quote:Jose Endundo, environment minister of Congo, said he recently visited huge Lake Victoria in nearby Uganda, at 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) a vital source for the Nile River, and learned the lake level had dropped 3 meters (10 feet) in the past six years a loss blamed in part on warmer temperatures and diminishing rains.
These environmental wackos are brilliant! Imagine, concluding that a lower lake level was due to less rain!!! Believe it or not, we already knew that here in Ohio: less rain equals a lower lake level and more rain equals a higher lake level! Astounding!
C'mon Bdgee. This article is nothing more than the reflections of a bunch of environmental wacko elitists getting togeher and drinking too much! It is neither profound nor enlightening. Just more leftist gibberish.
jordanreed
posted
bdgee
posted
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:Jose Endundo, environment minister of Congo, said he recently visited huge Lake Victoria in nearby Uganda, at 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) a vital source for the Nile River, and learned the lake level had dropped 3 meters (10 feet) in the past six years a loss blamed in part on warmer temperatures and diminishing rains.
These environmental wackos are brilliant! Imagine, concluding that a lower lake level was due to less rain!!! Believe it or not, we already knew that here in Ohio: less rain equals a lower lake level and more rain equals a higher lake level! Astounding!
C'mon Bdgee. This article is nothing more than the reflections of a bunch of environmental wacko elitists getting togeher and drinking too much! It is neither profound nor enlightening. Just more leftist gibberish.
I've no doubt that to a pure dumbass ignorant f--- up like you, "This article is nothing more than the reflections of a bunch of environmental wacko elitists". Of course, anything that is deeper that the mud puddle off which you view all reflections of reality for input to what you use in lieu of foresight and intellect is necessarily gibberish to you.
Are you really too blind to see that the only people that see the world even in similar distortion to how you do also start out with not only a vicious bias but a drastically limited mental capacity?
glassman
posted
he actually looks forward to the breakdown of civilisation bdgee. he has said so in so many words...
Propertymanager
posted
I look forward to the breakdown of socialism, welfare, handouts, and the victim mentality.
glassman
posted
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: I look forward to the breakdown of socialism, welfare, handouts, and the victim mentality.
show me a civilisation that was void of those things. There isn't one. It's a fantasy just like superman.
bdgee
posted
Without welfare and socialism it fails to be a civilization. And attempting to define those things to be handouts and declaring them to signal a "victim mentality", is the admission of a sick mind that is trapped in a "victim mentality".
PM, it is you (and a couple of other screwball right-wing crybabies) that load these pages with assertions of being victimized. You need to grow up.
(glass....let's not be so sure of ourselves. I have it on good authority that Superman is alive and well and acting as governor of California.)
raybond
posted
The bottom line is that our system will never produce a job for everybody it is impossible.
So you need some kind of social saftey net that ia a fact of life.
As to what type or to what degree of fairness and for how long of a period that is a question that is hard to answer and the opinion of one person is not a creditable answer so I won't give my opinion.
In societies in the past where the surplus of humanity,or the unemployable, was told to go fend for themselves we see bands of criminals,violience,and revolution.
As in this country right now there are millions of people my age that worked hard there whole life there 401k,s are now worthless there house is worth 50% of its value or less the only thing they can count on is social security. How are people like that to blame for anything and yes the poor are victims for the most part just because a small persentage makes it out of there plight does not mean that the majority can. So it is up to the gonerment to extend a helpiong hand and remember if all of us lives well it is good for all
glassman
posted that worked hard there whole life there 401k,s are now worthless there house is worth 50% of its value or less the only thing they can count on is social security
what was the Bush plan for Social security? i can't remeber
bdgee
posted
"what was the Bush plan for Social security? i can't remeber"
It is probably best you don't....had something to do with turning it all over to the same guys that take care of the banks.
Lockman
posted
quote:Originally posted by glassman: that worked hard there whole life there 401k,s are now worthless there house is worth 50% of its value or less the only thing they can count on is social security
what was the Bush plan for Social security? i can't remeber
2% of money taken from the tax payer would go into a separate investment account that the tax payer would own.
CashCowMoo
posted
Yeah that social security plan Bush and McCain wanted was bad bad news.
bdgee
posted
"2%"
Hate to tell you, but you got the figures way wrong.
Go back and use information not claimed on Fox.
glassman
posted Proponents say the necessary amount of borrowing could vary widely, from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over a decade, depending on how much money people are permitted to contribute to the accounts and whether the changes to Social Security include benefit cuts and tax increases.
Some Republicans in Congress are concerned that too much borrowing would carry large economic and political costs.
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who will be chairman of the Senate Budget Committee next year, said he would support borrowing money for Social Security if it was part of a plan that also included modest benefit cuts and tax increases.
But he said the additional debt might have to be accounted for on the government's books in a way that would not technically show an increase in the budget deficit in coming years.
"You've got to look at this as a very significant long-term fiscal policy decision where you're going to have a loss in the first 10 to 15 years and a significant move toward solvency in the last 20 to 30 years," Gregg said. "That mitigates against doing it in the context of a typical budget resolution."
To critics of personal accounts, Gregg's suggestion amounts to relying on budget gimmickry to hide the true costs.
"Anybody who thinks borrowing money for the transition to personal accounts is going to solve the problem of the long-term solvency of Social Security doesn't understand the size of the problem," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the retirement system.
But supporters of the accounts say borrowing even a few trillion dollars now would be worthwhile because it would help wipe out the retirement system's long-term unfunded liability the difference between what it will owe retirees under current law and the amount it will take in of about $11 trillion.
The White House, which has promised to cut the deficit in half while making Bush's tax cuts permanent, has signaled that it does not intend to include the figures in its budget, since the administration has not endorsed a detailed plan.
glassman
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lockman:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: that worked hard there whole life there 401k,s are now worthless there house is worth 50% of its value or less the only thing they can count on is social security
what was the Bush plan for Social security? i can't remeber
2% of money taken from the tax payer would go into a separate investment account that the tax payer would own.
here is what Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior writer wrote on March 4, 2005: 4:39 PM EST
How much payroll tax would be diverted to individual investment accounts? President Bush indicated that eventually, workers would be permitted to invest up to a third of the 12.4 percent payroll tax that they and their employers pay on their wages. (Workers pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay the other 6.2 percent.)
Annual contributions would be capped at $1,000 in 2009 and thereafter rise slightly more than $100 per year.
How would we pay for the costs of creating individual investments accounts? Payroll taxes are used to pay current retirees, so diverting a portion of them creates a shortfall in the ability to pay full benefits.
The transition costs of diverting a third of payroll taxes to individual investment accounts have been estimated at around $2 trillion over the next 10 years. That assumes, though, that a third of payroll tax is diverted for each of the 10 years.
The White House in December indicated the government would borrow the money to make up for that shortfall. But on Wednesday, the president didn't mention that.
Instead, he said the diversion of tax to individual accounts wouldn't be abrupt. Bush recommended "starting personal retirement accounts gradually and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts."
That would lessen the immediate impact on the U.S. budget by somewhat reducing the transition costs, said Ron Gebhardtsbauer, senior pension fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries.
posted 
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[More Crap]](graemlins/morecrap.png)
![[Wall Bang]](graemlins/wallbang.gif)