NUKE_CLEVELAND

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 27, 2005 -> 05:28 PM) If I had my druthers, I'd fix that too. But privatization and putting what was created as an "insurance policy" at any risk is not an option in my book. What is your option then? Maintaining a status quo that consigns millions of elderly Americans to live out the remainder of their lives in poverty? Even if the current system wasn't on a path to insolvency how can you call such a program a success? Private accounts allow people to build real wealth over the course of their working years while still maintaining a portion of their benefits under the current system. This is wealth that is the property of the individual and not the government and not only would provide a more secure and happy retirement to the indiviual but would allow them to hand over remaining monies to their children thusly making them more wealthy. The benefit is multi-faceted too. If enacted then the wave of new money from private accounts would have the effect of making stock prices rise thusly providing an immediate boost to the investment portfolios of anyone who in invested in the market.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 27, 2005 -> 04:50 PM) Yes I do. The numbers I pull are the CBO's and the Social Security Trustees'. Social Security will never go "bankrupt." It just can't. The only way this program disappears is if Congress funds it. Talk of money "not being there" is foolish. Social Security would then be the only program in government that stops running when it runs out of money. And the money that Social Security does have in its surplus is in government bonds. So if an average citizens' investment in government bonds are real, so would Social Security's investment. Do there need to be fixes for the super long term viability. Yes, but its more like a band-aid than a transplant. A modest increase in the payroll tax cap, raising the retirement age to 70, something along those lines. But to propose a scheme that would shift a projected deficit over from 50 years away to less than ten years away, makes no sense at all. Since you didn't answer my question from the government thread I'll ask it again here. If SS is a "saftey net" program that is supposed to "put food on the table" of the poor then why is it that those totally dependent on it for income are all living in poverty?

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 27, 2005 -> 01:30 PM) Reagan's budget director David Stockman said the following about the Reagan tax cuts: He described them as a 'Trojan Horse' to reduce the top income tax rate paid by the wealthiest families. Working families saw their tax burden continue to rise, while the rich enjoyed tax breaks on capital gains, personal investments, estates, depreciation and profits. Under Reagan's plan, a family earning $30,000 a year would suffer a slight increase in taxes while a family with an annual income of $200,000 would enjoy a tax break of 10%. The whole point of these tax cuts, which have been touted by Republican administration for years, is as Grover Norquist put it "draining its lifeblood" of government. Tax cuts for the ultra rich and corporations, many of which are being promoted by the Bush II administration have been smashmouthed by Republicans as well. Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Dubya's own Council of Economic Advisors called Reagan's supply siders "charlatans and cranks." Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neo-cons, admitted that it is crap economics but good politics. It's a Trojan Horse for getting inside the walls of government to dismantle government. After tax cuts create monumental deficits, government won't have funds to stop the mean and greedy from doing whatever the f*** they want. Let's not forget that the "Death Tax" that Dubya railed about only applied to approx. 2% of Americans. So when its said that some Republicans will wipe social programs out by cutting their funding, look no further than their own admissions, CubKilla. HORSE-s*** The CATO institute kindly explodes your little bulls*** myths about the Reagan years. Go read their study about the facts of what really happened in the 1980's economically. The rest of the facts about the Reagan economic record are at this website. Go look at it and get a clue. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 06:36 PM) What better way to take care of you than to stop an incoming missle from blowing your ass all over the frozen tundra? And why don't you start taking care of yourself, instead of loking for government to do it for you? I don't want libs or conservatives taking care of me. My point exactly. The purpose of government is to govern not to play nursemaid to everyone who lives under it.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 04:57 PM) Things the right neglects to mention. The money to be removed from Social Security Trust to pay for the private accounts is currently what is funding retiree's Social Security benefits. By moving this money into "private savings accounts," it puts Social Security in deficit sooner than later. Conservative estimates place the costs of privatization at about 2 trillion dollars. Given that we are currently running deficits forecast between 300 and 700 billion dollars without the added cost of privatization of social security, this added expense would further enlarge our deficit. To compensate the sudden additional cost of Social Security privatization, your benefits will be linked to prices rather than wages. What that means is that your benefits will increase at a much slower rate then in the past. Someone born in 1977 would see benefits that could realistically be 20 to 30% lower than they would should benefits stay indexed to wages. But I guess the problem is that people behind Social Security privatization don't understand the reason for it. It never was an "investment" plan for people. It is instead an "insurance" plan for people. Social Security is not about getting rich, its about making sure that you don't go homeless should the savings that citizens should be responsibly accruing suddenly disappear through a bad financial situation, or downturn. Its about making sure that people can afford to put food on the table. If the people on the right honestly cared about helping people get a leg up, they might actually look for a way to help keep the cost of prescription medicine lower. They might encourage people to save rather than spend immediately. They might try to look at making people's lives better now. Instead, they would like to solve the "crisis" of Social Security by hastening its bankruptcy rather than taking the small steps necessary to eliminate the future deficit for another 75-100 years. They'll do it by misquoting and twisting the words of its founder, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Just ask Brit Hume. Oh and by the way, I used to hold shares in a very conservative mutual fund, American Funds "Investment Company of America." It is an incredibly broad based fund covering bonds, stocks, etc. Since 1998, the Mutual Fund has not grown at all. It's still around 31 dollars a share. Where it was 7 years ago. Suddenly 3% looks pretty good to me. Its funny you should taylor your time horizon so that it includes 3 bull market years and 3 bear market years. Id like to see the 10 year and life of fund percentage returns of your fund. If its anything nearing respectable then over a longer time horizon itd be something north of 10% to the upside. The fact that you sold your shares right as the market bottomed proved that you know zero about investing. Had you stayed in and used dollar cost averaging you'd have already made back what was lost in the bear market years and then some. Those participating in private accounts would be in it for the long haul by rule and would not be able to bail out so foolishly. Fact remains that despite the bumps along the way that steady investing regardless of market conditions pays off as evidenced by the graph on this website. http://www.finfacts.com/stockperf.htm This only goes up till 1999 but even factoring in the bear market of 2000-2002 rates of return should still come out something like 12-13%. I say again that 7% figure is conservative. The fact remains that SS in its current form does not provide enough for those dependent on it to live on. You say that SS is there so that people can put food on the table? Well guess what? People who depend on SS alone to subsist on can't put food on their table can they? That's just futher proof that this is a broken system. If it was the great success you claim it to be then these people wouldn't be living in poverty would they? Had current recipients invested their portion of their SS contribution ( the paycheck deduction is matched by the employer ) in equity funds back in the 50's and 60's when they were starting out then they'd be multimillionaires right about now and fighting for space on the golf course instead of fighting to keep their heads above water. You also leave out the fact that private accounts, should the individual OPT to participate, do not completely take the place of SS benefits but reduces them by about half so in addition to the nest egg built up over 40 some years of work and compounding from rates of return they still would get about 40% of their SS benefits and at the time of death then the remaining monies in the private account get passed on to their children allowing them to benefit from their hard work as well. The measures that have been mentioned like indexing to inflation rather than wages and raising the age when SS benefits can be taken will work to lessen the cost of the transition. A simple cost/benefit analysis proves that this is worth doing.

QUOTE(DonkeyKongerko @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 03:59 PM) Try NetZero HiSpeed, now up to FIVE TIMES FASTER* *Actual results may suck. Dial-up sucks period, especially when DSL can be had for as little as 20 bucks a month and it doesn't tie up your phone lines.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 03:32 PM) 28.8, you gotta be s***ting me. I should throw in so you don't slow down our fantasy baseball draft. Dude......DSL is cheap as hell. If you can afford to have a computer you can afford to have a decent connection speed. Hell, my cable net hookup is only 40 a month.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 03:19 PM) so let me get this straight... the government can't tell us how to live our lives behind closed doors (consensual homosexual sex), but they can tell us how to spend our money? (non privitized social security). I don't favor repealling the first one, it's just the second part that I don't get. from the AARP website: they don't like privitized SS becuase it's risky, but here....invest your money in a mutual fund so we get a commission. AARP's mutual funds that makes NO sense what so ever... There is so much stuff deliberately left out in the left's criticism of this plan its laughable. -They claim that private accounts are a "risky scheme" but they leave out the fact that they are OPTIONAL. -They leave out the fact that in order to beat the current returns recipients get they would have to beat the insurmountable threshold of a 3% return -They leave out the fact that those born in 1950 or before would be completely unaffected by any of the proposed changes. -They leave out the fact that any monies accrued in a private account is the property of that individual, not the government, and can be passed down to their children whereas under the current system benefits end at death and nothing is passed down to the children. -Back to the "risky scheme" criticism. They say that most people are not sophisticated enough as investors to handle their own money like that. While they are correct that most people dont know very much about investing they fail to mention that while they would get a choice of mutual funds to park their money in and that they would be not allowed to withdraw any of that cash until they reach retirement age. They make it sound like people are going to be day trading with their SS payroll taxes and its just not true. The real fear the left has is the potential for wealth creation this plan has. Any John or Jane Doe who makes an average salary, can retire a millionaire once or twice over during the course of their working years with steady contributions and only a modest rate of return.....lets call it 7% which is very conservative when compared with the average rate of return offered by your average equity mutual funds. This is a classic example of the left using blatant demogaugary to trash a plan that has the potential to benefit everybody. It is also proof that they dont want anything to do with something that has the potential to make people less dependent on government because dependency is the true power base of the left. They need people to stay poor because if they ever had some form of wealth then they'd become Republicans.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 01:54 PM) Sheesh I agree with Nuke and BigHurt on this one. James Bond has to be a bad mamajama. Lightning has struck!!! There's the final sign of the apocalypse.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) I was just pissed off last night and finally was fet up with how everyone jumps on everyone of my posts. While, my post was overly agressive and under the influence(not an excuse) I stand by my my general point that I think it's a lame excuse to note how our economy will suffer, because WELL OUR BLOODY WORLD IS SUFFERING and that Republicans don't do nearly enough to make me think they really give a damn. Once again.........

QUOTE(Tannerfan @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 11:08 AM) I have no idea who Danny is. I'm a fan of Chuck Tanner, Sox manager from the early 70's. The guy who persuaded Dick Allen to accept the trade from the Dodgers and come play for The Sox. That's a good deal. I dont know where the reference to the s***ty sitcom came from...... Welcome aboard BTW.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 08:54 AM) That is most certainly one of the Bears biggest needs...it will change how the Bears draft as well. Now that make me a happy Bears fan!!!! This'll allow them to concentrate somewhat more on the O Line positions but they still have some work to do at wideout. Id like to see them nail down at least one more veteran reciever before I'll feel much better about that position.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 09:36 AM) Bond is supposed to be masculine, so that takes Jude "I have the body of a 10-year-old" Law out of the running immediately. When I saw that he was in the running I immediately thought back to what a pussy he was in "Enemy at the Gates" He almost managed to ruin what otherwise was a solid movie.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 08:33 AM) Well, thanks to TSA guidelines, the bank should receive compensation for the loss of data tapes in two to three years. And *sweeping, generalizing, liberal slam on republicans coming* thanks to "tort reform" those who lost data probably won't have an avenue to get their situation resolved. That's a bunch of hores*** and you know it. You make it sound like class action lawsuits have been wiped from the books when the fact is that they have been restricted to the Federal courts in an effort to eliminate forum shopping by greedy trial lawyers looking for the big verdict.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 09:30 AM) Our country didn't agree to the Kyoto agreement either, although our government is under pressure from the likes of the "Greens" to join, and I'm in favor of doing something to help fix global warming in the long run. Reducing emissions is a laudable goal but Kyoto is totally the wrong way to go about it. Such an agreement is fatally flawed when it allows some nations ( including the no.1 comsumer of fossil fuels and the hottest economy China ) to escape any restriction whatsoever while slower economies such as those in Europe and Japan take the burden. I'm really glad we didn;t sign on to this.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt35 @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 08:48 AM) You support this, Jim? I think it's pretty obvious who the "ignorant" one is here. And I'll add "childish" and "foul-mouthed" as well. :rolly We've come to expect that from Kip so this is no big surprise to me.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 07:53 AM) :headshake Nice to see conservatives still trying to define news into their own definition. If it makes fun of liberals and says they're right, THAT'S NEWS! Everything else is just propaganda. The Soviet Union had that style news. I guess Conservatives do like some Communist things, like a press they can control and the weak minded public that results. Conservatives live in a country that they believe is half filled with pussy liberals as Nuke has said. Isn't that sad? I thought it was clear that I was referring to a bunch of leftist commentators who write drivel every day for what used to be a respectable newspaper. The mindless nonsense written by their EDITORIAL pages is indeed propoganda so dont try to twist around what I said to say I despise all media. It's the left that embraces a Soviet style media. They run slanted stories, slanted polls, slanted editorials and when a network like Fox News comes on the air and presents things in a different perspective you on the left wet your pants and cry CONSPIRACY! Spare me. Like I often say about you and your ilk: "You can say anything you want just so long as you dont dare to disagree with them." Dont whine to me about talk radio either. The only reason that right wing talk dominates the airwaves is because there is no market for leftist drivel out there and whenever it has been tried it has failed miserably costing the radio stations lots of money in lost advertising.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 01:00 PM) Assuming you live long enough to get an appointment to see a doc and get the drugs, that might be a good thing. As for Kyoto, it will be dead in 5 years, when all the nations that thought it was a good thing, see how it totally f***s their economy and productivity. European countries are so far behind in their 'goals' that it would take a miracle for them to meet their targets for reduction. Kyoto was a good idea, bad execution. LOL The euros will have a tougher time too. Their unemployment is already north of 10% in nearly all EU countries I wonder how much worse it'll get from here.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 12:57 PM) Your point was that somehow the pursuit of a missle defense system was not a worthy one, and that the US should be doing other things, such as those mentioned. Maybe when North Korea launches a rouge nuke at the US, and due to their crappy targeting systems it appears that it would take out Ottowa instead, we should just let it drop? Canada is being a wuss in this. Publicly 'withdraw' from the missle defense shield, while knowing that if a missle WAS heading towards Canada, that the US would try to stop in anyway. LOL. Excellent point. I wonder if the Canadian government would be so scrupulous about us getting permission for launching an interceptor missile over their airspace in such a scenario. It certainly would be poetic justice in such a situation though if we did let such a missile drop. Such missiles only take 20 minutes or so to reach the continent from N. Korea, we could easily say that the line was busy and we couldn't get through to ask permission to launch the interceptor.

95-67 1st AL Central MB = 20 game winner Kong with another 40 HR season ( it is a contract year for him ya know ) Garcia = 18 game winner Pods steals another 70

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Feb 26, 2005 -> 01:25 AM) f*** Republicans and all that ignorantly support them. :finger :finger :finger :finger :finger LOL! If that's all you have then you've already lost.........jackass.

Pierce Brosnan was my favorite Bond character and Goldeneye was my fav movie.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/25/news/fortu...dex.htm?cnn=yes I never had an account with these boneheads and I never will.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 25, 2005 -> 11:50 PM) I think they're going to use that as the tag line in their next marketing campaign. At least that'd be truth in advertising.

QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Feb 25, 2005 -> 11:52 AM) Well good to know they have their priorities straight... :headshake Yeah, a child molesting piece of crap like that or a truly sick person who needs help.