from the article --

Prof Kotlikoff said that, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt. "To paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary, is the United States at the end of its resources, exhausted, stripped bare, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, or wrecked in consequence of failure to pay its creditors," he asked.

Of course we are "wanting in property" and "stripped bare" because BUSH IS SELLING OFF ALL U.S. ASSETS TO FOREIGN COUNTIRES AND FOREIGN COMPANIES. As for our creditors -- Bush is borrowing BILLIONS OF DOLLARS from Communist China to pay for his invented war in Iraq.

Bush is on another vendetta to destroy Social Security and Medicare again. He won't give up on it because he is the greediest, most selfish bastard on earth. He got his but God forbid he allows anyone else to be helped out. If Bushie is so rolling in money that he can afford to give the richest 1% in the U.S. MORE tax cuts again, then he can certainly afford social security and medicare for those who are not in Bush's base of the uber wealthy.

I hope Bush pushes more and more to get rid of social security because everytime he opens his mouth about it, his poll number drop even more to the bottom -- if that's even possible.

If you read the whole article "Massive Tax Cuts" jumps right out at you...

Bush it to blame AGAIN....

LOL

Bush it to blame AGAIN....

As Truman famously said, "The buck stops here."

If you read the whole article "Massive Tax Cuts" jumps right out at you...

My gosh you are Scarey. Those tax cuts were financed with debt. At some point in the future they have to be paid for.

so, does GOD have any advice for "Dubya"
on how to "get out of credit card debt"?
Dubya says the LORD speakes to him....he should ask for the next POWERBALL numbers!

Deficits don't count---just ask cheney

Let's get out of debt the rethug way-BORROW a Trillion dollars from China-and give it to Multi-Billionaires-that'll fix the debt problem.

funny how the rightnuts at drudge are not here to claim this is all clintons fault.....all the righties showed up to claim there love for joe lieberman but none show up to say this is just liberal spin...amazing

Duh. I'm supposed to be surprised that Social Security PLUS Medicare PLUS high government spending will result in bankruptcy?

Cut government spending across the board by 10%, then keep it there for five years. Use the excess tax revenues to pay down debt. Revise SS to say that you're ineligible to collect benefits until age 67. And shut down Medicare completely.

But that won't be the Dems' answer--as abominable as the Rupub's spending policies has been, the Dems want more. Dems want increased welfare spending, increased spending on healthcare, and depending on the Democrat--socialized medicine even.

Cut it all. And let's get a Balanced-Budget Amendment that I thought I was getting, way back in 1994.

Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money ." - Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (in the 1920s); reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time

http://www.themoneymasters.com

Yep, Rightisright, it's all the Dem's fault..Shalom:>)

"And let's get a Balanced-Budget Amendment that I thought I was getting, way back in 1994"

Nobody is stopping Congress from passing a balanced budget. This is like, "help, stop me, before I kill again!".

I can't wait for $10 gasoline and the recession to show up...Scarey-e is too sick to live alone at my cabin in Maine...still 13 miles from the nearest pavement and about 40 from an electric line...

I bought an old LP gas refridgerator in the 70s and the last time I checked the damn thing still works...

The trout fishing is EXCELLANT and the deer walk up and look in my window...

No cell phone service , but I could get a satellite phone if I was so inclined...Anyone want to become a hermit with me...Solar is an option

Yes, those evil bankers. Those horrible guys who loan you money to buy your house, your car, send your kids to college. Such jerks, they are.

Guess what, Bani--I'm the bringer of good news. YOU can become one of them. Just buy stock in Citi and JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo and you, too, can have a seat at the table every time the Fed meets.

Be careful with your money BANI, I lost 14,000 in the last 4 days

Of course I hope the market comes back, but I am not depending on it.

doing what scarey?

"Deficits Don't Matter"

Go Republitards!

my "retirement" fund, which I depend on

"Revise SS to say that you're ineligible to collect benefits until age 67."

Great plan, except that companies are forcing older workers into early retirement at 55, and sending the jobs overseas.

What is a laid off 55 year old supposed to do for 12 years, work at Wal-Mart?

Kiss your consumer driven economy good-bye!

Dems want increased welfare spending, increased spending on healthcare, and depending on the Democrat--socialized medicine even.

Yep, all those poor people have all the money! Those poor people will save this nation by not giving them a hand when they need it.

Now there is a social society engineer for ya!

No, Not With Stay The Course Capt Bush At The Helm !!

-Sarge

Gee, I don't know, Norm. Maybe he'll starve to death. Or maybe he'll live on the streets.

Or, possibly, he'll find a million other things to do. You liberals are funny--every time somebody loses a job, you think he's headed for the poor house. I've been fired twice, once for incompetence (I was 20) and another time because the company was sold. In both cases--it was the best that could have happened.

If I ran the world, there would be a lot of people in their 50's getting pink slips. A whole lot of government employees who contribute zero, but consume much. If the government is headed for bankruptcy, let's start doing the same things a household or a business would do--by reducing overhead.

Rightis,

Yes, lets start reducing overhead, well there is a whole lot of rich people overhead who should be reduced.

All you financial money launders never seem to understand industrial business's, for every actual worker on the floor there are 5 overhead to support.

"But that won't be the Dems' answer--as abominable as the Rupub's spending policies has been, the Dems want more. Dems want increased welfare spending, increased spending on healthcare, and depending on the Democrat--socialized medicine even."

Read It And Weep !!!


In 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore launched their economic strategy: (1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad. After eight years, the results of President Clinton's economic leadership are clear. Record budget deficits have become record surpluses, 22 million new jobs have been created, unemployment and core inflation are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, and America is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in our history.

President Clinton's Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.

Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years--the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.

So in 94 the poverty rate was 11.8 percent and it is well over 18 percent now and if we include children it is over 23 percent.

Yep, that will work, cut the funds from the poverty and the government will get more money. Yea.......sure.......you betcha!

When benefits are given to people of poverty it reduces poverty in half. Wow! when one reduces poverty in half means half is now paying the government taxes.

Nope, cut those benefits because instead of reducing the number needed money we want to increase the number needing money. Now that is just smart financing by the right.

The rightfundies just cut their own throats and they can't even see it.

Pushing more people into poverty means they will have to pay more and more taxes which is why they think they are pushing the people into poverty.

Who is going to pay the taxes, only people who have money.

"But that won't be the Dems' answer--as abominable as the Rupub's spending policies has been, the Dems want more. Dems want increased welfare spending, increased spending on healthcare, and depending on the Democrat--socialized medicine even."

First five years, change in non-defense discretionary spending.

LBJ (d) .... 21.4%

Nixon (r) .... 23.1%

Reagan (r) .... -11.1%

Clinton (d) .... 1.9%

Bush 43 (r) .... 27.9%

So, to summarize


1. Bush (r)
2. Nixon (r)
3. LBJ (d)
4. Clinton (d)
5. Reagan (r)

So much for the myth of Republican fiscal conservatism.

"If I ran the world..."

Guys like RiR don't realize that they're only a step away from a debilitating injury, or cancer, or some catastrophe.

I've seen guys like him hit a wall, try to crawl over it, and when they slide back down, it is not a pretty sight.

Because when the big talk is gone, the little man realizes that he's one of "them" and those heroes of his in the board rooms won't be there to pat him on the back and help him out. He'll be just another loser in the game of life.

The one thing they always seem to hang on to though is their nasty disposition.

Bastard, you're preaching to the choir. So why do the Dems say that Bush's programs are hurting the poor? The growth of spending for non-defense programs has been, what, 10 times more than in the Clinton years?

I have a great idea: let's roll spending back to 2000. For balance, we'll raise the tax rates back to where they were in 2000 too. Cut spending to 2000 levels, and keep it there.

I Use To Be An A Rush Believer Big Time Until I Saw The #'s And Realized The Lies.

The Best Economy In The 20th Century Was Until Clinton And Everyday I Would Listen to Rush And He Says It Wasn't.

Then He Would Go On And Say He Would Explain What The #'s Really Meant And That It Was Really Bad And Getting Worse, Was Totally the Opposite Of What He Was Saying.

I Check For Myself And The Fact Speak For Themselves, Period.

-Sarge

This Is How :

"(1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad."


Bush Didn't Even Fully Fund "No Child Left Behind" And He Has Cut The Student Loan Program !!!

So Where Is His Investment For The Future ?

Oh Letting "The New Work Force" Across The Border ?

So If We Preaching To Th Choir Why Are You Dogging The Dems?


-Sarge

Economy
During Clinton's tenure, the U.S. enjoyed continuous economic expansion, reductions in unemployment, and growing wealth through a massive rise in the stock market. The economic boom ended in the first quarter of 2000, approximately 10 months before his term ended in January 2001, possibly indicative of a stock market bubble. Although the reasons for the expansion are continually debated, Clinton proudly pointed to his economic accomplishments, including:

More than 22 million new jobs created
Homeownership rate increase from 64.0% to 67.5%
Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years
Higher incomes at all levels
Largest budget deficit in American history converted to the largest surplus of over $200 billion
Lowest government spending as a percentage of GDP since 1974 [5]
Higher stock ownership by families than ever before
220% increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, 300% increase in the NASDAQ from 1993 to 2001
The reasons for this growth are debated, but Clinton supporters cite his 1993 tax increase, which they believe assisted in reducing the annual budget deficits every year of his tenure. These deficit reductions stimulated consumption and consumer spending and strengthened the dollar, which encouraged foreign investment in the United States economy. Alan Greenspan supported the 1993 tax increase, which was approved by Congress without a single Republican vote.


Do you See What Clinton Did Opposed to Bush ?

What Has Worked And What Has Not?

The Facts Speak For Themselves.

-Sarge

Ozark,

Nice post. I didn't know I had a nasty disposition. I do know something about a debilitating injury, though--I was in a helicopter crash in the Army and spent the next two years learning to walk again.

I have no heroes in corporate boardrooms, no heroes in political offices, no heroes on any ball fields, no heroes to speak of at all, except for my dad and a handful of friends still in uniform. But I learned a long time before this report came out that the government isn't going to be there for me, or for anyone else. I have overall a very sunny disposition, considering I have my wages withheld for Social Security I'll never see, for Medicare which is the biggest wealth transfer program in history from hard-working Americans to wealthy white elderly, and I pay for a government that squanders $1.40 for every $1 they bring in. Pointing these facts out doesn't make me nasty or small, just realistic. Try it sometime.

So If We Preaching To Th Choir Why Are You Dogging The Dems?


-Sarge

Posted by Sarge

* * * *

Hello. I'm not dogging Clinton, who was a very good president for the economy. He had an awesome treasury team, maybe the best ever. Lousy foreign policy, IMO--but that's for another thread. I hear ad nauseam about Clinton's budget surpluses, which were only achieved by bringing the SS program on-budget and capturing $350 billion worth of net inflows for 1999-2000. And re: the stock market, most of the NASDAQ valuation were nothing more than pie-in-the-sky bubbles representing corporate value that simply wasn't there. Still-your point is valid. The Repubs were dead wrong about what his tax increases would do to the economy--I don't believe they HELPED the economy grow--tax increases never do--but the disastrous effects the Repubs predicted didn't come true either.
You wanna go back to 2000 on taxes and spending, I'll be driving the bus.

"Pointing these facts out doesn't make me nasty or small, just realistic"

More like pessimistic.

And I was responding to the pink slipping people in their 50s etc.; and I might add that your idea of cutting "overhead": was the same approach that Home Depot took a few years ago, much to their detriment, while Lowes expanded and gained market share.

I'll agree there are a lot of government workers, especially at the supervisory level that ought to be canned because our bureaucracies would operate better.

So what do you think -- maybe the first step would be to cut service connected disability pensions and close the VA so we can buy more helicopters. Then cut SSI and medicaid, and maybe do away with medicare and everything that helps people in their latter years.

You know the real problem is global warming. Pretty soon there won't be any iceburgs to put old people on.

Ah, but there's always Soylent Green.

Social Security would be solvent if they stopped allowing people to retire with full benefits at 62, and if you allowed younger people to invest in a combination of mutual funds and corporate bonds--change those two things and suddenly the program is solvent actuarily for another 80 years. Why should I be forced to earn 1.9% on my money? Why should you? The government cannot do anything right--why should we expect them to do a good job funding our retirement? And what's the BS about "market share"? I'm pretty sure the US government has the market cornered on bloated, flush-money-down-the-toilet inefficiency, and they were number one even when Clinton ran things. There's not a single thing they're doing any better today, even though spending has nearly doubled and federal payrolls have surged. Cut payrolls back to 2000 also.

Medicaid is a state program, which doesn't show up on any fed tables.

Global Warming is not a problem, so chill out. No pun intended.

"If I ran the world, there would be a lot of people in their 50's getting pink slips. "

I bet there would. Of course, if I ran the world, you would be getting a pink slip. The idea that government employees are less efficient than private sector ones is total bullshit. How many private companies go bankrupt every year? or produce shoddy products that injure and maim people? or destroy their worker's pensions? or get convicted of crimes? Ah yes, that efficient private sector. Ask Ken Lay about that.

"Global Warming is not a problem, so chill out. No pun intended."

Spoken by world famous climatologist, RightisRight.

Yes, Rightisright, we understand. The 'solution' to Social Security is to invest in some huge, bureaucratic, unproven, entirely theoretical plan... which will cost $1 TRILLION to JUST SET UP. That's right, that $1 Trillion will go solely to doing nothing but making the program possible.

Oh yeah, that will do far more to keep SS "solvent" than, say... adding that $1 Trillion TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND. You know... that same fund which was running a surplus under Clinton?

I guess I'm just not fiscally conservative enough to understand the 'logic' in your claim. But hey, since Deficits Don't Matter... I guess anything goes, right?

The government cannot do anything right--why should we expect them to do a good job funding our retirement?

Oh yeah, they government can't do anything right, so we need to give them $1 Trillion to set up a program which has been providing benefits to retired people for over 50 years.

Your claim is completely wrong. The problem isn't that government can't do anything right (because it did under Clinton). The problem is that Conservatives are corrupt, immoral, and incompetent, and should never, ever be in charge of anything larger than a lemonade stand.

As always, a Republitard weighs in on the wrong side of logic, morality, and reality.

I'll bet even as ignorant as JSG is, he gets better than 1.9% on his CD's. But here he is, again, telling me what a good deal Social Security is.

Pass the Kool Aid around!! As long as a Demiturd has got it, the liberals have a monopoly on BS.

1.9%!!! I have an idea--let's cash in all of our poorly-performing private investments that generate 12% a year (equities) and 7.8% per year (corp bonds), and load up on Social Security money!!! Yeah!!! Funny.

RightIsRight: You seem to know a lot about Social Security, so you must know that it is not an investment. The Guvmint doesn't skim from your paycheck, hold onto it for 40 years, and then pay you back with interest. They skim your paycheck and immediately pass it on to someone over 65 (or who is otherwise entitled to Social Security).

There's a few easy ways to give Social Security a boost, both of which are far simpler than your "private accounts" nonsense:

First, let's raise the cap on FICA contributions. After the Feds have taken something like $75k from your paycheck, they stop withholding FICA. Admittedly, this only affects a tiny few. But it effectively is a tax break for the wealthy. (This should sound familiar, it's something those pesky liberals whine about all day long, and in this case they're right.)

20+ years ago, this FICA exclusion for highly compensated individuals meant that of the nation's total payroll, only about 80% was paying into FICA. But over the past few decades, as the rich have gotten richer, only about 65% of the nation's payroll is subject to FICA capture. So, a very simple method to restore Social Security funding is to raise the income subject to FICA taxation.

Second, Social Security used to be a means-tested entitlement. Under Reagan that changed. The result being that millionaires with no need for the added money Social Security provides are getting checks too. Clearly, this means less money for those in need. So, another simple method to bolster Social Security's finances would be to bring back the means test. There's no need for the Uncle Sam to be cutting Bill Gates a check for several thousand each month, is there?

But of course you're not interested in practical solutions to perpetuate Social Security, because you are morally opposed to entitlement programs, especially entitlement programs for the poor, regardless of their effectiveness.

So let's look at the historical record. Does Social Security work? Before the advent of Social Security, the two leading causes of death for older Americans were starvation and hypothermia. I can only speak for myself, but to me it's a pretty clear choice: It's worth a few bucks off the top of each paycheck to live in a country where old people aren't left to starve or freeze to death.

In the mean time in between time ain't we got fun...

Wall Street analysts are reporting that with gasoline at record levels they expect auto loan delinquencies to rise sharply as folks on the already circling the bowl can't make their payments and buy gas too...

Last week gasoline was within 6 cents of record high adjusted for inflation...

Meantime in Orlando Metro, Real Estate listing shot like a rocket in one year from 1900 to 21000...that's 19 hundred to 21 thousand folks....

CLASS CLASS: Can anyone say RECESSION,

You didn't know Scarey_e's cousin is Sister Mary Elephant

""Global Warming is not a problem, so chill out. No pun intended.""

Just ignore the vast majority of scientists around the world and take RisR's word for it. Science is just a liberal plot to make the world homosexual.

Be careful with your money BANI, I lost 14,000 in the last 4 days

Of course I hope the market comes back, but I am not depending on it.

Posted by Scarey_e at 2006-07-16 06:29 PM | Reply

Careful Scarey- what you are telling us is that your portfolio is worth $422,329.00

Sure, Snoofy. I know that there is no money in the trust fund with my name on it, just the hope that the next generation of workers after me will be big enough to make some bureaucrats' actuarial tables work for my benefit. At least under your proposal, this ridiculous idea of Social Security being a trust fund would be shelved once and for all--no cap on contributions, but means-tested in the back end. Which means that millions of people will be paying into Social Security, and get nothing when they reach 65. Why not just call it what it is? A giant transfer of wealth from working Americans of all incomes to retired whites? Blacks and Hispanics already pay in more in benefits than they take out.

True enough, people in the past used to die of things that they don't anymore. Used to be the average mortality was around 65, and those who made it past 65 were unable to work because of age. Now the program says you can retire at 62 with full benefits, and we'll keep you going for the 25 years of life expectancy you have left. No more dying of starvation or hypothermia like they did in the 17th century--now you'll slip into that dark night after a million dollars worth of cancer treatments, heart transplants, kidney machines--all also picked up by the taxpayer. Oh--unless you're black. Thanks for being born black, because those people most generously don't live long enough to collect what they pay in for SS or Medicare. Thanks again to the black folk for keeping shrivelly whites alive and prosperous.

"First, let's raise the cap on FICA contributions. After the Feds have taken something like $75k from your paycheck, they stop withholding FICA. Admittedly, this only affects a tiny few. But it effectively is a tax break for the wealthy"


I believe this is coming. Although the cap is already at $90K...not $75K. It has rised from $68K to $90K in about 7 years or so which is about a 32% increase. (4.5%/yr). I don't see how we can keep that up although I'm sure we will try.

I figured Bush's budget strategy out: His whole life he's blown more money than he's made - either with his drug habit or running businesses into the ground. But then Daddy or some of his friends come around and bail Dubya out.

So Bush has the US spending way more money than it makes because he thinks the US has a Daddy that will come and bail it out. He doesn't realize that he's lived a charmed life and that in the real world, when you spend more than you make - you're fucked.

********Fed Report: U.S. Going Bankrupt********


QUICK !! A Tax Cut !

Sully: you have just learned the secret to "Fiscal Conservatives".

"Deficits Don't Matter", because when the money runs out, one of daddy's friends will always step in with piles of cash to save the day.

Well Right, I appreciate your discussing the facts and identifying the issues. In some ways you are right in that the real issue is whether everyone has the right to healthcare and to receiving life-saving and life-sustaining care, or if only those that can afford it should have it available. I think that is a valid discussion we need to have as a society. After that, the issue of entitlements (at least as far as Medicare/Medicaid) are moot.

But please, spare me your concern for blacks who pay into the system and die disproportionally younger than whites. In your world, with no M'caid/M'care or SS, those numbers skyrocket for all and especially for minorities. Stick with the social darwinism.

rightisright sez:

"For balance, we'll raise the tax rates back to where they were in 2000 too. Cut spending to 2000 levels, and keep it there."
Posted by rightisright

Do you realize you just suggested more than doubling most income taxes (divs & cap gains) for the wealthy? From the current 15% to 35%.

"Social Security would be solvent if they stopped allowing people to retire with full benefits at 62..."

People do not get full benefits if they retire at 62; it's a reduced amount vs. what they would normally get. Plus, they cannot get Medicare until 65.

This article was written by a British news paper by a British editor, then named FED REPORT:? How typical of liberal media.

A ballooning budget deficit and a pensions and welfare timebomb could send the economic superpower into insolvency, according to research by Professor Laurence Kotlikoff for the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, a leading constituent of the US Federal Reserve.

The use of the word welfare timebomb is key here. End the welfare states, deport those "undocumented" imigrants who are abusing the system. Replace the "undocumented" imigrants working jobs that Americans dont want with welfare earners. While we are at it cut pensions for 1 term politicions. It is so stupid to spend 4 years as a politition but get paid for the rest of your life.

Danforth--as a financial planner I have this discussion all the time. For ANY person, the question as to whether to take benefits at 62 versus 65 is usually the breakeven time. And the person doesn't break even until the age of 74 years 10 months--that is how long he has to live before he starts to make more money (at 0% interest) by waiting until age 65. The difference between age 62 and taking benefits @ 70 is 70 years 11 months.
With numbers like that, why should we be surprised that most people take cash early? Plus they liberalized the distribution rules--used to be that you were penalized $3 in benefits for every $1 over the limit you earned--that's been changed to a different formula whereby almost anyone can get SOME SS benefit @62, so they are.
If you guys are serious about saving social security, you need to make it reflect reality more: people are living a lot longer, and are therefore able to work much longer. Just pushing out eligibility a couple more years would save it. Good luck getting that kind of dialogue going in Washington, though.

But please, spare me your concern for blacks who pay into the system and die disproportionally younger than whites. In your world, with no M'caid/M'care or SS, those numbers skyrocket for all and especially for minorities. Stick with the social darwinism.

Posted by SnidelyWhiplash


* * * *

Even Social Darwinism is preferable to the system we have now, unless you happen to be white with a family history of longevity.

Careful Scarey- what you are telling us is that your portfolio is worth $422,329.00

Posted by sitdown at 2006-07-17 08:15 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You have NO way of knowing what stocks are in my fund...your amount could be way high or way low...I mean half my stock could be in one big loser over the last 4 days or one big winner...or it could be very balanced and you could be close...

I didn't mean to scare you... it was a joke/guess based on a balanced portfolio... a 3.5% or so loss which is what I had last week.

Freedom Aint Free(TM), unless of course you're Israel, then it's freedom all on the house, (courtesy of the American dumbass).

Freedumb is pretty free, especially if you are willing to sell out your nation for $1 Billion from the Saudi royal family, and $500 million from the Bin Laden family. Guess that makes Bush a *good* Republifundie.

What ecosystem functions best with the smallest bio-diversity? A resource-starved one.

Justsomeguy--

Congrats on your ability to quote nonsense from Moore's flick.

As for the article...

It's not a good situation. Clinton did get economically lucky while in office, but his plan was certainly better than what Bush has brought. Though I think Reagan's was even better.

RR
"I've been fired twice, once for incompetence"
"If I ran the world"
No wonder GW is your hero.....

Justsomeguy--

Congrats on your ability to quote nonsense from Moore's flick.

Posted by Jonesy at 2006-07-17 03:16 PM

I wouldn't know, I've never seen F911. I culled that knowledge from various other sources, since, you know, it's a matter of public record and all.

But by all means, Jim Jonesy, keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

"There is no culture of corruption"
"There is no culture of corruption"
"There is no culture of corruption"

Home foreclosures up 45% since 2004.People have more personal debt and less personal savings than ever before. How is that saying things are good? The gap continues to widen between the haves and have nots.

"I have a great idea: let's roll spending back to 2000. For balance, we'll raise the tax rates back to where they were in 2000 too. Cut spending to 2000 levels, and keep it there."

I think that's exactly right. It's a saner, more humane way to shrink government than the Grover Norquist model.

Of course most fiscal and small government conservatives will continue voting for Big Spender Republicans for no other reason than they are not Democrats. Strange, since very few of the current lot have shown that they are committed to the principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government.

You guys are voting for a promise that NO ONE is going to deliver, except for maybe Ron Paul and less reliably Jeff Flake. (Of course Ron Paul was also against the war, so there you go.)

The Republican Party will never again be the party of small government because they don't have to. You guys already bought the cow.

Justsome--

I love the way you claim to have sources and that it's "public record" and then completely fail to cite anything.

I just lined you up w/Moore because, like you, he commonly throws out conspiracy theories w/o any valid sources. Please accept my apology for connecting you w/Moore. It appears your baseless claims are even w/o his backing.

Control--

More purchases will usually lead to more forclosures. The important number to look at is the correlation between purchases and forclosures--if purchases have raised at the same rate, it's probably not as big of a deal (I'm not claiming they have and I don't have the info). However, less forclosures would clearly be better.

As for "the gap" between the rich and the poor: this is the never failing argument of anyone wanting economic change. It never fails because this number ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will continue to grow. As you deal w/higher volumes of $$$ the raw number difference in any capitalistic system should always increase. Interest on $1 million will yield larger raw numbers than interest on $1.

This is not proof of anything bad unless you can also show that the lower number is decreasing or stagnant (it is not--every group is getting richer at different rates). Also, it should be noted that the "haves" are not a constant group of people at the top. It cycles. Go to your list of 100 Richest Americans--most of these people made their money; they didn't inherit it. Even the Walton's $$$ is only one generation away from being earned.

Excuse me, Danni, but you just made my point for me. OF COURSE African Americans get a large percentage of the benefits paid to surviving children--THEY ARE DYING SOONER THAN WHITES!!! And don't think FOR ONE SECOND that the payouts to surviving children are anywhere CLOSE to what the guy would have gotten had he lived to retirement age.

Man pays in a lifetime of SS benefits, thinking he'll be around to collect it throughout retirement. He dies early, so the Federal Government in their great generosity pays his surviving children a pittance until they reach the age of 18, then they're on their own.

Hey, what do I care, though? If people think that's a good deal, well--you know what they say. A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place. I plan on living a long time--my grandparents all lived deep into their 80's. If someone else is going to subsidize my retirement, then die too early to collect benefits themselves, I would have thought liberals would have a problem with that. I guess not. Party on, dudes.

But I bet those moms with those kids whose Dad died are glad that SS was there to help her raise her family. I bet that Dad is glad too if he is somewhere where he knows what is going on.
You REpublicans seem to think that they would be better off without that SS check. Guess what, Mom's check won't stop when the kids grow up.

A little tidbit for Jonesy...

A year ago there were 1,900 (nineteen hundred) home listing in the Greater Orlando Metropolitan Area...

Today there are 21,000 (twenty-one thousand)

And how do you spin that

Justsome--

I love the way you claim to have sources and that it's "public record" and then completely fail to cite anything.

I just lined you up w/Moore because, like you, he commonly throws out conspiracy theories w/o any valid sources. Please accept my apology for connecting you w/Moore. It appears your baseless claims are even w/o his backing.

Posted by Jonesy at 2006-07-17 05:46 PM

Provide data confirming that human remains, luggage or 757 parts ever impacted the Pentagon on 9-11. Please do this because your "argument" against false flag theories is baseless.

going bankrupt?

ALREADY BANKRUPT!

only the sissies

pretend otherwise

and spout their fascist sound bytes
in order to hide themselves from reality

the bankruptcy is..MORAL
& SPIRITUAL...as well as

economic!

we are a nation of stupid people

we have no.....anchor