At 03:40 PM 12/21/2004 -0600 Gary Denton wrote:
Clinton had to choose a priority the first two years and he made it a
balanced budget and the economy.
Shirley, you can't be serious.
Clinton's first initative as President was a pork-laden spending bill.
His biggest initiative was an attempt to
I agree but to be fair, I think one of the big reasons that Clinton
had that fiscal responsibility was because he had a Republican
controlled Congress. overgeneralization They wouldn't pass what
he wanted and he'd veto anything they wanted. /overgeneralization
Also, the peace dividend was real
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:38:56 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:19:38PM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
SS reform is a huge and unnecessary boondoogle and payoff to the
favored finacial corporations.
How's that?
SS isn't in trouble
Wrong. SS has
The AARP which saved Bush on Medicare Drug benefits is so far not
playing ball on Social Security.
http://tinyurl.com/6gng4
or
http://www.aarp.org/legislative/legipoly/Articles/a2004-09-10-pp_economicsecurity.html
Summary:
Social Security is not in crisis. The program will remain strong and
On Dec 21, 2004, at 2:41 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
I think this is really a plan to wreck and abolish SS so that the GOP
won't face a choice in a few years of raising taxes or having the
national debt skyrocket but that is another long story.
Actually no, it's the same old story. While GOPpers have
Actually no, it's the same old story. While GOPpers
have accused Dems
of being tax and spend, they themselves have been
spend-and-tax. At
least the Dems try to make sure there's some money
in the kitty before
they start drafting checks.
Actually, I would call the current crop of
Behalf Of Damon Agretto
The real irony is that we had to look to a democrat in
the form of Clinton for fiscal responsibility and
lowering the national debt, while the Republicans are
the big spenders. It used to be...quite the opposite.
I agree but to be fair, I think one of the big
I agree but to be fair, I think one of the big
reasons that Clinton
had that fiscal responsibility was because he had a
Republican
controlled Congress. overgeneralization They
wouldn't pass what
he wanted and he'd veto anything they wanted.
/overgeneralization
Hence, spending was down.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:35:10 -0800 (PST), Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree but to be fair, I think one of the big
reasons that Clinton
had that fiscal responsibility was because he had a
Republican
controlled Congress. overgeneralization They
wouldn't pass what
he
Careful Joe. Marxists thought that an ever-narrowing
capitalist elite was the fundamental contradiction
lying at the heart of the system. But somehow WWII -
followed by the GI Bill - resulted in the flattest and
widest social order ever seen.
We should not be surprised when the insatiable
And how much of that was due to socialist-style restriction on
profit-taking and the military welfare state?
~Maru
David Brin wrote:
Careful Joe. Marxists thought that an ever-narrowing
capitalist elite was the fundamental contradiction
lying at the heart of the system. But somehow WWII -
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 02:05:07AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
One question first to see if I'm on the right page: if SS was
privatized and hooked into the stock market, that would mean that
my SS tax money would go into an account in my name and be invested
(somehow) in the market, and that the
IIRC, a general investment in an SP fund has outperformed most
other funds over the last 10 years.
Yes, over the last 10 years. But I think of my father. During his
lifetime, there was one period when the stock market was down for 20
years and another when it was down for more than 10
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:14:58 -0500 (EST), Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, a general investment in an SP fund has outperformed most
other funds over the last 10 years.
Yes, over the last 10 years. But I think of my father. During his
lifetime, there was one period
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:19:38PM -0600, Gary Denton wrote:
SS reform is a huge and unnecessary boondoogle and payoff to the
favored finacial corporations.
How's that?
SS isn't in trouble
Wrong. SS has troubles. We have promised more in benefits than we
have currently set up the SS payroll
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:11:26 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:48:13PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
If SS were privatized, limiting investments to fairly conservative
funds doesn't seem like a bad idea. IIRC, a general investment in an
SP fund has
d.brin wrote:
And it goes on. Accelerating, every day.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002112639_diss08.html
This is awful -- what constitutes publishing? For example, what if
somebody from a sanctioned country posts to Brin-L? Am I now subject to
a $1 million fine and a
On Dec 16, 2004, at 9:31 PM, d.brin wrote:
And it goes on. Accelerating, every day.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/
2002112639_diss08.html
I hope that dissident American writers can find foreign publishers...
Oh... I just realized something chilling.
The UNDERLYING reasons
Yep, pretty disgusting. And a violation of the Freedom of Speech right.
Damon.
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Revell of Germany's
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The UNDERLYING reasons for putting social security
into the stock market has not yet come out. And
it's the nastiest thing yet.
I think you're giving them far too much credit.
I think the people you're talking about -- oil men,
neocons, free enterprise
On Dec 17, 2004, at 1:01 PM, David Brin wrote:
In today's paper, W said that his new social security stock-investment
plan will NOT allow people to invest as they wish. Rather, they will
choose from a few narrowly chosen stocks. Chosen by an impartial and
trustworthy elite.
There's already a
- Original Message -
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: our steep slide
On Dec 17, 2004, at 1:01 PM, David Brin wrote:
In today's paper, W said that his new social security stock
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 03:48:13PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
As much as I think that privatization of Social Security paid for by
off the books debt is a bad idea,
A problem is that the liabilities of Social Security are partially off
the books as it is -- the government has implicitly
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly those who have hired Michael Crichton
as
their house science fiction author, to go around
denigrating science in general and undermine
thoughts
of Climate Change, these are ostriches, as you
describe.
Since you're so free with such
And it goes on. Accelerating, every day.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002112639_diss08.html
Oh... I just realized something chilling.
The UNDERLYING reasons for putting social security into the stock
market has not yet come out. And it's the nastiest thing yet.
The
25 matches
Mail list logo
