Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 7      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next
POV

Registered:
Posts: 2,715
Reply with quote  #91 
Just a comment.......given his body of work I seriously doubt that the Geo. Bush Jr. PR team will ever agree to any interviews of substance. 

 No sarcasm.....totally serious.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,034
Reply with quote  #92 
And with the medias biased "body of work" against him and his administration, would you be surprised if he passed on an interview? No sarcasm here either.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
POV

Registered:
Posts: 2,715
Reply with quote  #93 
woody, if you are anything......you are consistent. 

 
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #94 
POV, just the other day the spin machine for the Democratic Party actually praised Bush Jr. asserting that he has not taken any cheap shots at BHO and that he acted with a lot of class during the recent 9-11 ceremonies avoiding any questions political in nature.  Darned if you do and darned if you don't.

Darrell
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,034
Reply with quote  #95 
Quote:
Originally Posted by POV
woody, if you are anything......you are consistent. 

 
As are you.

__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,595
Reply with quote  #96 
 As for the many other independents who can cross from Party to Party, depending on the individual running, how do you explain away my bewilderment that general issues haven't previously defined your decision? I did similar for thirty some years but, I'll admit, I wasn't paying very close attention.

Well Uncle Dewey, when I get to be your age, maybe I'll be as opinionated  aligned.  

Until then, I'll still consider the conditions of our nation, my state, county and city to assess who best will carry those communities in the direction sought, then cast my vote (and vocal support) for appropriate candidates, propositions and measures.

Who and what is right, to my eyes, changes. Those carrying the banner for their respective parties may have critical attributes I feel is essential for the period they will be in office. Party affiliation is merely a fundraising team that may or may not define the individual for whom I might vote.

Those teams have a platform. Have you ever been on a team that was unanimous in accord? I sure haven't. If I am as attentive as you claim to be, then it should be possible to cut through party rhetoric and cast votes for individuals rather than vote in lock step for a particular party.

Perhaps I feel this way because I live in a small bedroom community. A little bit of public scrutiny goes a long way. Easy to know who is and who isn't in the corner I wish to congregate.

As far as the big scene, through my excursions over the years, I've been in the company of some wigs big & small, pachyderms, donkeys, CEOs, celebrities and politicos. As a youth, I thought all men of power were womanizing, bigoted, alcoholics.  A vote of support? Hardly something they deserved. So early on, had to separate the man from the mission. Or the team, or company or party.

I'm selective in the "colors" I wear. Don't don a cap unless it's MY team. Currently those are the Panthers, Wildcats and Nuggets, but not jackasses nor elephants.



Side note: Regarding discussion on Pres. Bill Clinton, while the man is a lot of things, some unsavory, he is one of, if not the best, extemporaneous public speakers. He does my initials proud.


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #97 

Bill - I'm older than you but certainly not wiser.  If I understand correctly, I can see your approach in a community sense but have a hard time reconciling it in a national sense.  Using what you know of me as an example, how do I use your philosophy to consider voting for a Party who believes our social programs are unconstitutional and should be privatized?  It would seem to me the alternative would have to have very serious flaws. 

JackDandy

Registered:
Posts: 850
Reply with quote  #98 

Dewd are you saying that the government social programs don't have serious flaws?


__________________
When Communism comes to America it will be wrapped in an empty suit and promising hope and change.

Jack Dandy
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,595
Reply with quote  #99 
Your premise involves assigning party affliation above the characteristics of the individual. My concept works as well on the national scene. Here's a hypothetical...

Country poised on the brink of Cold War II. China and ourselves at an impasse over Korea and they hold our debt. While we both posture with sabre rattling in various other venues of the globe, a presidential election looms.

Given the greater cause, would you vote again for a presidential candidate such as Barrack Obama over a proven member of the Skull and Bones contingent?

Using movie terms, in times of peace we rue the death of Pvt. Santiago. In times of war, you want Col. Jessep on that wall.

__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #100 

Bill - Some will say I just did, (voted Obama over McCain).  They could use Iran as a comparable example.  In any event, I would agree there could be a premise where my passionate issues would take a back seat but it seems those are few and far between. 

BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,595
Reply with quote  #101 
McCain's campaign rhetoric wasn't hawkish. Despite his military background, at times he seemed the embodiment of the Manchurian Candidate with some of his commentary regarding our use of armed forces in global police actions/peace keeping.

Your choices back then were disimilarly the same.

I'm sure you are familiar with the term Blue Dog Democrats. There are even a few in California. Don't they fail your personal litmus test despite representing your party?


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #102 
Bill - Maybe I haven't made myself clear.  I'm not looking for a litmus test.  I'm not recommending all Democrats should share the exact same beliefs.  My question revolves around how an individual can go this way and then that way from election to election.  I would imagine most people have two or three issues that are so important to them that they override everything else.  If your top two issues are making abortion illegal and allowing prayer in school, how can you switch from one Party to another in any given election?  A Democrat President will not help you.  I understand people can have issues that cross Party lines but eventually, I would think one would win out.  I'm just trying to understand how people can be so moderate that they are pulled in neither direction.  A Blue Dog Democrat doesn't agree with everything in the party platform but he's still a Democrat and not an independent.  In other words, he was eventually pulled into one party.

Edit:  This is not a debate and hopefully non-controversial.  I was responding to LMSS saying she grew up without Party affiliation and I'm simply curious how folks who follow politics avoid getting pulled into one Party or the other?  I think this is interesting. 
Lovemesomesoftball

Registered:
Posts: 5,786
Reply with quote  #103 
LMSS you might consider that it was WWII that pulled our economy and manufacturing out of the hole. Government work programs, and soup kitchens only temporarily suppressed a revolt against authority during the depression.


Which revolt are you speaking? This :
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/thebook/index.php/Business_Plot
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm


       Tax       Federal    GNP       Unemp.

Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate


-------------------------------------------------

1929 -- -- -- 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins

1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7

1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9

1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6

1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March

1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7

1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1

1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9

1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May

1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June

1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2

1940 6.9 9.9

1941 7.7 12.1

1942 10.3 24.8

1943 13.7 44.8

1944 21.7 45.3

1945 21.3 43.7

Just a note ....Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2% during the Great Depression is higher than Regan's 3.7%  from '81-88

Table 1: Federal Spending and Military Spending during World War II

(dollar values in billions of constant 1940 dollars)

  Nominal GDP Federal Spending Defense Spending
Year total $ % increase total $ % increase % of GDP total $ % increase % of GDP % of federal spending
1940 101.4   9.47   9.34% 1.66   1.64% 17.53%
1941 120.67 19.00% 13.00 37.28% 10.77% 6.13 269.28% 5.08% 47.15%
1942 139.06 15.24% 30.18 132.15% 21.70% 22.05 259.71% 15.86% 73.06%
1943 136.44 -1.88% 63.57 110.64% 46.59% 43.98 99.46% 32.23% 69.18%
1944 174.84 28.14% 72.62 14.24% 41.54% 62.95 43.13% 36.00% 86.68%
1945 173.52 -0.75% 72.11 -0.70% 41.56% 64.53 2.51% 37.19% 89.49%

Sources: 1940 GDP figure from "Nominal GDP: Louis Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "The Annual Real and Nominal GDP for the United States, 1789 — Present," Economic History Services, March 2004, available at http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/ (accessed 27 July 2005). 1941-1945 GDP figures calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI Inflation Calculator," available at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. Federal and defense spending figures from Government Printing Office, "Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005," Table 6.1—Composition of Outlays: 1940—2009 and Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940—2009.


I didn't want to get all depth in the discussion. What I wanted to say is IMHO some leaders and their polices come at a  time where these polices seem most effective. I believe we should learn from history but also understand the present. 


BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,595
Reply with quote  #104 
My overriding issue would be the defense of our nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Others are important, however, none such as nat'l defense.

JFK was a Democrat and a Catholic, with all that implies regarding choice, yet could steer a clear course for successors to follow in regard to the Cold War. Mrs. Reagan might have expected "Just Say No" to apply not only to drugs but thighs, however her Republican hubby handled the Soviets by spending with them dollar for dollar and then some. He busted unions, allowed the weakening of the Sherman Act, mortgaged the future for Star Wars, but in the end, he broke the USSR. Fair trade?

Would I prefer my child having choice denied Ms. Roe and avoiding prayer in the classroom? For sure. Despite having some in power that might have manipulated the courts and congress to push those issues, we are still a nation separated properly from the church and have freedoms that grant choice. And we aren't subject to the boot heel of the Bolsheviks. Seems it all keeps working, despite the pundits complaints.

__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
masare

Registered:
Posts: 2,642
Reply with quote  #105 
Dewey it takes a thick skin and independent wealth to continually post here. For this reason I only post when I really have something to say. However I will comment on the current positioning of the democrats in Washington...they are not helping our president at all. And the tea party is looking more and more like the nj mafia
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #106 
masare - I agree with your assessment of the Democrats in Washington and the Tea Party within the Republican Party.  Tough enough to battle the "other folks" in Congress who are embroiled in Party warfare without having to battle your own Party in a two Party system.  Congress is a real mess currently.  Glad I'm not POTUS or one of the Republican candidates for the Presidency, whoever is elected in 2012.  "The Washington Way" is imploding upon itself and impeding governmental movement necessary for our nation's general good.  It's the SYSTEM that is corrupted, wasteful, and inefficient !!!!       
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #107 
LMSS, I do believe it is pretty much widely accepted that the war did pull the economy back, yes it was growing before in spite of the exponential tax increases and govt spending.  You need to remember govt is included in GDP so it makes the numbers look better than they are.  That is what Obama has done.  Like I said before, you throw enough crap on the wall and something will stick, but at what cost to the private sector.  Yes the private sector did try and revolt to a certain degree and elements of his New Deal programs were deemed unconstitutional (like the AG program that paid farmers to not make crops and kill certain animals while people were still starving).  But he and the liberal congress took care of that and that is when judges were installed at all levels of govt so they could stop cases before they got to the more conservative supreme court.  This is not a well publicized fact in todays education system and consequently todays society. 

So what started basically 80 years ago is just being magnified today.  I call the new deal the "raw deal".  People can see,if they have their eyes open,  that socialism has slowly increased, govt has slowly increased and the entitlement society has slowly increased to further empower those in govt and the big cats that feed those in govt. of which the unions fat cats are now part of but the lower rung just gets blasted because promises have been made that taxpayers cant afford to pay but that get to more govt bailouts and more govt entrenchment, just what they want.  Since it has grown over the last 80 years we are now to the tipping point of have more than 50% of society on one form or another of the govt dole.  The sad thing is we truly can never go back and we dont truly know what would have happened if the govt hadnt stepped in just like today but people are realizing that if we dont stop govt growth we will truly not have a free society or economy any more.  There is nothing this administration does not want to regulate, control and tax, either directly or indirectly and the class rhetoric is huge once again. 

__________________
Susan
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #108 
There you go.  BHO just spoke and the key is to raise the corporate tax rate.  Naturally, this is not class warfare as he pointed out but "fair."  What I learned a long time ago is that there is no such animal as "fair."  If he were serious then why not advocate a flat tax?  Oh, he still might want those loopholes that he says he is going to close.  CLOSE THEM ALL AND LET'S HAVE A FLAT TAX.  I guess we haven't sent enough factories overseas.  Our jobs numbers must be doing well if we hate the rich and job creators so much. 

All we just heard was a campaign speech THAT IS BASED ON CLASS WAREFARE.  I'm not rich.  I'm not close.  However, I see the logic in the Republican argument and the creation of jobs. 

OH, the examples he gave were preposterous.  The $50 million millionaire versus the teacher who makes $50,000.  Talk about an appeal to class.  I do have to give BHO some credit.  This time he at least named a name - John Boehner instead of his strawman attacks of "there are those" or "some people who." 
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,034
Reply with quote  #109 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoiseyGuy
masare - I agree with your assessment of the Democrats in Washington and the Tea Party within the Republican Party.  Tough enough to battle the "other folks" in Congress who are embroiled in Party warfare without having to battle your own Party in a two Party system.  Congress is a real mess currently.  Glad I'm not POTUS or one of the Republican candidates for the Presidency, whoever is elected in 2012.  "The Washington Way" is imploding upon itself and impeding governmental movement necessary for our nation's general good.  It's the SYSTEM that is corrupted, wasteful, and inefficient !!!!       

JG, by privatizing SS, we take the ability to dole out money as Washington sees fit. By taking away the power of handing out paychecks, you take away the political power. A private account with the previous 6.2% from both employer and employee would beat our current negative return for today's average 30 year old taxpayer. If you put that money into a FDIC insured CD account and included interest earned, and devalue it based on annual inflation, the average person would have more retirement benefits. If you die before retirement age, your family gets all the money. By abolishing the Department of Education, the States are no longer begging from Congress to give them money taken from their states. It takes away power from Washington, and with it the ability to buy political influence with the States by giving disproportionately to states that the Federal Government prefers over the rest. By eliminating and consolidating Federal agencies, you eliminate the operational costs of the Federal Government. With less and less Federal income, the Federal Government has less control over the States, and this leads to less corruption on the Federal Level. The States would have to live under their own governance and state budgets. No more bailouts for states that choose to be financially irresponsible, and this would lead to streamlined state governments with more state employees doing the job the Federal Government used to. Fat State Employee Union contracts would be slowly eliminated as State workers were forced through LOCAL control to be a competitive work force. How would you streamline a State work force? You privatize it, and outsource maintenance and clerical work to to for profit companies through competitive bidding. More work for less money. Less tax money leaving the State, and more Local control.

__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #110 
woody - Terrific post.  Now, will you tell me the downside of each proposition??
Thanks,    Frank

__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #111 
LMSS - I think if you even look at your figures the unemployment never got below  14% and even the year it was that they had basically tripled govt spending which effectively stopped the recession according to govt numbers (just like now) but once he got relected numbers went right back up even with massive govt spending and it wasnt until the war that unemployment went down to single digits as  manufacturing etc... had to increase to help fight the war.

Hoover started the great depression with the feds cutting money supply by 30% and Hoover signing protectionist tariffs, the market reacted and ultimately led to the market crash and tne great depression.

So once again as we can see govt intervention caused the great depression with Hoover's policies and prolonged it with FDR policies and only the war really brought us back to a stong economy and good unemployment numbers.  Govt caused this recession with the community reinvestment act and now obama is just prolonging the suffering with all his spending.  We need to learn from history befor we go belly up just like Europe is about to do.

__________________
Susan
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #112 
Woody - who controls the "privatized money with the employers and employees money?
__________________
Susan
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #113 

I know a lot of policemen and firemen who worked for years and had money taken out for their retirement.  Then they retired and they collected their monthly retirement.  I never saw any of them appear to be weakened or dependent because of this pension system.  I could say the same about politicians.  Why is it only the average John/Jane who has money taken out of their pay for retirement who becomes negatively effected, as some here say, in a such a personal way.    

Lovemesomesoftball

Registered:
Posts: 5,786
Reply with quote  #114 

SBMom,
Do you recall the three presidents prior to Roosevelt? Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Collectively they spent 10 years in the White House before Roosevelt. Three different personalities, Harding was corrupt, Coolidge squeaky clean and Hoover a mining engineer who became Coolidge's Secretary of Commerce. and a great humantarian. 

Hoover believed that the government and businesses were riddled with inefficiencies. He continued the policies of the two presidents prior to him and kept government out of business. He attempted to turn the depressed economy around with public works ventures......Hoover Dam, and volunteer work. It did not work. When things don't work from a conservative view is it your opinion to continue?

This is where I disagree with many posters on this forum. Many believe in a political ideology and appear as if if they would fight to the death for that ideal....conservative or liberal. I believe other options should be considered. This is why I am disgusted by the present two party system. Seems more choices for they myopic political believers......liberal this or conservative that.......and fewer choices for independents looking for the best solution even if it came from a one eyed martian.  

I don't look at policies like they are laws of science ......like gravity. It is my opinion that too many human variables can effect and change policies. That is why I stated in another post that I don't believe you can take the policies of a certain era and apply them to the present. Too many things have changed.

Many on this forum who have a political hero and hope for the reincarnation of that hero in the form of a modern day political candidate. I believe in learning from the past and leaving it there....in the past. I mean....seriously didn't anyone learn anything from the "Back of the Future' trilogies?

I don't want to see the next Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Regan etc. because I believe those leaders were made for those eras.

I noted but didn't got into detail as to Hoover policies being very much like Reagan. Why were the results so different?

Hoover being an engineer......looked at the increasing Public Works. Reagan a WWII vet looked at increasing the military. Now take a comparsion at Reagan and Roosevelt. Cold War v WW2 President. What did the cold war do for the economy under Regan's watch. If you want tell me nothing, or little...I will disagree with you.

The Cold War began in the 1950s but no president gave it the full attention that Reagan did. Harry Truman didn't trust Bill Donovan and the OSS and disbanded the organization. the CIA was formed, and unlike the Donovan's OSS that had the president ear. The CIA for the next few decades would become president's albatross.

Regan and William Casey had a perfect marriage unlike previous presidents and CIA directors. They were on a mission to stop the spread of communism. This mission brought great economic expansion to the U.S. economy. 

There is many things the George W. Bush administration did that I did not agree. One thing they did tht I agree with is an attempt to adjust some economic policies to the current period. I hear conservatives upset that Bush didn't remain a fisical conservative. To that I respond the economy is not in a controlled envirnonment. I do not believe if Bush followed every single policy of Reagan that the economy would have been in a better place.

Again.....very hard to have this discussion on a written forum as there is so much to say. I can probably say it in less than 10 minutes but writing would take hours.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,034
Reply with quote  #115 
JG the downside would be within the State Governments. Those that do not pay into the system would be without a retirement plan. Those that are ill, disabled would have to be covered by the state. The other downside is that some states will not be responsible and will bankrupt themselves. Some states will have better schools, and some will have worse, kind of like it is now, but without the Federal Government wasting at least 25% of each tax dollar before returning what it deems necessary to the State and along with it local control of expenditures.

SB Mom, FDIC insured accounts for the cautious. For those that feel they want a better  edge, states could offer privately managed funds. State and County, and School administered retirement funds presently invest in real estate, and other stock and commodity funds for a higher return. Why should the government have any say over if I bet the stocks, or bundle my retirement with a second mortgage and open a company? Who's money is it? Is it the retirees, or the Governments? Please remind me who's money it is, and why someone else should tell me how to invest it?

__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #116 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masare
Dewey it takes a thick skin and independent wealth to continually post here. For this reason I only post when I really have something to say. However I will comment on the current positioning of the democrats in Washington...they are not helping our president at all. And the tea party is looking more and more like the nj mafia


Thanks masare.  If you're responding to my comment regarding how folks avoid a party alliance, it was aimed at Independents and I'm not sure you're one of those.  After reading LMSS, I was very interested in how folks are politically involved but able to avoid being drawn into a particular Party.  Aren't there two or three issues that they feel deeply about requiring them to support the Party that agrees with them?  Even if two issues cross Party lines, I suspect one issue would win out and force a direction sooner or later.  Once I started following politics, I couldn't avoid becoming partisan due to the ideals I feel most strongly about.  I'm interested in why that doesn't happen to everyone.  Just an interesting subject I wanted to kick around.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,034
Reply with quote  #117 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey

I know a lot of policemen and firemen who worked for years and had money taken out for their retirement.  Then they retired and they collected their monthly retirement.  I never saw any of them appear to be weakened or dependent because of this pension system.  I could say the same about politicians.  Why is it only the average John/Jane who has money taken out of their pay for retirement who becomes negatively effected, as some here say, in a such a personal way.    


Dewey, State and Local Employees have pension plans that are funded by either the employee, or the Government through taxes. Those funds are added each month by each employee. These funds are invested to maintain a rate of return to offset inflation and maintain principle. There may be some annuities, or non liquid assets, but they have physical cash, land holdings, and stocks. The SS system takes money from taxpayers, spends it before it gets to the treasury, and issues IOUs for the money collected. There are no physical assets other than an IOU. If the Government invested in Gold, Commercial property, and a mix of stocks and annuities, then that would be comparable to what state and local governments do. What the Federal government is doing now is not sustainable, and some one will be looking to cash in some worthless paper at some point. It is in fact a ponzi scheme that currently has 3 workers paying for 1 retiree. At the beginning of the ponzi scheme it was over 100 workers to 1 retiree. Soon it will be 2-1. When it gets to that level, something will give, and you and I will be in line for our handwritten IOU that was kept in a "Lock Box". Wonder what it will taste like with a little season all salt added?

__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #118 
woody - Actually, I was responding to sbmoms "dependency" criticisms of SS and not the sustainability elements of this program.  These are two different discussions.

Two things, if SS investment in bonds becomes worthless, then all debt we owe the world will too.  Not sure why folks think we'd ever allow that to happen.  We'll tax the you know what out of our citizens if it were necessary to pay our debts.  Secondly, why do the Chinese and millions of Americans invest trillions of dollars in these bonds if their return is not good enough, or if they may become worthless?  Why don't the Chinese just put their money in one of our FDIC insured banks?  We know why.  The bonds issued by the US are the safest investments in the world which is why SS is also required to invest their funds in these same bonds as opposed to other more risky ventures.
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #119 
Woody - Thanks for what I consider the best two posts you have written here.  It all makes sense. positive and negative.  Great job !!!!     Frank
__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
Lovemesomesoftball

Registered:
Posts: 5,786
Reply with quote  #120 
Dewey,

It's a long story...will talk to you at Cathedral or Easton one day

Angela
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.