7 and a half more years of George W. Bush?

[WriterDom]

7 and a half more years of George W. Bush?

I'm more comfortable with a republican congress writing the checks, and a democrat president vetoing 75% of them. I do see some sweet irony if W wins another term, and the liberals are stuck with a bumbling pebble in their shoe for 8 long years.

I think you are missing the boat with the environmental issue push. The "sky is falling" whispers from the extreme left of your party based on quasi science isn't going to play as well as you think. Especially not with big labor, who is itching to get to work in the pristine wasteland of Alaska. Already there are signs the new democrats are moving to the center. But the closer you move right, the more room you leave for the green party in 2004. It's hard to fight a war on two fronts. It's even harder to count on 70% of black turnout voting 90% democrat when they see Bush isn't the demon they were lead believe.

 

[p_p_man]

Oh goody...

...that gives me 7 1/2 years more of staying registered with Lit!

By the way W_D who're you talking to?

 

[WriterDom]

Re: Oh goody...

...that gives me 7 1/2 years more of staying registered with Lit!

By the way W_D who're you talking to?

Just rambling.

And what makes you think Ashcroft and the election stealing supreme joke wont pull the plug on Lit?

Laurel could move to London, but we know how you feel about immigration.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Oh goody...

Laurel could move to London, but we know how you feel about immigration.

Hmm, yeah tricky one. But we could always pass a quick Act of Parliament to make her and Manu temprorary UK citizens with dual nationality. Then they wouldn't be immigrants.

We did it once before with a South African runner called Zola Budd. Her nationality change was rushed through Parliament in double quick time (almost at the speed of light) so that she could run for Britain in the Olympics.

I can't remember the year but it was the time when she had the big (media built) rivalry with Mary Decker(?) of the USA.

The outcome of who was the fastest was never resolved because they clashed on a turn and Mary Decker took a bad tumble from which she never recovered.

Not that I'm suggesting that Laurel or Manu should start training now but....

 

[shadowsource]

Gloating, W-D...

Yeah, the environmental thing was a snag in the House, but that's also Hastert whipping Gephardt (big surprise, there) with a present majority and a President holding the goodies. Labor always wants to cut down the last tree to keep one more job for one more day....

I do love your bumbling shoe-pebble metaphor. That's what it feels on most days, when he's lying low, since Jeffords/Daschle. But the latter happened specifically because of the energy plan. Jeffords is chairing a committee that will NEVER give the coal companies those billions in subsidies, and I don't expect to see drilling in Alaska either.

If the Dems nominate someone with a brain, 2004 will see a race on this question: Do the boomers (and their parents) prefer to get their social security payments, intact and on time, or would they rather confirm and pay out Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? Barring a GOP trick like Bush I's flag-saluting, paroled-felon hammering of Dukakis, the numbers say that Bush and his tax cut will drown in shit. I want my SS money when the time comes!

3 1/2 more years!

 

[miles]

Da shadow still doesn't know

Do the boomers (and their parents) prefer to get their social security payments, intact and on time, or would they rather confirm and pay out Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?

I gotta admit, the Democrats have done one hell of a job.

It's called the Big Lie - say it loud enough and often enough and people believe it without bothering to look at the facts. They just listen to the rhetoric and re-elect the same liars over and over again. But then again liberals hate facts and logic. They aren't
"fair".

These are IRS statistics - not mine. Remember this is for 1993 - before I feel your pain Clinton raised taxes again.

In 1993 the taxpayers earning the top 1% were paying 29% of all taxes desppite earning only 14% of ALL income nationwide.

The top 10% paid 59% of the income taxes but earnined only 39% of the income. The top 50% paid 95% of the taxes, earning 85% of the income.

The bottom 50%? Earning only 15% of the income but paying just 4.8% of the income taxes.

THE BOTTOM 50% OF WAGE EARNERS PAID 4.8% OF ALL THE TAXES.

THE TOP 10% PAID 59% OF ALL TAXES

THE TOP 1% PAID 29% OF ALL TAXES

No shit the "wealthy" are getting a tax break - they are paying the fucking taxes!!!!

Let's use your logic another way.

You own a business and have two salesmen, and one accounted for 75% of all company sales. Profits have doubled because of his hard work. They both get a base salary plus commission, and naturally the better salesman made more money over the course of the year. The lesser of the two salesmen is pissed off because the other guy made so much more money, and you feel pretty bad about it. To make things "fair" you deduct $10,000 from the productive salesman's year end bonus and give it to the other guy. After all, he has plenty of money - why not share it?

 

[shadowsource]

But Miles (love that av):

You're ignoring my question, and it's a very serious one, a TACTICAL one: The 2004 election, if properly framed by the Dems, will be about Social Security, the compact. Do you really think that Bush will get away with postponing our retirement ages, reducing our COLA's, and raising SS taxes so as to have his tax cuts confirmed?

I cannot believe Bush and his pals loaded THAT gun and stuck it to their head. But ANYONE who wants his or her SS payment, full and on time, will have to oppose those tax cuts. They must have thought that the wealthy would just shower them in contributions, but the rest of us are going to drown you in votes against those tax cuts. Anyone whose accountant believes those cuts will happen should get a new accountant - and a new President.

 

[miles]

shadow

I'm not adressing your question in the first post. You didn't ask one.


There is no way in hell Bush or anyone from either party is going to lower benefits - period. It's political suicide. Any politician who has the balls to even discuss privatizing SS is silenced simply by Liberals naming them as cold, hearltess and mean.

It's my guess you are in your twenties and haven't paid that much into the system yet. When you are 40 or 50 and realize how much money the government took and what that money would be worth now if you had been free to invest it yourself, you will be a very unhappy camper.

We cannot continue to turn to the government to meet our personal needs. Social Security is a complete disaster. As long as it exists. SS taxes will continue to increase. When will it stop?

My question isn't about COLA, more taxes, or benefits. It's about letting people use their money to make their own personal financial decisions. Liberals will never allow that, because in order for them to get re-elected they must have voters who depend on the government. It's a vote-buying scam.

Just remember:

He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on Paul's vote.

 

[WriterDom]

If the democrats continue to be the party of "scare the old people" they deserve what they get.

 

[shadowsource]

Dudes -

I'm old enough and smart enough to be concerned about these things, don't worry. My SS money is meant to deliver x dollars per month when I turn 65. Using that troll ho ex-senator of mine, Pat Moynihan, Bush intends to 1) delay my SS for at least 2 years 2) cut the COLAs by some measure 3) raise the taxes. This is what everyone will realize soon enough. And then the little fucker is toast, as are his precious tax cuts.

Privatization is a dumb-ass game. The stock market FELL A LOT FOR 12 YEARS between 1970 and 1982. there's a lot of old folks today who'd have been really screwed if they'd been invested in index funds during that time. And I know what I'm talking about - I've worked Wall Street...,

 

[miles]

shadowsource

Please show me how the market "dropped a lot" between 70 - 82!! You can't be serious. Are you saying I'd get a better long term return on Social Security than the stock market... because it's safer? SS provides ZERO return.

Privatization is a dumb-ass game.

A classic Liberal statement! Americans are too stupid to save money, too stupid to invest, too stupid to understand IRA's, stocks, etc. We need Big Brother to steal our earnings for 40 years then pay us $2000 a month when we retire. Only the wonderful federal government can manage our money for us.
We can't do it ourselves.


I don't know how old your IRA's are, but the value of mine have more than doubled in 12 years even after the latest glitch. These are long term investments. Anyone who "worked Wall St." should know that.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Gloating, W-D...

Originally posted by shadowsource
Barring a GOP trick like Bush I's flag-saluting, paroled-felon hammering of Dukakis, the numbers say that Bush and his tax cut will drown in shit.

Can't you at least be honest and give credit where credit is due? It was the Gore campaign against Dukakis that made Willie Horton a household name.

And, BTW, Horton was NOT paroled, he was a convicted murderer permitted weekend furloughs.

Originally posted by miles
We cannot continue to turn to the government to meet our personal needs. Social Security is a complete disaster. As long as it exists. SS taxes will continue to increase. When will it stop?

Not merely a disaster, a fraud from the outset. If a private citizen/company designed such a system, they would be in jail for operating a "Pyramid Scheme" con game. That's what the Democrats have operated for about 60 years (with Republican assistance) as their private slush fund and they will fight to the death rather than relinquish their stranglehold on the earnings and property of American citizens.

It was an illegitimate program foist on the American people by a communist/socialist asshole who had a Congress that was either afraid or incompetent to stop him from establishing an unconstitutional government agency.

 

[shadowsource]

christ -

The Dow Jones was down (not even accounting for inflation, which was grievous at the time) from 1970 until August, 1982, when it began a long and steep rise, soon passing the 1970 DJ level. OK? It's my turn to ask how old you people are! That;s why I'm in cash - no one remembers a damned thing about how markets really work: They go up and they go down - and the winners figure out where they're going first.

 

[WriterDom]

http://pssst-heyu.com/dowjoneshistory.html


You can find 10 year periods where the market went flat, but can you really make that argument over a 45 year working lifetime? And if someone was invested heavily in the market for 35 years, wouldn't it make sense to shift some of those assets to safer investments as retirement years approach?

I'd like to see some effort to reform SS rather than to keep sticking fingers in the leaking dike. (no offense, Ms. Reno) I read somewhere that in the UK you can opt out of their equivalent SS system into a private one.

 

[miles]

WriterDom

This is the bottom line:

Politicians have succeeded in convincing the American people they are incapable of managing their lives without the help of the government. Guess what - they are incapable.

The majority of Americans have traded their freedom for security. They are too lazy to plan their financial future - let the government take care of it.

As healthcare costs continue to rise because of government interference, Americans will turn to the government to fix what they screwed up to begin with.

People have confused rights with responsibility. No one has a "right" to health insurance any more than they do car insurance.
No one has a "right" to a comfortable retirement.

It's no wonder almost half of all eligible voters don't go to the polls. They might have to think and make a decision.

 

[shadowsource]

You're trying to feed off the masses -

No, many people aren't all that capable. Let's see how they fare in a down market. The mark fo a good investor is the ability to make money in a flat, or shrinking market. No one who's made money is the last 10 years has much claim to that: A rising tide lifts all boats. Emotional inertia on the part of youth and idiocy is keeping this market too high.

SS has worked just fine and kept millions out of the poorhouse (as if they were one to retreat to - that's how well it's worked). I count on it. You wanna see trouble? Take that fucking money out of my account and give it to some putz that's alrady inheriting a wad anyway! Bush will be crushed over this, as he well deserves.

 

[miles]

No, many people aren't all that capable. Let's see how they fare in a down market

There you have it.

The classic, condescending those people are too ignorant to do it themselves.

Damn, that sure sounds like prejudice to me.

prej·u·dice (prj-ds)
n.

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

[shadowsource]

yes, that's the divide

We absolutely disagree on whether society has a fundamental interest in helping people stay out of trouble. I understand that many homeless people made mistakes, and it annoys me often enough, but I believe that they're human and need at least a modicum of assistance. And the tidal wave of fraud that would greet newly enfranchised SS "investors" would make your average morning of sicko, rip-off spam look like Shakespeare (especially the spelling).

No is it just a problem of bottom feeders. Prudential is busted every several years for ripping off vast numbers of old folks; so is Metropolitan Life. Their victims thought they knew what they were doing, but very few ever get compensated, unless they deploy those trial lawyers you want to eliminate. Society has an interest in seeing to it that everyone has a roof and a plate.

I understand that you disagree. Just don't act as if you've caught me out. This is the old divide between FDR and the antedivuvian Republicans who opposed everything.

 

[lavender]

 

[miles]

shadow

We agree to disagree.

But what the hell does antedivuvian mean?

And I'm not a Republican!

 

[miles]

lavender

Not fighting. Discussing.

Fighting is violent. I hate violence, especially when it's inflicted on me.

Are you sure there's no way to turn that avatar around? I'm a sucker for plaid.

 

[shadowsource]

hey Miles

I just insulted you on another thread!

It means before the war. That was sort of a pun on my part, as it originated long before WW II. It means old-fashioned.

I know you're not a Republican, and I sure do appreciate that. But you're articulating the original, bedrock position of those Republicans who opposed the New Deal. So no insult there - the comparison was apt.

 

[shadowsource]

Yessss!

Tell Lavender you'll support the New Deal if she turns around!

 

[miles]

shadowsource

...and you're perpetuating the depression-era cradle-to-grave philosophy of the 1930's.

Final word on the subject:

Liberalism doesn't work. It hasn't yet and never will.

On that note, let's go to a titty bar tonight!

 

[Unclebill]

Re: You're trying to feed off the masses -

Originally posted by shadowsource
SS has worked just fine and kept millions out of the poorhouse (as if they were one to retreat to - that's how well it's worked). I count on it. You wanna see trouble? Take that fucking money out of my account and give it to some putz that's alrady inheriting a wad anyway! Bush will be crushed over this, as he well deserves.

You need to define your context for success. SS has worked fine if its purpose is a slush fund for Democrats to use as the source for their ever increasing Socialistic spending programs. If it is to provide retirement for aging America citizens, it is an abysmal failure. Anyone who tries to live on social security is going to live in poverty (the poorhouse) if that is all they have.

And, BTW, the solution to your the average American not having the smarts to do the investments required condescending attitude has two possible solutions. One is to let those who can't/won't do it themselves use an investment advisor/manager service. The other (and thus far demonstrated to be the certainly disastrous choice) is to leave it for government to do it.

The fact that it is outside the constitutional provision of the Federal government apparently doesn't bother anyone nor does the fact that government consistently lies, misuses, abuses and mismanages every program of this nature in which it becomes involved.

Get a grip. You don't have an account. Nor do I nor does anyone else. You have no entitlement to any of the money the government has confiscated from you except by the largess of your Left/Liberal/Democrat politicians. And there is no trust fund. The Democrats merged that with the general fund in the 1960's so they could get their hands on the money that did exist in the trust fund at that time. And as is typical, they squandered it promptly exacerbating the problem resulting in the crisis they demagogue today.

For a contrast, look at a program set up by the local government in Galveston, TX, a few years ago and comparing the returns of the two programs.

http://www.cse.org/local/tx/892.html