Re: OT (yeah, right!): Politics

Page 10 of 14  
On 27 Aug 2004 08:40:25 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
... snip

Charlie, have you really read Kerry's full testimony before congress? Not only was is not by any stretch of the imagination "mild", it was the "smoking gun" that ultra-left congressmen like Fulbright and Javits were looking for to cut the knees out from under the Vietnam war effort. The subsequent events that resulted from this testimony included the eventual elimination of funding for the war effort on the legislative side and the labeling of our soldiers coming back from SE Asia as "baby killers" and the shunning of an entire generation of veterans.
A transcript of Kerry's testimony can be found at: <http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Testimony
A timeline of activities that included the testimony as well as subsequent resulting actions can be found at: <http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Timeline

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

free
I like the part where a picture of John Kerry appears in the Vietnamese museum honoring him for his assistance in helping them win the war against America. mjh
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    Greetings and Salutations...
wrote:

    Wow! amazing how political discussions in the USA can deteriorate to name-calling and innuendo faster than a politician sneaking a new tax or pay raise through!     Just a couple of thoughts here...First off...as for this reference, a quick google search brings us this snopes reference: <http://www.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic ;f`;t0672;p=1>     It appears that while there IS a picture, it has nothing to do with Kerry's protests helping North Vietnam win.
    I lived through that era, and, I have to say that the ever increasing betrayal of the public trust by the Federal Government, the nightly body counts, the film of the atrocities of war, and the insane limits placed on our troops by those same politicians had more to do with the loss of support for the war than any testemony before a Congressional Committee.     If Kerry supported the enemy by publickly expressing his concerns over the way the war was being waged, and the ramifications of it, then, I, my older sister, and tens of thousand of OTHER AMericans were also guilty of the same crimes because WE participated in public protests against the war, those protests were televised, and, were probably used for propoganda purposes.     Once again, America's strength and what has made it great is the freedom to hold and express contradictory views about *anything*. It is through public discourse that we can, with luck, find the "best" course of action.     I agree with Mr. Self in his concerns over giving up freedom for security. I will not quote B. Franklin again...but will mention it to remind us that this was one old white guy that had a VERY clear picture of reality.     Fear will cause people to do terribly irrational things. No matter what one feels about M. Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11, it raised a very good point about the current actions of the Feds. One of the Congressmen interviewed was discussing how many of the actions taken by the government appear to be designed more to keep a continual undercurrent of fear in the citizens, than to reassure us. As was pointed out, the color code will likely never go to blue...and definately will never go to green, but, will continue to fluctuate from yellow through orange and red. I also find some of the timing of some of the escalations a tad suspicious. Some of them have come JUST at a time when Dubya's popularity has dropped, or, some potentially embarressing questions were raised. Amazingly enough, those situations seemed to change when the fear rose!     The fact that more and more bits of information are coming out that show that the Federal Government, as a whole, knew enough about the events of 9/11 well before hand that it likely could have been avoided does not do much for my confidence that giving the Feds MORE power and limiting the rights of the citizenry more will improve the situation.     Now...The Feds are talking about reworking the intelligence agencies in the government into a single body, to do the job better. What...are we going to call it the "MORE Central Intelligence Agency"? And...what was the NSA (The NATIONAL Security Agency) doing to earn their salt?     The Soviets believed in a huge, bureaucratic government, with everything subservient to that central authority. Look how well that worked, both for the citizens and the government.     It seems to me that the biggest problem with the so-called intelligence community before 9/11 was that they were more interested in building their own power base than they were in protecting the USA. Combining that with an overwhelming enthusiasm for gadgets over good, old-fashioned Man In The Street work, meant that not only was it far too easy for vital information to get lost in the shuffle, but that it was far too easy for vital information to never get picked up at all.     I have been wrestling with this problem of the events of 9/11 and the subsequent reactions of AMerica and the world, and, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is "Ignore it". By this, I mean that while we should never forget 9/11, instead of allowing it to flake us out and push us, though fear, into doing exactly what the terrorists want - Destroy America - we should rather turn our attentions towards rebuilding our reputation in the world. THe fact that, as I have mentioned elsewhere, have decades of two-faced dealing with the world has left some serious problems, and have made many folks distrustful of us. We need to pick a side and stick to it, and not be QUITE so enthusiastic to pump in support to petty dictators who claim they will be our good buddies - yet - oppress and mistreat their citizens.     If we really wanted to make America a stronger place that would be harder for terrorists to attack, perhaps we should require that all high-school graduates go into the military for two years. I suspect that the training and discipline would be good for them, and, having a country full of folks that have at least a rudimentary knowledge of defense and the skills necessary to use a firearm would improve life a lot, and likely would help clarify some of the 2d Amendment discussions that go on.     There are no easy answers, though...I do know that the more freedoms we give up, the more freedoms we will be asked to give up. Given enough steps, the worlds of Orwell or "Brazil" will no longer be worrisome fantasy, but, reality.     Regards     Dave Mundt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:12:29 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@esper.com (Dave Mundt) wrote:
David, I do concur with you whole heartedly.
Let me quote from Benjamin Franklin "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Mundt responds:

Check out http://www.rickieleejones.com/political/patriotact.htm and its associated links for a good scare about government.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You guys have released a lot of methane gas. How about easing up on the polution?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Whew!! the river names and info sure brings back lots of bad memories. I was part of the riverine patrol group for 3 years and we sure cruised the same turf.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Balderstone responds:

And you got that where? Check the latest reports.

A couple of missing pay stubs? You think the ANG pays biannually?
If there were anything in Kerry's military record to indict him, you can bet your ass the neocons would have long ago "leaked" them.

I know. That's why Bush Babies pack all meetings and hotel routes with registered Republicans, why a guy got fired for heckling Bush, why another guy was led out of a political meeting for Bush in handcuffs. The left really does believe in controlling free speech. Oh. Ooops. Bush ain't a lefty. He ain't a righty either. He's a "me-me."
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Aug 2004 22:09:09 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
Free speech is for those who thinks alike, other than that it's treason!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

Same place as always -- in Bush's satchel of lies.
WRONG begins with Dubya
There's a Dubya in every AWOL
--Steve, a pissed-off Republican for Sanity -- and Kerry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Time Daneliuk responds (most of long post snipped to bash Bush one more time):

Now that's fair enough. What is amusing is Bush acolytes bashing Mr. & Mrs. Kerry for their wealth. I keep expecting to hear that poor Laura has to make do with a "plain cloth coat" to quote Richard Milhous Nixon nearly half a century ago. Bush and Cheney are probably only worth 2/3 of what the Kerrys are worth, but it's enough.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I'm an "Elder Moocher" who paid 15% of his self-employed income into SS for many years at or near the maximum rate. Explain to me how I'm "mooching" if I want to get some of it back? Even without assuming any interest, just converting what I paid in into todays dollars makes it clear it'll be a long time before I break even.
And don't forget that SS eligibility age and average lifespan are very close to each other. A lot of people never collect or collect for very few years.
BTW, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially on the inability to get elected by being honest.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Can you please explain in very simple term, what is honest?
And can you proof in black and white that George Bush is not honest? And can you proof in black and white that John Kerry is not honest?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Ever stop to think about how much better of you'd be, if the government had permitted you to keep and *invest* that 15%, instead of taking it from you?

True when Social Security first started. False now, and has been for a very long time.
Eligibility age is all the way up to, what, 68 now? Average lifespan is quite a lot greater than that.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com says...

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. I wasn't given that choice.

And average lifespan is all the way up to 70-something. That's a "lot" greater?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Neither were any of the rest of us allowed to opt out of this unConstitutional Ponzi scheme. Unfortunately.

When "70-something" means 77, yes, it is. And it's actually even higher than that for those who survive childhood illness and accident into middle age. Let's look at some facts:
In 1940, life expectancy at birth was 62.9 years, i.e. two years *short* of the Social Security eligibility age. Now it's 76.9 years.
US Life Expectancy at Selected Ages, 2000 0 76.9 [...] 35 43.6 [additional years expected] 40 38.9 45 34.4 50 30.0 55 25.7 60 21.6 65 17.9 70 14.4
Source: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2003, page 75.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

1) You _should_ get out of the system what you were forced to pay into it. OTOH, the system needs to be eliminated entirely over time because any given individual could easily do far better than the government has from a return-on-investment POV.
2) You may be the exception, but the majority of SS recipients will take out far _more_ than they ever paid in. I don't have the cite handy but iirc the "average" pensioner extracts all "their" money within the first decade or so. This will further pollute the health of the retirement system as lifespans continue to increase.
Here's a little "back of the envelope" calculation. The average per capita income in the US (2000 census), is just a shade under $22k. Now, lets pretend that someone made that every year for the last 45 year - a bad assumption because the average income in 1959 was _way_ lower than this. Now, let's calculate their 15% payin:
$22,000 * 45 * .15 = $148,500
Now, assume an average SS payout of $1300/mo. We get a total time to break even of:
$148,500 / $1300 = ~114 months or about 9 1/2 years
Obviously, this is an overly-simple analysis:
a) No compounding effect on the contribution is considered - but that's actually reasonable because _the government NEVER invested that money_, it spent it. The only sense in which it "grew" in value was due to: i) Inflation and ii) A larger economy + high taxation rates increased federal revenues.
b) The actual "average income" was far less than $22K for the past 45 years. I'd guess (and that's all it is) it is more like $10K. In that case, using the same calculations as above, we get a break even at just over 4 years.
c) This is the _average_ case. People who made less will begin mooching sooner. People who paid more may never end up dipping into the public coffers beyond what they paid. But, the system as a whole is a very bad idea, a lousy investment for everyone, and just another way FDR promoted his socialist agenda to the detriment of the American people.
3) I was not so much focused on Social Security, but rather outright money grants like the new Drug Benefit. It is ghastly expensive, is not funded by any prior contributions, and is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme.
IMO, we should phase out ALL social programs - over time, giving back any contributions people have made in a fair manner - because private sector retirement investement is a far better deal for everyone. The recipients benefit far more, and actual money (instead of government promises to pay in the future) is injected into the financial system.
Some relevant info at:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0306-15.pdf
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk writes:

Assume an average of HOW much?

The less you put in, the less you get out, something you refuse to include in your calculations. I know a couple people on SS who are drawing about $1300 a month. I know one helluva lot more drawing well under a grand, down as low as about $650.

It's mostly bullshit, as you well know.

Jesus. What a yuppie point of view. Libertarian, right?
Ta.
Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I know a couple people drawing from social security who never paid in a dime. How does _that_ change the equations?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bullshit! You have to have so many quarters of covered earnings to qualify for SS. There are some exceptions for certain disabilities, but they're pretty limited. If that's the case, you object to that? If so, I'm glad our only acquaintance is on this group.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.