posted on May 14, 2005 12:47:09 PM new
Haha! """Libra you're right. President Bush invited ALL suggestions on a workable solution on our upcoming SS crisis to be put on the table""
You mean like his "paid for by the taxpayers" trip across country for staged town meetings that were closed to anybody with a REAL question about SS ?
Sorry, linduh but bushy has said, it is a proven fact, that he does not care for people's opinions. So why should anyone talk to him ????
Besides , it has been pointed out to him, the flaws in his plan, and HE won't budge an inch .
And here's another truth you can ignore.......
The Democrats have a plan....it's called Social Security...
they invented it and it has been working for 70+ years...
it will continue to work if the Repugs keep their hands off of it.
Your post on how the dems are obstructionists is naive and shows a total lack of facts...just hate for the Democrats
posted on May 14, 2005 12:50:27 PM new
bigpeepa said Democrats view out of the main stream In their minds only. If they wanted to appoint judges then they should have won the election. It's as simple as that.
_________________
posted on May 14, 2005 12:52:32 PM new
Ah...my groupie/stalker continues on....re-posting all my comments. Clings to m EVERY word...posts them in multiple threads....
crying out for my attention. How very, very sad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 14, 2005 12:58:55 PM new
Good answer, linduh, one of your better ones!
Can't get the facts straight, can't answer questions, shown to be ignorant of facts, shown to be naive....start babbling......
I gotta hand to you, Bigpeepa, libra insulted you and you didn't start whining and crying and saying meaningless phrases like "get over yourself"....whatever THAT means !!!!
[ edited by crowfarm on May 14, 2005 01:00 PM ]
posted on May 14, 2005 01:04:12 PM new
Ah...my groupie/stalker continues on....re-posting all my comments. Clings to my EVERY word...posts them in multiple threads....
crying out for my attention. How very, very sad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 14, 2005 01:05:31 PM new
"""Ah...my groupie/stalker continues on....re-posting all my comments. Clings to my EVERY word...posts them in multiple threads....
crying out for my attention. How very, very sad.""
Can't get the facts straight, can't answer questions, shown to be ignorant of facts, shown to be naive....start babbling......
posted on May 14, 2005 01:13:51 PM new
crowfarm, were you born this dense? Or did you just wake up one day and decide you are witter than you thought????
posted on May 14, 2005 01:16:47 PM new
May 09, 2005
New Social Security Proposal Exposes Left-Wing Hypocrisy
Noel Sheppard
During his most recent press conference, President Bush added a new "progressive indexing" proposal to his Social Security reform plan that not only largely resolves the program's imminent insolvency without raising payroll taxes, but also exposes an almost unconscionable hypocrisy in the Democrats' position on this issue.
At odds for months in this debate has been how future payments to recipients are calculated. Currently, increases are tied to annual wage gains of the workforce. However, it has been argued that if they were indexed to the growth of inflation, or "prices" -- which have typically been much lower than changes in wages -- insolvency would be largely averted.
Unfortunately as this debate has ensued, the Democrats have depicted such a change as being a cut to the benefits of future retirees. As a result, this one issue has become its own "third-rail" as the left has been successful in casting it as thoroughly verboten.
Enter President Bush two Thursdays ago, who in a stroke of sheer genius proposed preserving this form of wage indexing for only the poorest of Americans, while allowing for a less generous calculation for the more financially successful members of the population.
The brilliance of this strategy is multifold.
First, by retaining the more favorable wage indexing for the poorest 30% of Americans, Mr. Bush has masterfully appealed to the heart of the Democratic Party. In the most recent election, this was by far the largest voting bloc for Senator Kerry who won this demographic by a margin of 63% to Mr. Bush's 36%.
Consequently, the most left-leaning segment of future retirees should -- assuming the press accurately depicts this proposal -- be less opposed to Social Security reform, for it no longer has any conceivable negative impact on them.
However, potentially more important, this plan would significantly reduce the value of Social Security to the 70% of Americans who are going to see their guaranteed benefits reduced, and would likely make them more interested in the creation of private accounts to make up this shortfall.
Obviously, this is what has Democrats shaking in their boots concerning this new proposal, with prominent left-wing figures making statements so absurd that anyone within earshot must look as aghast as the Aflac duck after Yogi Berra says, "And they give you cash…which is just as good as money!"
Why? Because the Democrats in their desire to preserve the status quo have now been forced to defend the financial rights of the wealthiest Americans as being equally important as those of the poor.
Let's understand that full price indexing -- the least generous of the future benefit calculations -- will only apply to citizens making in excess of $113,000 per year. This represents the top seven percent of wage earners.
Therefore, to counter this new proposal, the Democrats have to portray the preservation of wage indexed Social Security benefits for the wealthiest Americans -- people they regularly depict as being rich enough to absorb a greater tax burden than they currently are -- as being just as important as maintaining such benefits for the poor.
In effect, it's okay to take money out of this group's pockets in the form of taxes so that the poor can pay less, but it would somehow be inappropriate to reduce their Social Security benefits so that the poor can continue to receive what has been promised to them.
(Re-enter confused looking Aflac duck!)
What makes this even more ludicrous is that this upper echelon of wage earners has the greatest access to other retirement vehicles such as IRAs, 401(k)s, 403(b)s, SEPs, Keoghs, etc. As a result, this is the group that can most afford future benefit cuts, and to suggest otherwise thoroughly undermines the Democratic Party's long-standing position that the rich have the financial wherewithal to shoulder the highest tax burden in our land.
Which leaves the Democratic Party with only one tenable position to solve the looming Social Security insolvency problem -- raise payroll taxes. Period. They can't support anything else, for every other option reduces the socialist element of the program.
Whether it's changing indexing, or raising the age at which one can begin receiving distributions, future benefits are cut forcing retirement planners to utilize other investment options that inherently reduce their reliance on this government program. And, obviously, so would the implementation of private accounts.
As a result, the president with this move has backed the Democrats into an extremely uncomfortable corner that is going to be very difficult for them to navigate out of, for now 70% of the country is going to be given a very distinct choice as to which horse to support in this race: Do you want to keep your current wage indexed benefits and pay more in payroll taxes today and until you retire, or would you prefer to receive less in guaranteed distributions years from now, but not have your taxes increased immediately?
Which option will the majority of Americans support? Well, Walter Mondale found out twenty years ago that campaigning on a platform to raise taxes is not typically a winning strategy.
---------
posted on May 14, 2005 06:45:22 PM new
Sorry Linda_K, More Bull Roar from you won't change the fact that less and less Americans believe Bush. The Guy just can't tell the people lie after lie and get away with his lies.
BTW most people know all along the democrats said when Bush dropped the private accounts part of his (serve the rich) S.S. plan they would gladly work with him.
He didn't drop his (serve the rich) plan the democrats didn't talk. The Democrats let Bush talk by spending millions of dollars and running all over the country giving speeches. We all know how well that went.LOL
Crow, I have said many times before people like Linda_K and Libra63 have very little left in defense of their leaders. Because of that their personal attacks is all they have left. Now dblfugger9 says to me "you better watch out if I come after you" or something like that. Sounds like more attacks from another desperate right wing republican that sees things aren't going so well for their side.
posted on May 15, 2005 06:55:14 AM new
Helen,
As usual you took all those quotes out of context. Not a surprise to me.
And you’re jealous I never put your name on the A-List. That was because not even you, believed in the crap you spew on this board.
It scares me that you have saved every post to this board. I think it may be time for you to walk out your front door and get a life.
If it's consulting you need E-mail me. I can help you.
Have you ever noticed how easy it is to make fun of the pictures of the smiling “red necks or hicks” posted in many of the web jokes. Think about this. They are smiling chances are you are not.
Be Happy,
Amen,
Reverend Colin
[urlhttp://www.reverendcolin.com[/url
posted on May 15, 2005 09:58:59 AM new
Hey Colin, after seeing your hate filled words Helenjw brought to my attention I can see where I was wrong about you.
Your words have branded you as a hate filled man. Nothing more and nothing less.
posted on May 15, 2005 10:15:20 AM new
peepa, i really havent personally attacked you, but you have me. More than once. And not even knowing who or what I am! didnt you say something to me in the EO about not caring and volunteering and I had to illuminate you as to what I had done and continue to do?
You're too simple for me peepa to really care. And I dont cheat where I get my info on that from. I get it right here.
posted on May 15, 2005 11:19:05 AM new
helen says: I have those pages also, COLIN.
and That's a LIE.
hmmmm. First you claim to have 'extensive files' of who says what here, helen. Then at a later date you deny it when it's mentioned that you do. Now you say the above..."I have THOSE pages also"...and all the way back to 2003. So....fess up do you or don't you maintain FILES on what others have posted here? From the number of times, this one included, you've mentioned you DO....imo, this proves it again.
If you feel you can call someone else an AH, helen, which YOU have recently admitted to doing, I have trouble understanding why it's then NOT okay for others to do so. Must be that double standard of yours.
I have access to files maintained by Vendio, just as you do. Why would I need to keep my own "extensive files?" On the other hand when someone tries to defame my character or lies about me I do keep a record of that.
I have a screen shot of colin's ass hole list. And if you will try to refresh your memory a.sshole was only a minor derogatory classification compared to the others.
posted on May 15, 2005 02:10:06 PM new
You didn't quite answer the question, helen, did you?
You have stated yourself...more than once to others that you have files. Just recently [in this past week] you again mentioned that you have a record of every statement you've made on here....and that goes back quite a few YEARS.
And NO, helen, I don't have access to the same Vendio/AW threads you somehow always appear to produce...when you want to. So trying to turn away from answering the question of whether you do or don't keep files or links on what's said here...is, imo, being avoided. You have said you do before.
Anyone who has seriously used the search function offered here...knows the threads are erased from search after a certain period of time.
But more importantly you've said it yourself...that you do have these files....and you've been teased more than once on why you'd have a need to do so. ...when it's only a chat board....not a division of the FBI.
posted on May 15, 2005 02:49:32 PM new "But more importantly you've said it yourself...that you do have these files"
That's a lie. You can't produce a comment in which I have stated that. But you have planted the idea. Colin has a similar sneaky technique. He says, for example that he is happy that I admitted being a anarchist....when in fact I NEVER admitted such a thing.
posted on May 15, 2005 02:59:11 PM new
Yes, helen, I understand....everyone ELSE is being dishonest except you. Of course...wouldn't have expected it to be any other way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
By making that statement without being able to provide any basis, you are the one who appears dishonest. Surely your memory is not that far gone?
With you, it's a case of same sh!t different day, over and over and over again...
Go make another totem pole post or something. If you are tired of that, you may enjoy posting at freepers. Your good buddy, Rush Limbaugh may be there..
posted on May 15, 2005 06:02:48 PM new
helen says: you are the one who appears dishonest.....
sure, helen. But many have mentioned your FILES....no one's mentioned me having files even once.
And you're the one who posted links from OVER TWO YEARS AGO. Like they're on the topic of SS.
Nope...with YOUR type of honesty...it was more important for you to 'set' people straight on Colin's current SS political position....rather than let them hear what he says on this subject FROM HIS OWN MOUTH.
Files...file....save those files....save EVERY post you've ever made in what 5 years? ....they may be very useful in discrediting another who disagrees with your own political platform in another couple of years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 15, 2005 06:11:19 PM new
Ron - It is, of course, your right to hold your own opinion.
But I personally think it's foolish of anyone who would like SS to even exist when they retire...let alone not have money there to pay for it when that day arrives to be against these proposals.
Private accounts allow ownership....personal ownership. Something any Congress wouldn't be able to take from you as they can now. Wouldn't be able to take from your family. Gives you personal choice on your own money...not some politician you may or may not agree with down the road.
And what's being offered isn't any different than how MOST 401k's have been/are invested. Differing levels of risk offered....from the highest risk to the most safe.
Just look at the post I made where PA will be voting on their own very similar system -that way. Many other democrats agree too...it's just a few who don't want to see ANY changes made...to keep the same benefits there...maybe. Others are calling for cuts in benefits. And maybe not...who knows if in another adminstration they won't decide to raise our taxes again...and again...and again...as has been the way it's been done now for most of my lifetime.
If I die...I'd like my benefits to be given to my children rather than just back to the 'state'. Not all people work until retirement age. I'd like the choice we have in our own 401k's to be in my hands via my OWN SS account...where I want to invest it.
And history shows....the same money put into one's SS account brings a MUCH LESSER benefit over the long-haul than did investing in everything that's been available on the market...even CD's. People would have had TWICE their SS incomes...had the choice been available back then.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
edited because THAT was pretty bad.
[ edited by Linda_K on May 15, 2005 06:30 PM ]
posted on May 15, 2005 06:22:14 PM new
And I forgot to mention....at least the proposal President Bush initally made offered safe guards that should the concerns of those who oppose privatition actually happen...there would be a 'security support' written in that wouldn't allow people to lose everything and be destatute.
Plus there was an 'opt-out' choice.
So in my opinion, if you don't want to go this route...fine - opt-out then - stay with the program the way's it's been.....that's a choice too.
But why prevent others who DO want to have control over their own funds...not have it. You opt-out...then they can op-in. All would be happy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by crowfarm on May 14, 2005 01:00 PM ]
