Post #182,832
11/4/04 2:39:26 PM
|
The man is a megalomaniac - this is very scary
Impeach his ass. He's going to take SSI from people next, mark my words.
-drl
|
Post #182,841
11/4/04 3:10:22 PM
11/4/04 3:11:29 PM
|
Already said he would.
So that 'young people' could 'invest for thier future'.
Meaning:
Reagan became popular by flushing money into the system for consumers - he did this by opening up credit lines (>>-->deregulating banks), giving consumers money to spend.
Bush intends to flush money into the corporate world by allowing people to invest/spend their SS money. This has a secondary effect of allowing the Neocons to blame the US citizenry for the failure of SS to actually secure anything at all.
In short, it's a device to both a) give SS money to the corporate world for thier own use and b) allow the Neocons to wash thier hands of caring for the seniors that put them in power in the first place.
The fact that a neurologically impaired carp can see this coming means that it will almost certainly blindside almost all Neocon supporters.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Nov. 4, 2004, 03:11:29 PM EST
|
Post #182,847
11/4/04 3:24:46 PM
|
ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #182846 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=182846|ICLRPD]
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #182,883
11/4/04 5:52:48 PM
|
No...now wait a minnit, there, Skip!
The Bush people (which is not unlike "the Pod People") [link|http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135814,00.html|have specifically said] he wouldn't "privatize" social security. The Bush team said that "privatization" and allowing younger workers to invest their Social Security payments into various stock and bond options were not the same thing, and that the president had already promised seniors that their benefits would not be affected by efforts to perpetuate the program.
It added that the Kerry camp was using semantics designed to scare senior citizens. Remember, "Fox News" 1 reports, you decide. 1 An oxymoron if ever there was onejb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #182,893
11/4/04 6:02:17 PM
|
The two do not contradict
Bush did not suggest privatizing Social Security.
He suggested letting people have more control over how they manage their Social Security retirement funds, which would inevitably lead to more private investment of that money. (Hence Imric's point.)
Personally I'm not totally against this proposal. Done right it could be good. Of course the key words are, "Done right" - and if there is one thing that I trust Duh not to do, it is doing things right.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #182,894
11/4/04 6:04:31 PM
|
Done right would be in federally guarrantied funds
would pay better than social security but have a safety factor if the underlying funding method failed.
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
|
Post #182,895
11/4/04 6:06:37 PM
|
Where do you think it goes?
Exactly where do you think this vast storage of Social Security funds are?
It all ends up back in the economy somewhere.
Please GOD don't tell me you believe that there's some "lockbox" that your 7.5% ends up in.
I know there's enough Libertarian in you to agree in part, at least, that letting you decide what happens with >your< money has some merit. (all kidding aside about what that result could be ;-p)
Reagan flushed the system by pouring government money into the economy and cutting taxes.
Guess what Bush is doing? Pouring government money into the economy and cutting taxes.
If we're lucky the results will be another dozen years of growth between recession cycles that will allow the government revenue to catch up.
Why don't you wait until you see plan specifics before you decide that granpa's gonna be eating alpo thanks to bush?
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #182,912
11/4/04 6:43:06 PM
|
Into current payments and our debt
Theoretically Social Security is "pay as you go". In fact it is putting away money which is "invested" in US treasuries. The result is that we can run up debt faster without having to convince anyone that buying our bonds is a good idea.
Which means that when time comes to pay out, the US government has to pay back that debt to Social Security, which the US government shows no signs that it will be able to do.
Furthermore, even if you believe that these "investments" are good, there is a massive shortfall in Social Security looming.
Back when Paul Rubin was head of the Treasury, he and Allan Greenspan agreed that, based on then-current figures, the optimal implementation of Bush's plan was to opt-out people below 37 into the new approach (they could expect more) and then government would have to fund the 1 trillion projected shortfall in Social Security.
I strongly sense that Bush does not wish to find that trillion dollars, and he doesn't like the idea of leaving current Social Security as a government program which lasts for decades more (until the people who are now 37 or older die off). Furthermore he is well aware that he can just supply an optimistic estimate for growth between now and when people retire, come up with a plan that will only work if his estimate holds, and then it is someone else's problem when it breaks.
Those beliefs are why I do not trust Bush's planning.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #182,921
11/4/04 7:02:56 PM
|
Re: Into current payments and our debt
Which takes it full cycle back into the economy.
No gold sitting around nor stored value.
So, whether the government puts it in there or we do ourselves...it ends up back in the economy.
Nothin like government using rosy forecasts to paint a pretty picture is there?
Lovely while it lasts though...like that lofty surplus.
That lack of faith should be universal.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #182,953
11/4/04 9:35:19 PM
|
Only sort of
Just over half of US government debt is in foreign hands at this point. About 22% of the US government debt is owed to Social Security. If we regard the Social Security debt as a polite bookkeeping convention (I do) then (after some math), about 2/3 of our actual government debt is in foreign hands. (50/78 = 0.6510...) And we are obligated to generate over 1.6 trillion for Social Security, on top of everything else we are over-obligated for.
The interest payment on all of this debt is the third largest line item on the budget. (After the military and entitlement programs.) It is spent in a way that I do not want my tax dollars spent. Of course the money borrowed with this debt goes into government services and thus into the economy. But spending now in return for moving money out later is not always a good idea.
We are therefore obligating ourselves to move large (and increasing!) amounts of money from our economy to other economies. Which sustains us for now, but eventually...?
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #182,931
11/4/04 7:44:52 PM
|
Huh?
It all ends up back in the economy somewhere. And will the private investment of those funds be 'guaranteed'? I think not. Give the taxpayer a guarantee of getting out at least what they put into private investment, and sure, I'm all for it. That will NEVER HAPPEN. If the government had not taken that money for a specific purpose, and assured us constantly that it would be there for retirement, I'd applaud. As it stands, this plan ranks at "nefarious scheme". Reagan flushed the system by pouring government money into the economy and cutting taxes. Reagan may have wanted to cut taxes, but instead he signed tax increases into law over and over again. Why? Because even with all his flaws, he was far more responsible than young Mr. Bush. Bush wants to pour money into the system; he doesn't have any though. He's spent far too much as it is. In order to do that he has to make it possible for people to lose the money they were forced to invest in thier own retirement. He's picked up far too many pointers from Ken Lay. If we're lucky the results will be another dozen years of growth between recession cycles that will allow the government revenue to catch up. Of course, money lost to speculation will miraculously reappear when that happens. New wealth would never conentrate in the top percentile under the new economy now, would it? Most importantly in your argument... Why don't you wait until you see plan specifics before you decide that granpa's gonna be eating alpo thanks to bush? ...In order for me to be satisfied with a 'wait and see' approach, the Neocons would have to earn my trust. And when it comes to being trustworthy, the Neocons have a terrible record. They have proven themselves to be committed, hypocritical liars, and Bush is thier chief.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #182,959
11/4/04 10:04:24 PM
|
C'mon now.
Government deficits go straight into the economy. You KNOW this.
This is why the best cure for an ailing economy has always been war and/or massive government spending programs.
3 largest tax cuts in history.
Kennedy
Reagan
Bush
Each one large.
Each one led to significant economic growth and increases in federal revenue collected.
As for the "guarantee"...I've known or at least suspected for over 20 years that SS was NOT to be counted on...and so have you. If I can be shown a plan by any government that carries SS through the boom and gets it to me...I'll have to think pretty hard about supporting it.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #182,964
11/4/04 10:49:50 PM
|
Classic -- give the man a prize
The three classic stages of tobacco spin
1. It's a good thing
2. There's no proof it's bad, and everyone's always done it
3. Everyone always knew it was bad and only a fool could have really believed our advertising copy was factual
Giovanni
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
Post #183,002
11/5/04 2:02:21 AM
|
Gee - so Reagan didn't
raise taxes? Even though he did - partly for SS solvency? In 1981 he cut taxes. In 1982, 83, and 84, he increased them again. FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION. Deficit spending goes strait into the economy? Well, hell, son, why not just give every man, woman and child a credit card? Oh, wait. That's been done, in the Reagan era. We are STILL reaping the results of that. Deficits are GOOD for the economy? The cure for an ailing economy is war? Paying interest MUST be better than providing goods or services... No? The answer must be MORE deficit spending. War s good for the economy? NO. WW2, for example. Economy good during war? No. After, yes. Hell, I don't remember the economy being so hot during the Vietnam era, either. Do you? Wasn't it so bad that Nixon employed the wage-price freeze to stop spiralling inflation? Or did that not count since it was a 'police action'? As to government spending programs being the best thing for an ailing economy, yes. If those programs employ vast numbers of out-of-work taxpayers - you know, so they have spending money. About the only way Bush will 'employ' vast numbers of Americans will be to send them to war. Those that die will no longer burden SS, those that live will send thier pay right back into the economy, no? As for the "guarantee"...I've known or at least suspected for over 20 years that SS was NOT to be counted on...and so have you. If I can be shown a plan by any government that carries SS through the boom and gets it to me...I'll have to think pretty hard about supporting it. So - just dissolve it and give me my money back then. What? That money doesn't exist? SO HOW THE HELL DO WE 'INVEST' MONEY FOR OUR FUTURE THAT DOESN'T EXIST? Oh, right. More deficit spending without tax increases to cover it - at least no taxes within this Neocon president's term. Sorry Bill - even Reagan realized that living on credit was a bad idea. When he couldn't get spending cuts to match his tax cuts he went back and increased taxes. This administration wants to increase spending while cutting taxes and you claim it's a GOOD thing?
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #183,087
11/5/04 12:25:09 PM
|
Twice
TEFRA and gasoline. Tefra concentrated on loophole closure and Medicare...gas tax was for SS so they say. Deficit spending goes strait into the economy? Well, hell, son, why not just give every man, woman and child a credit card? Oh, wait. That's been done, in the Reagan era. We are STILL reaping the results of that. So the government is now to blame for >our< excess? War s good for the economy? NO. WW2, for example. Economy good during war? No. 1940-45 is the highest growth rate in US economic history. GNP grew by 100% in 5 years. You cen get the series data [link|http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm|here]. On [link|http://www.bepatient.net/GNP.pdf|this chart] run from the series, the huge spike on the left is WW2. As to government spending programs being the best thing for an ailing economy, yes. If those programs employ vast numbers of out-of-work taxpayers - you know, so they have spending money. About the only way Bush will 'employ' vast numbers of Americans will be to send them to war. Those that die will no longer burden SS, those that live will send thier pay right back into the economy, no? Ben is at least partially correct in that some of the money ends up outside of the US in the hands of other western economies. You are completely off base. Government spending buys goods and services in the US. Those goods and services are provided by employed folks. Huge increases in need create increases in employment. And before you rail about "no new jobs" you are going to have to prove to me how 5.4% unemployment rates are the end of the world as we know it. Is that number a perfect measure. No. Is it what we have. Yes. I know alot of independent contractors. All are counted as the "millions of jobs lost" in this economy when they left corps to do this. Some of them make more money now than ever. So, yes, the number is flawed on the bad side (because it is a GOVERNMENT number which has nothing to do with R or D). It is also flawed on the good side. So - just dissolve it and give me my money back then. What? That money doesn't exist? SO HOW THE HELL DO WE 'INVEST' MONEY FOR OUR FUTURE THAT DOESN'T EXIST? Oh, right. More deficit spending without tax increases to cover it - at least no taxes within this Neocon president's term. How about he does what we were told he would do...use Iraq's resources to pay for the war in Iraq? Not likely. On the counter side, Kerry proposed 2 TRILLION in increased spending in his "Plans". Even if he raised taxes, which would be a given, we STILL couldn't afford him. Sorry Bill - even Reagan realized that living on credit was a bad idea. When he couldn't get spending cuts to match his tax cuts he went back and increased taxes. This administration wants to increase spending while cutting taxes and you claim it's a GOOD thing? First, wanna try and find where I said anything about it being a "good thing" (tm). Tax cuts lead to growth lead to increased federal tax revenues. That is the Laffer curve. I offered no value judgement whatsover in that post. 2nd. I have said only to see the plan before you say it will never work. This is not the first guy to promise and fix it. However it is the first guy with the "political capital" on the hill to pull it off. Both the candidates were serious a**holes in their own right...if something can be done to shore up the system till its my turn to get my money (back) out of it...more power to him. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,102
11/5/04 2:27:13 PM
|
Nope.
TEFRA and gasoline. Tefra concentrated on loophole closure and Medicare...gas tax was for SS so they say. In 1982. Tefra was the "fiscal responsibility act". The gas tax was the "Highway Revenue act". In 1983 he raised SS taxes - with automatic increases. In 1984 was the Deficit Reduction act. In 1985 once again. COBRA. In 1986 once again. Tax Reform. In 1987 - whoops, he did it again. Omnibus. These were all the right thing to do, even if he found it distasteful. He was far more responsible than any of today's Neocons. So the government is now to blame for >our< excess? Not at all. Just re-iterating that the money that flushed into the economy was CC/personal loan money - NOT due to "tax cuts that increased federal revenues". Government spending buys goods and services in the US. Those goods and services are provided by employed folks. Huge increases in need create increases in employment. And before you rail about "no new jobs" you are going to have to prove to me how 5.4% unemployment rates are the end of the world as we know it. You forget, Bill. I was one of those 'jobs'. I was one of those 'employed'. At 1/10 what I had been making. My discretionary spending was literally zero, remember? Had I gotten sick, I would have lost my job and been out on the street, remember? I DO. It took me YEARS to find another job, and I got it because I was LUCKY. (Don't tell me it's because the economy turned around. I WANT TO GO HOME. I check jobs in NJ every day. I miss my family and friends) Don't tell me that because the top percentile have made a lot of money, the economy is great - it's not. Or do YOU think that that 1 percentile can (or will) spend as much as the other 99% would if they had money they COULD spend? How many houses will each of those top earners live in, Bill? 99? 98? No? How many cars? 99? 98? No? How many TVs? Without a market to sell to, our economy will COLLAPSE. Without a manufacturing base to sell things to the outside world, it may never rise again. And THAT'S not even taking into consideration the record number of defaults and bankruptcies this economy has spawned. And - let's see - how many jobs has the 'increased manufacturing' spawned by this war created? The taxes on those salaries, and the sales taxes together offset the cost of the war itself by HOW much? But spending on this war is supposed to be GOOD for the economy? if something can be done to shore up the system till its my turn to get my money (back) out of it...more power to him. If you think the point of this is to 'shore up the system' - you didn't read my initial post.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #183,120
11/5/04 4:01:23 PM
|
Regardless of #
Reagan operated at huge deficits. That money goes into the economy. Availability of money is essentially a closed system (unless you just elect to print more...which Germany did...didn't work too well). Your mixing my points also. Example Not at all. Just re-iterating that the money that flushed into the economy was CC/personal loan money - NOT due to "tax cuts that increased federal revenues" Personal credit certainly didn't hurt (but the huge growth in that came in the 90s when the economy was great...right?) And that doesn't explain the ww2 spike. Government spending can and has driven the economy out of recession over and over and over again. And you still are trying to qualify these things as good or bad and attach them to this administration as such. Thats crap. I know what you went through. Do you claim it now to be the fault of GW Bush? Manufacturing jobs have been fleeing this country for 40 years. Are you saying now that >that< is also the fault of GW Bush? You are employed in the service sector. Insurance companies were supposedly huge benefits of his policies. If all that shit was >his< fault (or even true) you should have had huge opportunity. You can fault the system all you like. I'll likely agree with you until you start assigning it to one party or another. That is crap...and you know it to be. In this election the choice was heads or tails of the same quarter. Any positive attributes of either candidate were completely eliminated by their downside. Kerry's wife owes her fortune to the first company I ever heard outsource jobs. Heinz moved hundreds of high paying jobs out of Pittsburgh to Ireland. Do you think that man of privilege understands anything about what is needed in West Philly to end their problems? Clinton "felt their pain"...but the only people he made rich were folks with money in the market already. No huge chunks of manufacturing jobs were created on his watch either. This is systemic. As long as we feel the need to create layer upon layer of regulation that makes it more and more expensive for things to be made in the US then we will continue to lose jobs in manufacturing. Nearly 20% of cost in many states is just >state< taxes and fees...and thats before we hit the effects of spurious regulations and necessary insurances against bullshit liability cases. (coffee anyone?) Additionally, we're just plain better at putting crap together than we used to be. Automation has made HUGE strides in the past 40 years. Factories I knew needed 1000 employees to run full shifts now need 300...and most of them need full engineering degrees to maintain the control room equipment. On a percentage basis, we're going to lose these jobs anyway as money shifts away from durable mfr'ed goods purchases to service purchases...which is one of the largest factors in the decline in jobs since the late 80s. One other factor that could help short term is to depress the US dollar on the world market. Carrying huge debt may just do that...at a disastrous effect to teh rest of the economy...but hey...we'll have those manufacturing jobs. And I expected better than to listen to the 1% kool-aid here. No the one percent won't live in 100 houses. They also aren't the ones that bought all the houses that are currently owned at the moment. That one % shoulders 20% of the income tax burden and control 35 % of the wealth. Move that down to Top 20% and its aligned with the tax burden. Income taxes are the 80/20 rule. 80% of the taxpayers pay 20% of the taxes. (technically 80/28...but it doesn't work with the metaphor ;-) while the rest comes from those vast wealthy folks. Look at the big picture long enough to get pissed of at ALL sides and we may begin to understand each other here. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,135
11/5/04 5:11:59 PM
|
I don't give a damn for Democrats -
OR Republicans. I HATE the Neoconservative party. And YOU know THAT. Deficit spending is BAD. THAT is and was my point throughout this. It is BAD for the economy - especially, but not exclusively in the long run. BAD for the country. BAD for EVERYBODY. As for the WWII spike - I guess the economy was so good that people couldn't afford meat, butter, rubber or chocolate. If the economy was so good, we should have been able to import these goods - but we couldn't. All our capital and effort was tied up in the manufacture of war material. I know that manufacturers got huge orders - where are those orders now? How many plants are coming out of mothballs? None? WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS? Go ahead, convince me! Additionally, we're just plain better at putting crap together than we used to be. Automation has made HUGE strides in the past 40 years. Factories I knew needed 1000 employees to run full shifts now need 300...and most of them need full engineering degrees to maintain the control room equipment. Yeah, we're so good at it there's a trade deficit. We're so good at it that we look to the east to produce inexpensive goods. The laborers there must ALL have engineering degrees. On a percentage basis, we're going to lose these jobs anyway as money shifts away from durable mfr'ed goods purchases to service purchases...which is one of the largest factors in the decline in jobs since the late 80s. Yeah - we don't actually produce much anymore - we just service ourselves. Ya think that might be evidence of a sick or decaying economy? No? Tell me how such a setup DOESN'T just concentrate wealth inexorably to the top few. Any positive attributes of either candidate were completely eliminated by their downside No. Bush is an IDIOT with delusions of godlike infallibility, and no sense of honesty or responsibility toward the Constitution he supposedly 'protects'. Shit, man, Nixon was a better President - even WITH the wage-price freeze! He was more honest, even considering Watergate! (Do you honestly think anyone would EVER hear about the tapes in Bush's administration?) I would vote for Koko the Gorilla over that nutball - and be confident I was making the right choice for a candidate far more qualified than the one we got! huge growth in that came in the 90s when the economy was great Let's see - what did the President do to improve the economy for that 'boom'. Did he ACTUALLY trim government fat and reduce spending. Did he preside of the greatest reduction of government jobs in history? Was the budget balanced? Was it huge amounts of deficit spending that accomplished this? Was that President more of a Republican than the Neocons that claim the Republican 'legacy' now? No the one percent won't live in 100 houses. They also aren't the ones that bought all the houses that are currently owned at the moment. Oh - so forcloseures AREN'T at record levels? Home ownership is actually within the grasp of the rest of the 99%? AFFORDABLE new homes are being built to accomodate the need for housing and young people really AREN'T forced to double and triple up in houses and apartments to survive? Tha's not MY experience, my friend. That one % shoulders 20% of the income tax burden and control 35 % of the wealth. Really? So 35% of the wealth doesn't incur 35% of the taxes? Or is it that income drops as wealth increases? Sounds like that 1% need another tax break. We can just increase the deficit to give it to them, though. Further, I'd like to see where you get that % - it doesn't match figures I recall seeing - I'm at work or I'd research it more completely. Maybe later - but I have plans for tonight...
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #183,141
11/5/04 5:35:30 PM
|
Re: I don't give a damn for Democrats -
[link|http://www.polarizationandconflict.org/papersanseb/AmbrosioSS.PDF|http://www.polarizat...eb/AmbrosioSS.PDF]
as long as you stick with the non-partisan bashing of the setup, we're cool. Ain't dealing with this hate speech, woe-is-me cause of this one election bullshit. It ain't speeding up or slowing down or changing anything.
Wanna know my opinion. Just like with his father...had a candidate like Clinton been there I would have voted for him (Like Kerry...I voted for him before I voted against him). You know how much I love Bill.
This time we had a choice of "I say it wrong and do it wrong consistently" versus the "man of every position that has a plan to fix everything" (i got this hangnail John..can you help...WELL I'M sorry about that and maybe Dicks lesbian daughter can help you)
Hopeful that the other side understands this issue...and that mainstream can be consolidated away from the fringes. 3rd party idea..."Real People".
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,214
11/6/04 9:11:29 AM
|
Woe is me?
Woe is U.S.
The fact remains that the Neocons are not responsible leaders.
The fact remains that they are spending us into oblivion.
The fact remains that the snake-oil 'remedies' they have tried to inject into our ailing economy have not worked; they DO NOT work. This economy hurts all but a few; and mark my words - it WILL hurt all but a TINY minority before the Neocons are done.
The fact remains that the Neocons have no regard for the principles this country was founded on; they are blind to truths that were "self-evident" to our Founders.
-----------------
I believe in a LOT of Libertarian principles - but the last time we allowed business the amount of latitude that the neocons want to grant them, workers ended up rioting with shotguns. We ended up wth unions that were TOO powerful.
The Neocons do not learn from history. If you look to thier Chief Executive, they actively RESIST learning.
So - "Hate speech"? Hardly. I voted. I earned the RIGHT to speak my mind; and I will until that right is taken from me (probably to 'fight terrorism').
I DO hate the Neocons - the corruption, the willful ignorance, the hypocricy, the foolishness, and the cold, small-minded mean-ness that characterizes both the Party's 'principles' and it's individual members.
What's not to hate? Should I stop hating those things because 'they' won? Should I turn a blind eye to those qualities in our leaders just because they are in power?
I DON'T THINK SO.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #183,903
11/11/04 11:52:36 PM
|
Thou sayest
quite more concisely than moi.
These execrable wretches are the stuff of witch-burnings in a (not That much) earlier time. Faith in these craven mouths - has become ordinary drug-induced-like fantasy - and we Know Which one: these suckers imagine they are "Helping Gawd" to produce all that LSD-crap from Revelations: this from the Ruling Junta over the former Republic .. however limping-along that was, via utterly corrupt PAC-preemption of citizen-votes + the other colors of sleaze that goes with the Bizness-circumscribed intellect.
When you've decided that "the Earth just doesn't much matter" - it's an OK sentiment for a one, atop his Idaho compound with gun-towers + Bibles. But when it's the titular Government operating upon scripted delusion - the sane folk had best begin fucking ORGANIZING for the NEXT election in 2 years; fully FUNCTIONAL for the ejection of the loonies in 4.. (if we make it that far sans our nukes getting put into 'anti-terrorism service' -- atop one of those bunkers/countries we haven't the troops left to invade).
See ya on the barricades, if there're enough folk with gumption to start building. I'm too old to drag the tree trunks, but I can still fire a possible, specially with them transistorized weapons of mass delusion. (My paint balls can have a couple decades of Pharmacology lore incorporated; say - scopolamine hydrobromide? Ya don't need them RPG thingies.)
Ashton Sinclair Lewis LLC
|
Post #183,914
11/12/04 6:27:05 AM
11/12/04 6:29:43 AM
|
I prefer squirt-guns filled with DMSO + LSD to paint balls.
I suspect it would be useless, though. Accept the inevitable.
The Republic will be swept away, in favor of Empire; we follow the footsteps of the Romans.
Which is REALLY funny, considering the fact that our 'elected' leaders are nominally Christian.
DAMN. WE HAVE TO GET OFF THIS ROCK!
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Nov. 12, 2004, 06:29:43 AM EST
|
Post #183,113
11/5/04 3:39:57 PM
|
Oh, you mean like...
Government spending buys goods and services in the US. Those goods and services are provided by employed folks. Oh, you mean like the government spending of howevermany billions for Halliburton no-bid contracts to "rebuild" Iraq? (Oh, by the way, welcome back, BeeP...)jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #183,121
11/5/04 4:02:04 PM
|
Yep. Thats what I mean.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,142
11/5/04 5:39:28 PM
|
OK, then
How many of the howevermany billions are going into the US economy? Well, there's the CEO's salary, and of course, the kickbacks....and, yes, the money "donated" to the PACs.
And a whole shitload of money going into Iraq, which'll help Iraq's economy (assuming, of course, that Iraq has an economy after we destroy the shit out of whatever infrastructure is left there; in the interim, I suppose that all those bucks are drawing decent interest so as to pay nice dividends to the CEO, et al).
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #183,144
11/5/04 5:52:50 PM
|
What do you think we are buying?
Sand?
sigh
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,149
11/5/04 6:13:10 PM
|
I can think of several things:
PAC money for the next election.
Political favoritism
Dickie-C's pension
Halliburton's CEO's golden parachute
Misdirection for Ken Lay
I'm sure I'll think of some other stuff later....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #183,162
11/5/04 8:06:07 PM
|
I'm sure you will
and I'm sure you'll think it was brilliant when you do.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,440
11/8/04 9:12:02 AM
|
Not brilliant...merely accurate....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #183,458
11/8/04 10:48:12 AM
|
O.O.T.
ut f ouch
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #183,146
11/5/04 5:54:26 PM
|
Bad assumption
If we spend a billion dollars building infrastructure, then a billion dollars blowing it up, then another billion dollars building infrastructure (plus another billion protecting the workers from irate locals) then another billion blowing things up, what have we accomplished?
5 billion spent, a bunch of injuries, complete disruption of that area so it cannot rebuild itself, ticked off locals and lots of press releases. Some of the spent money finds its way into the pockets of the CEO of Haliburton and similar places. The work put out went to accomplish zilch of value.
I don't care how much we spend in Iraq, it won't help their economy in the long run. Nothing will until we stop dropping bombs.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #183,148
11/5/04 6:09:55 PM
|
My point 'xactly!
I guess my ability to post concisely was damaged by the presidential Erection.
(...never mind...)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #182,935
11/4/04 8:06:20 PM
|
Re: "lockbox"
Believe it or not, there is, in effect, such a thing in Parkersburg, West Virginia. It was shown on the PBS Nightly News. It's actually a single file cabinet (not even a fireproof one) that contains promisory notes denominated in billions of dollars and signed by the Treasurer to the SSA.
[link|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec01/lockbox_8-22.html|Lockbox]. Scroll down for photos.
So there! :)
Alex
In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, poet (1772-1834)
|
Post #182,960
11/4/04 10:11:04 PM
|
Bureau of Public Debt
up the street from sis.
Another works there.
The bustling metropolis of my birth.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #182,965
11/4/04 10:52:16 PM
|
That might work
except for the huge siphon known as Iraq.
Unfortunately, its sucking the pourage right back out of the economy.
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
