BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush

Subject: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 02 - 10:39 PM

Bad day at the office (ahhhhhh, Bobert, since when did Junior spend a day sitting in some dumb office?...) for Junior. I caught CBS's "Sixty Minutes", which I guess was feeling guilty fir being one of Junior's lacky networks and they, in essence, called Junior a "LIAR"! Hey like what is new here, guys? How about pickin' up the missing 4 days on the NRA nut who attempts to murder a motorist before his arrest when his identity was know, ahhhh, four days earlier?

So CBS comes out and takes apart all of Junior's lies... ahhhh, well, maybe not all his since many are taxpayer PR bought lies... about the huff 'n puff in Junior's *SELLING* of *HIS WAR*. One lie after another but, hey, the average guy on the street only belives the lie! Hmmmmmmmm, #317!

Oh, the second setback. Junior and the boyz spent $10M dollars and made appearances and all in Lusinana supportin' Suzanne Terrell for the US Senate. Problem was that more folks in La. that think that elections ain't 'sposed to be won with bucks!

Bad day, indeed, fir Junior. Here's wishin him lots more...

Hope he stays away from the pretzels tonight... (Wink, wink...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Sorcha
Date: 08 Dec 02 - 11:21 PM

Never mind what I have to say...... the feebies would probably be on my ass in a minute............hope this keeps up.

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 08 Dec 02 - 11:30 PM

I am delighted sonmeone is finallyreaching out and calling the man on his bullshit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Dec 02 - 11:36 PM

It's worth remembering that Daddy went from the top to the bottom after the gulf war and that perhaps Junior did not learn from those mistakes.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 08:55 AM

Yeah, Spawzer, that will eventually happen but I'm not sure in time to get his regime out before '08 but ya' never know. Daddy just kicked back and put his feet up on the Oval Office desk after the Gulf War. Junior is trying a different tack. Rather than come up with a better economic policy he's just hired *louder* salesmen for the dumb-butt policy of allowing his buddies to raid the Treasury Department.... Hmmmmmmm? Since when did stealing become an *economic policy*?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 09:42 AM

King George I's demise at the polls in 1992 to Billary wasn't soon enough. Estimates state that Gulf War I, brought to you, in part, by men named Dick and Colin (pronounced "colon"), killed 100,000 Iraqis - 15,000 of whom were civilians (and these are low-end estimates). In the newer, more lethal, managed-media sequel, Dan Rather, wearing his desert-camouflage jacket (to affect a butch demeanor), will travel to some Middle Eastern capital to safely do a remote play-by-play for all the video war-game junkies back in the Homeland. In this new Bushageddon, upwards of a quarter million Iraqis will die, the vast majority being civilians (again, low-end estimates). One can only wonder, though, if Baghdad will be to Bush II what Stalingrad was to Hitler . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 09:42 AM

The message from the Louisiana Senate seat boils down to Louisianans not wanting to vote in another Bush "rubber stamp"
automaton as "their" senator. I guess the most poigniant embarassment for the Bushites comes from the rebuffing of their hopelessly ham-handed "overplaying" of their mid-term win in their P.R. machinary onslaught to gain a little extra yardage more just to show off their "new mandate" a little more.

Considering the economic blow-back from this Iraq "regime change" gamble with new deficits as far as the eye can see, and will make Daddy bush's deficit largesse look "good" , whatever happens will be happening on the Republican's One Party Gov't's watch.
They well know that it was a slumping economy that sank Pappa Bush's 90+ approval rating and his deficits that allowed a solid Texas Republican Businessman, Ross Perot ,to steal 10% of the vote the lionshare of which came from Republicans mad at Bush for the tax hike that wsas "necessasry to start be3gining to get fiscally responsible and atleast start to pay down Reagan's htper-ratcheted *2 Trillion$ End of Cold War Debt*.

With the Repubs owning both the Pres' Office of Management & Budget AND the Congressional Budget Office , who will ever be able to trust the "voodoo" accounting numbers that the Bushites will try an "sell us".....again! ;-)

I'm on on full Watch Yer Wallets Watch now as a new wave of "Enronomics" goes federal.
Hey ,former Gov. of Texas Dubya had ol' "Kenny Boy" as his teacher/contributor. We're about to see how well the Federal books can really get cooked now.....*Texas-style* ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 10:46 AM

SOunds like a pretty Chilling Cook Off, there T. What happened to that balanced budget we were so proud of only a few short years ago under that William Jefferson character?

A

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 11:20 AM

Good question, Amos. The fact is - and this isn't just liberal paranoia - but the right-wingers, who favor supply-side economics, have long lusted after the demise of social security. They, rightly or wrongly, long for the pre-Roosevelt days (FDR, that is, but maybe Teddy, as well): that time before the Federally funded social security safety net for the elderly and the disabled. They want such a safety net to be totally - not partially, but totally - privatized. Bush's double-speak about allowing younger folks the option to place part of their earnings into the stock market, mutual funds, etc., etc., is just the first step to weaning all of us off the Federal teat. Their long-range goal, in destroying the surplus through tax cuts and rebates, is to bankrupt social security, so that by the time that the baby boomers reach full retirement age, there will be no more money in the till left for them (us). Thus, we will be forced to be responsible for our own retirement funds.
   Where does this all come from? Conservative think tanks, and their moral majority allies and supporters. They publicly stated after the Supreme Court crowned George II, that the work started by Reagan - the eventual privatization of social security - would be accomplished by God's candidate . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Troll
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 12:24 PM

The whole idea behind Social Security in the first place was that it was to be a suppliment to the retirees own savings plan. It was never intended to be the savings plan. I see nothing wrong with being responsible for ones own retirement funds and,quite frankly, if I hadn't been forced to pay into Social Security< I wouldn't have.
Hell, I could have put the money in a passbook acount and gotten a better rate of return, not to mention that, if I kick off before my wife, or vice versa, she will get only a fraction of what I paid in.
That's right folks. She is NOTentitled to the full amount. Some great retirement deal!
The reason that the System is broke is that it has been raided by every administration since it started to pay for every entitlement imaginable. No wonder they don't want to privatize even a fraction of it. It's the biggest cash cow in the Federal Government and neither side wants it dead.
They couldn't use the money to buy votes then.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 12:48 PM

My problem isn't so much with the concept of the privatization of Social Security, but in the dishonesty in which Bush, Reagan and the supply-siders have gone about doing it. Even Eisenhower and Nixon, dyed-in-the-wool Republicans, never dreamt of repealing the arguably most successful aspect of the Roosevelt experiment, with all its problems. But Reagan began the great economic counter-revolution in 1981. Instead of honestly reforming the safety net towards a more efficient, liquid and privatized program, Reagan, and those who followed him, bankrupted it. Yes, the Democrats raided it, as a carrot to the electorate, but Reagan and the Bush clones have/are bankrupting it on huge military expenditures and tax rebates.
   Well, concerning the people who voted for Bush in 2000 - for the $300 rebate - we all know now how much their vote was worth.
   Even David Stockman was annoyed at his icon, Ronald Wilson Reagan, when he betrayed, in Stockman's mind, the supply-side revolution: Reagan began the gutting of domestic social programs, to cut costs, but in turn, ran the budget deficit to the moon by outspending the Soviet Union in an arms race that it couldn't possibly match. Won the Cold War? Good, that'll make me feel so much better when I'll be a slave to the Wal-Mart economy in the year AD 2030 . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 01:03 PM

(quote)
"The reason that the System is broke is that it has been raided by every administration since it started to pay for every entitlement imaginable."

Sorry, there , Troll but you be grossly *misinformed".
Social Security has been "self-paying solvent". It began to get raided as the Fed's personal "honey pot" during the Reagan "Deficit Spending Orgy". It was the Reagan Admin that "raised" the SS payroll tax ( thus on the wage-earner ) to provide "hidden funds" to try and offset the "revenue shortfalls" from the up-front "Supply-side" tax cut of which the lionshare went to the top 5% whom then turned right around and had extra investment capital to first lend those tax savings right back to the Fed in thre form of T-Notes and double digit interest rates when note investing in "military contractor stocks".

Bottomline: Both investments wound up on the backs of the wage-earner tax payers. The Reagan/Bush *bailouts* of private sector miscreants , some call it "corproate welfare" as the half $trillion$ "Savings & Loan" was the crown jewel ,didn't help any.

So let's get our fiscal-historical facts straight ,shall we please.
Oh, and people living longer nowadays get far *more* than they *ever* paid in to the Soc.Sec. fund and had it all been invested in the Stock Market , as was all the rage in the 90's , you'd have wiped out many more $trillion$ of retirement capital than the 6 $trillion$ that has already been wiped clean in 401-k's and not already "bilked" corporate pension plans.

(quote)
"No wonder they don't want to privatize even a fraction of it."

Well "they" refers to all Repubs now and the more they cut taxes the less revenue which can only translate into *Deficit Spending Spree" which means hitting the old "Social Security" honey-pot yet again until it is ALL IOU's and with the new nasty surprise of 6% "unemployment on top of ever lowering of well-paying jobs to "pay into" and replenish that fund "privatization" of IOU's kind of makes the whole "privatization" plan abyssmally moot.

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 01:57 PM

Hey, Taliesn! How about joining us! We need you expertise in economic matters!

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 02:24 PM

Telephone conversation between Junior and Senior:

JUNIOR: Well, dad. what do you think I should do about Social Security?

SENIOR: How many thies do we have to go over this. Bleed the damned thing dry. *Our* people haven't like it since that commie Rossevelt got it on the books.

JR: Yeah, I forgot. How about education?

SR: Well, bleed it, too, son. Get that voucher program cranked up. Hey, no one but *our kind* will be able to use 'em.

JR: Yeah, good idea, dad. How about social programs?

SR: Well funny you should as. Your Uncle Jerry and I were just talking about that and I think we can give that money to a few of Uncle Jerry's friend that got churches and let them run 'em.

JR: Dad, you're so smart. So what about the economy?

SR: Well, son, you're doing real well with that one now. Just don't let them commie Democrats mess with THE PLAN, and they'' be plenty of cash for us and out friends.

JR: Well, dad, after what you've said I gotta ask about Rumsfield. He wants more money than I can give him>

SR: Give him what he wants plus 10%, son, so you won't have him waking you up at night bugging you for more money. Hey, you remember what your Uncle Ronnie did don't ya. He just said "Charge it." It always works, son, and don't worry about the bills. You won't be around when they come due.

JR: Thanks, dad, I'll get with to work on this stuff.

SR: Good night, son. And keep away from them pretzels. Hahahaha.

JR: Hahahahaha. God night, dad.


As overheard by Bobert...

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 03:05 PM

Mr. Bobert, sir, with all due respect. If you overheard that conversation, it's likely that you were, where you weren't supposed to be, and you know what that means: Tom Ridge, and the jackboots, I mean patriots, at the Office of Fatherland, I mean Homeland, Secrecy, I mean Security, will be after you . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 03:06 PM

The stock market sure is giving a real endorsement of the new guys aren't they...........Is it just possible that people are starting to wake up?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 03:26 PM

I sure hope so, Spaw...in the meantime we have the Bush White House sending out ONE MILLION Christmas cards (that's $370,000 for postage alone, nevermind how much Hallmark charged to replicate the original oil painting on the printed cards,) Bible verse and all, paid for by the RNC and a new Senate majority leader praising Thurmond's racist record, esp. in reference to when he proudly ran as a segregationist for president in 1948: Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.

Incredible...

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 03:40 PM

Well, danged, Go Jari. Must be one of them techincal communications problems. Er maybe a party line. Heck if I know> I just picked up the phone to call home and these two guys were just having a good old time. Well, a lot better time than the poor ol' 6% of the working force that is unemployed, or the other 94% get a pay check, if you want to call it that, that is signed "Boss Hog".

Hey, Kat, ya' think I'll get me one of them Chistmas cards?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 03:59 PM

I missed the Christmas card thing. What's that all about? It's not that I expect one, though: I'd get one from Fidel Castro long before I'd find one in my RR1 mailbox from my neighbor, or his son -(oops, I'm giving away my location in Maine).
   That reminds me: at one time, George the First had pretensions of workingclassdom. Back a long time ago, my mother was in the laundromat in Kennebunkport, and who was sitting next to her, waiting for the spin cycle? You got it, George the Elder. This was before Junior's joyride down Ocean Avenue in Kennebunkport, cocaine and beer streaming out of his nose and mouth, in various states of regurgitation. Anyway, the servants must have had the day off . . .

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: maldenny
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 06:06 PM

Info please, from this Bush-based thread.

What does the "W" stand for? May win me a pub quiz sometime.

Mal

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 06:12 PM

Well, if he is the 'pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity', it goes without saying that 'W' stands for 'Wart on the log of history'.

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: KarlMarx
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 06:12 PM

Walker

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: maldenny
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 06:17 PM

Thanks - but I'll never know if you're taking the proverbial!

Mal

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 09:12 PM

*Sigh*

So we lost (not really never had)a senate seat. The Republicans control it. So we lost a seat in the House. The Republicans still control it.

I am under the impression that SS has been raided by every administration since it was established in the 1930's. And all the talk about the SS surplus is pure horse pucky. There never HAS been a SS surplus.

Anyone who doesn't think they would have been better off having their social security funds invested in a good Mutual Fund during any ten year period (including the next ten)rather than investing it in SS, simply does not accept history.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Dec 02 - 09:41 PM

Ahhhh, which of you two wrote the above post DougR. Was it you or was it DougR. Nevermind, just playin with you.

But what I'm not playing with is the folks who will take every and any opportunity to solve problems within programs that are to the benefit od evry American by attaching leeches to the programs. I thought they learned that lesson a long time ago.

Wanta fix something? Kill it! Hmmmmmmm? Some kind of FIX ya got there, Mister. So lets look at your idea, Doug. First of all, lets make an assumption that most Americans are not in your position. Most Americans are over-worked, underpaid, scambling every month to keep *most* of the bills paid, have income-to-debt ratios unheard of during your days in the workforce, are being bombarded to have kids, have SUV's, have, have, have and they're on the brink of insanity juggling soccer, PTA meetings because both parents HAVE to work. They fibnally settle down around time to pass out from this crazy day and sleep 6 hours before getting up and doing it again, and again, and again.

Oh, you don't think it's like that? Think again, my friend. Now you expect and want them to go oput and study stock trends and mutual funds if they are going to have any chance of getting any thing when they reitre. So they do what anyone would do who is too buzy. They ask someone who they *thinK* knows anything and then an Enron happens or a Worldcom happens and now you have a few million folks who thought they were doing the *right thing* who will now have to work at Boss Hog's widget palnt until they die...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the upper 5% are sitting around the pool sippin' their mint juilips, lookin real smug and boasting how well they are doing since good old G.W.B, Jr. alowed them to fleece the system....

Taht's my tale on it for starters, Doug. If you want to get into the details of the scheme to keep the *working man* on Boss Hog's assmebly lines until they die you just keep asking the questions and we'll walk you rigth thru the scam... which it very much IS!

But I still love ya, Dougie, even if you are a knucklehead...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 02:14 AM

While the upper 5% are sipping mint juleps by the pool, Bobert, they are paying by far the majority of income tax in the country. At least 80-90%. The folks you are bleeding for, in most instances, pay little or no tax at all. Get real, Bobert. I do believe you have been affected by the coal dust in the West Virginia air. There must be some explanation for it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 12:07 PM

DougR --

THe problem is not the absolute amount, but the proportion. I think it would be enlightening to get a really honest tabulation of both dimensions -- income level percentage going to Federal taxes, and percentage of Federal tax revenue from income levels.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 02:22 PM

Well, fir starters, the SS payroll tax is very regressive in that it is only collected on about the first $82,000 (give or take a couple grand). So it is very mmuch a system that is financed by the working class.

And where is it written that folks whose families have profited from the labors of other *deserve* squat. We have an entire class of folks who, like George Bush for example, have never had to work yet they feel *entitled* to control the wealth. Why? Because they born? Give me a break. Bottom line, they still hold 95% of the wealth and cry like crybabies if the working man gets anything.

Meanwhile, the working class is slipping backward with poorer schools, poorer health care, more debt, longer hours, less of real opportunity to ever be able to retire, unprecidented bankruptcy numbers and porportions and a *ruling class* that talks *tricke down* and *supple side* as they stumble over each other in the BIG BUSH CASH GRAB....

More later, I'm sure. Gotta *work*.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 04:08 PM

Bobert. Please. See a doctor! I'm confident you can be helped if you put your mind ...er ...seek counseling. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 04:11 PM

Oh, Doug, don't be condescending!! You're talking to someone who is smarter than you are!!

:>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 04:48 PM

Now, Amos... Whereas you may have hit upon something here, that weren't nice at all to say about my pal, Doug, 'cause me and my Wes Ginny slide rule figured my I.Q. to be in the mid 80's with a strong tail wind and well.... if that were true.... you know...ahhh, about Doug, then that would not bode well fir ol' Doug. He just likes to mess with me but I don't take it personally at all. Ya' see, A-ster, when I get making too much sense, then he just tells me to take meds or see a doctor? Hmmmmmmmmm? So I reckon he doesn't really have too much to say in defense of the R.C. (Ruling class0 on this issue of Social Security.

Funny thing is, that the R.C. has hated it ever since FDR and they have passed down the hatred to their kids and those kids to their kids but not mnasy of 'em can actually say why the hate it because there ain't no bumper stickers explainin' Boss Hog's hatred.

BUT, make no bones about it. They may not have a clue why, BUT they just hate Social Security.

Now, Amos, say yir sorry to Doug..... pleeeeezzzzee. Hey, it can even be one of those half-poligies like.... "Doug, I'm sorry if I hurt yir feelings..." You'll feel better, Amos, and so will Doug, and me and probably all God's chil'enz...

And Doug, the SS ain't like a retirement plan. Heck, I've worked more days in my 55 years than most folks will work in a life time and according to the SSA if I retire at age 62 I can expect to get a whopping $702 a month or if I wait until I'm 65, $1010 a month. Well, my health insurance is now $782 a month and when ya' figure in the deductible and stuff that is not covered I'm spending $1000 a month and I'm in purdy good health. Well, Doug, you do the math. And I am probably a representative sample of the working class that Boss Hog thinks is gettin' away with something here...

Give my boney Wes Ginny butt a break and...

Beam me up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 05:05 PM

Great ad--a third setback, perhaps?

This is an interesting view of the "technical difficulties" the U.S. is experiencing with this administration. It may take a little while to load.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 05:24 PM

Doug, I'm sorry. I got peeved atcha, but I shouldn'ta shot off my mouth.

Please don't send them Patriot guys after me!:>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 05:27 PM

It would be funny, SRS, if it weren't so close to reality...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: NicoleC
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 05:53 PM

SS was never intended as a retirement plan, per se, it was more along the lines of providing very basic needs in a time when most people could own property. If your house is paid for, a SS stipend will buy a lot of beans.

"We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but is by no means complete.... It is...a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt, August 14, 1935

To me the greater tragedy is that SS hasn't evolved with the times. The need for SS is greater than ever, not less. I don't know a single person under 50 who has EVER worked for a company with a pension plan, unless they work for the government. SS is no longer the basic safety net it was intended to be in cases where one's pension plan was lost or one became disabled. 401k's and IRAs are highly recommended, but are underutilized because many workers simply cannot afford to put much or put enough money into them.

In addition to the relative drop in income compared to inflation experienced among the poor to middle class in the last few decades, employers have also dropped benefits -- it may not show up in your paycheck, but a solid pension plan is a substantial boost to your compensation, as is a decent medical plan.

The concept of "social insurance" is based on the social aspects. The program, in order to succeed, mut be shaped by greater social principles and not by the self-interest of individual participants. While low-income families do not have access to more reliable money-making investments like mutual funds and money-market accounts, they can access the big-money investments through SS. The way the SSA combines funds to produce a steady and reliable income, it's success is requisite on a large source of funding. Privatizing part of it will rob it of the capital that it needs to make money. The old adage "it takes money to make money" is very true. And the cost of maintaining a single fund is far cheaper than the cost of maintaining millions of individual funds -- as FDR well knew; it was one of the key selling points.

Of course, stock brokers and banks want those extra expenses in managing individual portfolios, and it has nothing to do with what's good for the client.

Like all forms of insurance, the risk of loss to income is pooled among many participants. Wealthier people may lose a few dollars in interest they might have earned on another investment, but the wage cap is there to prevent excessive payments by those who have little use for it, while still being "Social Security Insurance." No one is immune from the potentially devasting loss of income. The young lawyer who expects to retire wealthy is not exempt from a car wreck and a brain injury that keep him from working -- his Auto Insurance pays for the car, but it's the pooled risk of Social Security Insurance that will keep him in beans after his trust fund has been depleted.

I'd like to see workers have the option of having MORE assets managed by the SSA in exchange for more benefits. Not only would this infuse the SSA with more cash -- and they have a remarkable history of money management behind them -- but it would also continue to provide individuals with more cash to invest the option to diversify their investments elsewhere. The financial markets are not for the faint-hearted, and many investment counselors are unscrupulous. I imagine many elderly people would feel far more comfortable investing their money with the tried and tree SSA than with a broker who may be clueless or even crooked.

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: NicoleC
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 05:59 PM

One last thing -- it's important to note that not only weathly people take the risks of social insurance. If I died tomorrow, no one would collect any of the money I have pumped into the fund.

I've never collected on my homeowner's policy either. That doesn't mean I don't keep one.

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 07:45 PM

Nicole: Nice work. Now if we can lure a couple of the knuckle heads in to read it?...

Here Doug. Here Teribus. Here___________...

And I agree with that it 'could" actaully be what FDR intended for it to be but not under today's poitical climate driven by a bunch of greedy rich folk...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: NicoleC
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 08:10 PM

Well, Bobert, it SHOULDN'T be the sole source of retirement income for anyone. But it often is.

You know, everyone assured my Dad that he should take a lump sum distribution from his pension plan and invest it in the stock market -- "historically" it's the best investment, right? Luckily for him, his broker was either extra cautious or awfully lazy, and left about half of it in a money-market account, because the mutual fund money is GONE.

Unlike my funds -- that may possibly (hopefully!) rebound at some point in the future and are a lot more aggressive -- when you are taking a distribution every month, you take disproportionately heavy losses in a down market. The idea that younger folks can put money in private acounts instead doesn't make the money safer. It may grow more over time, but if there's a down market during your retirement, especially early on, you could suffer huge losses and not have the time or capital to see your investment bounce back.

None of which is a problem to someone like a Senator who has a nice cushy government pension or a "blue ribbon" commission made up of wealthy stock brokers.

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 08:41 PM

Exactly, Nicloe. That's what I meany when I said earlier that an Enron here and a Worldgate there and all of a sudden ya' gotta a couple a million retiree's in a pickle. And then what? Well, if it got bad enough, like seein' old folks put on the street then society would say, "Hey, that's mean!" and would fix it! How? Yeah, another Social Security reorganization and we're back to where we are today, except Boss Hog and his kids got by without paying in for all those years.

Like I've siad over and over. Ya' ain't gonna fix nuthin' with leeches! And the wealthy are leeches now because so much of their income is not subject to SS with-holding where the working classes is pretty much 100% subject to SS with-holding. That is regressive. Usually the ruling class is happy with any tax that is regressive but like I've pointed out, the Rush Limbaugh's have kept the ruling class at odds with the concept of Social Security with no apparent reasoning other than the usual *socialism* rhethoric.

That's why we won't be hearing from Doug, or Teribus, troll or any of the other folks with that "compassionate conservative" badge on their lapels. If they were truely "passionate conservatives" then they would be arguing the same points that you and I are... but on this one, they don't have a clue.

Plus, after you take a few layers of rhetoric off the issue, they are just plainly....wrong. Or purdy rich and mean spirited! Or both.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 08:54 PM

Bobert,
It wasn't intended to be funny--it's pretty darned appalling, what that little website highlights. Accurately, in an eye-catching way.
--SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: NicoleC
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 08:58 PM

I dunno, Bobert, I don't have a problem with the salary cap on SS and it's corresponding benefit cap. It's insurance, not a mutual fund; no need paying for what you don't need.

You'd think the upper 1% would be happy tossing a few Social Security crumbs down to the bottom 80%.

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 09:02 PM

Well, SRS, I know what ya' mean BUT the site, unless I missed a lot of it, seemed to be using dark comedy to say just how messed up the current administration is. You know, with the little TV inside the cartoonist larger one. Like I said, it's too close to whats going down to get even the slightest chucke out of me...

No, I took it quite seriously, my friend. Just as I take the current regime. They are formadible indeed and make Alexander Haig, when he laid out plans for Richard Nixon to end democracy, look like some punk amateur....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: kendall
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 09:15 PM

They can take away my SS to invest in the stock market, (I hear Enron stock is a real bargain now)

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 10:51 PM

The very last word said it all: "Vote"

And get a few of your friends to go vote also. It's the only form of regime (sp?) change we have open to us. Unless someone wants to send Dubya a box of pretzels for Christmas?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 10:52 PM

Sorry, Kendall, you are not eligible to put a portion of your SS into the stock market. It's only intended for young folks, and only those who choose to do so.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 10:59 PM

Amos: Bobert and I have our personal "funny" thing going. I think we both understand that we respect each other's views, still retain a friendship, although we are miles apart in our views.

Your evaluation of my intellect, which has to be based on my postings because neither of us have laid an eye on each other, is of no interest to me. You have a right to your opinion, and I respect that. I suspect, though, that you base such a statement on the fact that my views are different from yours. So who is the liberal?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:10 PM

Now, Dougie, look what you've gone and done? I can't take you out in public anymore! Danged. First it's Amos and now it you! Boy, you oughta be ashamed of yer self. Bad Doug! Bad!

While we're speakin' of bad, Doug, what about the 46,000,000 Americans without affordable health care PPO's or HMO's. Got any ideas other than leeches?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:39 PM

Naw, Dougie, I really did mean it when I apologized for shooting off my mouth. I didn't get peeved because of your beliefs or anything. I just thought you were being sorta condescending there, and I mouthed off at ya for it. My bad, really. You were just having yer regular fun with Bob-ert's West Ginny butt. Why should I mind, ifhe doesn't? I love ya both. Kinda like Punch and Judy or somepn, but I am never sure which of you is which!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 02 - 11:51 PM

Well danged, Amos, you got me all misty eyed (sniffle.. sniff...) with that very heartfelt apology to Doug. I just don't know what to say other than "Thanks, fir sayin' that Iz smarter than Doug!" Hear that Doug?????? Iz smarter th......

opps...

I mighta got a little carried away there.

Well, ain't been the first time nor will it be the last.

Yo, Doug. You got somethin' to say to Amos? You know, like "Sorry, Amos..."

DOUG!!!!!!

Danged, the boy done feel asleep with his face all scrunched up against his pudder screen. Can someone get Mz Doug to get the poor boy scraped off the screen and to bed?

Bobert

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 11 Dec 02 - 02:08 PM

Whatcha talking about Bobert? Apologize to Amos? For what? I think he's right! You ARE smarter than me. Heck most folks here at the Mudcat probably are! I'm even considerning enrolling in a course at the local Jr. College to learn how to speak West Virginian! I'm smart enough to want to get smarter!

DougR