend it. In it's place they leave IOUs for the
> money and pay "interest" far below what the money could earn elsewhere.
> Now
> where is that interest they are paying me coming from? You guessed it!
> MY
> TAXES! So they are taking my money, spending it, then taxing me to pay
> interest back to me! Then when the IOUs come due and they don't have
> enough
> to pay them, they raise my taxes. Again, taking more of my money, to
> repay
> money that I already paid in!
>
> If anybody else ran this sort of shell game, the government would lock
> them
> up. Companies with pension plans are regulated by ERISA laws that require
> them to fund the pension funds. If the same regulations were applied to
> the
> Social Security "Trust Fund", the jails would be full of politicians which
> would probably be the only way of stopping them from stealing our money.
>
> The Social Security system isn't a "Pay as You Go" system, it's a "Steal
> as
> You Pay" system. And that by any measure is BROKEN.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:35:08 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>
>>Hey, these all sound like wonderful organizations to me !!! Unless one is off
>>on some sort of crusade to make these United States more moral and upstanding
>>with family values and all that (instead of solving real world problems like
>>budget deficits, balance of payments deficit, crumbling highways, derailed
>>railways, weakened educational system, high cost of medical care, etc) , gee,
>>what is wrong with any of them? ... Ben Myers
>
> Those groups have nothing to do with helping anyone,

Right, everyone is out of step but you.

> they are people on their high-horses or people seeking to make money from sheep.

Wow, so unlike the Republicons!

😉

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

again it appears that you are speaking on a subject that you know little
about.
in the most simple terms, the social security fund does not invest money, it
pays out from current receipts. some people do believe that in 15-20 years
it may become insolvent (insolvent meaning that it will pay out more than it
receives) but other people don't believe that. no one can know for sure if
it will or will not become insolvent, and of course it can be addressed
should it happen. we already have tax exempt private investment accounts
for those that want to invest their own money towards their own retirement.
bush is trying to make something out of nothing to draw attention away from
his real economic problems (the war that we are paying dearly for and that
has no end in sight)... the social security issue is another weapon of mass
distraction!
http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp-26es.html

"Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote in message
news:y9aYd.27$we7.0@fe02.lga...
>
> "Paul Knudsen" <bigkahuna@jupada.com> wrote in message
> news:66n131d8mik2p24prkf956f362ejn0jljg@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:45:59 -0500, "Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You mean the "Social Security Trust Fund"? You mean the 3.7 TRILLION
>> >dollars that the government has looted from the people and spent instead
> of
>> >wisely investing it for the benefit of those people? The "Trust Fund"
>> >is
>> >3.7 TRILLION dollars of government IOUs that will start coming due in
> 13-20
>> >years.
>>
>> Hey, Dude, Treasury Bonds are the safest investment going. I do agree
>> that the trust funds should be invested for a higher return, though.
>
> So let me get this straight. The government taxes me and my employer
> around
> 15% combined for what is purported to be my retirement safety net. They
> then take that money and spend it. In it's place they leave IOUs for the
> money and pay "interest" far below what the money could earn elsewhere.
> Now
> where is that interest they are paying me coming from? You guessed it!
> MY
> TAXES! So they are taking my money, spending it, then taxing me to pay
> interest back to me! Then when the IOUs come due and they don't have
> enough
> to pay them, they raise my taxes. Again, taking more of my money, to
> repay
> money that I already paid in!
>
> If anybody else ran this sort of shell game, the government would lock
> them
> up. Companies with pension plans are regulated by ERISA laws that require
> them to fund the pension funds. If the same regulations were applied to
> the
> Social Security "Trust Fund", the jails would be full of politicians which
> would probably be the only way of stopping them from stealing our money.
>
> The Social Security system isn't a "Pay as You Go" system, it's a "Steal
> as
> You Pay" system. And that by any measure is BROKEN.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:02:26 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>
> we already have tax exempt private investment accounts for those that
> want to invest their own money towards their own retirement. bush is
> trying to make something out of nothing to draw attention away from his
> real economic problems (the war that we are paying dearly for and that
> has no end in sight)... the social security issue is another weapon of
> mass distraction!

As a person that's paid in my max amount to the SS tax every year for
decades, I would love to have the ability to take some of my mandated
money and put it into my own personal accounts for retirement. I'm in my
40's and see no reason to let the government manage it for me. SS was
suppose to be a "supplement" and not a cover-all-my-expenses type thing
like people use it for now. It was also not suppose to be given to people
that didn't pay into it (like kids).

The only way we can get the borrowing to stop is to kick the politicians
out of office that allow it to continue.


--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:05:01 -0500, Sparky Singer wrote:
>
> Leythos wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:35:08 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>>>Hey, these all sound like wonderful organizations to me !!! Unless one is off
>>>on some sort of crusade to make these United States more moral and upstanding
>>>with family values and all that (instead of solving real world problems like
>>>budget deficits, balance of payments deficit, crumbling highways, derailed
>>>railways, weakened educational system, high cost of medical care, etc) , gee,
>>>what is wrong with any of them? ... Ben Myers
>>
>> Those groups have nothing to do with helping anyone,
>
> Right, everyone is out of step but you.

No, it seems to me that those groups don't promote anything except some
left-wing agenda that hurts many people and helps few, at the same time
those groups directors make big bucks while claiming to do it to help
others.

>> they are people on their high-horses or people seeking to make money from sheep.
>
> Wow, so unlike the Republicons!

I'm not political, I'm actually an independent.


--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

but you don't have any money in the social security "fund"... the money
that you have paid to social security all of these years has already been
spent to pay for your grandparents and your parents benefits. someone in
their 40's is likely to be most adversely affected by changes to the social
security program. younger people that do manage to save on their own have
time on their side*. bush's "plan" is short on specifics so pay close
attention as you can be harshly and negatively impacted.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/index.html

*assuming that the young do actually save money in a retirement account and
don't choose to opt out of saving, or don't save because they lack regular
paychecks from employers that do automatic deductions. it is very likely
that such a plan would ultimately result in a new generation of impoverished
elderly. what do we do with them? turn our backs on them for being too
stupid to have proactively saved? you know what will happen.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.03.11.13.13.56.731856@nowhere.lan...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:02:26 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>
>> we already have tax exempt private investment accounts for those that
>> want to invest their own money towards their own retirement. bush is
>> trying to make something out of nothing to draw attention away from his
>> real economic problems (the war that we are paying dearly for and that
>> has no end in sight)... the social security issue is another weapon of
>> mass distraction!
>
> As a person that's paid in my max amount to the SS tax every year for
> decades, I would love to have the ability to take some of my mandated
> money and put it into my own personal accounts for retirement. I'm in my
> 40's and see no reason to let the government manage it for me. SS was
> suppose to be a "supplement" and not a cover-all-my-expenses type thing
> like people use it for now. It was also not suppose to be given to people
> that didn't pay into it (like kids).
>
> The only way we can get the borrowing to stop is to kick the politicians
> out of office that allow it to continue.
>
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LBhYd.102331$QS5.70541@trndny06...
> but you don't have any money in the social security "fund"... the money
> that you have paid to social security all of these years has already been
> spent to pay for your grandparents and your parents benefits.


Again, it is you that are wrong, well half right, half wrong.
You are correct when you say that there is no money in the "Social Security
Fund"..It contains nothing but "IOUs"
It is also true that most of the receipts are used to pay current
benefits. What you failed to say is that what is not used to pay current
benefits has, for decades, systematically been raided to pay for various
spending programs. This started with Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society"
programs, when raiding the then substantial Social Security reserves to
pay for those programs began. And it has continued since that time. Prior to
that period, Social Security funds were sacrosanct and were set aside in a
"Trust Fund". The liberals and LBJ saw all this money amassing, just
sitting there. They couldn't stand it. They had to get their greedy, grubby
hands into it. Thus began the downfall of Social Security.

As I have posted previously to this discussion, the reason that the
Democrats and a few of the more liberal Republicans are so opposed to the
Presidents proposal to allow some "private investment accounts" in Social
Security, is that these funds would then be shielded from being raided by
these same politicians.
I can't think of a better reason for "privatization" than to keep the
greedy, grubby hands of the politicians away from that money.


..

"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LBhYd.102331$QS5.70541@trndny06...
> but you don't have any money in the social security "fund"... the money
> that you have paid to social security all of these years has already been
> spent to pay for your grandparents and your parents benefits. someone in
> their 40's is likely to be most adversely affected by changes to the
> social security program. younger people that do manage to save on their
> own have time on their side*. bush's "plan" is short on specifics so pay
> close attention as you can be harshly and negatively impacted.
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/index.html
>
> *assuming that the young do actually save money in a retirement account
> and don't choose to opt out of saving, or don't save because they lack
> regular paychecks from employers that do automatic deductions. it is very
> likely that such a plan would ultimately result in a new generation of
> impoverished elderly. what do we do with them? turn our backs on them
> for being too stupid to have proactively saved? you know what will
> happen.
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.03.11.13.13.56.731856@nowhere.lan...
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 13:02:26 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>
>>> we already have tax exempt private investment accounts for those that
>>> want to invest their own money towards their own retirement. bush is
>>> trying to make something out of nothing to draw attention away from his
>>> real economic problems (the war that we are paying dearly for and that
>>> has no end in sight)... the social security issue is another weapon of
>>> mass distraction!
>>
>> As a person that's paid in my max amount to the SS tax every year for
>> decades, I would love to have the ability to take some of my mandated
>> money and put it into my own personal accounts for retirement. I'm in my
>> 40's and see no reason to let the government manage it for me. SS was
>> suppose to be a "supplement" and not a cover-all-my-expenses type thing
>> like people use it for now. It was also not suppose to be given to people
>> that didn't pay into it (like kids).
>>
>> The only way we can get the borrowing to stop is to kick the politicians
>> out of office that allow it to continue.
>>
>>
>> --
>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:06:35 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>
> *assuming that the young do actually save money in a retirement account and
> don't choose to opt out of saving, or don't save because they lack regular
> paychecks from employers that do automatic deductions. it is very likely
> that such a plan would ultimately result in a new generation of impoverished
> elderly. what do we do with them? turn our backs on them for being too
> stupid to have proactively saved? you know what will happen.

Actually, I'm all for letting the stupid and weak die off, it cleans the
gene-pool. I don't think it's the responsibility of the government or any
one else to support people that don't plan for their lives, that's where
all the problems started - people demanding that government support them -
look at how terrible welfare is.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Aha! You are advocating some sort of genetic supremacy then, like Adolph?

Welfare? Like the corporate welfare in the form of enormous farm subsidies paid
to companies like Cargill, and the tax breaks for sheltering corporate earnings
overseas. Ha! Welfare! Please don't get me started on corporate welfare.

I can't stop myself from responding to some of these insulting extremist
screeds!!!

.... Ben Myers

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:08:38 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:06:35 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>
>> *assuming that the young do actually save money in a retirement account and
>> don't choose to opt out of saving, or don't save because they lack regular
>> paychecks from employers that do automatic deductions. it is very likely
>> that such a plan would ultimately result in a new generation of impoverished
>> elderly. what do we do with them? turn our backs on them for being too
>> stupid to have proactively saved? you know what will happen.
>
>Actually, I'm all for letting the stupid and weak die off, it cleans the
>gene-pool. I don't think it's the responsibility of the government or any
>one else to support people that don't plan for their lives, that's where
>all the problems started - people demanding that government support them -
>look at how terrible welfare is.
>
>--
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

disregarding the you belief that there is no moral obligation for taking
care of the sick and poor, if you study the subject you will find that the
social cost of alternatives to welfare is greater (crime, quality of life,
etc). from a purely selfish or economic perspective, it is cheaper to have
such programs than not.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.03.11.14.13.12.549358@nowhere.lan...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:06:35 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>
>> *assuming that the young do actually save money in a retirement account
>> and
>> don't choose to opt out of saving, or don't save because they lack
>> regular
>> paychecks from employers that do automatic deductions. it is very likely
>> that such a plan would ultimately result in a new generation of
>> impoverished
>> elderly. what do we do with them? turn our backs on them for being too
>> stupid to have proactively saved? you know what will happen.
>
> Actually, I'm all for letting the stupid and weak die off, it cleans the
> gene-pool. I don't think it's the responsibility of the government or any
> one else to support people that don't plan for their lives, that's where
> all the problems started - people demanding that government support them -
> look at how terrible welfare is.
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:29:46 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>
> Aha! You are advocating some sort of genetic supremacy then, like Adolph?

I expected a comment like that from you, but I don't expect much from you
Ben. That's typical of your flawed thinking. I believe in natural order,
not changing the order manually.

> Welfare? Like the corporate welfare in the form of enormous farm subsidies paid
> to companies like Cargill, and the tax breaks for sheltering corporate earnings
> overseas. Ha! Welfare! Please don't get me started on corporate welfare.

I disagree with all welfare, and quotas, and minority holdbacks, etc... It
just keeps people from trying to get better.

> I can't stop myself from responding to some of these insulting extremist
> screeds!!!

Yea, me too - I've not seen anything worthwhile out of you in a long time.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:30:34 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>
> disregarding the you belief that there is no moral obligation for taking
> care of the sick and poor, if you study the subject you will find that the
> social cost of alternatives to welfare is greater (crime, quality of life,
> etc). from a purely selfish or economic perspective, it is cheaper to have
> such programs than not.

No, it's not, it just breeds more like it. If you go through the hard time
to get them off of it, and deal with the crime in a harsh manner, you will
not have the same problems as people won't be in that situation.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

OK. You are a disciple of Ayn Rand and Charles Darwin, then, not someone who
adheres to the teachings of Mein Kampf? Rather than brushing aside the
questions, answer them.

You agree, then, that the government should eliminate corporate welfare? Wow!
If so, that would be something on which we agree... Ben Myers

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:31:51 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:29:46 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>> Aha! You are advocating some sort of genetic supremacy then, like Adolph?
>
>I expected a comment like that from you, but I don't expect much from you
>Ben. That's typical of your flawed thinking. I believe in natural order,
>not changing the order manually.
>
>> Welfare? Like the corporate welfare in the form of enormous farm subsidies paid
>> to companies like Cargill, and the tax breaks for sheltering corporate earnings
>> overseas. Ha! Welfare! Please don't get me started on corporate welfare.
>
>I disagree with all welfare, and quotas, and minority holdbacks, etc... It
>just keeps people from trying to get better.
>
>> I can't stop myself from responding to some of these insulting extremist
>> screeds!!!
>
>Yea, me too - I've not seen anything worthwhile out of you in a long time.
>
>--
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Not if you're one of the few paying in versus one of the millions taking
out!

Moral obligations are wonderful words but the cold hard reality is that
people can't work their asses off only to have the government take their
income to re-distribute to everybody else. People have families to take
care of. Kids to put through school. Health care to pay for. Those moral
obligations override the ones you want to impose on me. Of course, we could
all stop working too and get on the government dole and get free health
care, food stamps, education, and on and on. Resistance is futile I guess.
Sign me up for the free ride! Chris has generously offered to pay for us...


"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:eYhYd.48353$f%5.41540@trndny03...
> disregarding the you belief that there is no moral obligation for taking
> care of the sick and poor, if you study the subject you will find that the
> social cost of alternatives to welfare is greater (crime, quality of life,
> etc). from a purely selfish or economic perspective, it is cheaper to
have
> such programs than not.
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.03.11.14.13.12.549358@nowhere.lan...
> > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:06:35 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
> >>
> >> *assuming that the young do actually save money in a retirement account
> >> and
> >> don't choose to opt out of saving, or don't save because they lack
> >> regular
> >> paychecks from employers that do automatic deductions. it is very
likely
> >> that such a plan would ultimately result in a new generation of
> >> impoverished
> >> elderly. what do we do with them? turn our backs on them for being
too
> >> stupid to have proactively saved? you know what will happen.
> >
> > Actually, I'm all for letting the stupid and weak die off, it cleans the
> > gene-pool. I don't think it's the responsibility of the government or
any
> > one else to support people that don't plan for their lives, that's where
> > all the problems started - people demanding that government support
them -
> > look at how terrible welfare is.
> >
> > --
> > spam999free@rrohio.com
> > remove 999 in order to email me
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Irene wrote:
> Dogface, ya dun brok da code.
>
> You also just figured out why so many politicians are opposed to the
> President. Every penny that is placed in a private investment account is a
> penny that those same politicians can't touch.

<snort>

Why is there never a discussion of the fees the Wall Streeters will
charge us to maintain these private accounts? The cruel hoax is that
*if* the worker gets lucky and actually makes some $$$ in his private
account, it will just offset the cuts Bush will be making. The "profits"
are pie in the sky, while the cuts in benefits will be real & universal.

What makes the "private investment accounts" any more sacrosanct than
the SS trust fund? Bush & his butt buddies have certainly rooted their
way thru that.

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Here you go. Read some facts for once.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/IV_LRest.html#wp222190

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/articles/sm-art-7.html also contained
some interesting reading from Stephen Moore, Op-ed (written around 1997 it
looks like)

William Shipman of State Street Global Advisors recently calculated the rate
of return on Social Security taxes for today's young workers. A young woman
just now entering the workforce with an average starting salary of $22,500,
and with a normal lifetime earnings path, is expected upon retirement to
receive a Social Security benefit of about $12,500 per year (1994 dollars).
(This optimistically assumes that the program is even still around in 2040.)

If she were permitted to simply place her payroll taxes in an annuity with a
6% real rate of return, she would have a nest egg worth $800,000 at
retirement age. This would allow the worker to draw a $60,000 benefit per
year until death (assumed at age 80). "This is five-times higher than what
Social Security offers for the same level of investment!" concludes Shipman.
For today's young workers Social Security isn't generational inequity. It's
thievery.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
> Yes. It was George Santayana who came up with that pearl.

Before of after his troops overran the Alamo & killed all those brave
Texans?

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

> Boohoohoohoo. If you don't like it here, no one is keeping you.

Why should *I* leave? Can't I just have the politician thieves that keep
taking and spending my retirement fund locked up?

> I do agree that SS needs to be changed, by investing for a better
> return. If private accounts will help accomplish that, fine. Just
> investing the trust fund is simpler though. The wealth created will
> provide enough tax revenue to make up for what the Government borrows
> now.

If the government had done this when SS was first started the excess money
in the SS Trust Fund would have made all the participants millionaires.
Unfortunately the thieves raided the fund and spent it and continue to do
so. $151 billion in 2003 was looted from the "Trust Fund". (there will be
more collected than expended until about 2018)

Where can I file my theft charges?!

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_highlights.html#wp76460

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

What I want to know is who actually believes there is a "Trust Fund"
There never has been or will be one, Unless the individual accounts
happen. ALL monies go into the general fund. They are then budgeted out
to pay for whatever. SS is just another line item in the budget, just
like defense, and foreign aid. There is NO SUCH THING as a separate
account just for SS. Anyone who claims that the "account was raided" is
a fool, it is impossible to raid something that isn't there in the first
place. Go get a copy of a federal budget (warning the copies are friggen
HUGE) and all you will find are allotments by line for the different
items that money is spent on, and listings of projected levels of
incoming money (taxes, loans, interest). The govt. looks at those
numbers and then decides if they need to sell bonds if the incoming is
less than the outgoing. Normally this isn't a problem because they issue
a long term bond and stagger them so that the overage can be worked down
over time. The former president screwed this up by deciding to sell a
lot of short term bonds to make it APPEAR that he had balanced the
budget. All he really did was hide the debt. In one way I would have
loved to see Al G. win and see how he would have handled the royal screw
job Clinton gave the next person elected. Instead we have a man who gets
handed a bag of lemons and folks start bitching when he grabs a blender
to make lemonade.

Now back to Dell problems and support.

--
Steve W.

"Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote in message
news:dxNYd.973$dR.389@fe04.lga...
> > Boohoohoohoo. If you don't like it here, no one is keeping you.
>
> Why should *I* leave? Can't I just have the politician thieves that
keep
> taking and spending my retirement fund locked up?
>
> > I do agree that SS needs to be changed, by investing for a better
> > return. If private accounts will help accomplish that, fine. Just
> > investing the trust fund is simpler though. The wealth created will
> > provide enough tax revenue to make up for what the Government
borrows
> > now.
>
> If the government had done this when SS was first started the excess
money
> in the SS Trust Fund would have made all the participants
millionaires.
> Unfortunately the thieves raided the fund and spent it and continue to
do
> so. $151 billion in 2003 was looted from the "Trust Fund". (there
will be
> more collected than expended until about 2018)
>
> Where can I file my theft charges?!
>
> http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_highlights.html#wp76460
>
>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Um, that's your own government who are the thieves. The same ones you support
so vociferously... Ben Myers

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:39:43 -0500, "Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote:

>> Boohoohoohoo. If you don't like it here, no one is keeping you.
>
>Why should *I* leave? Can't I just have the politician thieves that keep
>taking and spending my retirement fund locked up?
>
>> I do agree that SS needs to be changed, by investing for a better
>> return. If private accounts will help accomplish that, fine. Just
>> investing the trust fund is simpler though. The wealth created will
>> provide enough tax revenue to make up for what the Government borrows
>> now.
>
>If the government had done this when SS was first started the excess money
>in the SS Trust Fund would have made all the participants millionaires.
>Unfortunately the thieves raided the fund and spent it and continue to do
>so. $151 billion in 2003 was looted from the "Trust Fund". (there will be
>more collected than expended until about 2018)
>
>Where can I file my theft charges?!
>
>http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_highlights.html#wp76460
>
>
>

 

[dogface]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

But the money has been disappearing for over a half a century.
Are there enough jail cells for all the politicians on both sides
that have stolen our "Trust Fund"? Is their seperate retirement
plan similarly looted? No.

If we truly want to solve the crisis, we should first put an end to
the looting of the "Trust Fund". Over the next 14 years it could
easily amount to over a trillion dollars. Retaining that and investing
it would be a start and could possibly help save the system.


<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:4233a400.45031168@nntp.charter.net...
> Um, that's your own government who are the thieves. The same ones you
support
> so vociferously... Ben Myers
>
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:39:43 -0500, "Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com>
wrote:
>
> >> Boohoohoohoo. If you don't like it here, no one is keeping you.
> >
> >Why should *I* leave? Can't I just have the politician thieves that keep
> >taking and spending my retirement fund locked up?
> >
> >> I do agree that SS needs to be changed, by investing for a better
> >> return. If private accounts will help accomplish that, fine. Just
> >> investing the trust fund is simpler though. The wealth created will
> >> provide enough tax revenue to make up for what the Government borrows
> >> now.
> >
> >If the government had done this when SS was first started the excess
money
> >in the SS Trust Fund would have made all the participants millionaires.
> >Unfortunately the thieves raided the fund and spent it and continue to do
> >so. $151 billion in 2003 was looted from the "Trust Fund". (there will
be
> >more collected than expended until about 2018)
> >
> >Where can I file my theft charges?!
> >
> >http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_highlights.html#wp76460
> >
> >
> >
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
> Aha! You are advocating some sort of genetic supremacy then, like Adolph?
>
> Welfare? Like the corporate welfare in the form of enormous farm subsidies paid
> to companies like Cargill, and the tax breaks for sheltering corporate earnings
> overseas. Ha! Welfare! Please don't get me started on corporate welfare.
>
> I can't stop myself from responding to some of these insulting extremist
> screeds!!!
>
> ... Ben Myers

Right on, Ben! While replying to the rightards changes no minds, it is a
positive good globally because it lets the rest of the world know that
not all Americans march to the Bushies' trumpet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:06:35 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>
>>*assuming that the young do actually save money in a retirement account and
>>don't choose to opt out of saving, or don't save because they lack regular
>>paychecks from employers that do automatic deductions. it is very likely
>>that such a plan would ultimately result in a new generation of impoverished
>>elderly. what do we do with them? turn our backs on them for being too
>>stupid to have proactively saved? you know what will happen.
>
>
> Actually, I'm all for letting the stupid and weak die off, it cleans the
> gene-pool. I don't think it's the responsibility of the government or any
> one else to support people that don't plan for their lives, that's where
> all the problems started - people demanding that government support them -
> look at how terrible welfare is.

Drawing checks from a program into which I've contributed for 35-40
years is hardly being *supported* by the govt! Besides, where are my big
tax cuts, anyway???

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Dogface wrote:
> Not if you're one of the few paying in versus one of the millions taking
> out!

LOL - Rush, himself, could not have bloviated better!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Dogface wrote:
>>Boohoohoohoo. If you don't like it here, no one is keeping you.
>
>
> Why should *I* leave? Can't I just have the politician thieves that keep
> taking and spending my retirement fund locked up?
>
>
>>I do agree that SS needs to be changed, by investing for a better
>>return. If private accounts will help accomplish that, fine. Just
>>investing the trust fund is simpler though. The wealth created will
>>provide enough tax revenue to make up for what the Government borrows
>>now.
>
>
> If the government had done this when SS was first started the excess money
> in the SS Trust Fund would have made all the participants millionaires.
> Unfortunately the thieves raided the fund and spent it and continue to do
> so. $151 billion in 2003 was looted from the "Trust Fund". (there will be
> more collected than expended until about 2018)
>
> Where can I file my theft charges?!

Type it up neatly and send it to your butt buddies in the White House.