Delay's Days Dwindling?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
How you can’t see the shamelessness of Delay’s actions even in his handling of the ethics committee, changing the rules that your guys put in place, changing the members on the committee who voted against him (with people who have donated to his defense fund–who obviously aren’t going to vote against him) c’mon Rainjack! And you continue to miss my point with the thread of conservatives realizing this guy is a bruise on the party—even wingnut Santorum yesterday said Delay got’s some explaining to do! Battle for King of the Wingnuts!

I think the last wingnut statement was rather open-ended. It could mean that I am battling Santorum for King Wingnut, whinch is the interpretation that I went with.

It could mean that Delay is battling Santorum for the King’s job. That wouldn’t make sense though, because according to you Santorum is calling for Delay to explain himself - which doesn’t sound like they’re even on the same side of the ball.

It could even mean that those who are demanding an accountance by Delay as a wingnut.

You aren’t calling yourself a wingnut, are you?

[/quote]

My apologies for not wording it more clearly, I assumed wrongly that all would recognize senators Delay and Santorum as wingnuts.

62

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
RJ, you’ve just gotten the gist of 100meters whole argument! If you don’t agree with him and his verbatim lib talking points you’re a wingnut!

RJ welcome to the wingnut club!

All I have read so far from 100 about the Democrat “agenda’s” is what they are against. And if we don’t support thier pie in the sky schemes then we are standing in the way of progress. Throwing money at the problem isn’t the solutiona and the Dems are very short on ideas.

Take this to the next Democratic meeting: You guys have to be FOR something to be relevant.

And by the way if you are under 55, the Bush S.S. plan is a great idea. Why would anyone actually want to give the govt. more of their money? That’s just beyond me.

HILARIOUS! How is getting less money from Bush’s plan better than the more money from the current plan? Even if the economy by some MIRACLE slows to 1.8 percent of growth that would lead to s.s. going “bankrupt”(Hilarious too!) The 70 percent of the benefits it would pay out would still be more than the privatized plan! (Tip for HEDO: I don’t know if you invest, I do, but stocks don’t do so good if the economy grows at 1.8 percent, in fact stocks would be the WORST place to have any money). If you assume that the economy grows more than 1.8 percent then BOY is S.S. flush with tons of cash!

And a reminder you’re a member of the party against not for. Liberal=everything you have. Conservative=voted against everything you have.
Also remember your philosophy of conservatism was “debunked” at the end of the Civil War…Remember Lincoln? And the huge increase in the role and power of federal govt., and all those amendments, because ya just can’t trust those conservative states with their “state rights” because when you do the little guy gets stepped on, you know like when they still tried to get away with Jim Crow laws? And if you want government to spend less money why would you ever, ever vote for conservatives?
Inform yourself if you like:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/hist.html
but since 1962 total govt. spending avg.pct. increase:
dems:6.96 percent repubs:7.57
non-defense spending:
dems:8.34 percent repubs:10.08

not exactly what the right likes to claim huh? It’s almost like their lying to you to make you think bad things about liberals, weird. (oh wait! That’s what they do all the time!)

how about Non-defense Federal
Government Employees:
1962-2001

dems: 16 percent of total (59,000)
repubs: 84 percent of total (310,000)

It’s not even close. Gee, so the party of “big government” is the Republican party? Ahh hedo, you were an easy one for conservative to have, did you ever challenge any of their claims, or did you drink the whole glass of kool-aid?
Hedo you’re too easy![/quote]

100

I am too easy huh. Let’s just say my investment experience is substantial. If you went to a really good MBA program perhaps you could have interned for me when I was working at a major. I didn’t hire liberals though. Never met one with good judgement, you included.

Lincoln, Civil War…kool-aid. That’s it. I mean that is your witty comeback.

Come on 100 your slipping. You never make any sense but if that is the best you got the amusement factor is also slipping. Like AL we’ll just skip over you.

It really helps to read the plan yourself and not just the DNC talking points.

Most bright folks would rather invest their own money and skip the S.S. tax. Yeah I am pretty sure I could beat 1.8 % over time. Or whatever silly rate of return you were trying to justify.

63

[quote]100meters wrote:
My apologies for not wording it more clearly, I assumed wrongly that all would recognize senators Delay and Santorum as wingnuts.[/quote]

Delay’s going to be thrilled he’s been elevated to the senate…

64

BTW, any comment on Pelosi, Swami?
Or the stuff about Harry Reid actually introducing legislation to benefit his kids?
Or can you only rant against one side?

65

[quote]100meters wrote:
, and instead of just making stuff up I am actually posting articles of public record to document my claims[/quote]

so, hundred meters, you’re admitting you’ve made stuff up in the past, huh?

you wacky libs…you always slip up sooner or later.

“it may surprise you that I think I raised your taxes too much too…”–WJC.

66

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
My apologies for not wording it more clearly, I assumed wrongly that all would recognize senators Delay and Santorum as wingnuts.

Delay’s going to be thrilled he’s been elevated to the senate…[/quote]

Great catch JW - it went right over my head. It’s not that hard to do, though.

67

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

It really helps to read the plan yourself and not just the DNC talking points.

Most bright folks would rather invest their own money and skip the S.S. tax. Yeah I am pretty sure I could beat 1.8 % over time. Or whatever silly rate of return you were trying to justify.

[/quote]

Hedo, you’re pretty funny, You just breeze right by all kinds of facts and figures. OK, most bright folks don’t support privatization. Out of the 20 largest US companies polled only 2 supported the plan. Huge majorities of americans don’t support it. And hedo its unbelievable that you said it, but under Bush’s “plan” you don’t get to “invest” your own money. The investment choices will be low risk pre-selected basket of options.

The 1.8 percent is the predicted growth rate of the ECONOMY. That dismal prediction is the basis for S.S. going bankrupt in 40 or 50 years.(And you’re questioning my judgement?) You said yourself that throwing money at problems isn’t the solution, yet the president’s plan immediately makes S.S. insolvent due to fact we’ll be throwing trillions of borrowed dollars (and the interest on those dollars) and you think its a good idea? Curious.

As for DNC talking points, It’s the President who says that his plan does nothing to add solvency to S.S. (He’s with the RNC right?) You didn’t major in economics right? Because if you did, you’d know the market does very,very poorly when the economy is growing at 1.8 percent. But perhaps the president is using the worst case scenario to make his case? But in the case that he’s dead wrong (highly likely) S.S. is fine for way more than 50 years, and will be paying out much more in benefits than the president’s “plan”.

If the president is right, well in 40 years or so S.S. will still be paying out much more than a privatized plan (If the economy grew at an avg of 1.8 percent for the next 40 years, then DAMN the returns on those privatized portions in the stock market would be DISMAL, plus paying back the interest on the money we borrowed to invest—you didn’t major in economics right?)

68

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
, and instead of just making stuff up I am actually posting articles of public record to document my claims

so, hundred meters, you’re admitting you’ve made stuff up in the past, huh?

you wacky libs…you always slip up sooner or later.

“it may surprise you that I think I raised your taxes too much too…”–WJC.[/quote]

When? you guys make stuff up, I try my best to use facts and figures and the public record, and will continue to do so. Continue breezing by reality…

69

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
My apologies for not wording it more clearly, I assumed wrongly that all would recognize senators Delay and Santorum as wingnuts.

Delay’s going to be thrilled he’s been elevated to the senate…[/quote]

Ah ridiculed for “senators”, that’s the level of discussion that helps. Apologies to Mr. Delay.

70

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters, who’s a conservative turning on Delay?
Not Shays, not McCain…[/quote]

I think this is a key point.

Chris Shays is no one’s definition of a conservative. What he is, is a northeastern liberal Republican who is in a tough district and who represents constitutents who don’t care for DeLay or Texas. He’s going to play this for some political points, but that’s as far as it goes.

As for McCain, it’s just an opportunity for him to get his name in the paper.

71

[quote]100meters wrote:
Hedo, you’re pretty funny, You just breeze right by all kinds of facts and figures. OK, most bright folks don’t support privatization. Out of the 20 largest US companies polled only 2 supported the plan. Huge majorities of americans don’t support it. And hedo its unbelievable that you said it, but under Bush’s “plan” you don’t get to “invest” your own money. The investment choices will be low risk pre-selected basket of options.

The 1.8 percent is the predicted growth rate of the ECONOMY. That dismal prediction is the basis for S.S. going bankrupt in 40 or 50 years.(And you’re questioning my judgement?) You said yourself that throwing money at problems isn’t the solution, yet the president’s plan immediately makes S.S. insolvent due to fact we’ll be throwing trillions of borrowed dollars (and the interest on those dollars) and you think its a good idea? Curious.

As for DNC talking points, It’s the President who says that his plan does nothing to add solvency to S.S. (He’s with the RNC right?) You didn’t major in economics right? Because if you did, you’d know the market does very,very poorly when the economy is growing at 1.8 percent. But perhaps the president is using the worst case scenario to make his case? But in the case that he’s dead wrong (highly likely) S.S. is fine for way more than 50 years, and will be paying out much more in benefits than the president’s “plan”.

If the president is right, well in 40 years or so S.S. will still be paying out much more than a privatized plan (If the economy grew at an avg of 1.8 percent for the next 40 years, then DAMN the returns on those privatized portions in the stock market would be DISMAL, plus paying back the interest on the money we borrowed to invest—you didn’t major in economics right?)[/quote]

You keep wanting to talk about Social Security on completely irrelevant threads.

Fine. Appologies for the hi-jack.

  1. The President hasn’t proposed a plan for Social Security, so I don’t really know how you’re arguing about what “the President’s Plan” would or would not do.

  2. The President has said that private accounts by themselves won’t bring Social Security into long-term solvency. But they could help to do so, depending on the details of whatever plan is proposed.

  3. No new borrowed money would be required for the private accounts. The “cost” of private accounts is simply an accounting exercise – you are switching things around on the balance sheet, but no new debits are being created. With the pay-as-you-go system, money is owed to current workers and retirees. Money is paid by current workers. Money will be owed to future workers at some known level (ceteris paribus). THe “cost” comes from taking the current workers and their contributions out – so you have lessened your future liabilities. But the government has to pay its current obligations now – basically, it has to come to grips with the fact it already spent the money it collected that should have funded the current obligations.

  4. News flash: There’s no “lock box”. The politicians spend the money as it comes in, and put government bonds in its place. They’ll have to pay the bonds off later. Putting money into private accounts is a way of making the government account for this now, rather than letting them continue the charade of the “lock box”. It would stop (or at least greatly lessen) the practice of using the current surpluses in Social Security tax collections to fund the rest of the government, and it would highlight the true size of our current budget deficit. That’s what private accounts would do: fix government accounting and make the government acknowledge the true size of its deficit spending problem.

The money is spent either way – the only question is whether it will be on the books or hidden by the current SS surplus, which just postpones the day of reckoning.

  1. The true fix for Social Security will likley involve indexing benefits to the actual increase in cost of living rather than the increase in economic productivity. That’s assuming they keep it as an insurance/pension style program and don’t turn it into a complete welfare program.
72

let’s review:

Delay is a hardass, hardball Texas Pol.

Delay has done things that push the rules but don’t break them.

Delay’s wife and daughter, who everybody knows work for him, got paid 500k over 4-5 years legally.

Delay unseated a bunch of Dems from their seats in Texas.

We know a Democratic team has decided their only hope is to target Delay.

Gingrich was found innocent of all ethics charges on review. His fine was returned. He did pork a staffer, probably why he was so nice to Clinton when he had Billy by the throat.

If this is all the Dems got, my hope of Republican versus Libertarian as two
main parties is not far off.

Republicans need to Cowboy up and go on offensive against Dems and media. Delay has earned and deserves their support. No liberal (Hanoi John/Hillary/Teddy Gingame) or Media guy (Rather) can handle the heat of scrutiny.

Play to win.

For the children, of course…

73

[quote]jackreape wrote:
let’s review:

Delay is a hardass, hardball Texas Pol.

Delay has done things that push the rules but don’t break them.

Delay’s wife and daughter, who everybody knows work for him, got paid 500k over 4-5 years legally.

Delay unseated a bunch of Dems from their seats in Texas.

We know a Democratic team has decided their only hope is to target Delay.

Gingrich was found innocent of all ethics charges on review. His fine was returned. He did pork a staffer, probably why he was so nice to Clinton when he had Billy by the throat.

If this is all the Dems got, my hope of Republican versus Libertarian as two
main parties is not far off.

Republicans need to Cowboy up and go on offensive against Dems and media. Delay has earned and deserves their support. No liberal (Hanoi John/Hillary/Teddy Gingame) or Media guy (Rather) can handle the heat of scrutiny.

Play to win.

For the children, of course… [/quote]

Welcome to the wingnut/bolt club.

74

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
You keep wanting to talk about Social Security on completely irrelevant threads.
[/quote]

Does anyone have a link to a video, or transcript of Clinton’s speech(es) in which he talks specifically about S.S. going broke?

100M is “faking his own ignorance” wrt Clinton saying the exact same thing that Bush is now saying about S.S.'s solvency, or lack thereof.

75

Rainjack –

This doesn’t really fit the bill of what you’re asking, but it’s fun nonetheless:

Democrats on Personal Accounts

Back in an era where Senators and Representatives listened to proposals before opposing them, these Democrats endorsed the idea of personal accounts. Here are their own words.

Senators:
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): ?[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector.? (Fox?s ?Fox News Sunday,? 2/14/99)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Press Release: ?Durbin Said Due To The Increasing Number Of ?Baby Boomers? Reaching Retirement Age, Social Security Will Be Unable To Pay Out Full Benefits ? But The Sooner Congress Acts To Avert This Crisis The Easier And Less Painful It Will Be.? (Sen. Dick Durbin, ?Reforming Social Security,? Press Release, 9/15/98)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): ?Fixing Social Security Is An Urgent Priority. It Ought To Be At The Top Of Both Parties? Agendas.? (Sen. Byron Dorgan, ?Fixing Social Security Must Top Both Parties? Agendas,? Roll Call, 12/6/99)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): ?The Potential [Social Security] Crisis Should Be Viewed As An Enormous Success, Because It Means That We Are Living Longer And Healthier Lives.? (Betty Mills, Op-Ed, ?What Would You Do About Social Security?? Bismarck Tribune, 8/5/98)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): ?I Was At The Social Security Summit At The White House, Along With 40 Of My Colleagues, Republicans And Democrats. And There Was Virtual Unanimity Of Opinion That We Simply Have To Get A Higher Return From The Social Security Investments.? (Fox News? ?Special Report,? 1/20/99)

House Members:
Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI): ?People Can See, I Think, A [Social Security] Crisis Where There Immediate Family Is Affected Even If Not Immediately ? This Is Something That Affects Almost Everybody?s Immediate Family.? (Richard A. Ryan, ?Social Security Reform Stalls,? The Detroit News, 2/2/02)

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): ?I Am One Democrat That Truly Believes That Democrats Will Not Benefit By Doing Nothing On Social Security.? (Rep. Charles Rangel, Press Conference, 1/21/99)

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA): ?I Am An Advocate For Investing A Portion Of The Surplus In The Private Sector ?? (Rep. Edward J. Markey, Committee On Commerce, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 2/25/99)

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): ?[I]t?s A Way Of Getting More Money ? A Higher Return On The Trust Fund, And Is A Prudent And Good Thing To Do.? (Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Press Conference, 1/21/99)

Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO): ?Why Should Social Security Recipients Be Disadvantaged By Not Getting To Be Able To Have Higher Returns Out Of The Stock Market?? (Rep. Dick Gephardt, Press Conference, 1/21/99)

Clinton:
President Clinton: ?[Investing] Will Earn A Higher Return And Keep Social Security Sound For 55 Years.? (President Bill
Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99)

President Clinton: ?[W]hat I Believe We Should Do Is To Invest A Modest Amount Of This In The Private Sector, The Way Every Other Retirement Plan Does. The Arizona State Retirement Plan Does; Every Municipal Retirement Plan Does; Every Private Plan Does.? (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To The Citizens Of Tucson On Medicare And Social Security, Tucson, AZ, 2/25/99)

President Clinton: ?[E]ven After You Take Account Of The Stock Market Going Down And Maybe Staying Down For A Few Years, Shouldn?t We Consider Investing Some Of This Money, Because, Otherwise, We?ll Have To Either Cut Benefits Or Raise Taxes To Cover Them, If We Can?t Raise The Rate Of Return.? (President Bill Clinton, Remarks Via Satellite To The Regional Congressional Social Security Forums, Albuquerque, NM, 7/27/98)

76

Thanks BB. What kind of spin doctoring will transpire now in order for 100M to dismiss all of these quotes?

77

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

It really helps to read the plan yourself and not just the DNC talking points.

Most bright folks would rather invest their own money and skip the S.S. tax. Yeah I am pretty sure I could beat 1.8 % over time. Or whatever silly rate of return you were trying to justify.

Hedo, you’re pretty funny, You just breeze right by all kinds of facts and figures. OK, most bright folks don’t support privatization. Out of the 20 largest US companies polled only 2 supported the plan. Huge majorities of americans don’t support it. And hedo its unbelievable that you said it, but under Bush’s “plan” you don’t get to “invest” your own money. The investment choices will be low risk pre-selected basket of options.

The 1.8 percent is the predicted growth rate of the ECONOMY. That dismal prediction is the basis for S.S. going bankrupt in 40 or 50 years.(And you’re questioning my judgement?) You said yourself that throwing money at problems isn’t the solution, yet the president’s plan immediately makes S.S. insolvent due to fact we’ll be throwing trillions of borrowed dollars (and the interest on those dollars) and you think its a good idea? Curious.

As for DNC talking points, It’s the President who says that his plan does nothing to add solvency to S.S. (He’s with the RNC right?) You didn’t major in economics right? Because if you did, you’d know the market does very,very poorly when the economy is growing at 1.8 percent. But perhaps the president is using the worst case scenario to make his case? But in the case that he’s dead wrong (highly likely) S.S. is fine for way more than 50 years, and will be paying out much more in benefits than the president’s “plan”.

If the president is right, well in 40 years or so S.S. will still be paying out much more than a privatized plan (If the economy grew at an avg of 1.8 percent for the next 40 years, then DAMN the returns on those privatized portions in the stock market would be DISMAL, plus paying back the interest on the money we borrowed to invest—you didn’t major in economics right?)[/quote]

100 of course I didn’t major in economics. I studied Finance. Economics is for guys like you…theorists not people who actually make deals and run companies. Just as an aside I probably took economic lectures from folks that wrote the textbooks you used in college.

Your theory is comical son.

We have already established that you think I am funny and I think you are insignificant and silly. No need to keep berating the point. Maybe you have a need to but I don’t. Besides rearead this thread. Your relevance has been established by smarter men then I.

I guess you travel in different circles then I. Most of the folks I know in the investment and banking fields would love to invest all of their own money and skip S.S. entirely. But then again we don’t support the party of entitlements.

If you can put together a real argument other then trying to make leap of faith conjectures let me know.

78

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hedo, you’re pretty funny, You just breeze right by all kinds of facts and figures. OK, most bright folks don’t support privatization. Out of the 20 largest US companies polled only 2 supported the plan. Huge majorities of americans don’t support it. And hedo its unbelievable that you said it, but under Bush’s “plan” you don’t get to “invest” your own money. The investment choices will be low risk pre-selected basket of options.

The 1.8 percent is the predicted growth rate of the ECONOMY. That dismal prediction is the basis for S.S. going bankrupt in 40 or 50 years.(And you’re questioning my judgement?) You said yourself that throwing money at problems isn’t the solution, yet the president’s plan immediately makes S.S. insolvent due to fact we’ll be throwing trillions of borrowed dollars (and the interest on those dollars) and you think its a good idea? Curious.

As for DNC talking points, It’s the President who says that his plan does nothing to add solvency to S.S. (He’s with the RNC right?) You didn’t major in economics right? Because if you did, you’d know the market does very,very poorly when the economy is growing at 1.8 percent. But perhaps the president is using the worst case scenario to make his case? But in the case that he’s dead wrong (highly likely) S.S. is fine for way more than 50 years, and will be paying out much more in benefits than the president’s “plan”.

If the president is right, well in 40 years or so S.S. will still be paying out much more than a privatized plan (If the economy grew at an avg of 1.8 percent for the next 40 years, then DAMN the returns on those privatized portions in the stock market would be DISMAL, plus paying back the interest on the money we borrowed to invest—you didn’t major in economics right?)

You keep wanting to talk about Social Security on completely irrelevant threads.

Fine. Appologies for the hi-jack.

  1. The President hasn’t proposed a plan for Social Security, so I don’t really know how you’re arguing about what “the President’s Plan” would or would not do.

  2. The President has said that private accounts by themselves won’t bring Social Security into long-term solvency. But they could help to do so, depending on the details of whatever plan is proposed.

  3. No new borrowed money would be required for the private accounts. The “cost” of private accounts is simply an accounting exercise – you are switching things around on the balance sheet, but no new debits are being created. With the pay-as-you-go system, money is owed to current workers and retirees. Money is paid by current workers. Money will be owed to future workers at some known level (ceteris paribus). THe “cost” comes from taking the current workers and their contributions out – so you have lessened your future liabilities. But the government has to pay its current obligations now – basically, it has to come to grips with the fact it already spent the money it collected that should have funded the current obligations.

  4. News flash: There’s no “lock box”. The politicians spend the money as it comes in, and put government bonds in its place. They’ll have to pay the bonds off later. Putting money into private accounts is a way of making the government account for this now, rather than letting them continue the charade of the “lock box”. It would stop (or at least greatly lessen) the practice of using the current surpluses in Social Security tax collections to fund the rest of the government, and it would highlight the true size of our current budget deficit. That’s what private accounts would do: fix government accounting and make the government acknowledge the true size of its deficit spending problem.

The money is spent either way – the only question is whether it will be on the books or hidden by the current SS surplus, which just postpones the day of reckoning.

  1. The true fix for Social Security will likley involve indexing benefits to the actual increase in cost of living rather than the increase in economic productivity. That’s assuming they keep it as an insurance/pension style program and don’t turn it into a complete welfare program.[/quote]

Actually somebody else brought it up,
Perhaps a S.S. thread is in order.

  1. I try to put plan in quotations, because your exactly right he won’t reveal his exact plan, but we have a good idea what the plan is.

  2. His plan would immediately make S.S. insolvent—simple math. Next is S.S. actually headed for insolvency—if the economy grows faster than the 1.8 percent predicted in the pessimistic scenario, then no it’s not headed for insolvency. If you look at the optimistic numbers in their other projections (S.S.'s) then S.S. will be running nice surpluses for decades to come. And by the way, over it’s history, the optimistic projections have been the most accurate.

3.We do have to “borrow” money to make up the differences of the portions invested in private accts. This will be trillions of dollars. Paying back the trust fund will still be a given. Gov. pays back current debt. Gov. pays back trillions of dollars of new debt to make up difference in missing money going into pvt. accts. plus compounding interest on loans. Administrative fees. All subtracted from measly returns on safe govt. chosen investments. (maybe they’ll get 5%? maybe?)

  1. Yes Bush lied about the “Lockbox” and the taxcuts. Privitizing doesn’t fix any of the problems you mentioned. If Bush wants to borrow money, he’ll borrow it. Just like Bush borrows from the “charade” every day. A better plan would just have a president that keeps his word, or instead of faking his enormous deficit numbers with s.s. surplus money borrow from somewhere else.

5.Odds are incredibly good that not a damn thing needs to be done. Or as I keep saying IF Bush is right and S.S. goes “bankrupt” then it means the economy averaged 1.8 percent growth, and nobody can explain why in the holy hell would you want your money in the market!?----You would be shit out of luck with your privatized portion! Or you’d be getting a sweet 70% of your guaranteed benefit which would be much more than retirees currently get by just leaving S.S totally alone in the absolute worst case scenario.

Privatization is basically a foot in the door to dismantling S.S., because as people get less and less under the plan, it becomes more and more pointless to have the program…I want my check, don’t know about the rest of you guys…

anyway where were we? oh yes Delay…

79

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

It really helps to read the plan yourself and not just the DNC talking points.

Most bright folks would rather invest their own money and skip the S.S. tax. Yeah I am pretty sure I could beat 1.8 % over time. Or whatever silly rate of return you were trying to justify.

Hedo, you’re pretty funny, You just breeze right by all kinds of facts and figures. OK, most bright folks don’t support privatization. Out of the 20 largest US companies polled only 2 supported the plan. Huge majorities of americans don’t support it. And hedo its unbelievable that you said it, but under Bush’s “plan” you don’t get to “invest” your own money. The investment choices will be low risk pre-selected basket of options.

The 1.8 percent is the predicted growth rate of the ECONOMY. That dismal prediction is the basis for S.S. going bankrupt in 40 or 50 years.(And you’re questioning my judgement?) You said yourself that throwing money at problems isn’t the solution, yet the president’s plan immediately makes S.S. insolvent due to fact we’ll be throwing trillions of borrowed dollars (and the interest on those dollars) and you think its a good idea? Curious.

As for DNC talking points, It’s the President who says that his plan does nothing to add solvency to S.S. (He’s with the RNC right?) You didn’t major in economics right? Because if you did, you’d know the market does very,very poorly when the economy is growing at 1.8 percent. But perhaps the president is using the worst case scenario to make his case? But in the case that he’s dead wrong (highly likely) S.S. is fine for way more than 50 years, and will be paying out much more in benefits than the president’s “plan”.

If the president is right, well in 40 years or so S.S. will still be paying out much more than a privatized plan (If the economy grew at an avg of 1.8 percent for the next 40 years, then DAMN the returns on those privatized portions in the stock market would be DISMAL, plus paying back the interest on the money we borrowed to invest—you didn’t major in economics right?)

100 of course I didn’t major in economics. I studied Finance. Economics is for guys like you…theorists not people who actually make deals and run companies. Just as an aside I probably took economic lectures from folks that wrote the textbooks you used in college.

Your theory is comical son.

We have already established that you think I am funny and I think you are insignificant and silly. No need to keep berating the point. Maybe you have a need to but I don’t. Besides rearead this thread. Your relevance has been established by smarter men then I.

I guess you travel in different circles then I. Most of the folks I know in the investment and banking fields would love to invest all of their own money and skip S.S. entirely. But then again we don’t support the party of entitlements.

If you can put together a real argument other then trying to make leap of faith conjectures let me know.[/quote]

Can you please just try factually debunking me? No, and a tip—s.s. wasn’t really designed to make those in the investing and banking fields richer, it’s more of an insurance policy

80

hey 100meters, why the fuck don’t you answer my questions once? What about Pelosi? What about Reid? What about these real ethics problems?