posted
One reason politicians (mainly liberal) are against allowing workers to invest some of their SS money in stock, bond, and money accounts is that this invested money is unaccessible to politicians - in a lock box that politicians can't steal from to finance wasteful programs.
Gore wanted to put SS in a lock box, but now the liberals are fighting this.
[ March 15, 2005, 21:39: Message edited by: glassman ]
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly MR Gore !! "Quote" We must have a Lock Box.. Now It's like oh no we cant have that..What a bunch of flip floppers,they do not want us to have our money..They want people who are to lazy to get off their dead ass and go to work to have It..
I am so glad that I work my ass off, because Millions of people on welfare and other bull**** handout programs are depending on "ME".... Posts: 75 | From: Milwaukee WI | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I still can't understand the stink over a proposed VOLUNTARY option. If you don't like it skip it....bothers me that this is even an argument, of course i should have the option of investing some of my retirement funds elsewhere.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, no more robbing Peter to pay Paul. That and the belief that the average American is too ignorant to make some of their own investment choices. Hate to say it but that argument might have some merit.
Posts: 5729 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well why does every goverment employee have a thrift fund because thats what Is best..Even with the latest crash they still gained 6.5% while Soc sec got us a whopping 1.5%..Lets ask all the gov employees to give up their thrift fund In exchange for the rate of our great soc sec and see what they have to say then..This will be volentary and you will have a choice of 3 programs low risk medium risk higher risk.The bleeding heart Liberals just cant handle giving all of that cash up,It drives them crazy..They begged and begged for a lock box to secure soc sec.Now the present admin wants to give them a lock box and now the Liberals say Oh No thats dangerous..WHAT are you kidding me, I have never seen more flip floping since the Tv show Flipper.Not only does the loss of the millions of dollars that they cant waste on feel good programs bother them..They cant handle the fact that a Republican Admin would get the credit,they cant even sleep thinking about that.If they are for the people the they will give us our money,besides the liberals are for the peole right..Bull...I just hope the democratic party keeps going they way It Is because from the last 2 elections they have not learned a thing..Thank You Americans for seeing the light...
Posts: 75 | From: Milwaukee WI | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Sure, no more robbing Peter to pay Paul. That and the belief that the average American is too ignorant to make some of their own investment choices. Hate to say it but that argument might have some merit.
Life is all about learning from experience, and developing. Mistakes are valuable to learn from. People should have self reponsibility - a freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. Some will suffer, or even die from their mistakes, but this is the price paid for theopportunity of all to benefit from freedom and choice.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank You !!! Thats right on the money, very well said ART..I enjoy the topics you post.. Posts: 75 | From: Milwaukee WI | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: One reason politicians (mainly liberal) are against allowing workers to invest some of their SS money in stock, bond, and money accounts is that this invested money is unaccessible to politicians - in a lock box that politicians can't steal from to finance wasteful programs.
Gore wanted to put SS in a lock box, but now the liberals are fighting this.
hmmmmm.... Wall St as a lockbox....that's a paradox isn't it?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Upside: Sure, no more robbing Peter to pay Paul. That and the belief that the average American is too ignorant to make some of their own investment choices. Hate to say it but that argument might have some merit.
actually the plan doesn't allow you to do what you want...., it would give you options, i.e. varying bond/stock funds to invest in. these options would be limited, hence the risk would be limited. As well as the ones who elect this option would only be allowed to place a portion here, not 100%. If you felt you were a complete ass, you could keep it all in SS. I like this option much more than being TOLD I'm a complete ass and HAVE to keep my money in SS.
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'll vote for ya G. It is my hope that if...this ever gets going there will be a whole load of options....
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i don't really care one way or the other...
i fall into the "dead zone" where the money has already started to run out, but i'm not eligible under current proposals to choose...
i never planned on any SS anyway, cuz i know better than to trust the liberals or the conservatives...one way or another they are politicians and they are all out to steal us blind.... Art and his "liberal bashing" is amusing tho...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
we are currently in the midst of a cancer epidemic. one in 2 men, and one in 3 women, will get it in their lifetimes. this isn't because we're living longer. child-cancer rates have risen. much higher levels of brain cancer in kids living near citrus groves (pesticides.) .. just one example.
its finally now fairly well understood that industry is responsible. petro-chemical era happened in 40s. lots of chems hit market, should've been guilty until proven innocent. seems to have gone the other way. amazingly we scoop up whatever we're sold. cleansers, etc. etc. etc. veit nam vets were able to sue monsanto for effects of agent orange. but no viet namese were. major birth defects, cancer, etc.
ddt is another lovely one...
industries cause illnesses and other industries search for the "cure"...
chemicals are big buisness. illness is big business. when do we stop the madness?
meanwhile, please scrub out your sink with bon ami, and buy organic food. it's worth it.
Posts: 234 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
life expectancy, hasn't that been going up since noah? or was there a big jump post-industrial-age? probably has been... medical science has figured out a lot of stuff in the last hundred. my friend likes to point out that if she'd lived 50 years earlier she'd have died at 8. she had .. one of the "fevers".. scarlet, or typhoid.
antibiotics might be the biggest factor. when did that happen...
the gap btwn men and women's life expectancies might reflect the diminishment of the difference between our lives. you aren't doing all the heavy lifting anymore.. maybe it has to do with the stress associated with having to provide for ppl... or... the workplace.. yeah, that's probably it. more toxins in the workplace. just guessing. (---or, a rise in domestic violence maybe? women getting too uppity like me and men having to just snuf em out before the 4th quarter? : )
better diets? whatchu talking bout. wasn't no white flour, coke, twinkies or koolaide in 1850. along with cancer we also have diabetes epidemic now.
i think we've just cured a bunch of stuff that used to kill us and created a bunch of other problems. and we've kept up with the new problems somewhat with treatments that don't necessarily get to the heart of the matter. because corporations are designed (through a set of very specific legal decisions) to put the bottom line ahead of any competing insterest, even if it's the common good, or health of the planet. so, to say "the cure is to stop doing X" doesn't work. bcs you don't make any money, AND you piss of the company who makes X. so instead we come up with other "cures". cures we can sell. like: injecting insulin, for example, but never a massive campain to teach ppl about sugar and processed food. diabetes is a basically just a broken down pancreas. the pancreas' job is to process sugar. evolved thru the milennia to break down the sugar from, say, chewing an apple.. now we have allt his stuff that's packed with ungodly amountsof sugar that is essentially instant. right into the bloodstream. koolaide, nothing to digest, nothing gradual about the delivery. the pancreas gets hit like a ton of bricks.
ever walk through a ghetto supermarket? a good half of it is absolute non-food. why do we even allow this? sholdn't companies that manufacture food with zero nutritional value at least have to pay some kind of healthcare tax or something? i know, you'll say blame the person who buys it. but hate them all you like, so long as there's medicare, it can't hurt to look at the big picture.
but why did you say "on the other hand" ? does a bunch of leaps in medicine over the past century somehow diminish or make up for, the cancer sitch?
do you say "on the other hand" bcs in essence i'm saying "things are bad!" and you want to say "things are good!" ??
i focus on the negatives bcs if there is a beautiful roof that has a few holes in it, i htink that's where you train your flashlight. to see what needs fixin. "on the other hand" is like saying "but look at that other part of the roof where there are no holes at all!"
posted
Lucy Lastic: life expectancy, hasn't that been going up since noah? or was there a big jump post-industrial-age? probably has been... medical science has figured out a lot of stuff in the last hundred. my friend likes to point out that if she'd lived 50 years earlier she'd have died at 8. she had .. one of the "fevers".. scarlet, or typhoid. antibiotics might be the biggest factor. when did that happen...
Art: Life expectancy has increased dramaticaly over the last century. As you said, antibiotics have been a factor over the last 80 years or so - since Fleming discovered Penicilian. The ancient greeks used a mold growth on battle wounds but didn't realize it was Penicilian.
The gap beteen men and women's life expectancies may be due to hormonal differences. Sress does play a big role, as you said, and work situations can be very stressful.
Lucy: better diets? whatchu talking bout. wasn't no white flour, coke, twinkies or koolaide in 1850. along with cancer we also have diabetes epidemic now.
Art: Vitamins added to bread and other food have helped. Less malnutrition now than 100 years ago - diet has improved. However, diet in some third world countries, with more fruits and vegetables is better.
Lucy: I think we've just cured a bunch of stuff that used to kill us and created a bunch of other problems.
Art: For every problem there is a solution, and every solution creates problems.
One of the functions of government is to create problems it can later solve.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lucy: ..and we've kept up with the new problems somewhat with treatments that don't necessarily get to the heart of the matter. because corporations are designed (through a set of very specific legal decisions) to put the bottom line ahead of any competing insterest, even if it's the common good, or health of the planet. ever walk through a ghetto supermarket? a good half of it is absolute non-food. why do we even allow this? sholdn't companies that manufacture food with zero nutritional value at least have to pay some kind of healthcare tax or something? i know, you'll say blame the person who buys it. but hate them all you like, so long as there's medicare, it can't hurt to look at the big picture.
Art: Corporations are not charities - thank God!
Buyer beware!
Don't blame your bad diet habits on corporations who only offer without forcing you to buy. Don't buy from a company that promotes polluting or unhealthy products.
Lucy: but why did you say "on the other hand" ? does a bunch of leaps in medicine over the past century somehow diminish or make up for, the cancer sitch?
Art: You can't have it all, and there are no free lunches. "With our pleasure comes our pain, we pay a price for what we gain." That is reality. Embrace it and quit your liberal whining.
Lucy: do you say "on the other hand" bcs in essence i'm saying "things are bad!" and you want to say "things are good!" ??
Art: You focus on some bad, and I say that is true but not the whole story, because the bottom line, of life expectancy, has improved, and so the good has outweighed the bad in the totality.
Lucy: i focus on the negatives bcs if there is a beautiful roof that has a few holes in it, i htink that's where you train your flashlight. to see what needs fixin. "on the other hand" is like saying "but look at that other part of the roof where there are no holes at all!"
Art: And I am saying that there are less holes now than previously. Liberal idealism says there shouldn't be any holes, and conservative reality says that there will always be holes and we should reduce them where we can while realizing that we can never eliminate them.
Liberals moan, "Why can't we love one another and not have wars?", and conservatives laugh at this childish foolishness, realizing that conflict and resolution seeking is basic to every single interaction and process in the universe, particularly in living processes.
The universe is one huge battlefield of conflict and conflict resolution and then renewed conflict, etc. Life and death struggles are constant from the quantum to the molecular to microbiotic to plants to animals to people. Your body is one such battle field in which all kinds of processes are competing to destroy and reign. Your personality processing, including thinking, is such a battlefield.
Most liberals positions are unrealistically idealistic, which is why many liberals constantly complain about unchangeable realities.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again Art, you return to this ridiculous assertion that "conservatives" somehow have all the answers.... take tobacco...it has now become Ok for conservatives to be anti-tobacco... this was a "liberal" agenda issue from the very beginning...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
re: the idealistic personality of a liberal..
the strong argument for Not having gone to war didn't even need anything even close to idealism. the cost, (look at the massive deficit, the falling dollar.) it is a practical, level-headed mind that wants to "conserve" all those resources (human lives, tons and tons of money) and put them to better use here at home. and find another way to resolve problems.
nothing silly or idealistic about looking at conflict resolution with hope and creativity. it doens't even have to be about your hippy "love" image. it's just smart. from a buddhist point of view, non-violence is practical, not idealistic. ghandi and martin luther king. both movements were a great success. i've never understood why things that you can test in your own lives, (compassion vs. agression for resolving conflict, for example, ) appear to so many to be non-transferrable to governments.
i believe that to address the reasons we are hated abroad would do (would have done) far more, practically speaking (not idealistically) to diminish our enemies.
very simple: death & destruction buys more enemies. diplomacy, compromise, and negotiations eliminates hatred.
this is not idealism. it's good sense.
more of a look at how US AGAINST THEM works: if you convince the public that our enemies are madmen who can't be reasoned with (american propaganda) then you make war seem like the only option. US AGAINST THEM is utilized by governments to get the populace behind wars when the real reasons are too nefarious to sell to the ppl.
Posts: 234 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Percentage change since 2002 in the average U.S. price of gasoline +35.2
Change since then in the amount of gasoline Americans consume per capita: 0
change per-capita ZERO? and this is a conservative administration? is it conservative or is it oil-friendly?
Posts: 234 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lucy Lastic: Percentage change since 2002 in the average U.S. price of gasoline +35.2
Change since then in the amount of gasoline Americans consume per capita: 0
change per-capita ZERO? and this is a conservative administration? is it conservative or is it oil-friendly?
China has increased consumption considerably...
they are US$ cash rich thanx to our current habit of shopping at Wal-mart, etc ...they are capable of driving oil to 80$ a barrel with ease, and guess what? they will just pass it along to US in cost...because most of their consumption is industrial... it gets better... guess who "opened up China" to US trade...hint 4 letters, begins with B.....
the good news is that once they are done breaking our financial backs? we will all be able to go back to work at factories because the dollar will be next to worthless, and our labor will be almost free to the rest of the world...
by the way Art, i consider the Chinese government to be the epitome of conservatism....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Once again Art, you return to this ridiculous assertion that "conservatives" somehow have all the answers.... take tobacco...it has now become Ok for conservatives to be anti-tobacco... this was a "liberal" agenda issue from the very beginning...
Yes, liberals suing tobacco companies has always been a liberal cause.
I take the libertarian stance on this - buyer beware. It is up to the individual to decide whether to sustain the health problems and smoke, or not. It is not up to the trial lawyers, or government, or business, to make this decision.
[ March 19, 2005, 17:34: Message edited by: Art ]
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lucy Lastic: ...the strong argument for Not having gone to war didn't even need anything even close to idealism. the cost, (look at the massive deficit, the falling dollar.) it is a practical, level-headed mind that wants to "conserve" all those resources (human lives, tons and tons of money) and put them to better use here at home. and find another way to resolve problems.
Art: LOL: "and find another way to resolve problems." What other way? Diplomacy? You tell me what other way and I will point to your solution as idealistic nonsense that would never work.
The cost of going to war has to be weighed against the consequences of no war: withdrawing US troops from the mideast and letting Saddam outfox the UN, and with Germany, France, and Russia's help, get UN sanctions lifted. Solidification of Saddam's and al Qaeda's power in the mideast with no way for the US to stop either. Stepped up terrorist activity against Israel and the US with al Qaeda growing in ability to acquire WMD and attack the US, and then doing so. Disruption in mideast oil supply as Israel retaliates with attacks against its mideast neighbors, either because Israel sustains many terrorist attacks or is invaded by its Arab neighbors. Extreme damge to the US economy with economic depression because of terrorist attacks on US soil and disruption of oil supply from the mideast. Roving gangs of bandits reduce the US to an anarchistic state.
Lucy: ..nothing silly or idealistic about looking at conflict resolution with hope and creativity.....it doens't even have to be about your hippy "love" image. it's just smart. from a buddhist point of view, non-violence is practical, not idealistic. ghandi and martin luther king. both movements were a great success. i've never understood why things that you can test in your own lives, (compassion vs. agression for resolving conflict, for example, ) appear to so many to be non-transferrable to governments.
Art: The idea is silly in view of realities in the world. What creative way of conflict resoultion with the terorists, short of killing all the Jews and handing Israel over to the Arabs, are you talking about?
Non-violence works against a benign and moral power: blacks versus the whites in the U.S. where immoral discrimination existed, and India against Britain's immoral oppression and discrimination. Stalin, Sadam, or al Qaeda would have killed ML King or Ghandi or Christ, and all of their followers, at the first sign of trouble.
Lucy: i believe that to address the reasons we are hated abroad would do (would have done) far more, practically speaking (not idealistically) to diminish our enemies.
Art: We are hated by the Arabs because we want let the Arabs kill all of the Jews. This is non-negotiable on the part of the arabs, although the Palestinians are finally coming to the peace table as the US wins the war on terror, which we are winning as a direct result of invading Iraq, and which we would be losing if we had not invaded Iraq. Not that we have analyzed this , where is the peaceful resolution you said would result from this analysis?
Lucy:......very simple: death & destruction buys more enemies.diplomacy, compromise, and negotiations eliminates hatred....this is not idealism. it's good sense.
Art: That's funny. The reality is that weakness and vulnerabily generally invites aggression and attack, and diplonmacy, negotiations and compromise are signs of weakness.
We should only negotiate from a stance of power, as shown by demonstrated force or a threat force, unless we are willing to lose in the negotiations. Negotiation with terrorists means surrender to their evil demands.
Lucy: ..more of a look at how US AGAINST THEM works: if you convince the public that our enemies are madmen who can't be reasoned with (american propaganda) then you make war seem like the only option. US AGAINST THEM is utilized by governments to get the populace behind wars when the real reasons are too nefarious to sell to the ppl.
Art: That is not propaganda, it is reality. How do you negotiate with al Qaeda? You pay their ransom (money, troop withdrawal, political concessions, etc.) and thus make them stronger, so you have to pay them more ransom, and make them stronger, then pay more, and soon they take over you.
Lucy, your ideas come straight from a Sunday School for children.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
glassman: ...by the way Art, i consider the Chinese government to be the epitome of conservatism....
Art: They have grown more economically than any other country in recent years. If there are the most conservative they will one day have the highest standard of living in the world.[/QB][/QUOTE]
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the SUV-light truck issue goes to heart of the matter... they became "popular" because they fell outside of stricter government guidelines on safety, and emissions, and fuel economy... HEAVY advertising dollars were spent here by the auto industry... the "herd mentality" kicked in...
i have owned several trucks(for work) since they were still a sign of being low-class... and even still own a TRULY off-road capable 92 4x4explorer that i have used extensively off-road...and it looks like it...( whahdontcha warsh yer truck? cuz the dirt protects the finish ...)
the idea of a "luxury SUV" is a joke, and just shows how truly schizophrenic our society has become...
"standard of living"????
hmmm i need a luxury Humvee with 4 DVD/tv monitors so we can each watch our own movie as we drive off-road all the way to the north Alaska widlerness to fillup the tank...then we can drive home only to get back in the next day and do it all over again...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
...)
