Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush

Ebbie 13 Dec 02 - 06:54 PM
DougR 13 Dec 02 - 05:42 PM
GUEST,Ard Mhacha 13 Dec 02 - 07:23 AM
GUEST 12 Dec 02 - 10:48 PM
Donuel 12 Dec 02 - 10:35 PM
Ebbie 12 Dec 02 - 10:23 PM
Bobert 12 Dec 02 - 10:09 PM
GUEST,Clint Keller 12 Dec 02 - 09:38 PM
DougR 12 Dec 02 - 07:23 PM
Bobert 12 Dec 02 - 06:39 PM
GUEST,Casual Observer 12 Dec 02 - 04:24 PM
katlaughing 12 Dec 02 - 04:16 PM
GUEST,Casual Observer 12 Dec 02 - 04:04 PM
Bobert 12 Dec 02 - 02:38 PM
Amos 12 Dec 02 - 01:35 PM
DougR 12 Dec 02 - 01:22 PM
Amos 12 Dec 02 - 10:10 AM
GUEST,Clint Keller 12 Dec 02 - 01:49 AM
Bobert 11 Dec 02 - 10:10 PM
TIA 11 Dec 02 - 10:10 PM
DougR 11 Dec 02 - 09:46 PM
GUEST,Clint Keller 11 Dec 02 - 09:32 PM
DougR 11 Dec 02 - 09:31 PM
GUEST,guest 11 Dec 02 - 07:49 PM
Don Firth 11 Dec 02 - 04:51 PM
DougR 11 Dec 02 - 04:07 PM
Amos 11 Dec 02 - 02:11 PM
DougR 11 Dec 02 - 02:08 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 02 - 11:51 PM
Amos 10 Dec 02 - 11:39 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 02 - 11:10 PM
DougR 10 Dec 02 - 10:59 PM
DougR 10 Dec 02 - 10:52 PM
Stilly River Sage 10 Dec 02 - 10:51 PM
kendall 10 Dec 02 - 09:15 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 02 - 09:02 PM
NicoleC 10 Dec 02 - 08:58 PM
Stilly River Sage 10 Dec 02 - 08:54 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 02 - 08:41 PM
NicoleC 10 Dec 02 - 08:10 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 02 - 07:45 PM
NicoleC 10 Dec 02 - 05:59 PM
NicoleC 10 Dec 02 - 05:53 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 02 - 05:27 PM
Amos 10 Dec 02 - 05:24 PM
Stilly River Sage 10 Dec 02 - 05:05 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 02 - 04:48 PM
Amos 10 Dec 02 - 04:11 PM
DougR 10 Dec 02 - 04:08 PM
Bobert 10 Dec 02 - 02:22 PM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:54 PM

Bobert, so is the waist. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 05:42 PM

Clint: No argument from me re Lay and Capone, and neither us qualify on the basis of birth evidently.

Now Bobert, as to the tone in your post to Clint re rich folks: just remember, "Hark the Herald Angels Sing."

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,Ard Mhacha
Date: 13 Dec 02 - 07:23 AM

Sportsflash from Irish Post, Bertie Ahern is taking golfing lessons so that he can play a round of golf with Bush in Ballybunion,
he`s also reputed to be preparing for a game of Scrabble with Bush, by heading brick walls. Ard Mhacha.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:48 PM

Ebbie:

Thank you. You are absolutely right. It was under Johnson, also a Democrat, almost a year after Kennedy's assasination...

The mind is a terrible thing...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:35 PM

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/trentt.jpg

Among friends and masters of hate
In honor of the oldest good ol boy
Trent honored the segregationist platform of 1948
...in ways usually whispered and chortled in times past...
He could have been PC but instead
he stuck his head up his ass
and emerged a collosal shit head


He said what he meant, he meant what he said, an elephant is faithful 100%


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:23 PM

Bobert, this is the second time, I believe, that you mentioned JFK in connection with the Gulf of Tonkin. The (non-existent) incident that sent us into war that time was under Lyndon Johnson, I believe. Unless there was an earlier incident you're thinking of?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:09 PM

Clint:

The only way one breaks into the "ruling class" is to steal and not get caught. It's like a fraternity. The rich stay rich and everyone else gets table scraps. Been like that for a lon, long time. I don't think Capone could have cracked into the "ruling class" because he didn't have good table manners. Yeah, you pick up the wrong fork and you're outta here, pal!

Lay, on the other hand was one of the boys but when Enron went down, the ruling class figured they would have to sacrifice a few folks to maintain their control. Very shrewd. Well, they are trying to get the public to accept Fastow's sacrifice as kind of a blanket sacrifice and they will probably get away with it but if it gets dirty, Lay is history. These folks ain't stupid> They are gonna do what that have to to preserve the *members only* "fraternity" that has served them for a long, long time.

Upward mobilility has it's limits, you know...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 09:38 PM

Didn't mean to say rich people are all crooks. Didn't mean to say the Kennedy boys or Bush boys were crooks. Meant to say they didn't get it all by working for it.

I was explaining that I can't follow Doug R's advice to do what they did; which was be born to rich parents

I do think Capone and Lay may have been a bit unethical though.

Clint


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 07:23 PM

Joy to the World, Bobert, Joy to the World!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 06:39 PM

I wouldn't care if he were in the Bull Moose Party, wrong is wrong. This transcends partisanship. This ain't about getting laid in the White House. This is about possibly getting tens of thousands of folks killed when there are better alternatives.

Yeah, what John Kennedy did was no better with the Gulf of Tonkins lies. Difference is,America has allready made that big mistake once.

And, as long as the Democratic Party falls in behind this insanity, I'll remain in the Green Party, thank you.

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 04:24 PM

How can you be so sure?

We have never, ever, to my knowledge, had a perfect President in this country. It doesn't matter who's in charge, someone's going to be unhappy about it. Sometimes they have really good reasons to be unhappy, and sometimes the only reason is that the person they voted for didn't win.

I'm just saying, that everyone who is unhappy with the present leadership, should ask themselves exactly why. And then note that if you wish to affect change, it won't happen by sitting around griping about how stupid you think the leadership is.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 04:16 PM

A specious and lazy question. No Democrat would be doing exactly the same things he is doing now.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 04:04 PM

I'm just curious. If Bush were a Democrat, doing exactly the same things he is doing now, would all of you be so quick to jump on him? Don't say Democrats have never gotten the US into wars, because they have, and not too awfully long ago.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 02:38 PM

Amos: The two Bush *lies* taht 60 Minutes disected were his two biggies:

1. Iraq is close to having, or may now have, nuclear weapons, and

2. Iraq supported and had ties to Al Qeada leading up to 9/11.

Purdy scarey combination we have with Junior:

A. He lies, and

B. He doesn't mind wacking folks with the big stick, and

C. He has unlimited taxpayers dollars to hire expensive PR folks who do nothin more than think of more lies for him to tell...

Hmmmmmmmm?

Bobert

Oh, I'm sorry, Doug. Hmmmmmm? No pickin' on me 'til after Christmas?
Geeze, pal, you don't have to do that but I know why you'd decided to give it a try. You've figured out that I'm on the correct side of the issues and your guy ain't. Hey, I told you that once you see the emperior to have no pants on, like you've crossed the Rubicon. Sorry to pull your covers, brother, but ain't it nice to not have to defend the crooks and mean people anymore?

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Amos
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 01:35 PM

Good call, Doug.

A lot of successful people are millionaires. A lot of successful crooks are also millionaires. Therefore, success=crook??? SOme logic!! O, tempora, o mores. (Y'see? I can get into the spirit of Xmas too!! :>))

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 01:22 PM

Clint: your call. Just for the record, though, not everyone who is wealthy got it by cheating someone else. The majority got it because they worked hard for it, or someone in the family did. Not all millionaires are crooks.

Bobert: this being the Christmas season I have decided not to pick on you until after Christmas, no matter how outrageous I consider some of your posts. Peace with Bobert! That's going to be my motto until after Christmas. Peace, Brother, peace!

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Bobert:

What exactly did 60 Minutes pin on the Greaseball?

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Dec 02 - 01:49 AM

"I sincerely wish you could have that income. Perhaps had you done what they did to get it, you would! :>)"

Like the Bush boys & the Kennedy boys, & Ken Lay. And Al Capone? : >) (And Charles Schwab, who gets some of his income in federal aid for the rice crop on his private duck-hunting grounds?)

As usual, you miss the point, if you'll forgive me putting it that way. I was being rhetorical; I never wanted great wealth bad enough to do what it takes, even assuming I could.

The point is that it's extremely distasteful to hear a spoiled brat complain when taxes reduce his net income to more than almost everyone else's gross.

clint


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Yo Doug: Waht most of the upper 5% did was be born....

Now, you say that with careful investing, one can do better than the SSA? Fine, let them invest as an aggigate of all those who pay into to the sytem, which is just asbout everyone except for a few of the very wealthy who would rather pay their CPA's to avoild this little nagging impositon. NOw, it the SSA guesses correctly, great. They can use the windfall for the future generations of retirees. If they guess wrong then they can apply the losses to either past credits or future profits. Worst casr scenerio, they're gonna just have to pay it out of the "receivables".

How about it, Doug?

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

I would do what many of the rich did to get rich; however, my parents, oddly enough, did not let me choose them (not true of all the rich, but undeniably true of our boy George). If hard work (or even smarts) was all it took, there'd be a whole lot more rich folks in my neighborhood (though not necessarily me).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 11 Dec 02 - 09:46 PM

Clint: I sincerely wish you could have that income. Perhaps had you done what they did to get it, you would! :>)

Guest, guest: of course we would use whatever is in our arsenal to protect our troops should Saddam or anyone else use WMD on them. That's just common sense. The fact that Saddam and other despots like him know that, might keep them from using them! Reportedly that threat was used prior to Desert Storm, and Saddam didn't use them then. There must have been a reason.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 11 Dec 02 - 09:32 PM

Don Firth said it.

And speaking of the plight of the overtaxed rich, I'll be glad to pay the taxes of any member --any at all -- of the upper 5 per cent if I can have their income too.

Clint


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 11 Dec 02 - 09:31 PM

Don: I doubt that your experience differs much from a lot of other people of our generation. I devoted the majority of my career to non-profit organizations ...not well known for paying high wages, and most of those years I didn't even have Social Security (non-profits in those days had to opt to be in SS and many did not because of the cost). It wasn't until I went into business for myself that I became eligible for SS. I wasn't able to amass much in the way of savings myself during those years.

My point, though, is if you check any ten year period in the history of the stock market, an investment in a growth mutual fund will provide more capital than an investment in a bank's saving's account or Social Security. The investor has to assume responsibility for choosing a performing fund of course, but that is not so difficult because the history of the fund is available through the Prospectus.

I am not proposing that folks our age consider a program such as the one proposed, and neither is the Bush administration. This program would only be available to young workers not old folks like us anyway.

There is no way to absolutely assure that the stock market is going to be in a favorable position when one retires. However, I do believe that a young person investing even today in a well performing mutual fund will come out better when he/she retires than the person who just relies on the current SS program.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 11 Dec 02 - 07:49 PM

Did anyone else out there catch Junior's comments yesterday where He said if we were attacked with biological weapons, the U.S. would respond with nuclear weapons. What sort of irresponsible chatter is THAT??? Some other nuclear power may decide if they can do it why cant we? Sounds like an invitation to Armageddon. Is this the time to rattle sabers?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Dec 02 - 04:51 PM

Doug, what you say about buying a good mutual fund and holding onto it is fine—in theory. Unfortunately, however. . . .

Sometimes when you're young, you just don't have the money to invest in anything much. Unless, of course, you elect to eschew any rose-smelling and go to work for someplace like Microsoft. There are several people in my building who work for Microsoft. They go to work at 8:00 a.m. or so and don't come home until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. They're making some pretty flashy money, but they have grindstone marks all over their noses, they are thin and deathly pale, they have a hard time communicating with humans, their eyes are wide, staring, and unfocussed, and they have lost the capacity to blink.

I could have gone to work for Boeing right out of school like many people in this area did, but I chose not to go that route. Other than a few low-paying odd jobs while I was going to school, when I started to work I opted for self-employment. I gave guitar lessons. Iffy income. Then I started getting paid for singing. Equally iffy. Between performing and teaching, I made a thoroughly enjoyable, but marginal living. I had to pay income tax and FICA, but I didn't have enough money left over to even start a savings account, much less make investments. Had it not been for FICA, I'm sure it all would have been spent for daily expenses—or luxuries, like a new set of strings from time to time.

Tired of such a spotty income, I took an "honest" job (Boeing) I got paid a bit better than minimum wage and due to lots of overtime (engineering drawings for the 747), I started a savings account and bought a car (my first, a little Toyota). Then I got laid off along with lots of other people. Then I worked as a radio announcer. That was a chancy as singing. Changes of format, changes of staff—I worked for five radio different stations in an eight year period (advice from an old radio announcer: "When you get a new job, update your resumé and keep your bags packed!"). So I went to work for the phone company. I got paid a bit better than minimum wage there, too. Got some AT&T stock as part of my wages. Got laid off along with a bunch of other people (divestiture and reorganization). Then I worked for the Bonneville Power Administration as a tech writer. Got laid off due to budget cuts. While working for Ma Bell and the BPA, I did build up the savings accounts, then got myself a financial planner, and on advice, bought into some mutual funds. But every time I got laid off (never fired, just one of the many who constitute the flotsam on the ever-undulating sea of our economy), not only did I lose any company retirement that I'd built up, but I had to use my savings to pay the rent and keep fed. Looking back on it, my income was hardly less predictable when I was making music—and then, I was enjoying myself rather than bowing and scraping and tugging my forelock.

Now, my only income is from Social Security (of course, I could always go back to work—that is, if I could find someone who would hire a 71-year-old geezer in a wheelchair). My wife works part-time at the Seattle Public Library. Part time because of what? Budget cuts. And next year (January), our health insurance premium goes up $85.00 a month. And now, when we could use a little extra, the AT&T stock that at one time was worth about $55.00 a share (which, somehow, morphed into Lucent Technologies stock) is not worth the paper it's printed on (company mismanagement if not outright thievery, Enron style) and the mutual funds are still alive after a fashion, but we'd lose our asses if we cashed them in. Right now, they're worth far less than our original investment. So, Doug, that works only if the mutual fund is worth something when you need it. I'd have been better off if I'd put it all into a low-interest bank savings account. Now, was it my lack of planning? Was my financial advisor incompetent? Or is it a totally screwed up national economy?

Nevertheless, we're not doing too badly. We own a share in the building in which we live (it's a co-op) and our monthly maintenance fee is about a quarter of what we'd normally have to pay for rent in this area (although it took a $30.00 a month jump recently because insurance on the building went up). Barbara and I are used to living fairly close to the vest. I think we're relatively secure, but we're luckier than a lot of people. But—without my Social Security, we'd probably be living under a bridge somewhere.

Did you know that properly prepared, city pigeon compares favorably with Cornish game hen?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 2 Setbacks for Bush
From: DougR
Date: 11 Dec 02 - 04:07 PM

Let's propose it to Kendall! He could use a bit more "twang" to his Maine accent anyway. :>)

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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

Well, then, DougR, yer smart enuf fer me, an' I think I'll jine ye in thet course cuz all I ever learnt to speak was Mainiac, ayup!! Mebbe we could get Kendall down to sign up, so he could have a West Ginny butt too!! LOL!


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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%.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

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


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 25 January 6:48 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.