They're Anti-Bush, not really pro-democrat......
I'm a Bloomberg Republican, a Cuomo Democrat, and a Guevara Socialist.

That why the majority of their complaints fall on deaf ears. We've already figured out that they can't be pleased.
That's the greatest thing about American Democracy: No matter what the issue is, someone will always walk away crying "foul". You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of them none of the time...

---

kong,

your little weak attempt at a dig? alluding to what you term a yellow dog Democrat?

I am neither cowed by your lack of imagination, nor was I ever a Democrat.

Playground games for sissies......

I noticed that when it came down to discussing specifics and taking an indepth look at your assertions, you chose to leave off, to ignore any continuation of that discussion.

I'm just saying, ......talking about what's yellow...

And now you come back to defend unethical acts by saying someone else acted that way at some other time, so it's perfectly ok today.

More playground logic.....

Let's hope there are some grownups around to assist in your supervision.

Address the issue as best you can..... but save your PeeWee Herman act for your buddies over on the Free Republic board...

(my apologies to the rest of you... but such fetid gas from overly self-inflated windbags is not easily suffered)

---

While you're here, Paul, I'd like to ask you to take a look at this.

---

thanks na,

the directions seem pretty clear to me, (at least up til #7?)

I'll refer to that link over there..... looks good, appreciate the heads up...

---

Yeah... step 7 is a three-part process: Type, drag-n-drop, type.
It was either that or have you type out a terse, typo-prone command.
Let me know how it goes.

---

> I'm a Bloomberg Republican, a Cuomo Democrat, and a Guevara Socialist.

Like I said, you don't support our President

> That's the greatest thing about American Democracy: No matter what the issue
> is, someone will always walk away crying "foul". You can please some
> of the people all of the time, and all of them none of the time...

Who walked away crying foul? I said you can't be pleased. Talking politics with those types is like giving Robotussin cough syrup to AIDS patients. It's a waste of time, effort, and resouces.

Notice the conversation drifiting away from Social Security because you can't accept the fact that some of us flat-out just don't think it's a good idea.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

[b]T.S.T.F.U.

---

Account frozen...

social security going broke?...i can't claim to really know...the numbers they have crunched to come up with that scenario could be spun more than a dozen different ways...it's the proposed solution to the alleged crisis that i have probems with...investing part of your social security in the stock market doesn't seem the wisest thing to do with money that is meant to help support you in your retirement...i know enough people who are still wailing about the money they lost in their IRA'S in the aftermath of 911...they are only now getting back to where they were before...for those who are blessed with other substantial resources this is not such a big problem...but for those who barely get by it could be a big hurt comin' down if such a disaster occurs right before their retirement.

social security was never meant to be a cash infusion for wall street...it was meant to be a safety net for people who are retired...the administrations current proposal seems to benefit those who are ready have much...at the expense of those who have little...but with the various political and religious diversions going on...who knows?...the ones this issue should matter most to, may not really care...until it's too late.

the social security program was created in part to protect the average citizen from the volatility of the economy in the aftermath of the great stock market crash...i find it ironic that this particular proposal could go as far as it has, consider the origins of social security.

---

PROUD TO BE TFFE!

If one supposes or agrees, like those who favor privitazation, that the 6-7% returns will be achieved in these 'accounts'......

Then one must posit that the economy, productivity, wage growth and all the attendant factors controlling that 6-7% return will happen.

Well and good....

We know that for the stock market to perform as it has in the last 70 years, or 20 years, it will have to perform in the same manner once more.

And for the stock market to match that performance, then GDP, wage growth, etc etc etc will have to match those same conditions of past growth.


What none of the privateers seem to be able to grasp, or willing to admit....

Is if we match that overall performance to achieve the promised objective claimed with privatization,...........

The SSI system today, ...as it is, ...with no change whatsoever, will also beat all the doomsday claims and be solvent for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps one of you lofty ideologues can explain away the difference here?

The returns are very nearly a wash if either plan is controlled by similar conditions, what exactly is the benefit to accepting all the risk of the market if the returns are to be the same?

---

>>I'm a Bloomberg Republican, a Cuomo Democrat, and a Guevara Socialist.
>Like I said, you don't support our President
Where did I say that I don't support the President?

>>That's the greatest thing about American Democracy: No matter what the issue is, someone will always walk away crying "foul".
>Who walked away crying foul? I said you can't be pleased.[/i]
I'm talking in general. I don't care about being "pleased" with my Government because I know that in any majority-rule system you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of them none of the time. Today I might not be "pleased" with it; tomorrow, I might be ecstatic.

Let's let time pass and see what happens...

Notice the conversation drifiting away from Social Security because you can't accept the fact that some of us flat-out just don't think it's a good idea.
Notice how the conversation is drifting into an "US v. Them" because you can't accept the fact that my opinions do not necessarily jive with yours? You think Social Security should be yanked. I think it should be amended. I agree to disagree with your opinion.

---

Two strangely opposite perspectives ...

"Young workers who elect personal accounts can expect to receive a far higher rate of return on their money than the current system could ever afford to pay them."

Vice President Dick Cheney
Speaking without any documentation to back up his assertion.
____________________________________________________

"Calculations of the median voter’s return from “investing” in Social Security suggest that for a majority of voters the U.S. Social Security system provides higher ex-post, or actual, returns than alternative assets."

Vincenzo Galasso
Fully documented and demonstrated.
Social Security Bulletin
(The quarterly research journal
of the Social Security Administration)
Vol. 64 • No. 2

(Who do you trust when 'facts' are so strangely opposed?)

---

(Who do you trust when 'facts' are so strangely opposed?)
Tomorrow morning's New York Times and tonight's Hewshour with Jim Lehrer. The State of the Union address is scheduled for 9PM EST, but with all of the handshaking and cheering, it will probably begin at 9:15 EST.

Let's hear what the Man has to say. Who knows what surprise (good as well as bad) may be in store...

---

> Two strangely opposite perspectives ...
>
> "Young workers who elect personal accounts can expect to receive a far higher
> rate of return on their money than the current system could ever afford to pay
> them."
>
> Vice President Dick Cheney
> Speaking without any documentation to back up his assertion.
> ____________________________________________________
>
> "Calculations of the median voter’s return from “investing” in Social Security
> suggest that for a majority of voters the U.S. Social Security system provides
> higher ex-post, or actual, returns than alternative assets."
>
> Vincenzo Galasso
> Fully documented and demonstrated.
> Social Security Bulletin
> (The quarterly research journal
> of the Social Security Administration)
> Vol. 64 • No. 2
>
> (Who do you trust when 'facts' are so strangely opposed?)
>


The reason the return will be higher is the fact that the government can not take money out of your private social security account. The gains will build up and a person can get more out than paid in.

In the current system the government takes the gains from the IOUs and uses it for the general budget items. Normally a person will never get back what was actually paid in.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

> > I'm a Bloomberg Republican, a Cuomo Democrat, and a Guevara Socialist.
>
> Like I said, you don't support our President
>
> > That's the greatest thing about American Democracy: No matter what the
> issue
> > is, someone will always walk away crying "foul". You can please
> some
> > of the people all of the time, and all of them none of the time...
>
> Who walked away crying foul? I said you can't be pleased. Talking politics
> with those types is like giving Robotussin cough syrup to AIDS patients. It's
> a waste of time, effort, and resouces.

So why do you continue then? Haven't you figured out, yet, that you're getting nowhere? Or, are you just a glutton for punishment?

> Notice the conversation drifiting away from Social Security because you can't
> accept the fact that some of us flat-out just don't think it's a good idea.
>

Since I started reading this thread and following it on a daily basis, I have concluded that you are the one and only
"some of us" that is "flat-out" against Social Security. [Are we back on topic now?]

Come on now, don't be shy. Refute my conclusion. You failed to reply to most of my other posts. Nothing to say against me
or to me? Hard to refute logic is it not?

My Time: Wednesday, 02 February 2005 - 05:58 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

<B>"Mr. Spreaker, the President of the United States!"[/b] Here we go...

Talk to you all later.

---

richard,

what you wish to interject is not reflected in the calculations or my question.

stick with apples and apples. Those oranges might be juicy but they don't apply to the question.

Go back to my post previous to Cheney's quote and address the issue on it's own.

The returns promised by the privateers are well known, the actual returns from SSI are historically documented.

Sticking with those numbers and not interjecting something which is not a consideration to the premise at all, please answer why, for the same return, is it a good deal to put the whole program at risk and why for the same return, one would want to take on the market risk and chance losing everything?

Don't skate around the issue..... answer the question of why personal risk of losing everything is better than collective security of ensuring the returns?

---

>The returns are very nearly a wash if either plan is controlled by similar >conditions, what exactly is the benefit to accepting all the risk of the market >if the returns are to be the same?

The potential for greater returns NOT at the expense of those already paying for it. I'm not implying that it's the best solution out there, just better than the current situation for those responsible for footing the bill.

>Notice how the conversation is drifting into an "US v. Them" because you can't >accept the fact that my opinions do not necessarily jive with yours? You think >Social Security should be yanked. I think it should be amended. I agree to >disagree with your opinion.

You mean like they amended welfare and how it's still abused? Excuse me for learning from past mistakes. I would be satisfied with term limits, if they were enforced. Somehow, I don't think you'd be "pleased" with my compromise.

>So why do you continue then? Haven't you figured out, yet, that you're getting >nowhere? Or, are you just a glutton for punishment?

As with my daily job, I enjoy helping the less fortunate, be it mental or other. So my response would be the latter. Notice I said HELPING, not SUPPORTING.

Teachers will tell you the same thing. The love their job, but they cannot do a thing with a student who will not pay attention, but that doesn't mean they will quit.

>Since I started reading this thread and following it on a daily basis, I have >concluded that you are the one and only
>"some of us" that is "flat-out" against Social Security.

Last time I checked, SS was an issue outside of SETI as well. Maybe if you paid a little more attention to the REAL world......

>Come on now, don't be shy. Refute my conclusion.

I think I just did.

>Sticking with those numbers and not interjecting something which is not a >consideration to the premise at all.......

That might fly in fantasy land, but in the real world, there are very few constants.

Premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

Is it just me or is the State of the Union getting shorter and shorter every year?

>>You think Social Security should be yanked. I think it should be amended. I agree to disagree with your opinion.
>You mean like they amended welfare and how it's still abused?
I can't claim to know what was done in your neck of the contiguous - I can only vouch for what I see, and what I have witnessed is a successful transition from welfare to workfare. Both are still being abused - there's no doubt of it - but those who are abusing workfare today are the same people who a decade ago were abusing welfare.

Excuse me for learning from past mistakes.
I hope you'll excuse me as well.

I would be satisfied with term limits, if they were enforced.
.o0(?) I'm lost here - are we still talking about welfare, workfare, and Social Security?

Somehow, I don't think you'd be "pleased" with my compromise.
I don't think you'd be pleased with mine, either, but the fact that we're able to give and take without giving each other the bird or taking each other by the throat is a Good Thing.

---

> ....

Your original statements:
> Who walked away crying foul? I said you can't be pleased. Talking politics
> with those types is like giving Robotussin cough syrup to AIDS patients. It's
> a waste of time, effort, and resouces.

My questions to those statements:
> >
So why do you continue then? Haven't you figured out, yet, that you're
getting nowhere? Or, are you just a glutton for punishment?
> >

Your reply:
> As with my daily job, I enjoy helping the less fortunate, be it mental or
> other. So my response would be the latter. Notice I said HELPING, not
> SUPPORTING.

I say:
What the hell does your response have anything to do with your original statements?

Your reply cont.:
> Teachers will tell you the same thing. The love their job, but they cannot do
> a thing with a student who will not pay attention, but that doesn't mean they
> will quit.

I say:
So, you are a glutton for punishment?

My continued statement:
> >
Since I started reading this thread and following it on a daily basis, I have concluded that you are the one and only
"some of us" that is "flat-out" against Social Security.
> >

Your reply:
> Last time I checked, SS was an issue outside of SETI as well. Maybe if
> you paid a little more attention to the REAL world......

My reply:
We[/b] are not "outside" of SETI, now are we? The outside world is not posting in this thread, we are, you, me and the
rest in this thread. Don't try to bring the outside world into SETI to support your lack of logic. You are alone on this SS issue in here.

My final statements:
> >
Come on now, don't be shy. Refute my conclusion.

Your reply:
> I think I just did.

My reply:
I believe not!

I would appreciate it if, in the future, you respond to me, that you respond to me alone. Don't mix replies to me in with 2 or 3 other
replies to 2 or 3 other peoples posts. I do not do it to anyone else, I do not expect it to be done to me. If you cannot comply with my
request, and you cannot come up with anything logical to respond with, don't bother responding. I will, however, continue to poke
holes in your lack of logic.

My Time: Wednesday, 02 February 2005 - 07:27 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

>I'm lost here - are we still talking about welfare, workfare, and Social Security?

Both. Welfare reform limits cash received to 5 years, I see no reason not to impliment term limits in SS as well. It would certainly stop those from taking it before they really needed it as opposed to taking it just because it's there.

>I don't think you'd be pleased with mine, either....

I have yet to see a suggestion....have I missed it or did you not offer one?


> I say:
> What the hell does your response have anything to do with your original
> statements?
>
> Your reply cont.:
> > Teachers will tell you the same thing. The love their job, but they
> cannot do
> > a thing with a student who will not pay attention, but that doesn't mean
> they
> > will quit.
>
> I say:
> So, you are a glutton for punishment?

Jsut because you will not learn doesn't mean I will stop trying to teach even though I know it's a waste of my time. Notice me explaing this to you yet AGAIN, because it's my time to waste.


> [i]We[/b] are not "outside" of SETI, now are we?
Yep, I'm at home.

>The outside world is
> not posting in this thread, we are, you, me and the
> rest in this thread. Don't try to bring the outside world into SETI to

Lack of logic? To imply that SETI users are the end all of opinions is the most illogical response I've ever heard. Furthermore, if the voting populace was limited to SETI users, then I too would accept your limitations, but again, this is Earth, not fantasy land.


I believe not!

Of course not, you're liberal and cannot be pleased. Did I not already state I was aware of that?
>
> I would appreciate it if, in the future, you respond to me, that you respond
> to me alone. Don't mix replies to me in with 2 or 3 others.

To bad, so sad. The earth does not revolve around you and neither does this forum.


> replies to 2 or 3 other peoples posts. I do not do it to anyone else, I do
> not expect it to be done to me. If you cannot comply with my
> request, and you cannot come up with anything logical to respond with, don't
> bother responding. I will, however, continue to poke
> holes in your lack of logic.

Sorry, this is not welfare, and I wouldn't abuse it anyway.

In the interest of conserving resources. I will continue to make 1 post when 1 post is all that is needed.

You put forth a little effort if you want to continue the discussion. It makes no difference to me. It's not like you will be satisfied with any response I give, liberal.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>