Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

[dogface]

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

You've clearly lost it, just like the rest of your leftist Democrat whiners.
The President has thrown out some ideas and things he'd like to see as
guidelines. ONE of them was individual accounts. ONE! The Democrats
immediately started whining about "the destruction of social security".
They aren't going to talk if private accounts are part of the discussion.
Bascially acting like a bunch of 2 year olds throwing a tandrum in the
grocery store aisle. This is the best the Democrats can do. Yet again,
spew lies and try to tell everybody the sky is falling and the Republicans
did it. Yet again try to scare older people (absolutely despicable!) that
their checks will stop or be cut.

I guess you didn't believe the Democratic god of gods, Bill Clinton, when he
said in the late '90s that social security was in a crisis. Then there is
the two-faced liar, Senate MINORITY mis-Leader Reid who completely flip
flops his position on individual accounts from what he said in the '90s. Oh
yeah, Bush wasn't President then so now it can be used to try and smear him
with lies. Some of these Democrats are absolutely sickening. The middle of
the road guys are blocked out by the leftist nut jobs like Kennedy, Byrd,
Dingel (aptly named!), Waxman, Boxer, etc.


"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:m2kZd.4160$GI6.1289@trnddc05...
> your are correct that you are unable to explain the presidents plan
because
> he does not have a plan. he is only trying to get people to agree that
> there is a 'crisis' (which there is not) and to label opponents of his
> 'crisis' theory as obstructionists.
>
> it is becoming abundantly clear that his real plan is to blur the huge
> deficit imbalance he has created with his iraq debacle and his tax cuts to
> the rich with the cost conversion that will come from a conversion to an
> unnecessary new social security plan.
>
> bush's own web site offers no details of a 'plan.' bush's web site simply
> tries to promote the idea that there is a crisis and that a solution must
be
> found.
>
> you once again seem to believe something that is not actually a fact but
> some invention of your own imagination.
>
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OY9Zd.52955$uR.28214@fe06.lga...
> > It really is shame that you don't know half as much about the
President's
> > plan as you think you do.
> > Then, you might just know enough to properly discuss it.
> > Frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to attempt explaining
it
> > to someone who knows so little about it that he thinks that "Wall
> > Streeters" will make huge profits from it and the individual will be
left
> > holding the bag..
> > And even less inclination to attempt explaining it all to someone that
> > doesn't already know, that over the long haul, stock and bond investing
> > has out performed just about everything except choice real estate.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Sparky Singer" <Sparky@moon.sun.org> wrote in message
> > news:OMtYd.1883$Sy.1588@fe10.lga...
> >> 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.
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote in message
news:l1oZd.2080$nK2.334@fe02.lga...
> You've clearly lost it,

How can someone lose what they never had? >g<




"Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote in message
news:l1oZd.2080$nK2.334@fe02.lga...
> You've clearly lost it, just like the rest of your leftist Democrat
> whiners.
> The President has thrown out some ideas and things he'd like to see as
> guidelines. ONE of them was individual accounts. ONE! The Democrats
> immediately started whining about "the destruction of social security".
> They aren't going to talk if private accounts are part of the discussion.
> Bascially acting like a bunch of 2 year olds throwing a tandrum in the
> grocery store aisle. This is the best the Democrats can do. Yet again,
> spew lies and try to tell everybody the sky is falling and the Republicans
> did it. Yet again try to scare older people (absolutely despicable!) that
> their checks will stop or be cut.
>
> I guess you didn't believe the Democratic god of gods, Bill Clinton, when
> he
> said in the late '90s that social security was in a crisis. Then there is
> the two-faced liar, Senate MINORITY mis-Leader Reid who completely flip
> flops his position on individual accounts from what he said in the '90s.
> Oh
> yeah, Bush wasn't President then so now it can be used to try and smear
> him
> with lies. Some of these Democrats are absolutely sickening. The middle
> of
> the road guys are blocked out by the leftist nut jobs like Kennedy, Byrd,
> Dingel (aptly named!), Waxman, Boxer, etc.
>
>
> "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:m2kZd.4160$GI6.1289@trnddc05...
>> your are correct that you are unable to explain the presidents plan
> because
>> he does not have a plan. he is only trying to get people to agree that
>> there is a 'crisis' (which there is not) and to label opponents of his
>> 'crisis' theory as obstructionists.
>>
>> it is becoming abundantly clear that his real plan is to blur the huge
>> deficit imbalance he has created with his iraq debacle and his tax cuts
>> to
>> the rich with the cost conversion that will come from a conversion to an
>> unnecessary new social security plan.
>>
>> bush's own web site offers no details of a 'plan.' bush's web site
>> simply
>> tries to promote the idea that there is a crisis and that a solution must
> be
>> found.
>>
>> you once again seem to believe something that is not actually a fact but
>> some invention of your own imagination.
>>
>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OY9Zd.52955$uR.28214@fe06.lga...
>> > It really is shame that you don't know half as much about the
> President's
>> > plan as you think you do.
>> > Then, you might just know enough to properly discuss it.
>> > Frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to attempt explaining
> it
>> > to someone who knows so little about it that he thinks that "Wall
>> > Streeters" will make huge profits from it and the individual will be
> left
>> > holding the bag..
>> > And even less inclination to attempt explaining it all to someone that
>> > doesn't already know, that over the long haul, stock and bond
>> > investing
>> > has out performed just about everything except choice real estate.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Sparky Singer" <Sparky@moon.sun.org> wrote in message
>> > news:OMtYd.1883$Sy.1588@fe10.lga...
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Okay. The delicious irony here is that Reagan is the thief that all the
right-wingers have been raving about. Of course, he had some help from his
allies in Congress... Ben Myers

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:40:05 GMT, "dg1261" <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com> wrote:

>
>"Steve W." <Dugdug56@what.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> ...(snipped)...
>> 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.
>
>Unfortunately, Steve, you're blaming the wrong person. I used to work as a
>trainer for the Social Security Admin in the 70's and 80's, training the
>Service Reps, Data Technicians, and Claims Reps (the people who take the
>claims and calculated the benefits), so was very well versed in the topic,
>the benefit formulas, and the actuarial statistics.
>
>The Social Security Trust Fund was off-budget from its inception in 1939
>until the early 80's. There was a huge surplus going into it in the 70's
>and 80's as the baby-boomers became well established in the work force. The
>surplus was, in fact, being invested. Social Security fund managers and
>actuaries fully understood the fund would have to be saved and built up
>because they expected a negative cash flow by about 2010-2020, when the
>baby-boomers reached retirement age. With proper investing, the actuaries
>figured they'd be able to keep the program solvent until something like
>2040-2050, as I recall.
>
>But the fund managers aren't politicians. To finance his huge military
>build-up, Reagan hit upon the idea of bringing the fund on-budget, where the
>surplus made his otherwise huge budget deficit look a little better. Once
>on-budget, the "raiding" began, with the incoming surplus being reallocated
>to other budget items. Since the Trust Fund is still technically separate,
>at least on paper, whatever was reallocated was replaced with IOUs to the
>Trust Fund. Bush-I and Clinton didn't dare call Reagan out on the budget
>fakery because it would have been political suicide--too many people thought
>Reagan was God. Besides, the trust fund surplus was making their own
>budgets look better, so why rock the boat?
>
>But now, the situation will soon reverse, with more money soon to be going
>out than is coming in. Politicians--regardless of who is in the White
>House--would rather see it off-budget again because it will soon begin
>making the real budget deficit look worse. Bush-I, Clinton, and Bush-II
>haven't done much to fix the problem (and the Bush-II plan is particularly
>misleading), but none of them created the problem, either. That was the
>work of Reagan.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I think you may have forgotten something. The "raid" actually began with
LBJ in order to finance his "Great Society". That is when the diversion
really began. All Reagan did was use it for different purposes than LBJ.


<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:4236159a.2192727@nntp.charter.net...
> Okay. The delicious irony here is that Reagan is the thief that all the
> right-wingers have been raving about. Of course, he had some help from
> his
> allies in Congress... Ben Myers
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:40:05 GMT, "dg1261" <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve W." <Dugdug56@what.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> ...(snipped)...
>>> 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.
>>
>>Unfortunately, Steve, you're blaming the wrong person. I used to work as
>>a
>>trainer for the Social Security Admin in the 70's and 80's, training the
>>Service Reps, Data Technicians, and Claims Reps (the people who take the
>>claims and calculated the benefits), so was very well versed in the topic,
>>the benefit formulas, and the actuarial statistics.
>>
>>The Social Security Trust Fund was off-budget from its inception in 1939
>>until the early 80's. There was a huge surplus going into it in the 70's
>>and 80's as the baby-boomers became well established in the work force.
>>The
>>surplus was, in fact, being invested. Social Security fund managers and
>>actuaries fully understood the fund would have to be saved and built up
>>because they expected a negative cash flow by about 2010-2020, when the
>>baby-boomers reached retirement age. With proper investing, the actuaries
>>figured they'd be able to keep the program solvent until something like
>>2040-2050, as I recall.
>>
>>But the fund managers aren't politicians. To finance his huge military
>>build-up, Reagan hit upon the idea of bringing the fund on-budget, where
>>the
>>surplus made his otherwise huge budget deficit look a little better. Once
>>on-budget, the "raiding" began, with the incoming surplus being
>>reallocated
>>to other budget items. Since the Trust Fund is still technically
>>separate,
>>at least on paper, whatever was reallocated was replaced with IOUs to the
>>Trust Fund. Bush-I and Clinton didn't dare call Reagan out on the budget
>>fakery because it would have been political suicide--too many people
>>thought
>>Reagan was God. Besides, the trust fund surplus was making their own
>>budgets look better, so why rock the boat?
>>
>>But now, the situation will soon reverse, with more money soon to be going
>>out than is coming in. Politicians--regardless of who is in the White
>>House--would rather see it off-budget again because it will soon begin
>>making the real budget deficit look worse. Bush-I, Clinton, and Bush-II
>>haven't done much to fix the problem (and the Bush-II plan is particularly
>>misleading), but none of them created the problem, either. That was the
>>work of Reagan.
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

this tactic of name calling is the new republican mantra. i believe that
lazy thinkers with short attention spans find it nice and simple to box
ideas in to these little inaccurate sound bites. it certainly has worked
well for bush at the expense of the country as a whole. bush is once again
doing it with social security. bush is trying to make and issue out of a
non-issue (social security) in an effort to keep the american people eye's
off the ball. very cleverly he first trying to get people to agree that
there is a 'crisis' with social security (which there is not) and to label
opponents of his 'crisis' theory as obstructionists. this obstructionists
label is simple and comprehensive for the lazy thinkers and lulls them into
their comfort zone. if he does manage to build momentum by using this
tactic it won't be the first time. fortunately this time it seems that it
is not going too well for him.

his motivation for trying to make social security reform and issue is to
hide the huge deficit imbalance that he has created with his iraq debacle
and his tax cuts to the rich by commingling it with the tremendous cost that
will come from a conversion to new and unnecessary social security plan.

the end result will be an even larger public debt as bonds will need to be
sold to finance the conversion to a new social security plan. that's right,
another bush don't tax but continue to spend plan. ironically it is
democrats that the fiscally conservative today.

"Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote in message
news:l1oZd.2080$nK2.334@fe02.lga...
> You've clearly lost it, just like the rest of your leftist Democrat
> whiners.
> The President has thrown out some ideas and things he'd like to see as
> guidelines. ONE of them was individual accounts. ONE! The Democrats
> immediately started whining about "the destruction of social security".
> They aren't going to talk if private accounts are part of the discussion.
> Bascially acting like a bunch of 2 year olds throwing a tandrum in the
> grocery store aisle. This is the best the Democrats can do. Yet again,
> spew lies and try to tell everybody the sky is falling and the Republicans
> did it. Yet again try to scare older people (absolutely despicable!) that
> their checks will stop or be cut.
>
> I guess you didn't believe the Democratic god of gods, Bill Clinton, when
> he
> said in the late '90s that social security was in a crisis. Then there is
> the two-faced liar, Senate MINORITY mis-Leader Reid who completely flip
> flops his position on individual accounts from what he said in the '90s.
> Oh
> yeah, Bush wasn't President then so now it can be used to try and smear
> him
> with lies. Some of these Democrats are absolutely sickening. The middle
> of
> the road guys are blocked out by the leftist nut jobs like Kennedy, Byrd,
> Dingel (aptly named!), Waxman, Boxer, etc.
>
>
> "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:m2kZd.4160$GI6.1289@trnddc05...
>> your are correct that you are unable to explain the presidents plan
> because
>> he does not have a plan. he is only trying to get people to agree that
>> there is a 'crisis' (which there is not) and to label opponents of his
>> 'crisis' theory as obstructionists.
>>
>> it is becoming abundantly clear that his real plan is to blur the huge
>> deficit imbalance he has created with his iraq debacle and his tax cuts
>> to
>> the rich with the cost conversion that will come from a conversion to an
>> unnecessary new social security plan.
>>
>> bush's own web site offers no details of a 'plan.' bush's web site
>> simply
>> tries to promote the idea that there is a crisis and that a solution must
> be
>> found.
>>
>> you once again seem to believe something that is not actually a fact but
>> some invention of your own imagination.
>>
>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OY9Zd.52955$uR.28214@fe06.lga...
>> > It really is shame that you don't know half as much about the
> President's
>> > plan as you think you do.
>> > Then, you might just know enough to properly discuss it.
>> > Frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to attempt explaining
> it
>> > to someone who knows so little about it that he thinks that "Wall
>> > Streeters" will make huge profits from it and the individual will be
> left
>> > holding the bag..
>> > And even less inclination to attempt explaining it all to someone that
>> > doesn't already know, that over the long haul, stock and bond
>> > investing
>> > has out performed just about everything except choice real estate.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Sparky Singer" <Sparky@moon.sun.org> wrote in message
>> > news:OMtYd.1883$Sy.1588@fe10.lga...
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:04:58 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>
> his motivation for trying to make social security reform and issue is to
> hide the huge deficit imbalance that he has created with his iraq debacle
> and his tax cuts to the rich by commingling it with the tremendous cost that
> will come from a conversion to new and unnecessary social security plan.

Sorry Chris, but the national debt was increased to stabilize the economy
after so many years of frivolous programs and pork that Clinton created
while in office with his cronies.

Iraq has not cost much in the way of national debt, it's a small amount.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Your trying to explain principles of Economics relative to the National
Debt to someone who doesn't understand something as simple as how money
can be made for future Social Security beneficiaries by wisely investing a
portion of what they pay into the SS system?

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news😛an.2005.03.14.23.24.02.526090@nowhere.lan...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:04:58 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>
>> his motivation for trying to make social security reform and issue is to
>> hide the huge deficit imbalance that he has created with his iraq debacle
>> and his tax cuts to the rich by commingling it with the tremendous cost
>> that
>> will come from a conversion to new and unnecessary social security plan.
>
> Sorry Chris, but the national debt was increased to stabilize the economy
> after so many years of frivolous programs and pork that Clinton created
> while in office with his cronies.
>
> Iraq has not cost much in the way of national debt, it's a small amount.
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[dogface]

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

The Democrats called Bush everything in the book for one year during their
"primary" where they did nothing but smear Bush and the Republicans. Then
when Bush finally hits back, the Democrats start whining (only thing they do
well these days) about Bush going negative. You have to wonder about people
like that. They can't remember what they do and say from second to second.
As a result they say anything to get elected (Kerry was classic!) and get
caught in their own web of lies, deceit and sheer stupidity. All the BS
about flu vaccine shortage and it was Bush's fault! Hell, now they're
throwing the damn stuff away. The Democrats have shown they are willing to
try and exploit anything for political gain. It's become so blatant it's
repulsive. And they wonder why they are the continuously shrinking minority
party? Oh yeah, they know why. Everybody that doesn't vote for them is
just too stupid to realize how much smarter they are. A sure fire plan to
political oblivion!

"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:uMoZd.5286$b_6.2229@trnddc01...
> this tactic of name calling is the new republican mantra. i believe that
> lazy thinkers with short attention spans find it nice and simple to box
> ideas in to these little inaccurate sound bites. it certainly has worked
> well for bush at the expense of the country as a whole. bush is once
again
> doing it with social security. bush is trying to make and issue out of a
> non-issue (social security) in an effort to keep the american people eye's
> off the ball. very cleverly he first trying to get people to agree that
> there is a 'crisis' with social security (which there is not) and to label
> opponents of his 'crisis' theory as obstructionists. this obstructionists
> label is simple and comprehensive for the lazy thinkers and lulls them
into
> their comfort zone. if he does manage to build momentum by using this
> tactic it won't be the first time. fortunately this time it seems that it
> is not going too well for him.
>
> his motivation for trying to make social security reform and issue is to
> hide the huge deficit imbalance that he has created with his iraq debacle
> and his tax cuts to the rich by commingling it with the tremendous cost
that
> will come from a conversion to new and unnecessary social security plan.
>
> the end result will be an even larger public debt as bonds will need to be
> sold to finance the conversion to a new social security plan. that's
right,
> another bush don't tax but continue to spend plan. ironically it is
> democrats that the fiscally conservative today.
>
> "Dogface" <DogFace@doghouse.com> wrote in message
> news:l1oZd.2080$nK2.334@fe02.lga...
> > You've clearly lost it, just like the rest of your leftist Democrat
> > whiners.
> > The President has thrown out some ideas and things he'd like to see as
> > guidelines. ONE of them was individual accounts. ONE! The Democrats
> > immediately started whining about "the destruction of social security".
> > They aren't going to talk if private accounts are part of the
discussion.
> > Bascially acting like a bunch of 2 year olds throwing a tandrum in the
> > grocery store aisle. This is the best the Democrats can do. Yet again,
> > spew lies and try to tell everybody the sky is falling and the
Republicans
> > did it. Yet again try to scare older people (absolutely despicable!)
that
> > their checks will stop or be cut.
> >
> > I guess you didn't believe the Democratic god of gods, Bill Clinton,
when
> > he
> > said in the late '90s that social security was in a crisis. Then there
is
> > the two-faced liar, Senate MINORITY mis-Leader Reid who completely flip
> > flops his position on individual accounts from what he said in the '90s.
> > Oh
> > yeah, Bush wasn't President then so now it can be used to try and smear
> > him
> > with lies. Some of these Democrats are absolutely sickening. The
middle
> > of
> > the road guys are blocked out by the leftist nut jobs like Kennedy,
Byrd,
> > Dingel (aptly named!), Waxman, Boxer, etc.
> >
> >
> > "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:m2kZd.4160$GI6.1289@trnddc05...
> >> your are correct that you are unable to explain the presidents plan
> > because
> >> he does not have a plan. he is only trying to get people to agree that
> >> there is a 'crisis' (which there is not) and to label opponents of his
> >> 'crisis' theory as obstructionists.
> >>
> >> it is becoming abundantly clear that his real plan is to blur the huge
> >> deficit imbalance he has created with his iraq debacle and his tax cuts
> >> to
> >> the rich with the cost conversion that will come from a conversion to
an
> >> unnecessary new social security plan.
> >>
> >> bush's own web site offers no details of a 'plan.' bush's web site
> >> simply
> >> tries to promote the idea that there is a crisis and that a solution
must
> > be
> >> found.
> >>
> >> you once again seem to believe something that is not actually a fact
but
> >> some invention of your own imagination.
> >>
> >> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:OY9Zd.52955$uR.28214@fe06.lga...
> >> > It really is shame that you don't know half as much about the
> > President's
> >> > plan as you think you do.
> >> > Then, you might just know enough to properly discuss it.
> >> > Frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to attempt
explaining
> > it
> >> > to someone who knows so little about it that he thinks that "Wall
> >> > Streeters" will make huge profits from it and the individual will be
> > left
> >> > holding the bag..
> >> > And even less inclination to attempt explaining it all to someone
that
> >> > doesn't already know, that over the long haul, stock and bond
> >> > investing
> >> > has out performed just about everything except choice real estate.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Sparky Singer" <Sparky@moon.sun.org> wrote in message
> >> > news:OMtYd.1883$Sy.1588@fe10.lga...
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:48:18 -0800, Irene wrote:
>
> Your trying to explain principles of Economics relative to the National
> Debt to someone who doesn't understand something as simple as how money
> can be made for future Social Security beneficiaries by wisely investing a
> portion of what they pay into the SS system?

I figure if I start with foundation items that he can look-up to dispute
what he's stating from the moveon.org site (or from what he reads in the
newspapers) that he might start learning about taxes, business, ethics,
government, and other important items.



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

 

[Guest]

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

A thief nonetheless... Ben Myers

On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:41:10 MST
>Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:30:45 -0800
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:31167
>
>I think you may have forgotten something. The "raid" actually began with
>LBJ in order to finance his "Great Society". That is when the diversion
>really began. All Reagan did was use it for different purposes than LBJ.
>
>
><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
>news:4236159a.2192727@nntp.charter.net...
>> Okay. The delicious irony here is that Reagan is the thief that all the
>> right-wingers have been raving about. Of course, he had some help from
>> his
>> allies in Congress... Ben Myers
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:40:05 GMT, "dg1261" <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Steve W." <Dugdug56@what.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>> ...(snipped)...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, Steve, you're blaming the wrong person. I used to work as
>>>a
>>>trainer for the Social Security Admin in the 70's and 80's, training the
>>>Service Reps, Data Technicians, and Claims Reps (the people who take the
>>>claims and calculated the benefits), so was very well versed in the topic,
>>>the benefit formulas, and the actuarial statistics.
>>>
>>>The Social Security Trust Fund was off-budget from its inception in 1939
>>>until the early 80's. There was a huge surplus going into it in the 70's
>>>and 80's as the baby-boomers became well established in the work force.
>>>The
>>>surplus was, in fact, being invested. Social Security fund managers and
>>>actuaries fully understood the fund would have to be saved and built up
>>>because they expected a negative cash flow by about 2010-2020, when the
>>>baby-boomers reached retirement age. With proper investing, the actuaries
>>>figured they'd be able to keep the program solvent until something like
>>>2040-2050, as I recall.
>>>
>>>But the fund managers aren't politicians. To finance his huge military
>>>build-up, Reagan hit upon the idea of bringing the fund on-budget, where
>>>the
>>>surplus made his otherwise huge budget deficit look a little better. Once
>>>on-budget, the "raiding" began, with the incoming surplus being
>>>reallocated
>>>to other budget items. Since the Trust Fund is still technically
>>>separate,
>>>at least on paper, whatever was reallocated was replaced with IOUs to the
>>>Trust Fund. Bush-I and Clinton didn't dare call Reagan out on the budget
>>>fakery because it would have been political suicide--too many people
>>>thought
>>>Reagan was God. Besides, the trust fund surplus was making their own
>>>budgets look better, so why rock the boat?
>>>
>>>But now, the situation will soon reverse, with more money soon to be going
>>>out than is coming in. Politicians--regardless of who is in the White
>>>House--would rather see it off-budget again because it will soon begin
>>>making the real budget deficit look worse. Bush-I, Clinton, and Bush-II
>>>haven't done much to fix the problem (and the Bush-II plan is particularly
>>>misleading), but none of them created the problem, either. That was the
>>>work of Reagan.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

 

[dogface]

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

They are ALL thieves! Money is power and that's what they are there for.
That's why it makes absolutely NO sense to give them MORE money. We need to
stop them from stealing what we are already giving them!

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:42363a94.11659681@nntp.charter.net...
> A thief nonetheless... Ben Myers
>
> On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:41:10 MST
> >Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:30:45 -0800
> >Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:31167
> >
> >I think you may have forgotten something. The "raid" actually began with
> >LBJ in order to finance his "Great Society". That is when the diversion
> >really began. All Reagan did was use it for different purposes than LBJ.
> >
> >
> ><ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
> >news:4236159a.2192727@nntp.charter.net...
> >> Okay. The delicious irony here is that Reagan is the thief that all
the
> >> right-wingers have been raving about. Of course, he had some help from
> >> his
> >> allies in Congress... Ben Myers
> >>
> >> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 06:40:05 GMT, "dg1261" <dgREMOVE-THIS1261@cs.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Steve W." <Dugdug56@what.com> wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>> ...(snipped)...
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>Unfortunately, Steve, you're blaming the wrong person. I used to work
as
> >>>a
> >>>trainer for the Social Security Admin in the 70's and 80's, training
the
> >>>Service Reps, Data Technicians, and Claims Reps (the people who take
the
> >>>claims and calculated the benefits), so was very well versed in the
topic,
> >>>the benefit formulas, and the actuarial statistics.
> >>>
> >>>The Social Security Trust Fund was off-budget from its inception in
1939
> >>>until the early 80's. There was a huge surplus going into it in the
70's
> >>>and 80's as the baby-boomers became well established in the work force.
> >>>The
> >>>surplus was, in fact, being invested. Social Security fund managers
and
> >>>actuaries fully understood the fund would have to be saved and built up
> >>>because they expected a negative cash flow by about 2010-2020, when the
> >>>baby-boomers reached retirement age. With proper investing, the
actuaries
> >>>figured they'd be able to keep the program solvent until something like
> >>>2040-2050, as I recall.
> >>>
> >>>But the fund managers aren't politicians. To finance his huge military
> >>>build-up, Reagan hit upon the idea of bringing the fund on-budget,
where
> >>>the
> >>>surplus made his otherwise huge budget deficit look a little better.
Once
> >>>on-budget, the "raiding" began, with the incoming surplus being
> >>>reallocated
> >>>to other budget items. Since the Trust Fund is still technically
> >>>separate,
> >>>at least on paper, whatever was reallocated was replaced with IOUs to
the
> >>>Trust Fund. Bush-I and Clinton didn't dare call Reagan out on the
budget
> >>>fakery because it would have been political suicide--too many people
> >>>thought
> >>>Reagan was God. Besides, the trust fund surplus was making their own
> >>>budgets look better, so why rock the boat?
> >>>
> >>>But now, the situation will soon reverse, with more money soon to be
going
> >>>out than is coming in. Politicians--regardless of who is in the White
> >>>House--would rather see it off-budget again because it will soon begin
> >>>making the real budget deficit look worse. Bush-I, Clinton, and
Bush-II
> >>>haven't done much to fix the problem (and the Bush-II plan is
particularly
> >>>misleading), but none of them created the problem, either. That was
the
> >>>work of Reagan.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

 

[Guest]

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

The arrogance here is so thick I need a chainsaw to cut through it... Ben Myers

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 01:03:25 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:48:18 -0800, Irene wrote:
>>
>> Your trying to explain principles of Economics relative to the National
>> Debt to someone who doesn't understand something as simple as how money
>> can be made for future Social Security beneficiaries by wisely investing a
>> portion of what they pay into the SS system?
>
>I figure if I start with foundation items that he can look-up to dispute
>what he's stating from the moveon.org site (or from what he reads in the
>newspapers) that he might start learning about taxes, business, ethics,
>government, and other important items.
>
>
>
>--
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
>

 

[Guest]

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

doh! and double doh!

to be kind i would say that you two are a couple of revisionist historians.
but to be accurate, you two just created another example of your willingness
to speak like an authority on a subject for which you know little about.

clinton left office with a huge budget surplus. in fact you seem to have
forgotten that bush used the clinton surplus as one of the arguments bush
used to push through his tax cuts on the wealthy.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/clinton/presidency/presidency.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/24/national/main274334.shtml

interesting, while selling the idea of tax cuts back in 2001 bush had this
quoted in the above article:
"Social Security and Medicare will get every dollar they need to meet their
commitments," Mr. Bush said. "And every dollar of Social Security and
Medicare tax revenue will be reserved for Social Security and Medicare."
another lie, or another case of lights on and nobody home? in the course of
four years bus has gone from saying that social security will get every
dollar that it needs to it being in a 'crisis'. which is it?

when you talk about the minimal cost of the iraq war you appear to assign no
value to the american maimed and dead. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/ but it is still over 156 billion and
counting with no end in sight. http://costofwar.com/

and this one will sure to get another irrational rise out of you two:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021405E.shtml

"Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7rqZd.20657$sJ5.16552@fe07.lga...
> Your trying to explain principles of Economics relative to the National
> Debt to someone who doesn't understand something as simple as how money
> can be made for future Social Security beneficiaries by wisely investing a
> portion of what they pay into the SS system?
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news😛an.2005.03.14.23.24.02.526090@nowhere.lan...
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:04:58 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>
>>> his motivation for trying to make social security reform and issue is to
>>> hide the huge deficit imbalance that he has created with his iraq
>>> debacle
>>> and his tax cuts to the rich by commingling it with the tremendous cost
>>> that
>>> will come from a conversion to new and unnecessary social security plan.
>>
>> Sorry Chris, but the national debt was increased to stabilize the economy
>> after so many years of frivolous programs and pork that Clinton created
>> while in office with his cronies.
>>
>> Iraq has not cost much in the way of national debt, it's a small amount.
>>
>> --
>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

As usual you only quote what suit you.

From the same sources"

"Clinton is leaving office just as the economy is slowing down "

Not to mention how you twisted President Bush's comments about using the
Clinton "surplus". The argument was not that he would "use" the Clinton
"surplus" to reduce taxes, but that the taxpayers were owed the tax cuts
because under Clinton, "the taxpayers had been overcharged".

As to the "Truth Out" site, Chris, you really should do a little research
before you become so enamored.with a "group"

I was really amazed when I started researching this one.
The guy behind it is involved with and has written in every far left wing
group you can find. And that includes The Peoples Weekly World. I'll let you
look up the background of that one.

Shame on you.

"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:y2rZd.3215$hA3.2132@trnddc09...
> doh! and double doh!
>
> to be kind i would say that you two are a couple of revisionist
> historians. but to be accurate, you two just created another example of
> your willingness to speak like an authority on a subject for which you
> know little about.
>
> clinton left office with a huge budget surplus. in fact you seem to have
> forgotten that bush used the clinton surplus as one of the arguments bush
> used to push through his tax cuts on the wealthy.
> http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/clinton/presidency/presidency.html
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/24/national/main274334.shtml
>
> interesting, while selling the idea of tax cuts back in 2001 bush had this
> quoted in the above article:
> "Social Security and Medicare will get every dollar they need to meet
> their commitments," Mr. Bush said. "And every dollar of Social Security
> and Medicare tax revenue will be reserved for Social Security and
> Medicare."
> another lie, or another case of lights on and nobody home? in the course
> of four years bus has gone from saying that social security will get every
> dollar that it needs to it being in a 'crisis'. which is it?
>
> when you talk about the minimal cost of the iraq war you appear to assign
> no value to the american maimed and dead.
> http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
> but it is still over 156 billion and counting with no end in sight.
> http://costofwar.com/
>
> and this one will sure to get another irrational rise out of you two:
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021405E.shtml
>
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7rqZd.20657$sJ5.16552@fe07.lga...
>> Your trying to explain principles of Economics relative to the National
>> Debt to someone who doesn't understand something as simple as how money
>> can be made for future Social Security beneficiaries by wisely investing
>> a portion of what they pay into the SS system?
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news😛an.2005.03.14.23.24.02.526090@nowhere.lan...
>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:04:58 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>>
>>>> his motivation for trying to make social security reform and issue is
>>>> to
>>>> hide the huge deficit imbalance that he has created with his iraq
>>>> debacle
>>>> and his tax cuts to the rich by commingling it with the tremendous cost
>>>> that
>>>> will come from a conversion to new and unnecessary social security
>>>> plan.
>>>
>>> Sorry Chris, but the national debt was increased to stabilize the
>>> economy
>>> after so many years of frivolous programs and pork that Clinton created
>>> while in office with his cronies.
>>>
>>> Iraq has not cost much in the way of national debt, it's a small amount.
>>>
>>> --
>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Irene wrote:
> I think you may have forgotten something. The "raid" actually
> began with LBJ in order to finance his "Great Society". That
> is when the diversion really began. All Reagan did was use it
> for different purposes than LBJ.

Let me repeat: the Social Security Trust Fund was not part of the
Federal Budget until the early 1980's. It's hard to raid from a fund
you have no control over. LBJ may have been raiding from elsewhere,
but it wasn't the SS Trust Fund. I didn't just read about this
somewhere, I was there.

 

[Guest]

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

Irene wrote:
> What was JFK's margin of victory?

Kerry lost, sorry to say.

 

[Guest]

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

Dogface wrote:
> They are ALL thieves! Money is power and that's what they are there for.
> That's why it makes absolutely NO sense to give them MORE money. We need to
> stop them from stealing what we are already giving them!

Just for the record, taxes \= theft. Taxes are what we pay for
civilization, which is not to say that govt is always efficient, nor
that some politicians don't steal.

If you truly believe *all* politicna steal, then you should be
criticizing the Bushies as much as the Democrats, shouldn't you?

 

[Guest]

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

thanks again for your reassurances. if you think it is wrong then it must
be right.

"Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ufsZd.55233$6w6.46207@fe06.lga...
> As usual you only quote what suit you.
>
> From the same sources"
>
> "Clinton is leaving office just as the economy is slowing down "
>
> Not to mention how you twisted President Bush's comments about using the
> Clinton "surplus". The argument was not that he would "use" the Clinton
> "surplus" to reduce taxes, but that the taxpayers were owed the tax cuts
> because under Clinton, "the taxpayers had been overcharged".
>
> As to the "Truth Out" site, Chris, you really should do a little research
> before you become so enamored.with a "group"
>
> I was really amazed when I started researching this one.
> The guy behind it is involved with and has written in every far left wing
> group you can find. And that includes The Peoples Weekly World. I'll let
> you look up the background of that one.
>
> Shame on you.
>
> "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:y2rZd.3215$hA3.2132@trnddc09...
>> doh! and double doh!
>>
>> to be kind i would say that you two are a couple of revisionist
>> historians. but to be accurate, you two just created another example of
>> your willingness to speak like an authority on a subject for which you
>> know little about.
>>
>> clinton left office with a huge budget surplus. in fact you seem to have
>> forgotten that bush used the clinton surplus as one of the arguments bush
>> used to push through his tax cuts on the wealthy.
>> http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/clinton/presidency/presidency.html
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/24/national/main274334.shtml
>>
>> interesting, while selling the idea of tax cuts back in 2001 bush had
>> this quoted in the above article:
>> "Social Security and Medicare will get every dollar they need to meet
>> their commitments," Mr. Bush said. "And every dollar of Social Security
>> and Medicare tax revenue will be reserved for Social Security and
>> Medicare."
>> another lie, or another case of lights on and nobody home? in the course
>> of four years bus has gone from saying that social security will get
>> every dollar that it needs to it being in a 'crisis'. which is it?
>>
>> when you talk about the minimal cost of the iraq war you appear to assign
>> no value to the american maimed and dead.
>> http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
>> but it is still over 156 billion and counting with no end in sight.
>> http://costofwar.com/
>>
>> and this one will sure to get another irrational rise out of you two:
>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021405E.shtml
>>
>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7rqZd.20657$sJ5.16552@fe07.lga...
>>> Your trying to explain principles of Economics relative to the National
>>> Debt to someone who doesn't understand something as simple as how
>>> money can be made for future Social Security beneficiaries by wisely
>>> investing a portion of what they pay into the SS system?
>>>
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news😛an.2005.03.14.23.24.02.526090@nowhere.lan...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:04:58 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> his motivation for trying to make social security reform and issue is
>>>>> to
>>>>> hide the huge deficit imbalance that he has created with his iraq
>>>>> debacle
>>>>> and his tax cuts to the rich by commingling it with the tremendous
>>>>> cost that
>>>>> will come from a conversion to new and unnecessary social security
>>>>> plan.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Chris, but the national debt was increased to stabilize the
>>>> economy
>>>> after so many years of frivolous programs and pork that Clinton created
>>>> while in office with his cronies.
>>>>
>>>> Iraq has not cost much in the way of national debt, it's a small
>>>> amount.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Did you look up the background on the Peoples Weekly World? The guy that
runs truthout.org also has written for that site and publication.

Or are you afraid of the truth, or possibly just ashamed?

"Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:9utZd.5353$b_6.1765@trnddc01...
> thanks again for your reassurances. if you think it is wrong then it must
> be right.
>
> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ufsZd.55233$6w6.46207@fe06.lga...
>> As usual you only quote what suit you.
>>
>> From the same sources"
>>
>> "Clinton is leaving office just as the economy is slowing down "
>>
>> Not to mention how you twisted President Bush's comments about using the
>> Clinton "surplus". The argument was not that he would "use" the Clinton
>> "surplus" to reduce taxes, but that the taxpayers were owed the tax
>> cuts because under Clinton, "the taxpayers had been overcharged".
>>
>> As to the "Truth Out" site, Chris, you really should do a little research
>> before you become so enamored.with a "group"
>>
>> I was really amazed when I started researching this one.
>> The guy behind it is involved with and has written in every far left wing
>> group you can find. And that includes The Peoples Weekly World. I'll let
>> you look up the background of that one.
>>
>> Shame on you.
>>
>> "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:y2rZd.3215$hA3.2132@trnddc09...
>>> doh! and double doh!
>>>
>>> to be kind i would say that you two are a couple of revisionist
>>> historians. but to be accurate, you two just created another example of
>>> your willingness to speak like an authority on a subject for which you
>>> know little about.
>>>
>>> clinton left office with a huge budget surplus. in fact you seem to
>>> have forgotten that bush used the clinton surplus as one of the
>>> arguments bush used to push through his tax cuts on the wealthy.
>>> http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/clinton/presidency/presidency.html
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/24/national/main274334.shtml
>>>
>>> interesting, while selling the idea of tax cuts back in 2001 bush had
>>> this quoted in the above article:
>>> "Social Security and Medicare will get every dollar they need to meet
>>> their commitments," Mr. Bush said. "And every dollar of Social Security
>>> and Medicare tax revenue will be reserved for Social Security and
>>> Medicare."
>>> another lie, or another case of lights on and nobody home? in the
>>> course of four years bus has gone from saying that social security will
>>> get every dollar that it needs to it being in a 'crisis'. which is it?
>>>
>>> when you talk about the minimal cost of the iraq war you appear to
>>> assign no value to the american maimed and dead.
>>> http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
>>> http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/ but it is still over 156 billion
>>> and counting with no end in sight. http://costofwar.com/
>>>
>>> and this one will sure to get another irrational rise out of you two:
>>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021405E.shtml
>>>
>>> "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7rqZd.20657$sJ5.16552@fe07.lga...
>>>> Your trying to explain principles of Economics relative to the
>>>> National Debt to someone who doesn't understand something as simple as
>>>> how money can be made for future Social Security beneficiaries by
>>>> wisely investing a portion of what they pay into the SS system?
>>>>
>>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>> news😛an.2005.03.14.23.24.02.526090@nowhere.lan...
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 23:04:58 +0000, Christopher Muto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> his motivation for trying to make social security reform and issue is
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> hide the huge deficit imbalance that he has created with his iraq
>>>>>> debacle
>>>>>> and his tax cuts to the rich by commingling it with the tremendous
>>>>>> cost that
>>>>>> will come from a conversion to new and unnecessary social security
>>>>>> plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry Chris, but the national debt was increased to stabilize the
>>>>> economy
>>>>> after so many years of frivolous programs and pork that Clinton
>>>>> created
>>>>> while in office with his cronies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Iraq has not cost much in the way of national debt, it's a small
>>>>> amount.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[dogface]

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

"Sparky Singer" <Sparky@moon.sun.org> wrote in message
news:aBxZd.22636$q12.10419@fe09.lga...
> Dogface wrote:
> > They are ALL thieves! Money is power and that's what they are there
for.
> > That's why it makes absolutely NO sense to give them MORE money. We
need to
> > stop them from stealing what we are already giving them!
>
> Just for the record, taxes \= theft. Taxes are what we pay for
> civilization, which is not to say that govt is always efficient, nor
> that some politicians don't steal.
>
> If you truly believe *all* politicna steal, then you should be
> criticizing the Bushies as much as the Democrats, shouldn't you?

In the case of the SS Trust Fund *ALL* of them have participated in the
stealing. They have taken money, collected as taxes, which was designated
for peoples' retirement and instead used the money to fund the general
operations of the government. We've already been hit with a $1.5 trillion
theft. The major robbery of over $3 trillion is still to come, IF WE LET
THEM. The total of $4.5 trillion is a stealth tax hike. And it will all
start coming due in 2018 when the SS Ponzi scheme starts collapsing. That's
when there will be no more surplus to steal AND the government has to start
PAYING BACK $4.5 trillion.

Let's see, $200 billion surplus gone plus the cost of paying back the stolen
money... The budget will take an immediate hit to the tune of $250-$300
billion. Think the crooks are going to cut that much spending? Of course
not. Major league tax hikes will nail all of us. The young, and the irony
of it all, the old and retired will have to pay higher taxes on their
retirement income. And this will get worse as more baby boomers retire.

Make no doubt about it. The light in the tunnel is definitely a train and
we have until roughly 2018 to live in the dream they have concocted, then
payback hell kicks in.

 

[Guest]

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

Then your memory is failing.

"dg1261" <dg1261nojunk@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1110881169.828203.268880@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Irene wrote:
>> I think you may have forgotten something. The "raid" actually
>> began with LBJ in order to finance his "Great Society". That
>> is when the diversion really began. All Reagan did was use it
>> for different purposes than LBJ.
>
> Let me repeat: the Social Security Trust Fund was not part of the
> Federal Budget until the early 1980's. It's hard to raid from a fund
> you have no control over. LBJ may have been raiding from elsewhere,
> but it wasn't the SS Trust Fund. I didn't just read about this
> somewhere, I was there.
>

 

[Guest]

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

A. If you read my post, I didn't say it was part of the "Federal Budget"
prior to 1980.

I said LBJ found a way to "raid" it to finance part of his "Great Society"
and that is true. It appears we are quibbling over the word "raid". Think
back to the legislation that was passed by LBJ.


"dg1261" <dg1261nojunk@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1110881169.828203.268880@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Irene wrote:
>> I think you may have forgotten something. The "raid" actually
>> began with LBJ in order to finance his "Great Society". That
>> is when the diversion really began. All Reagan did was use it
>> for different purposes than LBJ.
>
> Let me repeat: the Social Security Trust Fund was not part of the
> Federal Budget until the early 1980's. It's hard to raid from a fund
> you have no control over. LBJ may have been raiding from elsewhere,
> but it wasn't the SS Trust Fund. I didn't just read about this
> somewhere, I was there.
>

 

[Guest]

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

Can you go a little heavier on the insults? ... Ben Myers

On , "Irene" <girlsrule@hotmail.com> wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:38:01 MST
>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:37:58 -0800
>Xref: Hurricane-Charley alt.sys.pc-clone.dell:31244
>
>Then your memory is failing.
>
>"dg1261" <dg1261nojunk@cs.com> wrote in message
>news:1110881169.828203.268880@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Irene wrote:
>>> I think you may have forgotten something. The "raid" actually
>>> began with LBJ in order to finance his "Great Society". That
>>> is when the diversion really began. All Reagan did was use it
>>> for different purposes than LBJ.
>>
>> Let me repeat: the Social Security Trust Fund was not part of the
>> Federal Budget until the early 1980's. It's hard to raid from a fund
>> you have no control over. LBJ may have been raiding from elsewhere,
>> but it wasn't the SS Trust Fund. I didn't just read about this
>> somewhere, I was there.
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

Irene wrote:
> It really is shame that you don't know half as much about the President's
> plan as you think you do.
> Then, you might just know enough to properly discuss it.
> Frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to attempt explaining it
> to someone who knows so little about it that he thinks that "Wall Streeters"
> will make huge profits from it and the individual will be left holding the
> bag..

So are the Wall Street firms going to maintain these accounts pro bono?
I don't think so and the fees to maintain private accounts in other
countries have been expensive indeed.

> And even less inclination to attempt explaining it all to someone that
> doesn't already know, that over the long haul, stock and bond investing has
> out performed just about everything except choice real estate.

In spite of your snotty, condescending tone, I'll reply in a civilized
manner. You're not saying anything here that I'm not already aware of
and have mentioned in various posts. You seem inclined to ignore the
issue of safety of principal in SS accounts. You're welcome to assume as
much risk as you're comfortable with in your IRA, 401k and/or investment
account. Greater returns bring greater risks, so just how much risk is
acceptable for SS funds? As I've said before and will say just this one
time more, SS was designed as a safety net and IMHO a conservative
approach to investing those funds, i.e., conservation of principal, is
entirely appropriate.

 

[Guest]

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

Christopher Muto wrote:
> your are correct that you are unable to explain the presidents plan because
> he does not have a plan. he is only trying to get people to agree that
> there is a 'crisis' (which there is not) and to label opponents of his
> 'crisis' theory as obstructionists.

Excellent point, Chris. The Boy King has no real plan, but Irene is
certain of what his plan is - people like this are generally put on
anti-psychotic meds.